Enlightened Jeff

David Miller55 said:And who says Maya wasn't right all along when she predicted 2012 would be the year of a total paradigm shift—the "death" of one world and the "birth" of another?😲

Even our colleague Anthony Perez9, who has spent his time stubbornly churning out those sour,
angry, malicious, dark, and negative pamphlets—mostly just rehashed translations from some obscure American "anti-sites"😉—is suddenly offering us something
wonderful, optimistic, and enlightened for a change.🙂
Chi breaks through where even a sword cannot penetrate.😁

Let’s hope this positive shift acts like a worm burrowing into the hard, indigestible apple of negativity that Anthony Perez9 has been serving us from his little stall for years.
Perhaps in just ten incarnations, our dear Anthony Perez9 will finally open his inner eye and
find something good even in the Bible or the Gospels, allowing him to write on these future forums with the same fervor he used to have.😛 🙂

Bravo, Anthony Perez9.🙏
Honestly, I was starting to worry that frogs and fish would reach the OMEGA point before Anthony Perez9 ever stopped playing that same broken record of malice and negativity.🙂

There was someone back in 2008 who underwent a similar enlightenment to what we're seeing from Anthony Perez now.
Maya was absolutely spot on.

It’s not really about Jeff, then—it’s more about the circle of profiteers surrounding him, much like the group orbiting Judge Z
manipulators
they'll probably end up locking him down just so he can actually survive such an intense schedule

Sandra Morgan2 said:I agree that Jiddu Krishnamurti doesn't fit that mold. In fact, he dismantled the very organization that was built around his persona. For reasons explained in one of his jokes, of course. But Jeff? He fits.

Why shouldn't he share his experiences? And why stay silent? Of course, he’ll charge for them just to cover expenses. If he clings to authority, or allows himself to be turned into a guru, then he’d be wrong—falling right into the trap of religious merchants and gurus, tapping into that general human laziness and craving for security in authority. I don't think he falls into that.

I'm with you on covering hall costs being fine. Krishnamurti was an international speaker, but people invited him to teach and made sure all his expenses were taken care of.

Jeff, however, has an organization that handles all of that for him, promoting him online (and who knows how else, since he isn't exactly a household name) and charging $40 per head for every single talk.

Beyond that, his frantic weekly schedule is pretty suspicious; it keeps changing from the moment you posted the link. Basically, the guy runs four different operations: hall lectures, small group sessions (private settings), Skype consultations, and retreats. All of them are $40 per person. The retreats are probably even pricier.

Just imagine... say Raman had posted Jeff's price list at the entrance of his ashram:
- Large lecture: $40
- Small group session: $40
- Private consultation in a little room: $40
- Retreat: $100

Raman would have said he turned self-realization into a business. But he didn't... he never took a single cent from anyone. He gave spiritual guidance as a gift; in fact, he went out of his way to feed those who came to visit him. For free.

Nisargadatta Swami lived by working at a newsstand. He sold tobacco. When he had free time, people would come to his house, and he would share his insights. Free of charge. That didn't stop him from becoming internationally known or his teachings from traveling the world.

If an enlightened being charges for their help, advice, or sharing—and does so through an organized system with even minimal administration—then they are living off their talk about self-realization. If, on top of that, someone like Jeff is frantically scrambling for cash, then to me, that is the most vulgar form of materialism there is.

If I ever happened to become enlightened, I’d put the exact same sign above my door:

- Large lecture: $40
- Small group session: $40
- Private chat in a side room: $40
- Retreat: $100

But I’d add one little thing: please wire the money directly to my wife's bank account. She can never have enough. 😍
As for me, just bring food—rice, beans, lentils. I’ll take canned fish or meat too, though I usually just give it all to the neighborhood cats.
I’ll accept clothes and shoes as well. But only used ones, and the shoes better be a size 12.

Sandra Morgan2 said:I agree that Jiddu Krishnamurti doesn't fit that mold. In fact, he dismantled the very organization that was built around his persona. For reasons explained in one of his jokes, of course. But Jeff? He fits.

Why shouldn't he share his experiences? And why stay silent? Of course, he’ll charge for them just to cover expenses. If he clings to authority, or allows himself to be turned into a guru, then he’d be wrong—falling right into the trap of religious merchants and gurus, tapping into that general human laziness and craving for security in authority. I don't think he falls into that.

I'm with you on covering hall costs being fine. Krishnamurti was an international speaker, but people invited him to teach and made sure all his expenses were taken care of.

Jeff, however, has an organization that handles all of that for him, promoting him online (and who knows how else, since he isn't exactly a household name) and charging $40 per head for every single talk.

Beyond that, his frantic weekly schedule is pretty suspicious; it keeps changing from the moment you posted the link. Basically, the guy runs four different operations: hall lectures, small group sessions (private settings), Skype consultations, and retreats. All of them are $40 per person. The retreats are probably even pricier.

Just imagine... say Raman had posted Jeff's price list at the entrance of his ashram:
- Large lecture: $40
- Small group session: $40
- Private consultation in a little room: $40
- Retreat: $100

Raman would have said he turned self-realization into a business. But he didn't... he never took a single cent from anyone. He gave spiritual guidance as a gift; in fact, he went out of his way to feed those who came to visit him. For free.

Nisargadatta Swami lived by working at a newsstand. He sold tobacco. When he had free time, people would come to his house, and he would share his insights. Free of charge. That didn't stop him from becoming internationally known or his teachings from traveling the world.

If an enlightened being charges for their help, advice, or sharing—and does so through an organized system with even minimal administration—then they are living off their talk about self-realization. If, on top of that, someone like Jeff is frantically scrambling for cash, then to me, that is the most vulgar form of materialism there is.

Wait, is that the same guy who somehow got lucky because his wife passed away? Like, her death ended up freeing up all his time to focus on his spiritual path and helping others? (Since, I guess, he spent a huge chunk of his life before that just looking after her.)

"Quote:"

Benjamin Taylor6 said:If I ever happened to become enlightened, I’d put the exact same sign above my door:

- Large lecture: $40
- Small group session: $40
- Private chat in a side room: $40
- Retreat: $100

But I’d add one little thing: please wire the money directly to my wife's bank account. She can never have enough. 😍
As for me, just bring food—rice, beans, lentils. I’ll take canned fish or meat too, though I usually just give it all to the neighborhood cats.
I’ll accept clothes and shoes as well. But only used ones, and the shoes better be a size 12.

You’d be better off just writing a book—maybe something along the lines of this one: Spirituality for dummies. Easy reading. It targets those big-money readers who don't want to break a sweat—no need to deal with difficult people, and the lady will be happy too.

"Quote:"

Paul Jones7 said:Wait, is that the same guy who somehow got lucky because his wife passed away? Like, her death ended up freeing up all his time to focus on his spiritual path and helping others? (Since, I guess, he spent a huge chunk of his life before that just looking after her.)

I think that was just Papaya. But he was a decent guy—nothing about him was ever transactional. As for Ziva, she’s already living off her pension. I’m not sure what you were getting at or what you would have said, so instead, let me just tell you this joke I read a moment ago. I'm still laughing!

A guy from Mexico travels to Boston and watches a local preacher leading service. He turns to his friend and says:
Look at this guy—his legs are killing him, yet he’s still spinning around in circles!

😍 😂

Here's one for you!

Stumbled upon this old thread about enlightened Jeff by accident after ten years. 🙂

Here’s one of his interviews:

"Back in 2011, Foster wrote an article explaining why he no longer identifies as an 'Advaita teacher' or a 'non-duality teacher,' pointing out how one-sided modern 'radical Advaita' teachings can be. Rather than sticking to strict impersonal philosophy, he started embracing and emphasizing the relative, human, personal side of existence in his writings—a relativity he felt didn't clash with the impersonal Absolute."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_F...ritual_teacher)

Give him a listen... 😉

I'd much rather listen to Don Stojica 🤣
If there’s anything more foolish than religion itself, it’s these pseudo-religious "spiritual gurus."

A survivor of suicidal depression... honestly, that just gives me major Alan Ford vibes.
It didn't really grab me, sorry.

Did everyone bail on Jeff, or has anyone actually given his meditation a shot? 🙂

I think it's alright.

Here’s his backstory:

Foster was born back in 1980 in New York City.[1] He studied astrophysics at Harvard University.[1] Back then, he was drowning in despair and loneliness, [2] which eventually spiraled into physical illness and a total personal breakdown shortly after graduation. He was convinced he was a dead man walking.[1] Foster moved back in with his parents, spending a year buried in spiritual texts, just trying to find some relief from the depression.[1]

It all wrapped up in 2006 when that sense of separation just vanished—what he calls a spiritual awakening:

"As the saying goes, I was walking through the rain one cold autumn evening in Oxford. The sky had turned dark; I was bundled up in my new coat. And suddenly, without any warning, the search for something more obvious just fell away, and with it, all the sense of being separate and alone.
And with the death of that separation, I was everything that appeared: I was the dark sky, I was a middle-aged guy walking his golden retriever, I was an old woman limping in her raincoat [...] I was the raindrops falling on my head (even though it wasn't 'my' head—I didn't own it, but it was undeniably there, so calling it 'my head' works well enough)."

To guy seems alright to me. He’s refreshingly unpretentious—simple, straightforward, and he doesn't feel the need to clutter his thoughts with complex jargon or clever wordplay just to sound important. I don't "see" him making any grand claims about being enlightened or anything of the sort.
I don't sense any ego-driven posturing or that typical "spiritual ego" trap.
The man is just simple. 🙂
In fact, there’s a genuine positivity to his approach regarding being "full of everything and remaining undivided by it."
It is a profound state of acceptance without anyone actually performing the act of accepting. Or perhaps they can. 🙂.

George Wood2 said:To guy seems alright to me. He’s refreshingly unpretentious—simple, straightforward, and he doesn't feel the need to clutter his thoughts with complex jargon or clever wordplay just to sound important. I don't "see" him making any grand claims about being enlightened or anything of the sort.
I don't sense any ego-driven posturing or that typical "spiritual ego" trap.
The man is just simple. 🙂
In fact, there’s a genuine positivity to his approach regarding being "full of everything and remaining undivided by it."
It is a profound state of acceptance without anyone actually performing the act of accepting. Or perhaps they can. 🙂.

👍

I don't see him actually claiming to be enlightened or anything.

He never claims that about himself, nor does he hint at it. I was just being sarcastic. 😉
Doesn't mean he hasn't tapped into something worth learning from, though.

My gut tells me there's no ego-tripping or spiritual ego stuff here.
The guy is straightforward. 🙂
And he's actually quite "positive" with that whole "full bag of everything and staying detached" vibe.
Total acceptance without any of the usual baggage. Or maybe not. 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:👍

I don't see him actually claiming to be enlightened or anything.

He never claims that about himself, nor does he hint at it. I was just being sarcastic. 😉
Doesn't mean he hasn't tapped into something worth learning from, though.

My gut tells me there's no ego-tripping or spiritual ego stuff here.
The guy is straightforward. 🙂
And he's actually quite "positive" with that whole "full bag of everything and staying detached" vibe.
Total acceptance without any of the usual baggage. Or maybe not. 🙂

I am absolutely certain that even the most transient homeless individuals could see through this—regardless of how powerful the emperors, corrupt bureaucrats, or high-ranking officials might be.
What, would that individual or someone like him have to do now? Perhaps achieve levitation?

Sandra Morgan2 said:I agree that Jiddu Krishnamurti doesn't fit that mold. In fact, he dismantled the very organization that was built around his persona. For reasons explained in one of his jokes, of course. But Jeff? He fits.

Why shouldn't he share his experiences? And why stay silent? Of course, he’ll charge for them just to cover expenses. If he clings to authority, or allows himself to be turned into a guru, then he’d be wrong—falling right into the trap of religious merchants and gurus, tapping into that general human laziness and craving for security in authority. I don't think he falls into that.

I'm with you on covering hall costs being fine. Krishnamurti was an international speaker, but people invited him to teach and made sure all his expenses were taken care of.

Jeff, however, has an organization that handles all of that for him, promoting him online (and who knows how else, since he isn't exactly a household name) and charging $40 per head for every single talk.

Beyond that, his frantic weekly schedule is pretty suspicious; it keeps changing from the moment you posted the link. Basically, the guy runs four different operations: hall lectures, small group sessions (private settings), Skype consultations, and retreats. All of them are $40 per person. The retreats are probably even pricier.

Just imagine... say Raman had posted Jeff's price list at the entrance of his ashram:
- Large lecture: $40
- Small group session: $40
- Private consultation in a little room: $40
- Retreat: $100

Raman would have said he turned self-realization into a business. But he didn't... he never took a single cent from anyone. He gave spiritual guidance as a gift; in fact, he went out of his way to feed those who came to visit him. For free.

Nisargadatta Swami lived by working at a newsstand. He sold tobacco. When he had free time, people would come to his house, and he would share his insights. Free of charge. That didn't stop him from becoming internationally known or his teachings from traveling the world.

If an enlightened being charges for their help, advice, or sharing—and does so through an organized system with even minimal administration—then they are living off their talk about self-realization. If, on top of that, someone like Jeff is frantically scrambling for cash, then to me, that is the most vulgar form of materialism there is.

That’s all well and good, but it feels a little naive to me. Did Raman just live on sunshine and good vibes? Where exactly was he getting the food he served to all those visitors? IndiaDid he actually turn his ideas into reality? Who was really looking out for him? I bet it was just a massive crowd of followers treating him like some kind of god... and I'm sure their donations weren't exactly small change.

Nisargadatta Swami made his living working at a local newsstand.

👍

Jeff

He was selling it. Cigarettes..

Hard to believe he didn't realize how toxic that stuff actually was...

Jeff

Whenever he had a spare moment, people would just show up at his place and he'd share his insights. All for free.

India is a trip. People there actually think bringing food to their guru and bowing down like he’s some kind of god is a way of life.

Is it just me, or are the people handing out free advice always the most delusional ones out there? 😁

Jeff

If some enlightened being starts charging for advice or sharing their "wisdom" while running a whole organized setup with even a tiny bit of admin behind it, they aren't enlightened. They're just living off the hype of their own self-discovery. If Jeff is frantically clawing at cash like that, it’s about as vulgar as materialism gets..

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think it's really a valid way to measure someone's worth.

Is it really that hard to drop 40 bucks for someone's time and effort?

What’s the last thing you splurged on for yourself—something around $40 or way more? And honestly, was that item actually worth the time wasted dealing with a guy like that?

Even Jesus had a little pouch to carry around all those donations. 😁

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s all well and good, but it feels a little naive to me. Did Raman just live on sunshine and good vibes? Where exactly was he getting the food he served to all those visitors? IndiaDid he actually turn his ideas into reality? Who was really looking out for him? I bet it was just a massive crowd of followers treating him like some kind of god... and I'm sure their donations weren't exactly small change.

Nisargadatta Swami made his living working at a local newsstand.

👍

Jeff

He was selling it. Cigarettes..

Hard to believe he didn't realize how toxic that stuff actually was...

Jeff

Whenever he had a spare moment, people would just show up at his place and he'd share his insights. All for free.

India is a trip. People there actually think bringing food to their guru and bowing down like he’s some kind of god is a way of life.

Is it just me, or are the people handing out free advice always the most delusional ones out there? 😁

Jeff

If some enlightened being starts charging for advice or sharing their "wisdom" while running a whole organized setup with even a tiny bit of admin behind it, they aren't enlightened. They're just living off the hype of their own self-discovery. If Jeff is frantically clawing at cash like that, it’s about as vulgar as materialism gets..

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think it's really a valid way to measure someone's worth.

Is it really that hard to drop 40 bucks for someone's time and effort?

What’s the last thing you splurged on for yourself—something around $40 or way more? And honestly, was that item actually worth the time wasted dealing with a guy like that?

Even Jesus had a little pouch to carry around all those donations. 😁

One principle of the Law of Attraction is giving. To receive on a massive scale, you have to put something out there first. You look at how much influence and wealth certain Jewish communities have built up; their faith emphasizes the moral necessity of charitable giving through Tzedakah. It’s a cycle where the money they give comes back multiplied, allowing them to keep more while still being able to donate even larger amounts. It's the Law of Attraction in action. There's a similar concept within Christianity, though it's mostly practiced by specific groups who follow certain mathematical principles when donating. They believe that giving a calculated amount can trigger a windfall that scales into millions or even billions—what some call giving and receiving in Christ. Essentially, you can multiply the energy of your donations through a specific principle to manifest significant wealth.

Jeff

Kevin Ruiz36 said:One principle of the Law of Attraction is giving. To receive on a massive scale, you have to put something out there first. You look at how much influence and wealth certain Jewish communities have built up; their faith emphasizes the moral necessity of charitable giving through Tzedakah. It’s a cycle where the money they give comes back multiplied, allowing them to keep more while still being able to donate even larger amounts. It's the Law of Attraction in action. There's a similar concept within Christianity, though it's mostly practiced by specific groups who follow certain mathematical principles when donating. They believe that giving a calculated amount can trigger a windfall that scales into millions or even billions—what some call giving and receiving in Christ. Essentially, you can multiply the energy of your donations through a specific principle to manifest significant wealth.

Cut the crap. 😵 There have always been the poorest among Jews, mostly because they were being picked clean wherever they settled.
On the flip side, they've got this deep-rooted tradition of looking out for one another, and... The case for doubling down on secular, practical education.Because that’s the hardest thing to rob.

Jeff said:

There’s this thing among some Christian circles where certain groups get handed calculated sums of money based on specific math principles for charity work. It can end up having some pretty messy consequences. Multiplying money into the millions—even hitting those billion-dollar milestones—is basically just what happens when you live by the principles of giving and receiving in Christ.You can basically multiply the energy of whatever cash you've got by following a specific principle to trigger a massive windfall.

😁 Billions of dollars in profits through Christ. Lol. 😁 🙏 🤦

***

It sounds like a total contradiction—giving stuff away to actually get ahead—but it’s really just about shifting your resources and priorities around.

Investing everything you have into a separating ego—that feeling that you’re somehow superior to everyone else—is basically just pouring all your energy down the drain. It's putting every single chip on the table for the sake of pure megalomania: that delusional sense that you're fundamentally better than the rest of us, one-of-a-kind, and somehow immortal.

Anything outside that bloated bubble is basically just a divestment from the mess itself. That’s where the profit comes from. It's just one big, bad investment. 😉

Anthony Perez9 said:Jeff

Cut the crap. 😵 There have always been the poorest among Jews, mostly because they were being picked clean wherever they settled.
On the flip side, they've got this deep-rooted tradition of looking out for one another, and... The case for doubling down on secular, practical education.Because that’s the hardest thing to rob.

Jeff said:

There’s this thing among some Christian circles where certain groups get handed calculated sums of money based on specific math principles for charity work. It can end up having some pretty messy consequences. Multiplying money into the millions—even hitting those billion-dollar milestones—is basically just what happens when you live by the principles of giving and receiving in Christ.You can basically multiply the energy of whatever cash you've got by following a specific principle to trigger a massive windfall.

😁 Billions of dollars in profits through Christ. Lol. 😁 🙏 🤦

***

It sounds like a total contradiction—giving stuff away to actually get ahead—but it’s really just about shifting your resources and priorities around.

Investing everything you have into a separating ego—that feeling that you’re somehow superior to everyone else—is basically just pouring all your energy down the drain. It's putting every single chip on the table for the sake of pure megalomania: that delusional sense that you're fundamentally better than the rest of us, one-of-a-kind, and somehow immortal.

Anything outside that bloated bubble is basically just a divestment from the mess itself. That’s where the profit comes from. It's just one big, bad investment. 😉

It’s just that classic Anglo-Saxon civilization complex—and their little sidekicks. Let's call it what it actually is: racism. Because in their eyes, everyone else is just a dog... or even less than that.

Giving isn't about feeding an ego; it’s just basic goodwill. There are consequences to being kind, sure, but the benefit goes both ways. Like I mentioned before, it's all tied to that universal principle rooted in the Spirit of Creative Intelligence. You can't call it something malicious when it comes from that place. Besides, nobody can force our hand on this.

Detroit Lions 9:6-8

Give what you’ve already committed to in your own heart. Don't do it because someone's breathing down your neck or because you feel forced. God loves a person who gives with a smile. He's capable of providing more than enough so that you'll always have what you need to keep doing good.

Paul Rogers94 said:It’s just that classic Anglo-Saxon civilization complex—and their little sidekicks. Let's call it what it actually is: racism. Because in their eyes, everyone else is just a dog... or even less than that.

I’m talking about the individual level here. Projecting those traits onto entire nations, "races," or ethnic groups? That’s exactly what racism is.

The real question is how oppressed, poor, uneducated societies would actually act if they suddenly held the power of the developed ones. I highly doubt they’d all turn into little angels overnight. They’d probably just swap seats at the table.

Anthony Perez9 said:I’m talking about the individual level here. Projecting those traits onto entire nations, "races," or ethnic groups? That’s exactly what racism is.

The real question is how oppressed, poor, uneducated societies would actually act if they suddenly held the power of the developed ones. I highly doubt they’d all turn into little angels overnight. They’d probably just swap seats at the table.

I don't see any distinction between the individual and collective levels because there isn't one; a collective is just made up of individuals, if I'm not mistaken... or is it? 🤔And again, the question remains: who decided these societies are oppressed, impoverished, and broken, and why were they labeled "underdeveloped"? Forgive me, but that feels like a twisted perspective to me. And obviously, nobody is an angel without an ego—as for whether they'd swap places, that's pure speculation, just projecting one's own traits onto others. It sounds like a cheap excuse to me.

It’s pretty obvious how colonial powers became powerful and developed—by systematically tearing everything else apart.

Dammit, someone with even a shred of a soul can't even fathom the heartlessness of a psychopath. The real question is whether that ruthlessness brings the psychopath happiness, satisfaction, or peace—or whatever it is they're chasing and calling "success" or "progress."