The Jed McKenna books appear to have been written by an individual named Peder Sweeney, while the forum was created by an impostor named Kenneth McMordie.
From: https://realization.org/p/jed-mckenna/who-is-jed-mckenna.html
Jed McKenna is the author of a series of books
about enlightenment. The books are fiction and
“Jed McKenna” is a pseudonym.
Many people think Jed McKenna’s true identity
is a mystery, but this isn’t true. His birth name has been
a matter of public record for nearly twenty years. It’s
Peder Sweeney, and since that name is very unusual,
it’s virtually certain that he is the
same Peder Sweeney who:
- was born on September 26, 1961;
- went to William Rainey Harper College in Illinois;
- wrote articles for his college newspaper which are reminiscent of the Jed McKenna books;
- married Kelly Dawn Johnson;
- lived in Fairfield, Iowa, which was the center of the Transcendental Meditation movement in the US;
- worked in marketing for a business publication;
- now lives in Banner Elk, North Carolina;
- now calls himself Peter Johnson.
The reason we know Jed McKenna’s real name is because when he
registered the copyrights for his first two books, he certified to the US
government under penalty of law that his real name was “Peder Sweeney”
and that “Jed McKenna” was his pseudonym. You can see this for yourself
on the US government’s
database of copyright registrations.
Screenshot of a copyright registration record on the US government’s website.
Text copyright © 2020 Elena Gutierrez.
Elena Gutierrez has written occasionally for this website
since it began.
Related pages on this site
Links
US copyright registration database
Search for “Sweeney Peder” under “Name”.
Articles by Peder Sweeney in the Harbinger
Sweeney’s college newspaper. Search for “Peder”.
Peter Johnson’s voter registration record
He’s a Libertarian.
Form TX, United States Copyright Office
Three times the author of the “Jed McKenna” books submitted this form to the US government and
certified
under penalty of law that his real name was Peder Sweeney.
-Gaming Channel: ... To See or Not to See 3 By Jed McKenna (This article may be freely reprinted, reposted, translated, etc.) “I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better!” Mark Twain In order to get same-day service from Goober, I have to bring multiple items in need of his attention. The only real problem I had this time was a gummed-up chainsaw carburetor, but he would have kept it for a week if I hadn’t brought in other items which include a string trimmer that works fine and two chainsaw chains in need of resharpening, even though I do a better job by hand than he does with a grinder. Goober is with another customer at the moment so I’m out playing with his energetic black lab who shares a name with a restaurant chain that failed due to its name. I just call him Sammy. After some energetic playtime, I sprawl out on the sun-warmed grass and try to recapture the feelings of childhood, but Sammy’s not having it. A stick-thrower that doesn’t throw sticks is broken, so he’s trying to fix me. He tries pouncing, licking, nudging, tugging, nipping and shrill barking, but makes the evolutionary leap to tool-usage when he drops the stick on my face. Soon he’ll be doing crossword puzzles. I throw the stick into a pile of brush, but that will only buy me an extra few seconds. I keep hoping he’ll get tired and lay down, but that could be years away. When the other customer drives away, Sammy and I head back into the shop. There’s an old leather chair in a corner with a standing glass ashtray on one side and a small table on the other with a pipe rack, some catalogs, a county newspaper and a travel coffee mug. Ashtray, table, pipe rack and chair seem to be from the fifties, the mug is modern. Sammy dives into the chair and falls into an instant coma. Goober comes in, taps his pipe on his pant leg and — once burnt, twice shy — checks it closely before putting it back in his shirt pocket. He pauses for about ten seconds before resuming work on my chainsaw and our conversation. “What would it even be, though?” he asks. He’s talking about a mysterious power humans might possess but not know they possess, or even know exists, like eyesight, lost and long forgotten, for the people in a TV show he and his wife watch. “That’s where I can’t figure it. We got eyes, right? So it’s not that.” The missing faculty, he explains, must also conceal the fact of its own existence, like being blind would prevent us from learning about our sighted forebears. He looks to me for a nod so I nod. This is more than a casual conversation for him. He seems vexed, as if he’s determined that there must be some lost or undiscovered human faculty and it’s fallen upon him to find it for the rest of us. Not your typical small engine guy conversation, in my experience. “It can’t be just anything,” he says. “It has to be something that holds us back; keeps us from some deeper understanding, see?” “Like how?” I ask. “Well, it’s no good if it’s just an improvement of somethin’ we already got. It can’t be better hearing or better sight because we already know about them. It’s gotta be somethin’ we don’t know about. That’s why it’s hard to figure.” Goober, real name Edwin, seems years older than me. His wife too. They seem like my grandparent’s generation. I feel like a teenager around them. I’m actually older in human years, but they were older at eighteen than I’ll be at eighty. Our developmental trajectories have taken us in opposite directions. Maturity is generally reckoned a process of settling into fixed personhood, but my development goes the other way; while others become more solid and focused, I become more fluid and diffused. I’m not saying that liquid is superior to solid, but I sure like it a shit-ton better. I’m always baffled by how in-character people are, how themselves they are, how good at being who they are they are. “Wow,” I’m often tempted to say. “You’re so you!” It’s like living in a wax museum and marveling at the realism of everyone you meet. Personhood is very mysterious to me. I myself am not very me, in fact, I’m barely me at all. I could change my planet, species, gender, nationality, community and family without blinking an eye, but I can’t imagine Goober changing his brand of pipe tobacco. He’s totally locked into character; there’s no way he’ll be changing any of the beliefs, opinions or preferences he wears like a suit of armor. His identification with the character he plays is absolute and inflexible. I am fond of my character but I don’t identify with it. I have no beliefs, opinions or preferences to give myself shape and definition, no distortions to project or illusions to cling to, nothing but a thin emotional tether to keep me from floating away. I could comfortably swap characters with someone else; insert my awareness into any person, any time, any place. Is such a thing possible? Perception is the only reality, so why not? Everything is either awareness or appearance; what rules apply to awareness? What can’t appear? What can’t be dreamt? We take it for granted so we don’t appreciate the fact that our living reality is so fantastically, insanely, mindbogglingly wondrous and dreamlike that simply adding a new dimension would hardly make a noticeable impact. If we could have some unknown and unsuspected power, the ability to transfer your consciousness into a different vessel for awhile would get my vote, but why limit it to people? A whale, a bacterium, a leaf of grass, a non-corporeal entity; whatever is aware, it seems, can host awareness. In fact, why limit it to this dreamstate venue? What better way to visit other worlds and discover new species than by transferring your consciousness into them? It makes a lot more sense than flying through space in a tin can with fire shooting out the back. Why read books or watch movies about the lives of ancient, primitive or powerful people when we can just become them for awhile. Why can’t we pass through the little door, not into John Malkovich’s mind, but into whatever mind we choose? Instead of going to a spa for relaxing vacation, you could park your body in a regeneration station while your consciousness spends a week in utero. Your personal trainer would move into your body and work it out while you spend time in the amniotic bliss of a cultivated hosting womb. Jean-Luc Picard collapsed on the bridge of the Enterprise and lived for decades as someone else during the twenty minutes he was unconscious. Was his experience real or hallucination? What’s the difference? What we call hallucinations from this side are often called realer than real by those who report back from them. If lifetimes there can be minutes here, what better version of immortality and reincarnation might we hope to achieve? Elwood P. Dowd might have lived hundreds or thousands of years through Harvey’s friendship. Perhaps the day will come when a lifetime spent as a single person in a single body in a single timespace theater will seem absurdly primitive. As remote or improbable as the transfer of consciousness may seem, it’s possible that we’re doing it already. Since we can’t trust our memories, anything is possible. As with dreams, you might pass from one vessel to another with little or no recall. Would that make your experience less real? Would Picard’s other life have been any less real if he hadn’t remembered it afterward? Maybe it’s what we’re all doing all the time; bouncing around from vehicle to vehicle in an endless cycle of dreams. Maybe we possess total recall in some in-between state, but who remembers one dream from within another? It all starts sounding like reincarnation, but what if we had total control over the process so we could move freely within the amusement park of infinite appearance? No bullshit enslavement to rules and karma, just greater freedom to explore our own potential. What sense does it make to inhabit a fixed point in an infinite dreamstate? Why should we be stuck in a single perspective? What a waste for dreamers in an infinite dreamspace to be confined to so small an orbit. Consciousness is not limited by time, space, energy and matter, so to what actual restrictions are we truly subject? Maybe we’re only confined because we think we’re confined. Perhaps the only rules are those enforced by our own self-limiting beliefs. Our shackles might be of our own forging, as seems to always be the case. This is all just playful speculation, of course, but one thing I’ve found about the outer boundaries of this dreamstate playground is that I haven’t found any. As far as you go, it keeps going. Wherever you go, you’re always in the exact center of your universe. Sure, body-hopping would eventually get boring like anything else, but it would open up a whole new area of the amusement park for us to play in. And really, it’s just a variation on a theme of Adventures in Consciousness, so why not? Before you dismiss all this as the ingenious musings of a fantastically gifted author, there are three facts you should consider. One, though you may think you’re a sane, rational person with a pretty good handle on things, the truth is that you have no idea who, what or where you are. Two, although you might feel you can trust your memory, you can’t. And three, the only thing you can be sure of is that you are consciousness, and it would be the ludicrous to think that infinite consciousness is as finite as we believe ourselves to be. So, my answer to Goober’s question is free-range consciousness, but I don’t tell him that. It’s not the answer he’s looking for. The real thing that eludes him isn’t pushing the boundaries of his dreamstate but waking up within it. He’s as blind as the people in his TV show; not because his eyes don’t work but because they’re tightly shut. He doesn’t see because he thinks he does. Lucidity and clear-seeing don’t exist for him even as concepts, but I don’t tell him that either. It would make no more sense to explain such things to Goober in his shop than to Elvis in a wax museum. I tell you because somehow you asked, but Goober hasn’t. Edwin “Goober” Pease is the full expression of a unique pattern. Whatever else he might create or do or become in life, he himself will always be his own crowning achievement. In one sense he’s just one of billions, but in another sense he’s sui generis; a class of his own, the only example of his kind. If everyone is special, then, of course, no one is special, and yet, by golly, everyone is special. There will never be another Edwin. He is perfect and perfectly himself, as are we all. “Maybe it’s some emotional thing,” I suggest. “Maybe it’s not a sense or an ability but an emotion, or an emotional range or dimension.” “I ain’t thought of that,” he says, as if I’d just earned a good mark in his book. “What’d you say you did again?” “Forex day-trader,” I recite. “Global currency arbitrage. High-frequency trading. Millions of algorithm-based micro-transactions per second with a focus on dollar-based trading pairs. Emerging markets, capital liquidity, political turmoil. It’s actually pretty interesting…” “Yeah, yeah, okay,” he cuts me off impatiently, which is the desired result. I don’t know anything about Forex or if it involves emerging markets or split-second micro-transactions. It’s just a bunch of jibber-jabber to make people sorry they asked. “Enlightened spiritual master,” I could tell him. “Hope of nations, theme for poets.” “Oh yeah?” he would say. “I don’t think I ever met one of them before. We got a preacher over the next hill, does a thing with snakes. You do anything with snakes?” “Not so much,” I’d reply. “More of a dog person, really.” “Yeah, dogs are good,” he would say. He would finish my carburetor free of charge out of deference and I would tip him twenty bucks out of nobility. Instead, it’s six bucks for the sharpening, nothing for the trimmer and ten for the carb. I hand him a twenty and he slowly counts four singles into my hand. As I’m leaving with my stuff, Sammy leaps up to follow his stick-thrower. What if we could transfer Sammy’s consciousness into my body, I wonder — let him throw his own sticks — and I realize that the whole thing is starting to sound like an overdone movie plot. Forget it Jed. It’s the dreamstate. Jed McKenna is the author of the Enlightenment, Dreamstate, and Jed Talks trilogies. Learn more at WisefoolPress.com Jed McKenna: I am not Jed McKenna Click to rate this teacher! [Total: 30 Average: 4.2] You've already voted for this teacher Jed McKenna is a spiritual dude. He plays video games, he rides a Jed McKennamountain bike, he skydives, he reads Walt Whitman. Jed McKenna is an enlightened teacher. He had an ashram in Iowa, numerous students (several of whom became enlightened), and has several books to his name: Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Spiritual Warfare, and Jed McKenna’s Theory of Everything. A lot of folks criticize Jed McKenna because he doesn’t fit their image of a spiritual teacher. Fortunately, Jed likes to talk about himself, so we can see he’s not such a bad guy: All eyes are watching me expectantly. “What’s the wisefool gonna say?” they wonder. That’s part of the drama. A few pockets of resistance pop up, but I plow over them. Their indignation is as meaningless to me as the growls of little pink puppies. I’m indulging myself with a somewhat more forceful manner of communicating now, mainly for my own amusement, and their reaction at this stage is not a factor. Jed has a stark vision of the quest for Truth: I like happiness as much as the next guy, but it’s not happiness that sends one in search of truth. It’s rabid, feverish, clawing madness to stop being a lie, regardless of price, come heaven or hell. This isn’t about higher consciousness or self-discovery or heaven on earth. This is about blood-caked swords and Buddha’s rotting head and self-immolation, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something they don’t have. Yet this stark, no-nonsense approach garners praise for shattering imprisioning images of teachers and the spiritual search. The emperor has no clothes, and sooner or later everyone is going to see what’s staring them right in the face. When that happens, perhaps, there will be a major shift—a mass exodus away from the complexity and futility of all spiritual teachings. An exodus not outward toward Japan or India or Tibet, but inward, toward the self—toward self-reliance, toward self-determination, toward a common sense approach to figuring out just what the hell’s going on around here. A wiping of the slate. A fresh start. Sincere, intelligent people dispensing with the past and beginning anew. Beginning by asking themselves, “Okay, where are we? What do we know for sure? What do we know that’s true?” Here’s a simple test. If it’s soothing or comforting, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy; if it’s about getting into pleasant emotional or mental states; if it’s about peace, love, tranquility, silence or bliss; if it’s about a brighter future or a better tomorrow; if it makes you feel good about yourself or boosts your self-esteem, tells you you’re okay, tells you everything’s just fine the way it is; if it offers to improve, benefit or elevate you, or if it suggests that someone else is better or above you; if it’s about belief or faith or worship; if it raises or alters consciousness; if it combats stress or deepens relaxation, or if it’s therapeutic or healing, or if it promises happiness or relief from unhappiness, if it’s about any of these or similar things, then it’s not about waking up. Then it’s about living in the dreamstate, not smashing out of it. On the other hand, if it feels like you’re being skinned alive, if it feels like a prolonged evisceration, if you feel your identity unraveling, if it twists you up physically and drains your health and derails your life, if you feel love dying inside you, if it seems like death would be better, then it’s probably the process of awakening. That, or a helluva case of gas. There is truth in McKenna’s books, yet it is wrapped in fantasy. I criticize McKenna, but praise his first book Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing. Who is Jed McKenna? Jed McKenna doesn’t exist (I’m sure “he” would agree with this on one level!) — there is no teacher named Jed, no Iowa ashram, and no students as described in his books. It is all a fake. What evidence do I have for this? the fact that there is no evidence for any of it. No photos, no face-to-face meetings, no one saying they have ever met the man or been his student (I welcome any evidence to the contrary). McKenna expertly diffuses this objection: Q: We’ve received many questions about you personally. People want to know about your history, your relationships, your finances, everything. For instance, do you have friends? Do you socialize beyond the student/teacher relationship? JM: This whole thing really has nothing to do with me personally and it would be counter-productive to shift the focus onto me. Q: It’s easy to understand why people would be curious. JM:I’m not relevant to anyone’s search. I’m just a finger pointing at the moon. There’s nothing to be learned from the finger. Everybody’s eager to find a distraction from the real work of waking up, but that’s all it is, a distraction. Whoever writes under the name “McKenna” is not a teacher and probably not enlightened, as evidenced by this wishful thinking: That’s why it might seem like I never give a straight answer to a straight question. Rather, I use the question, or the first few words of the question, to determine the next thing the student needs to hear. The student has no idea what the next thing they need to hear might be, but I know exactly what it is because I’m looking down from an elevation that lets me see exactly where they are, where they want to be, and where they have to go to get there. It’s all perfectly clear to me, but because they don’t have that overview, students cannot effectively chart their own course. That’s the role of the teacher, otherwise everyone could just pick up a book and, as Jolene puts it,bam! Yet, the mystery writer has interacted with some hard-hitting teachers and understands many of the misconceptions that seekers labor under. There is some great advice in the first book: Your moments of blackest despair are really your most honest moments—your most lucid moments. That’s when you’re seeing without your protective lenses. That’s when you pull back the curtain and see things as they are. Self-realization isn’t about more, it’s about less. The only construction required for awakening is that which facilitates demolition. If I were to reduce this book and my teachings to their essence, I would say it all comes down to nothing more than this: Think for yourself and figure out what’s true. That’s it. Ask yourself what’s true until you know. Everything else in this book, everything else I have to say on the subject, turns on that center. I never thought of waking up as a spiritual pursuit, I just wanted to get to the truth. Looking back, I can see where I might have used the word “infinity” in a koan-like manner; kind of a Western version of mu. Infinity is beautiful; it destroys everything it touches. It annihilates all concepts, all beliefs, all sense of self. No teacher, teaching, book or practice could ever be as effective as simply allowing the thought of infinity to slowly devour you. If you wish to make this transition in your own life—to awaken within the dream, to shuffle off the egoic coil—my suggestion would be that you combine Spiritual Autolysis with fervent prayer, using each to advance the other. Use the writing to locate and illuminate your falseness and thereby develop a healthy self-contempt. The strength of that emotion will then empower your prayer, which should be for the courage and ability to locate and illuminate your falseness, and so on. Why ruin good advice with fiction? Because of the very things Jed rails against: people love drama, the story. McKenna spins the story of his self, the teacher, expertly disassembling the belief systems of all he meets. Just as people became enthralled with Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan, so too will they be with Jed. Why care that it is fiction? Because Jed places great emphasis on the lack of success of spiritual teachers. Don’t you think it’s reasonable to ask to know a teacher’s success rate? The proof is in the pudding, right? Didn’t you ask them about the fruit of their teachings when you started with them?” He claims that he has a number of enlightened students. If this is all fiction, then his teaching and method is a suspect as any other with a success rate of zero. Jed McKenna’s second book Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment is forgettable. It features a series of encounters with stock, clueless spiritual seekers, of whom the wisest become awed by Jed. Combine that with a lot of U.G. Krishnamuti quotes, the ranting emails of one of his students, and Jed’s self-proclaimed breakthrough interpretation ofMoby Dick, and you have … well, I’m not sure what you have besides a paean to Jed Mckenna. I’ll leave you with one more quote from the first book: “Spiritual awakening,” I continue, “is about discovering what’s true. Anything that’s not about getting to the truth must be discarded. Truth isn’t about knowing things—you already know too much. It’s about un knowing. It’s not about becoming true, it’s about un becoming false so that all that’s left is truth. If you want to become a priest or a lama or a rabbi or a theologian, then there’s a lot to learn—tons and tons. But if you want to figure out what’s true, then it’s a whole different process and the last thing you need is more knowledge.” Read Jed McKenna’s first book, then if you’re ready to make the First Step away from the false, investigate some real people like Bob Cergol or Bob Fergeson who are living the stark truths that McKenna eloquently speaks of. If you like a good story, check out Dave Gold’s book, After the Absolute. It is an entertaining read about his life with the teacher Richard Rose. Filled with great quotes and true stories, it is time better spent than with Jed McKenna’s fiction. By the way, a couple of people have speculated on the Internet that Jed McKenna and Richard Rose are the same person. That is definitely not true. I knew Richard Rose, and he was not Jed. Also confirmed as “not Jed McKenna” are: August Turak, David Scoma. Ezinearticles.com has four articles by Jed McKenna you can read for free. Lastly, in case you were wondering, I am not Jed McKenna. However, as a thank you for visiting, enjoy free shipping and get a signed copy of my book Subtraction: The Simple Math of Enlightenment for only $12.95. It’s better than Jed…. Related Posts Sailor Bob Adamson My knowledge of Bob Adamson is gleaned from the book Living Reality by James Braha.… Bob Fergeson: The practice of Listening Attention I've known Bob Fergeson for nearly twenty years. For a time we both lived on… AuthorShawn Posted onAugust 28, 2016 Categories2 Star 60 thoughts on “Jed McKenna: I am not Jed McKenna” Tommysays: October 31, 2016 at 12:56 pm I kind of liked reading Jed McKennas books. At least the first one. I was open to him being the real deal… …Then came “Theory of everything”. I’ts sad that the whole premise of the book is based on a really weak argument. “If Truth is All and Consciousness Exists then Consciousness is All” He says “Check your assumtions!” and its obvious it is exactly what he himself should do. Too bad. BTW: Listening to August Turak speaking on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAJiT_Nhkg4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlSxvVtrZak and after seing him in the film “Mr Rose” I really get the sense that he is Jed McKenna. Reply Shawnsays: October 31, 2016 at 9:50 pm Hi Tommy. Thanks for stopping by. I just talked with August Turak a couple of days ago and he commented how people keep asking him if he is Jed McKenna. I am confident he is not. Reply Tommysays: November 1, 2016 at 8:31 pm Thanks for getting back. OK, I trust your judgment on that. But still…:) After “Theory…” though, to me that question about the pseudonym isn’t as interesting anymore. BTW, Thanks for all the great work you have been doing running this website! Reply Genryusays: December 28, 2016 at 2:56 pm Mr Turak isn’t Jed McKenna. Reply Vicsays: February 27, 2017 at 11:22 am Imagine if August Turak read Jed McKenna’s book after people, as Shawn mentioned above, brought him to his attention. Here’s a guy – Turak – who writes about selflessness, who’s been known to skydive, who knew an enlightened teacher from Virginia, who had a dog named Dharma, and who knows someone named Pete Reilly. And he comes across these books by someone who writes about selflessness, who’s been known to skydive, who knew an enlightened teacher from Virginia, who has a dog named Maya, and who knows someone named Pete Reilly (who has the copyrights to McKenna’s books). What a coincydink … I’d be a bit spooked, to say the least! Reply Shawnsays: February 1, 2020 at 6:28 pm You can add one more coincidence to the match of August Turak and Jed McKenna. In the book Jed McKenna Notebook, Jed writes about a person he knew named Frank that was an advocate of LSD. Jed actually speaks highly about Frank. Who is Frank? August Turak has done therapy work with a man named William Richards. Richards is a famous LSD advocate. August has been known to call William Richards his mentor. Coincidence? Reply Killed McKennasays: March 3, 2017 at 11:25 pm Clearly Tommy you did not get ‘it’, I’ll get to Verena later on. There was no need for anyone to get anything, so in that respect the material clearly succeded. The process described in all books is a purely logical one mainly derived from deductions. Whatever stands after all is dead, burned and buried must be true. There is no other way and things could not be simpler. Who cares who McKenna is? What the face lookes like? Why? So you can judge whether or not he says is true or not?! It’s all about you! Didn’t you get that yet? It’s irrelevant, simply because killing the Buddha also meant killing McKenna. Knowing comes from within. Wanting to know that face proves your attention is aimed at the ‘has been processes’ seemlingly occuring outside of ‘you’. Mis-take. You’re looking in the wrong place, you’re asking the wrong question. You weren’t reading some books; you are writing the story as you go along. Same goes for Verena: all is consciousness, including the Universe, your ego, your opinion, whatever. Switching the labels simply helps you under-stand that not the Universe is (ever) leading, but that it is a playground which sprouted from and within consciousness. Feel the change by placing the dot on a piece of paper, and then looking at it first from the perspective of the human looking at it as if it represented consciousness (as most humans look at it btw) and then – feeling the change of the widening perspective – switching the labels from human in U-rex to consciousness in C-rex looking at it’s creation, the Universe. Again; it could not be simpler. I suggest you both do the work, dig deeper within; – or not, because it is useless anyway – then you will know there will be questions no more. Then you are truely done. Adios! Reply Vicsays: March 7, 2017 at 1:25 pm How you can see anything but clouds from that high horse of yours is beyond this benighted fool. Reply Richardsays: March 15, 2017 at 9:59 pm Thank you Reply H.N.says: September 29, 2017 at 6:27 am Wisely spoken! I loved the book and understood most of it while reading. That says enough I guess. It helped me getting trough my last answers, and I wasn’t even looking for them. I’m on the start of writing my own first book now as being a noobie in “all this”, but certain of sharing some unique experiences in the context i’m gonna write them down. Good luck everyone! Reply Jed mckenna is Stephen Mitchell .says: February 13, 2019 at 1:14 am Jed Mckenna = Stephen Mitchell ( husband of Byron Katie ) , in my opinion. I read some of Mitchell’s books and noted a similarity in style with Jed Mckenna. Stephen Mitchell is a spiritual author , poet, translator, scholar, and anthologist. He is married to author Byron Katie. Mitchell was educated at Amherst College, the University of Paris, and Yale University. He is widely known for his translations of ancient classics such as Tao Te Ching. Stephen Mitchell’s books include The Gospel According to Jesus, Tao Te Ching, Byron Katie’s A Thousand Names for Joy, etc. Reply Verenasays: November 14, 2016 at 10:53 pm Well, if August Turak really is Jed McKenna- why on earth should he lift the curtain? That said, he or anybody else who is- or is not Jed McKenna is kind of bound to say ‘no’ when being asked- right? What I really would like to ask you, Tommy, is why you think the mentioned assumptions are weak? The only flaw I detected in this Theory of everything is, when he comes to the idea of switching labels, regarding the universe an consciousness. That is, in the ‘U-rex’ paradigm, nobody would say, that consciousness doesn’t exist only because it is located in the body, which is located in the universe. But after switching labels he falsely concludes that the whole universe wouldn’t exist, only because now it is ‘located’ within consciousness. A kind of non-dual, nihilist trap, that is already being pointed out in the term ‘neti, neti’ -neither this, nor that. As I see it, he kind of tries to kill the living paradox that becomes apparent in realization. That too me, is a poor understanding, since nothing is won by simply changing the content of the claim. E.g. claiming there is someone in a sense is the same thing as claiming there is no one. Still, the core assumptions too me seem to be fairly accurate. Thus, I’d love to hear from you, what exactly is wrong about them. Thanks in advance! Reply Zeesays: December 16, 2016 at 10:31 am Jed’s new book review http://www.zmark.ca/2016/12/jed-mckenna-dreamstate-conspiracy-theory.html Reply Shawnsays: December 22, 2016 at 6:29 am Hi Zee! Thanks for the link. Reply Saradhasays: January 24, 2017 at 6:57 am I think it is AdyaShanti Reply Davidsays: February 22, 2017 at 8:27 am May well be. In the Mckenna books it has a very ‘American’ syntax structure to the writing, yet in Jed Mckenna’s online forum he writes in somewhat of a style that suggests he is from somewhere like Inda. I only suggest this as his writing in English is slightly disjointed and reminds me of someone from that part of the world who has English as their second language. Unless of course this style is just another double bluff. Reply Vicsays: February 27, 2017 at 11:13 am If you don’t know who it is, how can you say for certain who it isn’t? Reply Tedsays: March 11, 2017 at 7:42 am Here is a photo of August Turak with Richard Rose: http://augustturak.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RR_Kitchen.jpg Here is a purported photo of Jed: http://datinggod.typepad.com/datinggod/images/2007/12/10/jed_mckenna_2.jpg Chances are that the guy that writes the forum in not the author of the books. In addition, the books are licensed to Peter Sweeney at Wise Fool Press. Could Peter Sweeney be the brother to Anne, who has a long relationship with Turak?: http://www.augustturak.com/the-next-fortune-500-female-ceo-its-a-lock/ Then there is this:http://spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/850/site?page=2 Reply Vicsays: March 29, 2017 at 8:17 am As I pointed out above, there are interesting similarities between the two. But there are also interesting discrepancies: McKenna writes about his aversion to places “where the greed and vanity of the people seem to permeate the air”. Turak is a salesman, now selflessly slaving away at his Twitter feed to push his service schtick, and as a salesman, he would naturally, in fact inevitably and constantly find himself in situations and places where ego and money is the name of the game. But who knows? In his latest boon to humanity, “Dreamstate”, McKenna writes: “Advertising is […] the art and science of monetizing fear”. Perhaps the salesman and the enlightened teacher converge after all, sharing a laugh or two on the way to the bank … Reply Joe Daddysays: October 7, 2017 at 11:35 pm Look at the marketing of the McKenna books, the bonus content in the PDFs, the republishing of the bonus content in physical book form as a bonus for buying the trilogy in physical book form, etc. Wisefool Press is McKenna. That strengthens the Turak connection for me rather than diminishing it. Reply Vicsays: February 23, 2018 at 8:37 am Completely right, Joe. There are far too many similarities to completely dismiss Turak: the skydiving, his dog Dharma (compare with McKenna’s dog Maya), the obvious marketing acumen that has made McKenna’s books such a success, the enlightened teacher in West Virginia … Of course, there are also many similarities in the ideas they disseminate. My hunch is that Turak and Peder Sweeney wrote the books together. Reply Marksays: March 17, 2017 at 5:16 pm Thomas Pynchon is Jed. Reply Frank Rizzosays: April 8, 2017 at 3:50 am Jed has an online forum at: http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/ where he posts just about every day. Good stuff. I’ve been reading it for a couple of years now. Apparently he is in Cambodia where he runs his “Navigator Series” for students. Reply Vicsays: May 3, 2017 at 1:07 pm That forum is a testament to the intellectual capabilities of his readership. In other words, that’s not him. Reply Tanosays: June 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm It is him. Reply Vicsays: June 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm Well, that’s that, then – at least as far as you are concerned. But it most definitely is not; however, believing anything you want is your prerogative. For the more curious I’ll mention that he makes a reference to impostors pretending to be him on the Internet in his next to latest book, “Dreamstate”. Make of that what you will (as if anyone could stop you!). Reply Jonas Svenssonsays: June 16, 2017 at 3:08 am I know. I have been a member of his forum for some time. I tried to take the Navigator series but he said I was not ready yet. After going further he let me taken the series and it changed my life. He might be mad at me for sharing this, he told me to get of all kind of social media like Facebook and Twitter, but I feel I have to. I can not be certain this man (or woman) is Jed McKenna but after the series I do not even care. I went so far as to go to Cambodia in search of this great man just to thank him. No luck so far but at least I’m over my lifelong depression. Reply Vicsays: June 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm Surely someone could have hooked you up with some drugs, street or legal, to overcome your “lifelong depression”. Couldn’t cost all that much more than a (fruitless?) trip to Cambodia … Reply Franksays: October 9, 2018 at 4:07 am No the forum is run by a Canadian conman called Ken Mcmordie he is scamming money from people. He fled Canada after running a Ponzi scam Reply Elisays: June 2, 2017 at 8:28 am When i first woke up inside a dream i approached a dream character and asked whether he knew he was in a dream i was having. He laughed at me, said i was crazy, and walked away. If someone came up to me in waking life and told me that i am a character in their dream i would laugh at them, tell them they’re crazy, and walk away. Reply Vicsays: June 20, 2017 at 12:57 pm What if someone told you you were dreaming that you had woken up? Would you laugh at them, too, or would you get your thinking cap on and actually consider the statement honestly and truthfully? Reply Rurigansays: June 20, 2017 at 6:15 pm Then you are still sleeping….. Reply Vicsays: June 22, 2017 at 9:29 am Jed McKenna is a salesman who believes he woke up, and is now catering to a non-spiritual demographic within the spirituality marketplace. Reply Dan Rsays: July 1, 2017 at 9:36 pm I agree with those that believe Jed is Adyashanti. Reading Emptiness Dancing recently, that are various sections with sentences almost verbatim from Jed’s conceptual staple – ‘no belief is true’ and ‘dreamstate’ are two of them. The lectures from that book are from 2001 and I believe Jed’s first book is from 2003-2004 perhaps? In the End of your world there is the same underlying message and view of enlightenment as radical demolition and deconstruction, which few other contemporary teachers spouse, Jed being one of them. I have a feeling that Jed might be a hard-hitting voice that perhaps Adya couldn’t integrate in his formal teacher role. This is not unusual with writers and poets. Perhaps if it turns out to be him in the near future, he could integrate these two facets and become a completely new teacher. Well, who knows. Reply Marcelsays: August 15, 2017 at 1:04 am I have no idea who Jed McKenna is, nor do I have an idea if the guy moderating the JedMcKenna forum is indeed Jed or just some guy or girl claiming to be him. I would advise people to stick to what they know to be true and not stick to what they don’t know to be true. Seems to have helped all the enlightened folk… Reply Frank Rizzosays: September 18, 2017 at 3:55 am Interesting! It looks like Jed Mckenna is actually Ken McMordie. A man who, if you are Canadian, might owe you money. Details: https://enlightenmentmyth.com/ Reply Vicsays: February 23, 2018 at 8:26 am Hate to say I told you so, but … “Jed McKenna is not an active teacher, online or off. He does not engage in social media or forums. He does not give classes or workshops or accept money from students. He has no teachings or products other than those offered by Wisefool Press and our international publishing partners. Anyone claiming to be Jed or to speak for him is misrepresenting themselves. -WP” This being the disclaimer on the front page of the Wisefool Press website. Told you so. Reply Tanosays: March 13, 2018 at 1:57 pm Jed McKenna is a fictitious literary character and so cannot engage in any of those activities. The disclaimer is both true to nominal reality and deceptive to factual reality. It is part of the marketing Game. If Wisefool had truly wanted to dispel the myth of the impostor – they would have been less ambiguous. Reply Vicsays: March 16, 2018 at 1:55 pm Jed McKenna’s books are for morons. As has been amply proved by his readers, here and elsewhere … Reply Tanosays: March 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm We are all morons, until some become not. Jed McKenna was once a moron too and didn’t hide this fact. Reply know1says: May 21, 2018 at 1:12 am The desperate searcher will give anything for the key that will shift perception, the key needed here was found in Damnedest, for that I am forever grateful as the shift is abiding. The personality behind the book, totally incidental and irrelevant. Reply Tanosays: June 2, 2018 at 6:49 am I thought it was the shower, Steve. You would say the same even if the personality behind turned out to be a murderer. Lack of critical thinking on the lines of ‘Nothing really matters’ is not what Mr. McKenna advocates, but he surely advocates that in relation to his own persona ‘I am only the finger’ and all that nonsense. Who any man is and what ANY man is made of in real life – matters. A man can sound beautiful on paper and be the SOB in life. Take more showers perhaps. Reply D Pilgrimsays: May 31, 2018 at 10:07 pm A few years ago I surmised that Jed is August Turak, or at least his creation. This was after reading the first three books. I don’t know a lot about Richard Rose, but I’ve read some of his stuff and seen some of the videos. One day in thinking about who Jed is, I saw Jed and Richard Rose overlapping, the character Jed having characteristics of Richard Rose. And then I realized that if this was true I had visited and walked around the house in The Damnest having attended a TAT meeting about 20 years ago. As for August denying this, as already stated by another here, of course he would deny it. To add, I don’t think the internet web site guy is Jed, so the guy in Southeast Asia is likewise not Jed. (A while back, maybe about a year ago, I traded about ten exchanges with the website Jed, he’s pretty good, cut to the chase pretty quick with me, but don’t think he’s the writer of the books. Tano’s accounts of the guy she knows pretty-much seals the deal for me that it isn’t him). Reply Tanosays: June 8, 2018 at 2:33 pm The Invisible Guru forum host is not Jed McKenna. I started with the premise that he was, but in the course of the 2017-2018 discovered his identity and got the confirmation. Reality is stranger than fiction, or I would say.. Reality feeds the fiction with rich and often improbable details. Reply snowysays: July 29, 2018 at 1:02 pm Regardless of whether Jed is real or not, his first book was full of very funny irony, some of it subtle, but most of it was so overt that it’s just as equally funny to recognize when someone has failed to notice it. All the drama about Jed’s identity is of course, very precisely, one of those ironies. Regardless of whether or not the author has ever tried to “teach” anyone about the existential truth, the one spiritual practice that Jed recommends is a potential show-stopper. It’s also one that the internet was tailor-made to enhance. Shawn — thanks, as always for your recommendations, they’re almost always worth the time, and I look forward to following up on the ones in this article when I can find some. Reply SIASsays: August 4, 2018 at 8:47 am I’ve been obsessed on and off for years about who the author of the JMK books was. I devoted literally thousands of hours doing of research and reading and listening and web surfing of all sorts of different spiritual teachers – both popular and obscure (I was also on a spiritual ‘knowledge’ journey). I found 2 or 3 pretty good matches. But then I became convinced that the old Jed forum guru was actually him and stopped searching (since for at least 4 years). Sigh. Thanks Tano for the clarity :-). So, the last few weeks I’ve done some revisiting of my prior guesses. The JMK authur that I now believe is one that I had dismissed previously for a range of reasons. But in revisiting and digging a bit deeper and without the prior ‘rose’ colored glasses (scuse the pun) – everything adds up to AT. Yup.! The contents, the writing quality, the timing of the books (AT retired in 2000), the intellectual depth and smarts, the quotes every chapter, the wide understanding of spiritual philosophy, the style, the life stories, the various terms (‘Truth’ being an obvious one), the process of SA, the desire to teach and disseminate the truth, the desire for anonymity, the ability/money to set it all up so well to publish, the marketing, the bloody dog – lol. So… what did we all think the author actually ‘did’ day to day before and between writing books! He sure as hell likely doesn’t lead a normal suburban life. AT isn’t willing to put his name to them as they aren’t particularly kind to ‘christianity’ (nor any religion for that matter) and his world is surrounded by christian endorsements and friends (we are talking the US here!). Why upset his own Apple cart? (to use a phrase both JMK and AT have used!). He can continue his life and ‘selfless’ service teachings for those not ready for the unvarnished truth – but can write it anonymously for those that can take it. I love that it’s AT behind the curtin – JMK is a wealthy entrepreneur who posites business success as a side-effect of no-self (selfless service). Very apt. Reply Garjansays: August 13, 2018 at 10:52 pm Sias.. Do you think it’s okay for Jed that people find out he ist AT? Reply Garjansays: August 13, 2018 at 10:23 pm SIAS, do you think it’s okay for Jed that people find out he is AT? He seems clever enough to be able to hide all sorts of hints about his true being (in sense of personhood, not his *true* true being, which he does not hide at all 😉 ) Kind regards from Germany Garjan Reply Garjansays: August 13, 2018 at 10:28 pm SIAS, shouldn’t Jed be able to hide all hints to his true being (meaning personhood not *true* true being ;)) if he wants to? Seems to be a smart guy… Kind regards from Germany.. Garjan Reply SIASsays: September 2, 2018 at 6:41 am Hi Garjan, great questions…. for what it’s worth – my 2 cents follows; I think AT wrote the JMK books anonymously for 2 (or possibly more) reasons. He didn’t want to upset his own apple-cart life, but probably mainly because he knew that readers would have filtered the message and teachings he wanted to convey through his ‘AT’ persona. And, the way he wanted to write the books – i.e. a combination of fact, fiction, philosophy, teachings and stories – could only really be written by either an anonymous author, a previously unknown author or a very well respected/known ‘spiritual’ guru. AT was none of these (although he was/is a respected spiritual identity, he is more known for being a successful, spiritual businessman and a student of RR). He is however, a very smart man who has dedicated his life to Truth and to leading others there. He realised that if these books had his name as the author they would not be as credible as if they had the JMK pseudonym. But honestly, if you do some research on RR and AT (including the wayback machine) there are so many matches, similar stories, approaches and flavors it would be hard to contemplate the possibility of a different author – especially if you’ve looked extensively for alternatives. I’ve also done lots of research on into who it could be (reading their books, listening to interviews, communicating with them, researching their history). Most were/are easy to negate very quickly (sort of like a spiritual autolysis process – lol), but I came up with a few whom I really, really hoped was it (Adyashanti, Greg Goode, Richard Bach). But they all fell away as the ‘one’ at some stage. I was also completely misdirected by the wonderfully convincing invisible ‘Jed McKenna’ guru who ran a couple of on-line forums forums – whom I though was the real deal author (he’s a good ‘guru’ – just not the JMK author). Interestingly, I’d also researched AT and the rest of the RR crew as possibilities too – but was too attached to my own vision of who JMK ‘really’ was, and the likelihood of the other possibilities, to consider AT as more than a second level option. But I never ‘negated’ him out. AT has done an incredible job of keeping his identity secret. Truly incredible. Especially as there must be a decent number of people who know it’s him as the have helped with the writing/publication etc. And there are those that MUST know it is AT (e.g. the owner of this website) but feel a responsibility not to ‘tell’ – and in fact to even mislead as to it NOT being AT (why?). I wouldn’t be surprised either the first book was driven by AT but was written in collaboration with the old RR group (the current TAT crew) or if a draft of the first book was distributed to them for review and comment – hence them keeping the obvious secret as they were all ‘in on it’ from the start. All good – they know the books really were written by no-one (lol). When RR died AT decided to write some more JMK books himself as he owned the franchise. So, to your concern about Jed being outed. Well, this is all just my opinion – not proof -just another story. Other people have said they believe it’s AT in the past. My opinion is not ‘new’ or unique. It will convince no-one who has their own story or belief as to who the author should/could be. Unless they did the amount of research I did – my opinion will be dismissed as just another opinion – not proof. And so it is 🙂 The JMK books are wonderfully entertaining and a massive smack in the head – but I eventually wanted to stop being entertained with stories and philosophy and wanted to wake the fuck up. I could never get a handle on JMKs spiritual autolysis process. So, if anyone does think my ‘opinion’ is interesting and started looking into RR and his teachings – they would find a wealth of very useful Jed-like insights into Truth realisation and especially ‘self-investigation’, that certainly for me are more easy ‘to do’ than the JMK process. Also, check-out Michael Langford’s amazingly simple and straightforward ‘rapid’ direct path teachings https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm. Best of luck Reply Gina Bertarellisays: January 9, 2019 at 10:17 pm There is no I and there is no am. I just killed Jed. NEXT. Further Jed, past the trilogy, into a series of dreams killing all the I’s and all the am’s along the way. Happy Trails To You because there is no one here and there is no here. Isn’t that great? It is great if you have no attachments to dreamstuff. hahaha I love it. It couldn’t make more sense and it couldn’t be any better. THIS is what you call “done” but there’s always further. Reply Rodsays: May 22, 2019 at 5:29 pm Writing style, premise, imagery, and ideas have always smacked of a Ken Wilber “alter ego.” Reply Dizzysays: August 17, 2019 at 2:44 am Why does any of this discussion even matter? We are who we are and the author is who the author is. We can only do the foot work into our respective selves, if there is such a thing. You can spend all the time you want trying to figure this thing out and come up with a handful of air. Reply Aishasays: February 3, 2020 at 10:18 am ++++ Reply Shawnsays: February 1, 2020 at 11:53 pm In the book “Jed McKenna Notebook”, Jed mentions someone he knows by the name Frank that is an advocate of LSD. Jed actually speaks quite highly of him. August Turak has gone through therapy with a famous LSD advocate by the name William Richards. August has referred to him in the past as his mentor. Coincidence? Reply Aishasays: February 3, 2020 at 10:03 am Instead of getting to the core, you’re blablah about who Jed really is. Who cares? Aren’t you too fond of messing with “personalities”? Reply Tanosays: April 2, 2020 at 9:59 pm Coincidence, Shawn. How many people in so called spiritual circles took a liking to psychedelics in false hope of getting to ‘enlightenment’? My guess – a lot. Reply Shawn tedrowsays: May 14, 2020 at 1:00 am August Turuk admittedly confessed that he read the book Moby Dick over fifty times. Is there a possible connection there? Reply Tanosays: September 23, 2020 at 3:35 am Shawn, Imagine that I read ‘Moby Dick’ once and put it aside. Then I read Jed McKenna’s literary observations about the book, grabbed the book and read it fifty times, looking for deeper meanings in it. Possible? In other words, what occurred first: reading ‘Moby Dick’ fifty times OR reading Jed McKenna and THEN reading ‘Moby Dick’ fifty times? Did August Turak also confess to reading Jed McKenna —> is question I would ask. Correlation does not imply causation, right? Reply Shawnsays: October 13, 2020 at 1:12 am August Turak has said that he never read any of the Jed Mckenna books (probably because he wrote them). August has been obsessed in reading the book Moby Dick most of his life. Reply ARTICLES To See or Not to See 2 By Jed McKenna (This article may be freely reprinted, reposted, translated, etc.) “Nothing exists; all is a dream. God — man — the world — the sun, the moon, the wilderness of stars — a dream, all a dream; they have no existence. Nothing exists save empty space — and you!” Mark Twain If I bring Goober one tool to fix, he’ll put it aside and tell me to come back in a few days. If I bring him three or four, he’ll work on them right away. The difference is my time. If I want something fixed today, I have to bring other stuff for him to work on and wait around while he works on it. If I don’t have two or three hours to kill, I just drop one thing off. Besides his personal chair, the only place to sit in his shop is on a greasy, plastic-cushioned stool with an auto parts store logo on top. I tried it once but it’s set between chair height and short-guy height which is an awkward height for me, so now I just stand around while he works. We usually engage in idle chat, but today he’s proving almost suspiciously interesting. I feel like I’m not speaking with the actual Goober but with a playful entity wearing Goober like a sock puppet. Today he’s talking about a TV show called See, which I haven’t seen. He finds it interesting because the people in it are not only blind but doubly blind; they have not only lost their sight but the concept of sight. They don’t know they’re blind because they’ve forgotten there’s such a thing as vision. As I stand and pace and snoop, he works on my stuff, pausing occasionally to fiddle with his pipe, answer a phone call, or deal with someone else dropping off a problem item. Problem items often come in on truckbeds and trailers and need to be offloaded and discussed. Including obligatory breeze-shooting, every interruption takes ten or fifteen minutes during which I go outside and play with his black lab, a friendly boy with a racist-sounding name who loves to fetch sticks. I don’t bring Maya here because she doesn’t identify with dogs, and because the one time I did bring her she found something disgusting to roll in and it took an hour of stinky hose and brush work to get her sorted out. Everyone around here seems to have grown up together. They know each other in a way I’ve never known anyone. They nod to me and I nod back, or we wave when we pass on the road, but I’m not one of them and they know it. What that means is that I don’t get engaged in conversation. No one visits me, no one is neighborly and welcoming, no one invites me to their church or to stop by for a beer. No one is overtly hostile, but I’m clearly an outsider. Everyone seems to like and respect Lisa, an attorney for the state who sits on the “good side” of the table. She’s my friend, kind-of former landlord, and only close neighbor, so my connection to her seems to get me a pass, but mostly I get the cold shoulder. Just one of many reasons why this is my perfect place. When it’s just us again, Goober picks up where he left off. “What would that even look like?” he asks. “Like maybe we got wings we don’t know about, or maybe we can snap our fingers and make somethin’ happen. I don’t even know what it might be, but it might be somethin’, ya s’pose?” “I s’pose,” I say. I have to be careful not to imitate the local speech or I’ll sound even dumber than normal. “I guess you never know. Maybe that’s the deal. You just never know.” I nod but he’s not looking so I grunt in the affirmative. “But what happens if all of a sudden, one of ’em can see? I think that’s where they’re goin’ with it, with the show, I mean. I think someone’s either gonna get their sight back or maybe there’s gonna be a baby born who can see. We only seen the first episode, but I bet that’s where it’s goin’.” Me too. The kingdom of the blind is just setting the stage. It’s the one-eyed king that will drive the story. Probably two one-eyed kings in opposition, setting the stage for a great battle, though only a shadow of the one true conflict; the Hatred of False Self versus the Fear of No-Self. That’s the only battle that matters; anything else is couple’s badminton. I make a note to watch the show but, as of now, I haven’t. “I wonder what that would be like,” I say to encourage him, “to be the only one who can see.” “Yeah, well, that’s the thing, I guess. Could be kind of a messiah, and we seen how that works out. Could be kind of a blessing and a curse if you think about it.” He checks to see if I’m thinking about it. I am. Another pleasantly alienating feature of my life here is that Lisa’s house and my cabin are the highest homes on the mountain. The road goes no further and there are signs below that say dead end and no outlet, so almost no one ever comes up. Even courier services don’t come up, which is annoying. That remoteness, combined with being outsiders and a bit well-to-do for the area, might give us an air of social superiority which could be a problem, but Lisa has formed friendships with Goober’s wife and a few others that make her okay, and that makes me okay by association. Comfortable alienation is a goldilocks deal. Too much and not enough are both bad, but just right is just right. Asia, Mexico, South America and Europe have been too much. Wealthy neighborhoods and gated communities have been not enough. So far — ten years in — this place is just right. I’m starting to wonder about Goober. I wonder if I’m selling him short somehow. I’ve known him since I’ve been up here, but we’re still at the same polite, impersonal level we were on day one, which suits me fine. I’ve heard him in many conversations with many people and I’ve never heard him say anything like he’s saying now. This isn’t just an anomaly, this is an entire dimension I haven’t seen before. That can happen with me. I don’t pay much attention to people so they can sometimes sneak up on me. “You think messiahs know what they’re in for and go ahead anyway?” I ask, but what I’m really asking is who I’m really talking to. He looks up from his work to answer me directly. “Yep, that’s what I think. That’s why they’re messiahs.” “You’re saying Jesus was a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind,” I say. “I don’t know how many eyes he had,” replies Goober, “I’m saying, what if it’s a real thing? What if there’s a whole ‘nother thing goin’ on we don’t even know about?” “Yeah,” I muse, “what if?” Jed McKenna is the author of the Enlightenment, Dreamstate, and Jed Talks trilogies. The Search Is Over. Learn more at WisefoolPress.com.Blues for Buddha By Jed McKenna (This article may be freely reprinted, reposted, translated, etc.) Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13 Being critical of Buddhism isn’t easy. Buddhism is the most likable of the major religions, and Buddhists are the perennial good guys of modern spirituality. Beautiful traditions, lovely architecture, inspiring statuary, ancient history, the Dalai Lama; what’s not to like? Everything about Buddhism is just so — nice. No fatwahs or jihads, no inquisitions or crusades, no terrorists or pederasts, just nice people being nice. In fact, Buddhism means niceness. Niceism. At least, it should. Buddha means Awakened One, so Buddhism can be taken to mean Awake-ism. Awakism. It would therefore be natural to think that if you were looking to wake up, then Buddhism — Awakism — would be the place to look. The Light is Better Over Here Such thinking, however, would reveal a dangerous lack of respect for the opposition. Maya, goddess of delusion, has been doing her job with supreme mastery since the first spark of self-awareness flickered in some monkey’s brainbox, and the idea that the neophyte truth-seeker can just sign up with the Buddhists, read some books, embrace some new concepts and slam her to the mat would be a bit on the naive side, (as billions of sincere but unsuccessful seekers over the last twenty-five centuries might grudgingly attest). On the other hand, why not? How’d this get so turned around? It’s just truth. Shouldn’t truth be, like, the simplest thing? Shouldn’t someone who wants to find something as ubiquitous and unchanging as truth be able to do so? How can anyone manage to not find truth? And here’s this venerable organization supposedly dedicated to just that very thing, even named for it, and it’s a total flop. So what’s the problem? Why Doesn’t Buddhism Produce Buddhas? The problem arises from the fact that Buddhists, like everyone else, insist on reconciling the irreconcilable. They don’t just want to awaken to the true, they also want to make sense of the untrue. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so they end up with nonsensical theories, divergent schools, sagacious doubletalk, and zero Buddhas. Typical of their insistence on reconciling the irreconcilable is the Buddhist concept of Two Truths, a poignant two-word joke they don’t seem to get, and yet this sort of perversely irrational thinking is near the very heart of the failed search for truth. We don’t want truth, we want a particular truth; one that doesn’t threaten ego; one that doesn’t exist. We insist on a truth that makes sense given what we know, not knowing that we know nothing. Nothing about Buddhism is more revealing than the Four Noble Truths which, not being true, are of dubious nobility. They form the basis of Buddhism, so it’s clear from the outset that the Buddhists have whipped up a proprietary version of truth shaped more by market forces than any particular concern for the less consumer-friendly, albeit true, truth. Buddhism may be spiritually filling, even nourishing, but insofar as truth is concerned, it’s just the same old junkfood in a different package. You can eat it every day of your life and die exactly as awakened as the day you signed up. Bait & Switch Buddhism is a classic bait-and-switch operation. We’re attracted by the enlightenment in the window, but as soon as we’re in the door they start steering us over to the compassion aisle. Buddhists could be honest and change their name to Compassionism, but who wants that? There’s the rub. They can’t get us in the door with compassion, and they can’t deliver on the promise of enlightenment. It’s not limited to compassion, of course. Their shelves are stocked with all sorts of goodies and enticements, practically anything anyone could ever want, with just the one rather notable exception. If they had just stopped when they had Anicca, impermanence, and Anatta, no-self, then they would have had a true and effective teaching they could be proud of, except there would be no they because Buddhism would have died with the Buddha. They’d have a good product, but no customers. This untruth-in-advertising is the kind of game you have to play if you want to stay successful in a business where the customer is always wrong. You can either go out of business honestly, or thrive by giving the people what they want. What they say they want and what they really want, though, are two very different things. Me Me Me To the outside observer, much of Buddhist knowledge and practice seems focused on spiritual self-improvement. This, too, is hard to speak against, except within the context of awakening from delusion. Then it’s easy. There is no such thing as true self, so any pursuit geared toward its aggrandizement, betterment, upliftment, elevation, evolution, glorification, salvation, etc, is utter folly. How much more so any endeavor undertaken merely to increase one’s own happiness or contentment or, I’m embarrassed just to say it, bliss? Self is ego and ego resides exclusively in the dreamstate. If you want to break free of the dreamstate, you must break free of self, not stroke it to make it purr or groom it for some imagined brighter future. Maya’s House of Enlightenment The trick with being critical of so esteemed and beloved an institution is not to get dragged down into the morass of details and debate. It’s very simple: If Buddhism is about awakening, people should be waking up. If it’s not about awakening, they should change the name. Of course, Buddhism isn’t completely unique in resorting to shoddy marketing tactics. This same gulf between promise and performance is found in all systems of human spirituality. We’re looking at it in Buddhism because that’s where it’s most pronounced. No disrespect to the Buddha is intended. If there was a Buddha and he was enlightened, then it’s Buddhism that insults his memory, not healthy skepticism. Blame the naked emperor’s retinue of lackeys and lickspittles, not the unbeguiled lad who merely states the obvious. Buddhism is arguably the most elevated of man’s great belief systems. If you want to enjoy the many valuable benefits it has to offer, then I wouldn’t presume to utter a syllable against it. But, if you want to escape from the clutches of Maya, then I suggest you take a closer look at the serene face on all those golden statues, and see if it isn’t really hers. Jed McKenna is the author of the Enlightenment, Dreamstate, and Jed Talks trilogies. The Search Is Over. Learn more at WisefoolPress.com.AI VERSUS SELF – BY BRIAN EMMETT BENIGHTED, ILLUMINED, AWAKE OR ENLIGHTENED I, CULTIST BY BRIAN EMMETT JED MCKENNA VERSUS FREE WILL BY BRIAN EMMETT JOY KNOW YOUR PURPOSE MISPLACED ULTIMACY NON-DUALIST FUNDAMENTALISM POST-SPIRITUALITY THE ENLIGHTENMENT SURVEY YOU ARE A BELIEVER! BY BRIAN EMMETT WELCOME, JED MCKENNA AFICIONADOS REALIZATION OF JED MCKENNA BY BRIAN EMMETT JEDISM LINKS ABOUT Welcome, Jed McKenna Aficionados This Blog was originally launched in 2008 as a place to express my views, appreciation and criticisms of the work of Jed McKenna, and as a place where discussion could take place about the ideas contained in the “Jed McKenna” books, and how those ideas correlate to traditional ideas about spirituality, as well as with our lives. Over time, I have found that I have said just about everything I need to say about his perspectives (and his perceived limitations), so my later articles have moved away from that narrow focus, and without much reference or regard to the McKenna POV. Although that is true, I have now developed a new and deeper critique of the Mckenna perspective that has replaced the old “Realization of Jed McKenna” article. This piece will, I hope, enable the Reader to discern the flaw in his POV using practical empirical tools for themselves, rather than mere theory, beliefs, or emotion. Hopefully, we may all learn something from each other in the process. It also turns out that it is often a pleasure to connect with people who share a similar worldview and experiences. This Blog is not authored by Jed nor does it have any connection to him. To begin, please open one of the pages which interests you from the Navigation Bar above, and feel free to make a COMMENT under that entry. To date, there are 13 Pages (posts) under these subject titles: I, Cultist ~ Everything you ever wanted to know about the universal human flaw of thinking you have ‘the precious’ Secret Beliefs ~ A look at how beliefs are the secret director of all of our lives Misplaced Ultimacy ~ And the Paradox of Backward Progress Jedism – the Teachings of one “Jed Mckenna” The Realization of Jed Mckenna Non-Dualist Fundamentalism Jed McKenna versus Free Will Post-Spirituality, the New Limbo Where Souls Go When God Dies Benighted, Illumined, Awake or Enlightened The Enlightenment Survey – After 2 Years, Have You Awoken Yet? Joy Purpose Old version of Realization of Jed McKenna AI versus Self You may make public Comments on any on the individual subject pages. If you would like to make general comments or suggestions about this Blog you may do so by emailing me at jedblog1email.jpg Note: Yes, we all understand that “Jed McKenna” is a fictional character or alter-ego, perhaps in the same way that “Don Juan” of the Carlos Castaneda books may have been, but that doesn’t diminish the impact that his ideas, criticisms, images and intuitions have had on many people. Disclaimer: It seems at this time that it may be necessary to restate my role in maintaining this Blog about JM. It is not my objective to “speak the Truth”, I will leave that impossible task to the ‘Greats’ in the field. I will be speaking ‘about’ the Truth and the way it intersects with my life, and moreover, speak about all the ways which we mortals and even some of the Greats sometimes distort The Truth. I am quite certain that no one actually can speak the Truth, but thankfully a few have succeeded in helping others with their words, in spite of that fact. I comment on JM not because I am smarter than him but because any attempt, from Lao Tzu to Ramana Maharshi to Jed, is bound by the limitations of logic and language to overemphasize some truth and ignore others in order to ‘make their case’ to an audience. Of course, there are also limitations possible in the realization of the author, as I presume their are with author of the Jed books. My rather modest role is simply point out those kinds of limitations. So please don’t write me with Comments or emails telling me that I am a Philistine or a Pretender or whatever other New Age or Spiritual or Transcendental sin you may believe I have committed. I am not interested and will not respond. Thanks, Brian P.S. If you would like a link to your web page, please just ask, rather than posting “comment-spam” to this blog. P.S. P.S. Comments by me, Brian, will appear under the name “jedmckenna”. WordPress software forces the weblog administrator (me) to log-in and comment using the blogs title, which is, of course: “jedmckenna”. I usually sign my comments with “Brian” to help avoid any confusion though. The Jed McKenna Books from Wisefool Press: http://wisefoolpress.com/ 1- Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 2- Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment 3- Spiritual Warfare 4- Jed McKenna’s Notebook 5- Jed Talks #1 6- Others Jed McKenna, Ramana Maharshi, U.G. Krishnamurti, and Kundalini Shakti Question: Hi Brent. So I’ve been revisiting Jed Mckenna’s work and I’m having trouble reconciling his message as it seems contradictory to teachings regarding Kundalini awakening and heart awakening. He mentions that the path to enlightenment is not about heart, mystical experiences, or anything related to divinity or faith in it, rather it is ruthless disengaging from and questioning of life that leads to realization of truth. If one were to take this path, it would seem incompatible and even antagonistic towards the process of Kundalini awakening, as it would mean questioning the existence and reality of this divine energy. He equates truth-realization to be a fully mind-based awakening from the illusion that is the world. This would also mean awakening from everything, including the heart, love, and ultimately what we may consider divine. Listening to what he says may even lead one to conclude that Kundalini awakening is an illusion, another ride in the amusement park of Maya. Despite deeply appreciating his no nonsense approach and the sense of clear-cut finality in his message, I am confused. Could it be that Jed Mckenna’s teachings are incomplete? Or is it largely a misinterpretation from my end? If so, what value could his message be for one who is undergoing Kundalini awakening who not only believes in the divine but also experiences it? There are many paths. Jed McKenna, whose work I have benefited immensely from, approaches enlightenment from the path that most closely resembles that of Jnana Yoga, or the Path of Knowledge. His methods revolve around inquiry with the aim of attaining knowledge of what’s True. This can be considered awakening to Truth on the level of the mind. In this approach, the heart, the body, and Kundalini Shakti appear to be out of the question entirely. This sort of approach is common within non-duality, some schools of Zen and Neo-Advaita. This approach is incomplete. However, it is not ineffective, because the fact is that once the mind is awakened to Truth via means of inquiry, the Heart and Kundalini will naturally begin to awaken as a result. One can sit with discipline and a strong will and inquire into the nature of reality and come to certain realizations and conclusions. One can use the mind to awaken out of mind. However, one cannot use the mind to awaken the Heart or Kundalini Shakti. The Heart and Kundalini Shakti have their own intelligence that is far beyond the mind. They awaken on their own once the mind is out of the way. For this reason, there are certain teachings that encourage mind-level awakening through inquiry without mention of the Heart or Kundalini Shakti. Simply put, the general instructions are: “Inquire and forget about everything else.” Ramana Maharshi, the great Indian saint whom almost everyone within this field can acknowledge was a fully Self-Realized master, experienced the awakening of Kundalini Shakti. McKenna himself praises Maharshi, while also dismissing Kundalini Shakti. I find this rather interesting. Many within this field of non-duality today make certain claims either about their own realization or the unimportance of Kundalini Shakti without actually recognizing that their favourite saint was transformed by the Kundalini Shakti very early on in his path. U.G. Krishnamurti, another master whom McKenna quotes extensively in his second book, also underwent what is clearly the transformation of Kundalini Shakti. In U.G. Krishnamurti’s book, The Mystique of Enlightenment, it is written: “That is why I say that when this ‘explosion’ takes place (I use the word 'explosion’ because it’s like a nuclear explosion) it leaves behind chain- reactions. Every cell in your body, the cells in the very marrow of your bones, have to undergo this 'change’ – I don’t want to use that word – it’s an irreversible change. There’s no question of your going back. there’s no question of a 'fall’ for this man at all. Irreversible: an alchemy of some sort. It is like a nuclear explosion, you see – it shatters the whole body. It is not an easy thing; it is the end of the man – such a shattering thing that it blasts every cell, every nerve in your body. I went through terrible physical torture at that moment. Not that you experience the 'explosion’; you can’t experience the 'explosion’ – but it’s after-effects, the 'fall-out’, is the thing that changes the whole chemistry of your body.” Obviously, U.G. Krishnamurti is sharing here about a physiological transformation that he underwent which was directly linked to his realization. McKenna may refute matters relating to the body by merely dismissing everything as illusory or maya on one hand. But on the other hand, the people that he stands behind do not. Check out this question and answer with Maharshi – “Question : How to churn up the nadis [psychic nerves] so that the Kundalini may go up the sushumna? Ramana Maharshi : Though the yogi may have his methods of breath control for this object, the jnani’s method is only that of enquiry. When by this method the mind is merged in the Self, the Shakti or Kundalini, which is not apart from the Self, rises automatically.” Considering that this is coming from Maharshi himself, I feel that this explains this topic quite clearly. Those on the path of Jnana Yoga or the Path of Knowledge do not concern themselves with anything other than inquiry. When inquiry has been properly completed, Kundalini Shakti will in fact begin to transform the entire system, on its own. This has been the case for me. I came into all of this via the path of inquiry and Jed McKenna’s work spoke to me very deeply. I was awakened on the level of the mind, I knew what was true, I had realized the Self. And then years later, my Heart began to throb with emotion, Love and Bliss and finally Kundalini Shakti awakened within me. I did nothing to provoke this awakening and physiological transformation directly. I simply abided as the Self and it happened automatically, just like what Maharshi said. Following this transformation, my realization has deepened far beyond anything teachers like McKenna have ever described. Either Jed McKenna, at the time of writing his books, did not undergo the awakening of Kundalini Shakti at all or he did but chose to simply dodge mentioning it all together to avoid confusing people. In my opinion, the former is likely the case. For some on the path, the matters of Kundalini Shakti and the Heart may not concern them right now. They must simply focus on inquiry and awaken on the level of the mind. I was this way. I dismissed everything to do with the world and body as irrelevant. This dismissal served me at the early stages of my awakening. But today, I consider myself a devotee of the Kundalini Shakti, fully grounded within the body and operating from a state of Heart-centered consciousness. For you now, because this is a topic you are asking sincerely about, you must incorporate your surrender to the Divine Kundalini Shakti within your practice. You’ve come too far in the Grace of Kundalini Shakti to now go back and dismiss it as illusion. My advice to you from this point forward is to travel only with those teachers that are knowledgeable and experienced with Kundalini Shakti. Skip to content JED MCKENNA WEBLOG AI VERSUS SELF – BY BRIAN EMMETT BENIGHTED, ILLUMINED, AWAKE OR ENLIGHTENED I, CULTIST BY BRIAN EMMETT JED MCKENNA VERSUS FREE WILL BY BRIAN EMMETT JOY KNOW YOUR PURPOSE MISPLACED ULTIMACY NON-DUALIST FUNDAMENTALISM POST-SPIRITUALITY THE ENLIGHTENMENT SURVEY YOU ARE A BELIEVER! BY BRIAN EMMETT WELCOME, JED MCKENNA AFICIONADOS REALIZATION OF JED MCKENNA BY BRIAN EMMETT JEDISM LINKS ABOUT Jed McKenna versus Free Will by Brian Emmett There are very few places in his books where Jed McKenna doesn’t cut it philosophically, but for me, this question of free will is one of them. I believe that this question can’t even begin to be addressed adequately except from a monistic or non-dual understanding of “Self”. Without that depth of perspective, nothing but confusion, delusion or hopelessness are likely. The Jed McKenna character flatly asserts throughout the books that there is no such thing as Free Will- a “yes or no” response. But in fact he qualifies this statement by recommending a self generated writing exercise in order to bring one closer to the fateful and necessary breakdown process he calls “spiritual autolysis”. So thankfully, we have a tiny bit of a paradox entering the picture. But I don’t think that even this simple paradox-contradiction is sufficiently deep and rich and intricate to begin encompass the mysterious complexity of our reality. Better yet might be with a paradoxical statement such as this: at least from the point of view of realization of “no-self”, it is our non-self that is determining and actively directing the destiny of the ego or soul. So we have no free will at an ego or soul level, but as our “no-Self”, we do. Presumably, if Jed could respond he might agree and say that an action such as a writing exercise is not really of an individual’s free will but the hidden hand of ‘god’ silently directing the writer to begin clearing the decks of his beliefs and even his ego-self. But in many spiritual and religious traditions it is stated the divine gifts and imbues the soul or person with free will. I am not much of a supporter of religious and perspectives at this point in my life but I don’t think I can dismiss this possibility out of hand. Incidentally, in much of occult literature it is stated that the born personality has limited control over its destiny, and that it’s senior aspect of soul has the bulk of the power in that relationship. Maybe the question of free will versus determinism is better seen as a delagation of authorship and responsibility rather than an either-or, yes or no perspective, or even a paradoxical “yes we do because we are in actuality the divine ‘no-self’ living in existence and exercising out divine prerogatives thru the vehicle of a body and mind”. Of the three, I think the truest answer may be a cascading continuum hypothesis. That we are the divine self that cedes a certain degree of control and power to the soul that migrates from life to life, and which soul also cedes a bit of its power and responsibility to the born personality body-mind involved in that physical life. In my life, I’ve experienced the perception that I was in control of my life. Later, I came to understand something about personal creation techniques and responsibilities, which I believe are authored from our soul level. And in the last couple years, my experience has convinced me that I really have very little control over my life, or, more to the point, to my ‘spiritual evolution’, at the level either of the born personality, or even my soul. What is the Truth about Free Will? It’s not very easy to see. But if the divine self is ceding some control to the soul, and the soul is like-wise ceding some control to the born personality, then isn’t the born personality in some real, although a complex sense, acting freely and with significant sovereignty? If you reach out to pick something up, does an observer have the right to proclaim that the hand is just some ignorant ‘lackey’, that is being exploited by a mean and controlling brain? Perhaps there is no distinction worth making except for the troublesome mind-makers of separateness? Who is it that said genius was keeping two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time? Perhaps it would be in-genius of us all to maintain a healthy acceptance of the possibility of all three potentials co-existing seamlessly and simultaneously. Perhaps what Jed is saying is that from his perspective the unenlightened person has no free will because the Non-Self has it all. Although quite honestly, I really don’t know! Cheers, Brian To leave a comment scroll down to the end of the previous comments at the bottom of the page! SHARE THIS: TwitterFacebook 63 THOUGHTS ON “JED MCKENNA VERSUS FREE WILL BY BRIAN EMMETT” ahlmann july 31, 2017 at 7:08 pm So why speak of free will at all? From Jed’s TOE: “To re-enter the amusement park is to re-suspend disbelief; to accept the virtual reality of the dreamstate as real reality. For instance, I like to pretend that I’m sane and that I have free will. Might as well, right? I also pretend that I am my character, that my memories are trustworthy, and that time and space and the world are as they seem. Kinda gotta. And frankly, why not?” To me that’s the difference between an automaton human being raised by wolves and an automaton human being raised in our society. We have the consciously cultivated ability to pretend, and in a way to program ourselves and influence our future, which is lacking when being raised by wolves. Who cares about free will anyways when we get what we want? Brian march 18, 2016 at 9:26 am Well said, Dave. Dave's Not Here march 18, 2016 at 2:36 am If I had been raised by wolves in the wild and didn’t use language, would I have free will? Do turtles have the free will to NOT swim thousands of miles back to the beach where they were hatched? Nature seems to be running on auto pilot. Most lifeforms seem to be doing only what they are programmed to do. Humans have the special ability to rationalize why they just said or did something, but is that just just an illusion? Was the impulse to act already received by the brain just prior to being conscious of it? Some writers speak of entering a Flow state where they just ‘get out of the way’ of a massive ‘download’ wherein a passage or an entire book just seems to write itself. Who’s ‘will’ is being freely expressed in that instance? Fun to kick around this stuff even if it has no practical value, but then neither does watching election returns. Now why did I just say that? Gdogg july 27, 2015 at 5:31 pm Brian, thanks for this great website. Forgive my poor skills as a philosopher, or a dharma expounder, but I have some ideas. Someone on this blog, ChuckO, wrote a while ago about the Buddhist philosophy on the subject of Free will: Everything exists dependently and is conditioned by its dependencies. Let’s consider this: I “will” myself to type these words on my computer. But I recognize that the ability to do so is conditioned by having been born into a species that has limbs and hands, that evolved a culture with technology, knowledge and language. I exercise my will here: to type! But it’s a seems now to be more reasonable to call it a choice, one constrained by the options of my inheritance. I cannot freely choose to fly away because wings aren’t my inheritance, I cannot freely will planets to rotate around me because I did not inherit enormous mass. I cannot be a topless dancer because I am a middle aged male. But writing I can choose. In short, the constraints on my free will as a born human being are the attributes of my body and mind and of the world I find myself in. Perhaps I am a Soul as well, which is an ego of sorts, a contraction, a separate self relative to the Absolute. Perhaps I willed attributes for my born egoic body to have. But like my born self, my Soul will is also limited by my soulful inheritance, whatever angelic things they may be. Beyond Soul, I am very Self, the Whole, I have no inheritance, I am inheritance itself, I am Free and I am Will, because I am All. From Me separate beings are formed with their inheritances and their choices, but as far as freedom, I can’t see where they have it. They don’t choose to be born, their birth is an expression or a creation of unfathomable forces and potentials in which will is simply a Mystery. nobody may 4, 2015 at 3:00 am Indeed, Grant, and Prabha, you guys have got it. The basic teaching of Buddha was dependent origination. It is so obvious that it smacks you in the face when you realize that everything happens due to conditions! Yet how long it takes one to get over the illusion of free will! And after getting over it intellectually, how long it takes to uproot the tendency to fall back into the “feeling” of having free will! In fact, if something like “free will” did exist, then there would be no point in doing anything, because conditions would not lead to results. It is only because everything happens automatically, due to conditions, that Buddha could teach skillful vs unskillful actions on the (8-fold) path to liberation. Brian april 10, 2015 at 7:10 pm I don’t know, brother. I’ve got a similar pain, and it hurts. My consolation it to assume that I choose this construct and if I don’t collapse under the pressure of it, some ‘human development’ will ensue that I instigated at a soul level (being apparently incapable of ‘enlightenment’!). Oleg Boynd april 10, 2015 at 1:05 pm Unfortunately, I’m too down to earth to theorize about free will. If I would just have a choice!!! I would be anywhere but where I am. As a leading authority on post-spirituality 🙂 , would you tell me please, why some people get to sit on a bench in bliss !!! in the park !!! for years !!!, and I have to eat sh*t, work 12 hours a day and wonder why I am still married. If it is my free will, I must be sadomasochist or martyr 🙂 In my opinion, everyone who survived Dark Night deserves Nobel Prize! Dean october 10, 2014 at 11:31 am I realize I’m a little outdated, but, frankly, who cares. I’m still enjoying ‘spiritual enlightenment, the damnest thing’ and don’t really know anything else about Jed, than what’s in that book. (I’m at page 145 give or take) I haven’t read what you’re talking about, free will, but from what you’re saying here, I would say he means that coming from no-self, self already implies a certain degree of choice, hence “free” will, can only be of no-self. In other words, you’re choosing all the time, and you’re not holding up all the options. Every belief is simply a choice you’ve already made, and since your self implies a certain belief in self, your choice is limited in that belief. Your free will is already being used to believe in self, whatever that is for you, but that means as long as there is self, you limit your free will. So it really has nothing to do with a deterministic world or not, it’s just an observation you can easily make from no-self. He’s telling you what it’s like to view the world from no-self, so that you can’t stop until you really get there, because if you don’t understand the things he’s saying, you’re not there, keep looking, furtheeeerrr 😉 Kindness and joy, namasté Rupert january 29, 2014 at 3:26 am When I enter into a mystical state or an epiphany experience I often experience that the question of free will is not present, it is gone, dissolved it is redundant. On my return to ego ills however my free will is as big as the cage that I live in. It is when I beat my head on the walls of my prison, yearning for freedom that I realise I am not free and clearly my illusion of free will is just that, illusion. nondoer2013 may 28, 2013 at 2:49 am Do I have a choice to believe in free will..?..lol When ones will is always prevalent there is no free will.. Cant seem to create ” an other or outside force” whos will is operating..(a person or God concept)..). what is happening is happening ..including the will of something ought to be different ,does not imply an outside agency..more like a potential that maybe actualized. ukerlo august 15, 2012 at 9:05 am Free will is a concept. I see the concept as “the capacity for an object to in any way influence anything about itself”. If it exists in some way then we can do something and therefore ought to find out what to do ( even if that is that we shouldnt do anything in particular). If it doesn’t then there is nothing we can do. This is a logical correct,no ? It therefore seems very important to resolve this question, The importance of it is not necessary though. It is just necessarily important to resolve the question if we presume that we can figure out anything (a profound truth) through words and thinking ( or any other determined way). If we cant figure out the profound truths through thinking and words then there wouldnt be any use of concepts. If we instead don’t presume this ( that we can figure out anything worthwhile through words and thinking in words) , then we would be blank ( stage 0). At this stage the concept of free will wouldnt matter cause it would represent one of the many things that couldnt bring us a profound truth and therefore just have capacity to mislead us. My thoughts about this is that if we were to think about anything then we would think about the basis for why we think and wheather its necessary or if it is something we have controll over. Through socrates ” I know that I don’t know anything” one can see the weakness of thought. He has arrived at the conclusion that he don’t know anything but yet he knows that. This cuts at the core of thinking and shows that you cant say or think something that is correct. Therefore there is no use thinking because thinking is only necessary if something can be knowed through it ( keep in mind that we are chasing ultimate truths). In the same way the free will concept shows that there is no use acting. : It is only necessary to try to do something right or try anything really if free wil exists. So if it exists, then what shall we do? The answer to this question seems to me to be: how could we know? We cant think or say something that is correct then how should we ever know what to do, if free will exists. I have reasoned here that if we were to think in order to find the ultimate truth, then the question of free will and knowledge is the questions that should be answered first because it is the basis of action and thoughts.It does though when we start to think correctly seem like we cant say or think anything correct and it therefore also seems like we shouldnt try to think in order to find profound or ultimate truths.If this is correct then the concept of free will is unnecessary and just something that can delude us. If we don’t acepts this train of thought something else can be shown that yields the same results and that is that if free will exists, then what are the probobabilities that one acts exactly correct according to ones goals? Wouldnt it also then be most sane to dont try do do anything at all but to instead aknowledge that you don’t really know anything and therefore act as if you didnt have free will ? In this forum wich is Jed Mckenna inspired there seems to be a common ground shared that talking and reasoning is of no use and just distractions and misleading ( this is just a finger pointing to the moon- talk). This I agree with but aslong as some have wrong ideas (talks, thoughts) in their head it might block them from finding truth and therefore talk can be constructive if it is used for diminishing or destroying itself wich my argument is aiming at. If we would know nothing ( wouldnt even know that), then free will would be just as any other concept that’s not selfevident and would need to be proven before we could accept it. Should we really have to prove that we don’t have free will, instead of prove that we have free will ? Shouldnt every concept need to be proven?’ I can’t say that what is written here is a lie because it doesnt claim to say anything about profound truths just about relative truths. I have tried to write relative truths. I can’t say that I am wrong or right about anything i wrote cause I don’t know anything and nothing of the laws of the universe. Hopefully though someone will show me some error in my argument, that would be appriciated. ( it might even be totally wrong in the relative truth-arena, it was pretty late when i wrote it ) jedmckenna june 12, 2012 at 11:02 am Dear Sine- This may surprise you but I totally agree with everything you said! What you seem to be missing is that I didn’t create this blog as either an expression of Truth, or even a means to achieve the same (autolysis). I did it partly as sport (of the intellectual variety, to entertain my self), and partly as service to help any others who have gotten snared in concepts of either spirituality, or even “Jed-talk,” (the further dismantling of un-truths). I completely agree that the whole enterprise is meaningless and absurd! I don’t even know why I don’t dismantle the whole site. What you should understand is that it is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. My personal process is fierce and unrelenting. I seriously wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. But, for awhile, it entertained me to talk with friends and strangers about the journey on this blog. Just to tune up our intellects and clarify any philosophical garbage that was still loitering in our minds, yet unexamined. So, go in Peace my friend, and let us trouble you no more with our silly thinkings and musings! love, Brian Sine june 12, 2012 at 9:03 am Can you see how all this is your attempt to bring reality down to your own level rather than trying to expand to it? The need for understanding is most often a disguised need for control, rather than the willingness to surrender. That’s what your whole blog reeks of to my eyes. “Is Jed enlightened or not?” How meaningsless a question for someone who thinks for himself. As Jed maybe would have said, it is your head on the block. It is your life running out. Don’t be theoretical. You’re missing the point. Not saying this meaning to be demeaning. But still, it is my observation and I hope that you will see a point in it. As always, Further. On the topic of free will the point is that the question itself is wrong. To me the question or even the idea of free will would need a bunch of separations and distinctions that I don’t believe in. (And no, I don’t claim any enlightement.) But to me it is like there is no way to parse the idea. If I wanted to pretend that the idea makes any sense it feels like I would have to stretch down into a comic book world with its own pecualiar notions. I’m not even quite sure what is lacking. It is like the question presupposes some kind of idea of un-freedom that would make the will free. What is it free from? What is called will is in itself muddled in unclarity. What exactly do we mean by it? Do we mean the same thing? Do we mean “wants”? And then what is a “want”? Is it a certain fact that it would represent “your” “will” more than what is happening? Does the idea of choice itself have any ultimate meaning? Pragmatically there is no problem with it, we can use the idea and do. I feel like having a salad, and so I do. But to separate those drives from the rest of the universe seems… unnecessary. If you have “free will”, what are you going to do with it? If you don’t have it, what are you going to do with it? Who gave you the idea that this was an issue in the first place? Where did you get that from? Why did you believe it? I don’t know, nothing in this whole thing makes any sense. 🙂 Mark Pope june 13, 2011 at 8:09 am This question of free will seems to an extent to be just mind jacking..but since I appreciate this community, I am moved to participate a bit. I suspect it is more significant than mind jacking to some of us so it is probably still worth while to comment. I would say: Relatively speaking, there is freewill Absolutely speaking, not Taken alone, neither is true Taken together, they both are Or so it seems at the moment. I may be wrong :). What Jed is saying does seem unclear on this, but I have no idea how it looks to “Jed” anymore than I know who wrote the Jed material. Bless us all and thank you all, Mark Eddie march 15, 2011 at 10:49 am Thanks Perra J. You bring up something that has always bamboozled me (not a bad thing I hasten to add), but now I find full of humour. We often communicate as if we really know what we are talking about; for instance, what being ‘awake’ or ‘enlightened’ are. However, if we truly knew what either was, we would have already realised one of them! It’s like trying to describe what chocolate tastes like to someone who has only eaten carob – until they actually try chocolate, boy are they fooling themselves. So, how can we even talk about what ‘awake’ or ‘enlightened’ are if we consider ourselves to have not realised either one? If such a thing as the ego existed, that would be one of its better ploys! For what it’s worth, if references to an ego must be made, then I would say it is the act of separation; a process rather than a separate entity. But I would only be conjecturing because I really don’t know. Until I do know, I don’t know. I guess I must know I don’t know. Didn’t Jed say something about that? Reckon I’m going to have to once again go back to Spirituality 101 classes. Perra J march 15, 2011 at 4:26 am Hi Eddie, No, I wouldn’t consider myself awakened. I am raising my consciousness, by simply looking at myself, and that makes me more able to see what it is within myself that’s not ME. And this is indeed a process. I think I am more stable, more aware. But not yet awakened. Well, the ego could easily become an adversary, that’s the way it often goes. Some people mean that was what Jesus meant by “a house divided against itself”. The ego is really an identity, but a false one. You really think it is you, and that complicates matters, in the beginning of the path. We can identify with almost everything, and we do it with mental structures. We close ourselves within mental oxes built of mental pictures. We think we want the truth, and the ego often fools us to think we do! But the ego just wants to strenghten its sense of identity, to validate itself. Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti describe all this brilliantly. Jed does too, but in a different way. ( I use to listen to not just ONE teacher, but several. Often I find things they all have in common, but they say it in different ways – and this is important, it can be just that expression that makes sense to ME…) The ego is an auto-pilot. It lets you avoid real responsibility. The correct way to handle the ego is of course not to let it become an enemy to yourself, but to let it BE as it IS. Just surrender. Then something else begins to awaken. If you try to RESIST the ego, it has already won! The ego feeds on conflict. Eddie march 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm In response to Perra J. You speak of the ego as if it is a ‘thing’ in some sort of battle with an other – an adversary. Is that what you intended? Also, you write about what ‘True Awakening’ is. Does that mean you consider yourself to actually be Awakened? If yes, then all blessings to you. If no, then how would you know what it is? ChuckO march 14, 2011 at 1:28 am Hi Brian, Thanks – glad you enjoyed the post. And thanks for your very well-written, thoughtful, stimulating (and entertaining) posts, and for your work in providing us with this forum. Re: “Dharma-Slinger” – I like it! (“You dualists best be out of town by sundown…or not. Shucks howdy, t’werent’t nothin, Maya’am… ” :^). One last irresistible quote: “If you don’t have a sense of humor – It just isn’t funny.” -Wavy Gravy Kind regards, -Chuck O. Perra J march 11, 2011 at 5:25 am We do not have free will. Period. But this is the consequence of a choice. We can alter this state. We once chose not to be responsible for our lives, that “others” some way are responsible. We thereby fell from our true Identity, down into this hell of duality, where we still must have some sort of identity – that’s the ego. That’s the false self. The ego must always define itself on outer concepts, on objects, on thought. The ego was born in the duality consciousness, and it has a survival instinct. And this instinct is strong and clever. Very clever. Hence, the ego must keep all this reasoning about awakening outside itself, and try to convince the Spirit within us (who wants to awaken), that the ego can fix also this, that the ego can do the awakening for us! It accomplishes that by keeping our attention fixed on concepts, ideas, words and thoughts – everything within the duality consciousness. The ego does not want to be looked at, while maintaining ITS OWN VERSION of the awakening, which of course is a false awakening – a spiritually incorrrect awakening. It’s interesting to discuss this subject, but we must be aware that we are just feeding the ego. Every statement in words, every thought – no matter how interesting – is a degradation and a perversion of true awakening. Because True Awakening – which shines through as glimpes of the true reality from which we fell – deals with a higher frequency range than we are at right now, where the duality consciousness reigns. And the ego must survive by “downcasting” these higher-vibrational glimpses to a level it can fathom. I have read all MacKenna books, and they are fantastic. What I have grasped is that it’s all about Identity. We have in the western world a lousy understanding of what identity really is. We are brainwashed by mainstream religion and materialistic science, and we tend to handle the awakening as any other “project” that can be solved by objectifying, conceptualizing, defining – and (endless) discussion… jedmckenna march 9, 2011 at 11:11 am Well done, Chuck. I thoroughly enjoyed your post. Very humorous, nuanced and well reasoned. And thanks for the Nissargadatta quote. You sling the dharma as good as anyone! Ha,Ha! Stay in touch, Brian ChuckO march 9, 2011 at 5:46 am Hi Stardustpilgrim, You hit the nail on the head, re: the “effort” to become enlightened or “realized”, if there is no such thing as individual “free will”, as usually concieved. It seems to me that the difficulty in the struggle for enlightenment revolves around a general reluctance to provide a useable/useful definition of enlightenment or realization. No doubt, there are many reasons for this, some insidious, some benign. But if you can’t say what it is, you’re unlikely to recognize it when it’s “happened” (lacking the tell-tale signs of levitation, water-walking, astral travel, etc. :^), and be able to move on. I would maintain that it’s more constructive to define it in a way that makes it less of a big deal – possihbly even a “fait accompli”, so that one can get past it, put it aside, and focus energy on lovingkindness, compassion, joy, good cappucinos, digging up enjoyable quotes to post in forums, or – to bring Jed back into the mix – playing Tomb Raider or skydiving. Enlightenment is everything, and nothing. But as long as it’s seen as a goal to be achieved, we can fritter away our lives looking for it, rather than focusing on what matters (see: Tomb Raider, cappucinos, et al). So I would submit: Enlightenment is when the body/mind *fully* realizes the implications of the fact that all realizations (including and especially the realization of enlightenment) occur *only* in the body/mind, which is conditioned, contingent, ownerless, without “free will”, and so a part of the passing show. Pass the popcorn. To be clear – the above is in no way an attempt to (even obliquely and cleverly, one hopes) claim privileged status. On the contrary, its intent is to say that I’ve found it useful to define “realization” so as to get past it – and anyone can do the same. In some ways, it would be a valid criticism to say this equates to the critiques of some theories of consciousness, that they are actually “explaining away consciousness” by (correctly, in my view) positing consciousness as purely physical phenomena in the brain. I also think that Brian’s introductory comment re: the difficulty of keeping two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time applies. Not as much fun or romantic as metaphysical speculation of non-corporeal “souls” or the internal fireworks show of Cosmic Consciousness (which can take place nowhere other than the body/mind). But if it lets you move on and work on lovingkindness, equanimity, Tomb Raider, and nice cappuccinos – with the full realization that they too, are equally part of the passing show – then it ain’t all bad. Kind regards, -Chuck O. ChuckO march 9, 2011 at 3:11 am Hi Brian, Thank you for your insightful comments. Re: “enough blap” – if it weren’t for recreational blapping, we’d all need to go bowling instead – and I’m not very good at bowling. Or another quote I enjoy, source (alas) not remembered – “There is no bondage or freedom. There is nothing to be attained. There is only the pleasure of expounding”. The obvious problem with all ism’s (incl. Buddhism) is that an ism, by definition, presents doctrine, which always begs to be taken issue with. And who knows what the historical Buddha actually said? A saving grace, at least for classical Buddhism, is that the alleged instructions to “test and verify for yourself, and accept no doctrine, no matter how esteemed the source” appear to be relatively reliable attributed doctrine, if for no other reason than it’s counter-intuitive to make an anti-doctrine proviso central to your doctrine. In that light, and specific to this discussion of “Free Will”, I thought the quote from Walpola Rahula might be useful – but not because it presents official Buddhist doctrine. The concept of anatta, or “not-self” which is central to Buddhism, is interpreted differently by different Buddhist scholars, some of whom interpret “not-self” as “non-self”, many of whom do not. But rather, it was presented because I thought Rahula verbalized extremely well what is, critically, confirmable via direct experience. While truth may be confirmable by all, we don’t all possess the same ability to communicate that truth, thus the pleasure and utility of finding others who have skillfully expressed that confirmable truth – not as doctrine to be accepted, but as a skillful communication of understanding. Brian, if I correctly understand your posting, the debate between not-self and non-self would seem to be central. And I believe I agree with you – clearly seeing the non-existence of a non-contingent, non-conditional self, and thus of the commonly accepted definition of “Free Will” that necessitates a non-contigent self, does not int turn necessitate that a universal intelligence is not at work (here I can’t help but insert a reference to Vonnegut’s ‘Sirens of Titan’ – sorry :^). Or, to make what is hopefully skillful and appropriate use of quotes form 2 other folks who’ve said it much better than I: “We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing. And being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” Kalu Rinpoche “Love says ‘I am everything’. Wisdom says ‘I am nothing’. Between these two my life flows.” – Nisargadatta Maharaj But again – taking pleasure from quoting scholars or practitioners who have expressed confirmable reality in a skillful manner, is not a substitute for direct experience and verification. No matter how much fun to expound and quote, it is only the direct realization, the seeing, that matters (or ultimately, doesn’t :^). And understanding the nature or nonexistence of “individual”, unconditioned Free Will, whichever side of the coin you come out on, is certainly central to that seeing. Fwiw, another reason to resort to well-phrased quotes from scholars or acknowledged “realized” figures, is that the alternative is to “blap” unrestrainedly, with the risk of joining the game and implying (obliquely or otherwise – see above clever “ultimately, doesn’t” remark) that there’s a secret, and that there’s a “you” who’s in on it. Fortunately, it’s possible to keep some perspective, by remembering that what is seen is simply what is seen, and also remembering another wonderful quote by a “realized: authority: “We’re all Bozos on this Bus” – Firesign Theatre Enough of *my* blapping. Kind regards, -Chuck O. stardustpilgrim march 8, 2011 at 11:32 am In reply to ChuckO …….. I’m going to have to agree with Brian. If the whole of our being is completely conditioned, and not free, then what is our hope of enlightenment? We wait and hope? The question is, can our conditioned self do anything to bring about enlightenment? No. But that does not mean nothing can be done. (And this is why I like Jed’s approach rather than a lot of non-duality teachers). sdp jedmckenna march 8, 2011 at 8:04 am Thanks Chucko for contributing that quote. Would you mind if I presumed to take issue with it though? At least for “the sake of argument”. It can be said that the problem with a Phenomenolgical POV such as Buddhism or Jed is that it confines consideration to a critique of all phenomena. But it ignores Source or Unmanifest Self (unlike Advaita) (or traditional Emanationist) formulations. I can argue back at this Buddhist source, that its premise is not proven (at least to me). The premise that = If the whole of existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? does not ring true to me. It seems, if not dualistic, then at least separative and incomplete. It argues that the Uncreated Unconditional is not a component of ‘Existence’ and also that it doesn’t have what can reasonably be labeled as “will”. If we/I am an expression of a unified field of conscious-radiance, then, if I seem to have will, or free will, and if it is not my ego’s possession, then it may well be coming from ‘outside’ my perspective. So if it exists beyond conditional existence, and because it is not sourced within my limited ego frame- it may well be free. I respect the great traditional sources but I prefer not bow to them automatically and without testing and challenging them, even if I have to supplement my own experience and perspective with opposing and contrary traditional sources. Anyway, enough blap from me for one day! Cheers, Brian ChuckO march 6, 2011 at 1:48 am In reading some of the “classic” Theravadin Buddhist books, I recently read Walpola Rahula’s “What the Buddha Taught”, first published in 1959. I was delighted to find that, in regard to Free Will, his presentation of “Classic” Buddhist philosophy agreed with what I (and many others, including Jed, if I correctly understand his writings ) had discovered to be the verifiable and simply, quite clearly visible case. Fwiw – it’s always nice to feel that one is travelling in well-established company… :^) The below short excerpt is from that book, and is also freely available online at http://buddhasociety.com/online-books/what-buddha-taught-walpola-rahula-9-7. Kind Regards, -ChuckO “The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned Genesis, this question does not and cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? Will which is included in the fourth Aggregate (samkhārakkhandha), like any other thought, is conditioned (paticca-samuppanna). So-called ‘freedom’ itself in this world is not absolutely free. That too is conditioned and relative. There is, of course, such a conditioned and relative ‘Free Will’, but not unconditioned and absolute. There can be nothing absolutely free in this world, physical or mental, as everything is conditioned and relative. If Free Will implies a will independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect, such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole of life, the whole of existence, is conditioned and relative? Here again, the idea of Free Will is basically connected with the ideas of God, Soul, justice, reward and punishment. Not only so-called free will is not free, but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from conditions.” stardustpilgrim february 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm I chanced upon Jed’s first book a few years ago in a B & N. Loved it, couldn’t wait for the next one to come out, and then the next. Jed makes more sense than most traditional non-dualism teachers. I’ve been on the spiritual path for over 40 years. Why don’t we have free will? We are born living through our true essential nature, but immediately we begin forming our cultural self which is variously called our ego, personality or false self. This conditioned self is composed of layers and layers of information in our neural network in the brain. At still a rather young age, usually about 6-7, all the information the senses take in ceases to reach our essential self, and falls on our neural network, our false self. So, false self becomes a prison we live in. Is a prisoner really free? Can a prisoner have free will? No. The first thing we must realize is that we actually are in prison. Most anybody that has made their way to this blog has had this realization at least to a certain extent. Most of the ordinary population never come to realize that they are not free, that the self they believe themselves to be is really a prison. This state is called sleep. We are the lucky ones. We’re trying to wake up to who we really are. So, how do we escape the prison? The prison is our actual neural network, our conditioning, our cultural self. We have to take the energy out of the structure of self, we have to quit feeding self. Our cultural self is driven by ordinary life, the energy of ordinary life. We are pushed and pulled here and there and led around like a bull with a ring in its nose. Our awareness and attention are continually captured by life. So how do we end the nightmare and wake up? We begin living through our awareness instead of having it continually captured by ordinary life. This is actually not so easy to do. I think Jed called this becoming a mature adult. And then maybe some day we find out what it’s like to be free, but this can’t really be explained or described, cannot be put into words……but imagine laying down a great weight you have been carrying…….as analogy… Essentially, you have too see who you are to take the energy out of self and escape the prison. Autolysis is a great aid in this. The only real cure is to dissolve the prison bars. This can be quite a struggle and quite painful, as our pesky neural network doesn’t wish to cease to be. We have to realize we are awareness. Even so, it still takes some time for ego to quit being so troublesome, like a car out of gas still rolling down a hill……. stardustpilgrim Kaushik february 12, 2011 at 7:52 am You do not exist. The you that you think you are is an idea–the idea comes about because the brain looks for cause-and-effect, and since there is life, the mind believes there must be a “liver.” It’s not as if you existed and someone came by and gave you a body and a mind and awareness and life and said, here now go live your life. You never existed. There is just life, there is a body, there is a mind. Since you (the dreamer) does not exist, there can be no free will for the dreamer. Nevertheless, you can get through to the dreamer to examine this paradox. The dreamer is only a thought, but awareness can examine this and realize no-self. jedmckenna january 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm Jed doesn’t run this blog so your question can’t be answered by me. I think it might have something to do with autolysis though. Brian Nobody january 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm Thank you for the books. But then what ? jedmckenna december 24, 2010 at 8:19 am Dear OP Thanks, I respect your sincerity and honesty and courage. I admire such qualities, for what it’s worth. Brian Ordinary Person december 23, 2010 at 11:59 pm Read your essay on fundamentalism Brian. Enjoyed it too. Ahh… but… I am ‘this and that’ regardless of whether its deemed enlightened or not. I am all those things and all the things I didnt want to associated myself with. Hence the shadows came out of ‘hidden’ spaces and like zombies began to live in my world. So… I reclaim my parts, warts and all to become ‘human’ again. Life on the apex is not enjoyable, is not comfortable and isolating and cold. I think perhaps a part of me doesnt want others to suffer the inevitable defeat. So I say, go back to reality because in the end – thats ALL there is. Free will as well. Pano december 23, 2010 at 9:43 am Yes, once I kick the kicking as well, I might as well shut up and do it… I thought we were having fun ignoring mortality, making vain false statements about everything, always inserting an :I: as if that means something and generally thinking… You are right, unless I kick it all nothing is happening.. Tough to kill the Buddha when my mind is still playing around with toughness as being a reality. Where am I, Who am I, and what the hell is going on… 🙂 Free will, heck I am trying to figure out how to think and act with any consistency that will create desired results while still looking at the possibility that the whole thing is a lie. I am still locked in this shit hole.. But I used to think it was nice, lately it looks like a barrel with no end… And its my barrel… jedmckenna december 22, 2010 at 3:58 pm Dear OP In my life I have found that it is a big mistake to think I know what others are up, or even thinking. I suggest calming down, perhaps taking deep breath or two. And may I also recommend an article that describes the inner workings of the Fundamentalist? (https://jedmckenna.wordpress.com/non-dualist-fundamentalism/ ) Brian Ordinary person december 22, 2010 at 6:30 am You think because you read these things, because you contemplate these things that you are becoming or (even more delusional) ‘are’ enlightened… not until you kick this shit out of your house you aren’t. Pano november 19, 2010 at 2:48 pm Reflections. Remember that in the dreamstate we are reflecting at the level of belief constantly. Layers is the key to free will, and most of us get tangled up in miss-interpreting reality, more so that is the function of beliefs. All meaning changes depending on the layer you are experiencing it from. The surprise I guess for all of us was that we realized (conceptually) that we do not really exist and upon logical consideration it seems to make sense. The only answer to the question of free will is questioning the question itself. Who is asking, to whom is this thought referring (Sri Rammana), with the obvious answer being me. At our level of interpretation free will seemed like a valid question, but be aware that you are playing a mouse and cat game. we are always late to the party since we think as means of giving meaning to the experience. Conscious thought seems to be structured after belief, and control becomes a layer issue. Remember we need not become whole but only shed that which makes us other than Not-two. As for various contributors of this blog going through the difficulty of no identification of the dreamstate and the various fears that we may experience through that (losing spouses, losing joy etc) remember that its a balancing act, and there are two aspects to all concepts. We starve the ego of the ability to succeed with meaninglessness and then we must surrender to the effects of that belief to balance it out. In reality our suffering derives from still being attached even though we begin to realize the pointlessness of our attachment. Keep in mind that this is a natural process and as such all struggle is but resistance. We are not dealing with reality at this point only with our belief of it. To balance out the fear and burn off the attachments, reaction does not work. Fear is the translation of that reaction at the layer of emotion. It is not an application of giving up at the level of action or logic, it is an emotional acceptance (surrender) and occurs before/after thought. This translates as appreciation for the very dreamstate we are in and allows us to balance the loss of unreal desire (fear posed as want). What is actually occurring with this fear, seems to be the burning of the inherited belief system from our parents-care givers. Rather then dwelling on that feeling, letting go of the tiller seems to even that out and allow an easy flow. To end with free will, free yourself from it. To free ourselves from freedom, how perfect is that? Slayer october 3, 2010 at 1:16 pm Nicely put Jane. Not that my ‘saying so’ is of any worth or difference. Perhaps one could say you’ve positively touched ‘my experience’, a reprieve. Jane september 28, 2010 at 5:51 pm Quite a while ago I had an experience of what is called `discontinuity in consciousness` in quantum theory. In this `gap` I saw how my process works and I knew I was seemingly trapped in a `thoughtform` a kind of mental box, a limiting factor which seemingly protected me, but while it protected me from seeing the `truth` of myself, or the lies I told myself of myself it also held me captive in a mental box of my own making. I knew I wasn`t who I thought I was, I also saw I was always becoming and had never `Been`. It was at that moment that I saw my ego was purely a thought construct and realised I had now coming into `Being`. From that moment I started to return home to myself as the dream, or you might say illusion, or spell had broken. This` what seems like a coming home to myself ` has appeared to be costly at times, but to me it is worth everything. Nobody july 30, 2010 at 11:50 pm The mind is a computer programed by the senses via time to carry out the objective of the mechanical body to reproduce and survive. All the information gathered by the senses is recorded,then it is sorted per the pleasure/pain principal,then conclusion are made and these conclusions are identified with and become beliefs.We become identified with the content of thought. All knowledge is partial and in the past,all memories are fragmented. All this is being translated by a voice in the mind that is identified as “I”.It doesn’t take a whole lot of self observation to determine the truth of this,but most will not want to look.People want to modify this process to become something,even “who they really are”, but the identification stays the same. A computer has no free will,it just follows the program. When you see the process of this as a reality the identification is broken,the translator of sense gathered data is no longer “I”. Then the energy that animates the computer mind and biological machine body is all that is left,all that is real.I haven’t read Jed yet,but I did awake from the dream three years ago and am sure Jed would agree with this. Slayer april 30, 2010 at 4:13 am It’s not a way of being. It is not easy or hard. There is no such thing as courage. There is no Home. There is no mind, perhaps a perspective, until that is lost too. If you’re still reading/typing then may I suggest… ‘further’… ankhaton april 19, 2010 at 12:56 am I send you this -although you are not placing-, peu importe, because the whole was as a comment on your opinions which were translated in french ___________________________ankh – – – In the middle of a dispute in french on a french blog “Perles de Bonheur” on ND I wrote an answer saying that present interpretation of Ramanas words were corrupting and equal to the Angel Lucifer’s pov and that that one had more Beauty and Divine IQ than we have -a little of the same as we discuss here, -hence reason to carbon : and thinking : Now they will throw me out of that Blog too the following happened and I wrote it to that group as follow in english : 18 avril 2010 11:17 AnkhAton a dit… Seconds after the above words, here in the corridor , I passed an ancien book cabinet and there fell a little booklet out of it with no visuable reason. The title is: FORTY VERSUS by RAMANA MAHARSHI and I thought flabbergasted and grateful: This is a message So I thought to do what some people do with the Bible and just open in the book in the middle. The text on Page 25 text 21 is : The scriptures declare that seeing the Self is seeing God. Being Single, how can one see one’s own Self? If Oneself cannot be seen, how can God be? To be absorbed by God is to see Him. The traduction in English by ULlADDU NARPAADU S. Cohen Edition : Watkins London isfrom 1978 If ULLADU only knew this -what happened- ankh Anonymous april 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm Over some years now , the Lucifer Standpoint grews in popularity. Youtube is full of ‘teachers’; some with an impressive PR apparatus like tony moo, explaining Ramana’s Advaita but without Karma, Transmigration and the need to be a vegetarian. Quite the opposite , the blood dropping from the spiritual mouthes. But Jac, Rupert, Laya and perhaps Lucille and GangaJi , . . they are veggies ; no idea about JM. Bless them. This ND is coming from people who are not able to spend their next vacation on the Sun ( the star ) with their family. And the Sun is a snowflock in the creation, . . that is in the minuscule part of creation visible at this side of the Chakras. At the other site of any chakra this whole big bang is completely neglectable. Anybody can see that after piercing a chakra tunnel just with interest. I mean : on a need to know basis. Now these people have discovered that lots of people are highly pleased by entering a temporal state of semi hypno, imagining they are and always were The Great Almighty Creator and that nothing of what they thought as negative will count after you have this realization, . . and there are no consequences. To apply this hypno , which every priest, rebbe and mullah learns at school is a real piece of cake, specially at the willing, . . you can also and easily let them eat onions and peppers. Also they talk about God as if Silent, Empty, Placeless, Timeless ( there I can see some value ) and next year they will add loveless, compassionateless, emphatyless but for the tme being they say not that (they just demonstrate that) as do as if God is in the coffee shop around the corner selling weed. Books, CDs are there Mantras are free, – who knows what’s in the tea ! If it was not dangerous, I would neglect. But after hearing the above declaratoins one morning, . . an hour later I heard on TV a likewise declaration from the war archives spoken by Ober Reichs Fuehrer Goering , saying : “You will have no single responsability when killing jewish babies because they are future full grown Jews and you all know what those did to the Ggerman people” and suddenly I saw the parallel. Yet you start diminshing the ‘Conscience’ of people whatever level that is in them, you open all possibilities and knowing this planet it will be mostly evil. Then those teachers at the same time give the exemple of Torturing Killing and eating their victims themselves and you start thinking : this comes straight from the devil. Ever since -and I am an old man- I use my last years for battling against this standpoint that brought the ex Angel Lucifer not much luck Since I started to react, now I am block at 80% of those Groups Blogs and Channels. Specially those from the meat industry promotors. Ankhaton ( op YouTube – see my song Jesus & Obama Blues)) ChuckO march 11, 2010 at 10:12 pm The human brain is the most amazing, damn-near infinitely complex, astounding, (insert your superlative here) thing in the known universe. Any “choice” that is made by my particular mind-body complex will largely be informed by the relative strengths of the neuronal connections in my brain, in all of their incomprehensible (did I mention damn-near infinite?) complexity. I say largely, because any “choice” may also be informed by more immediate external circumstances, such as the gentleman pointing the gun at me demanding my money. But even then, it’s my brain, bathed in a hormone soup provided by the other bodily organs (such as the adrenals working overtime) that will choose to surrender the wallet, or not – and whether or not I do so before – or after – I wet myself. If the linguistic term “Free will” is used to indicate that this brain-body complex gets to make that “choice” based on its lifetime of memories, experiences, fears, personality tendencies, intelligence, how well it slept the night before, and its ability to understand what a gun is – that its ultimate decision was not pre-written in the secret “Big Book O’Chuck” (if only I could find my way to Borges’ library & read it) – then the linguistic term “Free will” has just been defined in such a way that it is valid. On the other hand – if there is realization that all aspects of this particular body/mind are the result of circumstances having nothing to do with a “choice” of “mine” – that my parents chose (based on their individual neuronal connections and circumstances) to contribute some genetic material that bequeathed to me some mental/emotional/physical tendencies, that my brain next incorporated input from the environment that I happened to be born into and surrounded by, that the very *first* time I made a “conscious choice” (left or right breast?), that choice was a result of those neuronal connections arising from those genetic tendencies and external influences, and that every single neuronal connection that was strengthened from that moment forward was based on the results of that and every following “choice” made in life, each of those choices, in turn, made based on the relative strengths of the neurons that were already connected – or, for Bhagavad Gita fans, “it’s the gunas messin’ with the gunas” – then the question of “Free Will” is seen for what it is: A category mistake. I’m not knocking this brain, this mind/body – it’s (have I mentioned?) amazing, wonderful, fantastic, capable of providing hours, days, weeks – in fact, literally a lifetime of entertainment. Add interaction out in the world with *other* body/mind complexes to the mix, and you’re guaranteed a real rip-snorter. But it is also *undeniably* a mechanical/chemical phenomenon determined by a literally endless chain of prior circumstance – as are a rock, a tree, a mountain, a planet, galaxy, etc. To ask if a particular instance of meat puppet has “free will” is akin to asking if a rock likes the color “blue” (with sincerest apologies to all blue-loving rocks). Kind regards, -ChuckO san january 30, 2010 at 4:44 pm EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OBSERVER – ONLY WHEN ONE CAN TRULY SEE THAT ALL IS PERFECT, ALWAYS HAS BEEN,ALWAYS WILL BE AND BE GRATEFUL FOR ALL THE BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS THAT LED THEM TO BE WILLING TO DIE FOR THE TRUE TRUTH AND THEN PUT IT INTO PRACTICE IN THEIR EVERYDAY ORDINARY LIFE – MOMENT TO MOMENT-FOREVER, WILL ONE BE TRULY FREE. I NOW SEE THAT NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT AND NOTHING NEEDS TO STAY THE SAME. AND THAT THINGS DON’T HAPPEN TO US (THERE ARE NO VICTIMS), THEY HAPPEN FOR US, BY US – TO LEAD US OUT OF HELL (DUALITY) – TO WAKE US UP TO IT – TO WHO WE ALL REALLY ARE AND WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. I LOVE IT, I LOVE IT, I LOVE IT – ALL OF IT. I NOW SEE THAT YOU CAN’T DO IT WRONG AND IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME. THE UNIVERSE IS TOTALLY BENEVOLENT. AND WHEN YOU ONCE BEGIN TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT ARISES WITHIN YOU OR OUTSIDE YOU AS PERFECT – OH HOW SWEET IT IS – AND JUST WHEN YOU BEGIN TO THINK – “IT CAN’T GET ANY SWEETER THAN THIS” – IT HAS TO; THAT’ JUST THE WAY OF IT. yOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN YET. AND YES IT’S A WHOLE NEW WAY OF BEING, IT IS VERY UNFAMILIAR AND UNCOMFORTABLE FOR AWHILE. BUT IT GETS EASIER AS YOU LIVE IT, AND NEVER DOUBT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME. SEE FOR YOURSELF – IT’S UP TO YOU – IT TAKES COURAGE TO LEAVE EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE YOU HAVE EVER KNOWN AND LOVED AND RETURN HOME TO YOURSELF — ACTUALLY YOU’RE NOT LEAVING OR ARRIVING ANYWHERE – IT’S ALL A MATTER OF MIND – A SHIFT IN PERSPECTIVE. AND IT’ WORTH EVERYTHING – AND THAT’S WHAT IT COST’S. HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YET? YOU DECIDE – THERE’S NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER – REMEMBER YOU CAN’T DO IT WRONG. joe january 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm The thing is, this caterpillar prefers to see oneself and the likes of other Caterpillars tending to the suffering of, among legion others, Somali and Haitian babies left in the grass. This preference overwhelms my concurrent caterpillar interests in reading the ruminations and manifestos of imaginary writers sipping Sangria and wondering how the Universe prefers this hacienda versus that one. Is there a genre of books called “spiritual fiction”? JM’s trilogy should be put there, along with the Celestine Prophecy, Castenada’s stuff, the Bible, etc. Great stuff! I read and will reread again all three. Food for thought, not for starving babies. For a look at how a caterpillar can invest their energy and demonstrate purity of intent, read Mountains Beyond Mountains. Paul Farmer makes Jed Mckenna look like a wasted thought. Perra J january 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm We have free will to choose not to have free will. It is, then, at the level of identity. And what you ARE, you defend. In that chosen identity (which of course may be the false self), we are convinced that we are free – and then we are able to look at a greater freedom with suspicion and fear. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a number of people tried to build up the wall again, with cement and stones. The incest children of Austrian Josef Frietzl, after being born in, and living their whole lives imprisoned in a dark cellar with absolutely not one moment of realizing the existence of a world out there (and a greater freedom), went crazy when they were liberated. Confronted with freedom, we often close ourselves in again, in our familiar cells, feeling threatened. That’s the false identity, feeling its survival is at stake. I think we are all like these people, more or less. We have to see one thing: We have free will to BE an identity. And that identity has its own definition of what freedom is. But in our society, we often see it just as free will to DO! “Doing” is a business very much restricted by dualistic barriers – “because of this or that I must do what I do”… etc. We overlook the Identity, we see it as just some concept, and continue with our doings. We create our own idea of freedom and we defend it, we cling to it. But that’s not real freedom, it’s an illusory freedom. We ARE Spiritual beings. Jed McKenna does not develop that realization so much. I mean the existence of a higher dimension, an “other side”, a spiritual realm where we can choose what life we want to live here. The non-dual realm. The Absolute. I read McKenna’s first two books (Damnedest and Incorrect) after first reading Eckhart Tolle’s books and Conversations with God, by Neale D. Walsch. And I heard many Adyashanti satsangs. I think it’s necessary to see that not one teacher gives a complete picture. The existential question of the Somalian baby being consumed by ants in the grass has no explanation in a limited sense of freedom. We must just leave that question for now, and increase or freedom instead. Then the suffering becomes easier. I believe suffering is a consequence of our chosen identity and the resistance to make after that choice. We are not bodies. We are spiritual beings. The ego always must have 100% control. As such, it always thinks it sees the world as it is, and that there is nothing that it can’t understand. We must crash our mental boxes. I wrote reviews on Damnedest and Incorrect at Shvoong, read them (and criticize) if you like: http://www.shvoong.com/books/self-improvement/1963103-spiritual-enlightenment-damnedest-thing/ http://www.shvoong.com/books/self-improvement/1963734-spiritually-incorrect-enlightenment/ Steve january 14, 2010 at 5:01 am I think we’re all skirting around Jed’s point here. Step back from his comments on free will itself for a moment. Probably the single most important thing Jed talks about (If we can, for a moment, pretense at all) is purity of intent. Now, lets go back to Damnedest, where Jed comments something like “The question isn’t if we have free will or not, but if we have any will at all.” What he seems to be saying is we can’t do “anything” as free will would imply. What we can do is more like nudging things. I’d agree with that view of will. Our wills are constrained by, at minimum, the various circumstances of our physical existence including physical laws, life events, culture, etc. We repeat what is familiar over and over again. It is very difficult to constantly do completely new things. The other point he makes is we can’t really know if god/universe/source/puppy is doing everything for us or if we actually have control. Jed also cuts the validity of the paradox by releasing the tiller. As someone (heh) whose actively releasing/released the tiller I’ve come to the conclusion there isn’t much point in the distinction. RAMADU january 9, 2010 at 10:19 am Gee guys what a car load of words above? You will not grasp a fallen leave in autum with such bullshit. But then again our attachment to bullshit is a serious thing. So by all means continue. My questions are, why say it is all bulllshit when in fact jm has found his path/destiny? Why when you have overcome the dreammind you say that all is nothing to us who cannot perceive your non duality even as we try here? Why be angry at the ‘spiritual teachers’ around the planet for knowing they are a lie, and not saying it? When JM is doing exactly the same. Only he is not charging us $$ to come and see him on a white piece of cloth. But from my point of view the discussion is the same difference. When are we (dualistics) going to learn to read precisely what is written. There is no way to enlightment but once hit by the magic wand, all is bullshit. The attrocities of the second world war and the peacefull cry of a baby on a upperclass american porch somewhere, are all the same difference. Others like Neil Donal Walsh say so. And he is certainly nowhere close to enlightment. I am human and know the need to wake up because my past tells me so. The heavy load is becoming unbearable and there is no way out so there must be a way under. Under the cloack of ignorance. I am so bored with the atrocitties of humankind that i have no need to believe in anything other than there is something wrong with my realtity. Poverty vs the lot who have enough, is a good motivation to feel the need for enlightment. “And if you die trying, so what the fuck?” (JM) It’s the effort that counts. I now know why enlightment is hard to understand in our dreamhell and that’s because ‘they’ do not want hell to follow the human into other worlds. So to cut all the bullshit, enlightment is only for the enlighted! It’s all clear to me. But if any enlightend being is following this crap and feels the need to help me i am open and ready for death. Greetz, Ruth Wim Hein, Netherlands january 2, 2010 at 6:53 pm Jed McKenna exists only when there is a reader. No one wrote the books and no one is reading them. When this is clear to no one the Truth is there… That’s it… Wim Hein Bubu december 26, 2009 at 6:44 am Am I free? Yes, absolutely free. Am I separate? No, I am one with all. All is one freedom. JC october 1, 2009 at 9:41 pm This is a fun topic and discussion to follow. Free will is a concept, and like at all concepts, serves to seperate/differentiate. If truth is the absence of seperation, then all concepts, as Jed and so many others have pointed out, is just another finger pointing at the moon. Free will, pre-determination, both, neither,..all concepts, all untrue. I would agree that Jed’s books have a lot of paradoxes and contradictions, but like in some of his references (Whitman, i.e.), it’s readily admitted with not an ounce of regret. “Confused/Not Confused” said it well, there is no enlightened Jed McKenna, and no Jed McKenna to have free will or not. That seems to be the point of the whole trilogy, if there is a point at all. simon september 28, 2009 at 8:51 am half-truths? paradoxes? worth? perceiving his own thought-stream, the talker didn’t notice the treasure, and so never learned to walk. further autolysis. burn the blogger. adieu. jedmckenna september 27, 2009 at 11:38 am Ah Simon, but I’ve never seen a truth worth sneezing at that was more than one half of a paradox! Cheers! Brian simon september 27, 2009 at 8:04 am ‘free will’ requires that the space-time mind be real. it needs location; it needs the stream-dweller to cling to the bank. demonstrating truth, lisa kills her results-driven inner teacher, finds the diamond, and hits the road, floating down the oblique highway of no-self/I alone am. she notices an egg on the passenger seat. click. cue a rush of air and flailing pages. crack. it’s the damnedest thing. never a now (a static word). never an is (a static word). never a will (a static word). only a big fat ‘i don’t know nuthin!’, and a raucous ‘and i don’t f’in care!!!’ cue agape 🙂 free will? don’t be daft. my dog chases its tail. i throw a ball, but woofer’s picked up a scent. to our author, thankyou!!! a million times thankyou 🙂 Prabha Calderon august 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm A comment on the so called free will… Who could say that they are at the origin of their own conception? Who could say that they are at the origin of the existence of their children? Who could say that the breathing is their willful activity? Not even the words are our choice. Words are but sounds coming from the repetitive mechanisms of everyone around us. Not different from a computer, these sounds are passed on to us, by the selective mechanisms of survival, from generation to generation. This selectivity is put there by our society together with the ‘mean meanings’ and values added to the sounds; all of that with the intention of a better survival. So if every intention and action is survival based, is there something as free will? How could an action be free from this selectivity if we are but incessantly trying to survive? We can’t experience anything except our own interpretations and evaluations given by our memory; memory which in fact was given by others about their ‘perceived world’, which requires a ‘perceiver’, fixed on the past… The impossible thing for ‘a believer’ is to perceive something, because there is not ‘perceiver’ without ‘the perceived’ thing which is just a limited image, which is memory. Conditioned by this selective mechanism of a perceiver trickily perceiving its own images, (which is just another survival mechanism), how could we talk of free will or free activity? To whom the thoughts seam to arise? To whom they seam to subside? If there is no other but this selective activity isn’t the ‘I-thought’ just a selective activity in itself based on memory? How can memory be free from past intention or ‘have’ free will? Light is happening indifferently from ‘the viewer’ or ‘observer’ and/or ‘the interpreter’ of it. Perception is happening indifferently from ‘the perceiver-interpreter’ of it. The viewer, observer, perceiver and interpreter are condemned to mean or find meaning or intention to their apparent actions, because they need to believe in their survival… for ever after. Since that is the case, free will is just an illusion of memory happening to the desperate separate ‘I’ needing to find sense or meaning to his life in order to survive! – HELP!!!!How can ‘I’ survive better? How could ‘I’ avoid the void? Free will is in fact the intention to avoid the void… Therefore there is not free will in such an intention. It is just a pattern. jedmckenna august 5, 2009 at 9:38 pm Yes, but what fun we are having!!! Confused/Not Confused august 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm These discussions are pointless stories in dreamland. Jed McKenna is no more enlightened than a rock or a dog or my grandma or anyone/anything that can be imagined. You are not even reading this, and yet there appears to be a you reading this. Amazing! Enough said…to no one at all. Debbie Pouw july 23, 2009 at 5:44 am Hello, I am reading the book spiritual incorrect lightment. I am dutch so my english is not always perfect, but I hope you understand. Yesterday I begin to read this book and I don’t like it but I ask to myself what is this? And when I woke up this morning my higher self gif me the answer. I reconnize this energy. It is put on earth to make beliefe every person in its self. To come to the center of his/ her hart. The character of Jed Mckenna is given to wake up a person. He is a catalysator. I have been in this energy for 3 years, I was part of a group to heal the world, with a great ego energy. But it was good!!! I must feel this and make my one discission to leave them. After that I can open my hart to receive LOVE. So Jed Mckenna is a patron to shock people and his energy is also from GOD. Because it is part of us. And what is good and wrong? I hope that the writer is not the same person as in his books. Because his act is not easy. He is always without connection to the people he met. I have write my experience of the energy of this book. I have try to understand the mail above but its to complex for me to understand them. Why I read this book??? Because the great question is what is real enlightment. Everyone is searching for the truth. I believe everything is in your own hart to explore that. And connection is for me personal a sign that it is real. Now I understand this book with my hart. And I read it because it gives me a message. Greetings from Holland, Debbie Pouw. jedmckenna july 8, 2009 at 1:14 am Agreed, absolutely relative! Mark july 7, 2009 at 10:26 pm Freewill is still dualistic thought Anonymous may 21, 2009 at 6:17 am Now I know what Jed meant when he referred to caterpillars expounding on what it means to be a buterfly. This is all ass-talking in the dream state. jedmckenna april 17, 2009 at 10:50 pm Thanks Joe for your comments. You had me laughing with a couple of your lines, such as, “but in the grand scheme of things how does a concept like prefer get attached to a Universe?” You can write! For some reason, I myself don’t struggle with that paradox/contradiction that is bugging you there. Partly it is my familiarity and acceptance of a relatively occult understanding (belief!) about why stuff happens to people, (they choose to experience it for their own karmic eduction/re balancing), and partly because, as you correctly point out, there be paradox lurking in this matter. (I hope that that doesn’t make me (and the universe) appear to be “a sadistic racist” as you so beautifully put it. To my mind, Jed is indeed dancing on the edge of this paradox: Free of identification with his own body-mind within the dream of Maya, and therefore available to play with ‘it’ in whatever manner he chooses (pleasure over pain etc). Are you familiar with the Hindu cosmology as far as the Shiva-Shakti aspect is concerned? In this model, the totality of Reality has two distinct dimensions. In it, Shiva is the masculine principle of never born- never changing- can’t die Consciousness. Shakti is the emanation or Radiance side of the coin which is always flowing-always creating, always birthing- always transforming and always destroying. Energy. In my understanding of this view of Reality, it is but a partial realiazation (what my ex teacher Adi Da used to call a “6th Stage” realization) to be divorced from Shakti and identified with only the masculine, unmoving, unborn aspect of divinity. It is an expression of the full “7th Stage” realization to be free to play in the “Universe” (Shakti) but without being identified with it. That is what helps me deal with the contradictions you mention. These contradictions feel true to me, to my sense of reality. Kind regards, Brian joe april 17, 2009 at 3:26 pm Brian, Thanks for your post on free will, and lack thereof. That helps clear it up for me. On a related topic, I’m currently reading Spiritual Warfare and have so far been surprisingly disappointed. Through the first two books I’d been digging JM’s ‘incorrectness’ and general cut-the-crap message. For one who has been on the gradualist-buddhist path for a number of years – not without incremental improvements — I appreciate his scoffing challenges. I’ve found his story of abiding non-dualism to be compelling and his style entertaining. But in this last book he’s been using terms like “the universe” “prefers” this or that – one hacienda over another, for example. Of course, from JM this could be a joke – perhaps he’s being purposely annoying? Also, he’s been using “perfect intelligence.” This has been a let-down to me and seems to smack of the sort of crap he’s been slicing previously. As you note, contradiction may be the hallmark of attempts to articulate ‘truth.’ Perhaps I’m getting hung up on these contradictions. It’s just that concepts like the universe preferring one trivial thing over another (not trivial to JM, for sure, but in the grand scheme of things how does a concept like prefer get attached to a Universe?) or there being a ‘perfect intelligence’ seems so anthropomorphic. One of the great things I got from Spirtually Incorrect was an introduction to UG Krishnamurti. Surely he wouldn’t have stood for such language? In any case, can’t we just strip away the chains of the self, leave the cave, and leave it at that? This business about rationalizing such and such events as the universe preferring one thing over another just seems like twaddle. – Especially in light of the fact that there are Somali infant-babies of pirates abandoned in the grass with ants eating their ears. Why is it that the Universe prefers to give JM his grandfather’s hacienda and to let a black African baby get eaten alive in the grass? Of course, now I’m showing my caterpillar colors, and I’m content to be incapable of knowing how the universe works. But the fact that the some people – E.G. non-white, living in the Global South, and born in abject poverty – live with events from the Universe that are extremely different than those well educated and independently wealthy white American men seems to me to show the absence of intelligence and preference. Of course, I prefer to think that the universe is not a sadistic racist, etc. These kind of concepts from JM seem to point to him being still bound by his cultural inheritance. But I read on and enjoy a lot too. I’m hoping to get better perspective on the above. joe Brant march 31, 2009 at 3:21 am Nearly all human beings are creatures totally controlled by the survival oriented dream person, in the guise of intellectual thought-memory patterns. In reality, there exists no person to exercise free will to begin with except as a false form in an imaginary dream world. No person, so no free will. Jed (in essence) is piercing that dream and speaking to the dream character saying, “use your free will to break the barrier of belief, opinion, thought.” The dreamer is invested in this belief of free will because it cannot reconcile everything it believes with no-thing or conceive of non-existence. That is, until the barrier is broken and it is seen first hand that the entire facade was totally non-existent to begin with. After that the dream being, although still present, cannot exercise it’s so-called free will (or more accurately keeping “The One” in a dream state). Abracadabra. In reality, everything that I just wrote also doesn’t exist. LEAVE A REPLY Enter your comment here... Blog at WordPress.com. Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie PolicySkip to content JED MCKENNA WEBLOG AI VERSUS SELF – BY BRIAN EMMETT BENIGHTED, ILLUMINED, AWAKE OR ENLIGHTENED I, CULTIST BY BRIAN EMMETT JED MCKENNA VERSUS FREE WILL BY BRIAN EMMETT JOY KNOW YOUR PURPOSE MISPLACED ULTIMACY NON-DUALIST FUNDAMENTALISM POST-SPIRITUALITY THE ENLIGHTENMENT SURVEY YOU ARE A BELIEVER! BY BRIAN EMMETT WELCOME, JED MCKENNA AFICIONADOS REALIZATION OF JED MCKENNA BY BRIAN EMMETT JEDISM LINKS ABOUT Jedism Jedism What is the relationship between “Jed McKenna’s” teaching and the rest of the Great Tradition of Spirituality? Is it merely a confabulation of ancient Dharma with modern dilettantism? Even though I am only tangentially related to any teachers nowadays, it remains a very interesting subject for me to explore, since it was once the core of my life, and as such it provides a keen reflection to me of who I was then, as well as the liabilities that I still possess. Also I prefer to know a little of what I am talking about when discussing teachings with friends, rather than blap on emotionally about how great this one or that one is. Please feel free to offer your comments or insights at the bottom of the page. Below I will offer evidence and argue that the teachings of the author Jed McKenna seem not merely to conform to the major streams of consideration, revelation, and experience that have been handed down through history, but indeed, Jed’s Teachings may represent an original path for those who are in the ‘pursuit’ of Truth. That path I will be calling “Transcendental Nihilism”. The Historical Context Adi Da Samraj, in his great tome “Nirvanasara”[1] has described three major schools of Truth-God realization historically active in the world. In starting out, I will use his map to contextualize and analyze the Teachings of Jed McKenna. The criteria used to distinguish these schools are based on their respective interpretations of the nature of ultimate reality, as well as the choice of various religious/spiritual practices that may or may not to seen to be useful in acquiring that reality for oneself: • Phenomenalistic Schools (Realistic and Impersonalistic) (6th and 7th Stage Realization[2]) • Noumenalistic Schools (Idealistic and Personalistic) (6th and 7th Stage Realization[2]) • Emanationist Schools (Idealistic and Personalistic ) (1st through 5th Stage Realization[2]) In addition to those listed above, there are the combination schools that use elements of both schools. The Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism, as well as Adidam, follow this approach. We might as well give these schools their own unique label as they do significantly differ from the pure schools. I suggest that we call them Syncretic Schools. Jedism (I will humor myself by referring to the teachings of “Jed McKenna” as such) is, to my thinking, neither a Noumenalistic School, in that he not only distains any notion of non-dual Ultimate Reality as having any person-ness, but he also strenuously denies the utility of incorporating any “practices” in his teaching, as he asserts that no practices are effective in realizing the ultimate Truth! (although he does suggest a writing disciple that is a kind of preparatory exercise, useful prior to the spontaneous Big Fall that he insists is necessary for the realization of “No Self”). For this reason, I believe that we might be justified in giving Jedism an entirely new “School” designation, such as the “Transcendental Nihilist School”. * Adi Da Samraj, in Nirvanasara, has described original Hinayana Buddhism as a the archetypal Realistic or Phenomenological and “Impersonal” path that offers a rigorous and protracted regime designed to wean the practitioner off his delusional association with creation and ego, and brooks no notion of god nor heaven. Realist Schools are inclined to value “Ordinariness” and the sacredness of the Void, whereas the Idealists favor the Extraordinary, whether they seek that association in a future reward, or as realization of one’s true identity. * Zen on the other hand cherishes an instantaneous transcendental breakthrough known as Satori. The idea that Satori produces stable and permanent enlightenment is scorned at by others who regard Satori as merely the start of the enlightening process. Whereas classic Buddhism suggests that Nirvana/Shunyata must be achieved by weeding out the delusional habits of mind and emotion, Zen insists that it is here and now – just WAKE UP!! * Advaita Vedanta has been described as the epitome of the Idealistic or Noumenalistic and “Personal” God-Self enterprise, whose power lies in reminding the student of his true nature by pointing directly at “That”, and as a practice simply suggests remembering that, “I AM”, or asking “Who AM I?” and identifying with the “Native Feeling of Being”. The divine, they assert, is your present nature and reality, so it is already the case. Practices can’t get you there, they will only distract you from your Real Condition! * In addition, Adi Da Samraj notes what he calls the Emanationists – Judaism, Christianity, etc. who assert that we are all “sparks, fallen off the Divine Fire”. Later, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism began to incorporate the higher noumenalistic notions of the divine self into the original Hinayana/Theravada worldview. It also integrated many of the lower Emanationist 1st to 5th stage elements (the notion of a Supreme Being fundamentally separate from all other souls). * Adi Da has flippantly described Buddhism as a “practice without a realization” and Advaita as “the Realization without a practice”. Buddhism- annihilate everything, NOTHING will make you happy, and be left with a nameless faceless identity-less reward = Nirvana. Advaita – communicates the Realization (you are indeed already the Divine), but does not offer a practice to deepen that realization in a person. * Interestingly, Adi Da Samraj has paradoxically described his path, known as Adidam, as beginning with the Realization, and followed by a life of “practice” as the body-mind takes as much time as it needs to catch up with and adapt to the Realization. By Realization, he would be referring to the Satori of “getting” a taste of God-Truth, not full and stable enlightenment. Adidam, like the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism, combines elements of the two great “paths” by informing students that mere practices can never get them to realization (and yet it demands an enormous range of “practices”). Alternately, Adidam instructs, like the Advaitists, that you are indeed divine, but insists that you can’t access your true Nature with any reliability without a facilitator because you are so encased in ego. That facilitator is the Guru (similar to the Dharshan Yoga strain of Hinduism). Indeed Adidam elevates the function and status of the Guru to the highest level and minimizes both the Realist reliance on practices, and the Idealists affirmations about your divinity, and evaluates them as merely secondary and supportive forms of participation. Instead, the relationship to the Satguru is regarded as the decisive means to enlightenment. So much so that Adidam needs to be indexed, along with many communities of Hinduism, as another distinct “school’ – the “Dharshan School”. So while Adidam includes both practices and affirmations of divinity, it more closely resembles Dharshan Yoga than either Buddhism or Advaita. Jedism Jedism ignores these traditional formulas in an interesting way. Jed denies the validity of a godhead with personality, and denies the utility of any practices. He also dismisses the dependence on a Guru-Benefactor. I am neither a scriptural scholar nor an energetic researcher but I believe that this teaching stance may be unique. Regarding all the other paths, Jed asserts that religio-spiritual techniques and relationships at their best only serve to develop a more functional or higher evolutionary adaptation to the “dream of Maya”, not freedom from it. He acknowledges masters of the traditional paths as greater beings than himself, but if enlightened, then not actually teaching an enlightening path for others. He does not conclude that the other teachers are acting maliciously, but ignorantly. He claims in Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing [3] that he suspects that there may be about 50 enlightened people extant in the world at any given time. But in Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment he asserts that he is the first and only one. This is a little hard to sort out for an observer. It does not obliterate the power of his teaching, or his criticisms of other paths, but it certainly shows that he can be as unclear as anyone about the whole field of liberation and identity, and his place within it. “Jed” substitutes a crisis called “spiritual autolysis” that must arise spontaneously in order for the spiritual process to actually begin. It is described as something akin to a psychic break or an emotional and mental breakdown, and cannot be chosen (it happens on it’s own). And this crisis, he says, doesn’t occur until the seeker deeply lets go of all hope of ordinary happiness or spiritual redemption, perhaps especially by any agency of guru or god, or practice. Jed authenticates himself, and by extension his teaching, not only with his argumentation but also by his presentation of himself interacting with life. His extreme comfort with life, epitomized perhaps by the first chapter of the 3rd book, where he is shown playfully outwitting a group of policemen simply for the adventure of it, scores high marks with many readers. He also does not hide behind a mask of saintliness or godliness or amazing humility or virtue. He shows the reader himself with all his bumps and warts. In summary, what Jedism means is: 1. no practices, neither life denying ascetical –(he suggests that you go ahead and enjoy your ordinary life) , nor mystical- (don’t bother meditating) 2. no self, neither divine nor personal is IT 3. no guru, a teacher can give a little direction now and then, but that’s all. 4. although no practices are valid nor any divine identity is real and non-transitory, there is an enlightened or awakened state of being available (as distinct from the Atheist or Materialistic POV) 5. dependence upon the big “breakdown” of spiritual autolysis, that takes a couple years to kill an ego off Jedism is therefore a Nihilistic Transcendentalist 7th Stage School Critiques The critique of Advaita is that it is a formulation that suits dilettantes of all stripes (New Age) who will never be challenged to deepen and ground any Satori (realization) with a vigorous practice of ego-revelation, or an inspection of the innumerable ways that the ego can delude itself into believing it is something it has not. It is well suited to the talking school of armchair practitioners who are going nowhere. * And the critique of classical Buddhism is that it can be used as a formulation that suits workaholic religionists in that, while it very keenly assails the deluding aspects of ego and all conditional nature, yet it still “doesn’t know where it is going”. Apart from Zen, it doesn’t cultivate or even respect spontaneous revelations of a higher or even a transcendental nature. Also the practices themselves can so easily create the illusion of “progress” or virtue that promises to deliver Enlightenment but can’t, because the ego is so identified with them. * My core critique of Adidam is that the essential ownership of one’s self is denied practitioners by the insistence on, not only the usefulness of the Guru, but the absolute and eternal dependence on him. According to “Jed” this precludes the core crisis from occurring that is the initiator of the meltdown to liberation. Adidam is not unique in asserting that the ego can’t liberate itself. This POV is seen nearly everywhere, including the Christian doctrine of “Grace”. But Adidam goes the next step, that I refer to as the “bestowal model”, where the insistence is made that not only can’t the ego deliver itself, but that a human instrument of Satguru is absolutely necessary for liberation to occur. What does this doctrine ignore? It ignores that possibility of the divine itself, pushing the ego out of the way. Furthermore, it is my own observation that this dependency also creates or reinforces a dysfunctional loop in practitioners by preventing the maturation of even very serious practitioners and mature people into full autonomy and human adulthood. And without that responsibility invested in the practitioner, the fullest confrontation with their own ego is bypassed. * The critique of the Emanationists is that they have located Divinity as a psychically sensed relationship (4th stage), or a mystically revealed 5th stage communion or even absorption with a dimension of manifestation that is limited and not about the self, therefore effectively avoiding the core issue of spirituality, which is the true identity of self. * If we apply Jed’s own twin dogmas of “further” and “the only thing anyone can know is his own self” (which in his hands is styled as “no-self”) and all else is unknowable, then how can Jed know that no traditional practice can succeed in enlightening practitioners? How does Jed KNOW that various practices or relationships with the Divine will not produce enlightenment. He has a very formidable logic on his side to contend with, but he is one man, and I am not convinced that he knows that these forms could not lead another person, if not TO enlightenment, then at least to the doorstep. Also, since Jed demands everyone must always go “further”, then one must ask why does that prescription not apply to himself and his views? My own ex-teacher was quite clear about this necessity. Even though Adi Da Samraj claims to have become fully enlightened in 1971 or so, he has consistently held out a map of how he is moving through four phases of the enlightenment: Divine Transfiguration, Divine Transformation, Divine Indifference, and Divine Translation. That covers about 37 years to date. Perhaps old Jed has not seen it all yet. Furthermore, is it not possible that the no-self Shunyata/Nirvana realization is ultimately the same as the “Divine Self realization”? Maybe the paths actually dovetail, at least further along the evolutionary trail. [4- see joke below] He loses points with some with his weak ability to love and be an ordinary person with others. His Teaching point is that the core of a human being is emotional, that the core of all emotions is the one basic emotion of fear, and that the source of all emotions is the Heart, – the “Leviathan” which must be slain. I personally believe that Jed needs to slay is not his Heart but the contractions of his Heart. Or a little more to the point, the contractions of his self and evidenced in his reactive emotions. Yet by virtue of his outrageous simplicity, I suspect that he may have exceeded the greatest spiritual minds of history. Summary It’s all a bit much to sort, these differing paths and points of view. Perhaps that’s the gift. You can’t! Maybe we should simply understand that at different times in a souls journey they will require one POV, and later, the other. Maybe none of them is TRUE, and none is the best. In summary, we may say that there are 5 major schools of spirituality: • Phenomenalistic Schools Affirm your Divine Self (Realistic and Impersonalistic) (6th and 7th Stage Realization) (i.e.-Hinayana/Theravada) • Noumenalistic Schools (deny your ego-self) (Idealistic and Personalistic) (6th and 7th Stage Realization) (i.e. Advaita Vedanta & Taoism) • Emanationist Schools (Obey the Supreme Being) (Idealistic and Personalistic) (1st through 5th Stage Realization) (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism etc.) • Syncretic Schools (a little affirming, and a little denying) (Idealistic AND Realistic) (1st through 7th Stage Realization) (i.e. Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism etc.) • Dharshan Yoga Schools (Commune with the Agent of God) (Neither Idealistic NOR Realistic) (1st thru 7th Stage) (i.e. Adidam, Hinduism) • Nihilistic School (no affirming, no denying, no obeying and no communing) (Neither Idealistic NOR Realistic Nor Dharshanic) (7th Stage) (i.e. Jedism) Footnotes: [1] The entire Spiritual Process culminating in Divine Enlightenment as mapped by Adi D Samraj: extracted from http://www.dabase.org/7stages.htm • The first three (or foundation) stages of life constitute the ordinary course of human adaptation—bodily, emotional, and mental growth. • The fourth and fifth (or advanced) stages of life are characterized by the Awakening to Spirit, or the Spiritualizing of the body-mind. • In the sixth and seventh (or ultimate) stages of life, Consciousness Itself is directly Realized, beyond identification with the body-mind. In the sixth stage of life, the Realizer Identifies with Consciousness (in profound states of meditation) by excluding all awareness of phenomena. But this Realization is incomplete. Even the necessity to turn away from the world in order to fully Enjoy Consciousness represents a contraction, a refusal of Reality in its totality. • The seventh stage of life (or the Realization of “Open Eyes”), transcends this last limit. No exclusion is necessary, because the world is Realized to be a mere modification of Consciousness, not separate (or “different”) from Consciousness at all. [2] Nirvanasara – Radical Transcendentalism and the Introduction of Advaitayana Buddhism. by Da Free John (Adi D Samraj), Dawn Horse Press, April 1982, http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm [3] Books by Jed McKenna: http://wisefoolpress.com/ Book 1-Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing Book 2-Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment Book 3- Spiritual Warfare [4] A rabbi and a cantor are standing in the largely empty synagogue one day, talking mystically about how, given the awesome glory of God’s Infinite Divine Presence, they are each really “nothing.” “Yes,” says the rabbi, “I am nothing!” The cantor also affirms, looking up to the heavens, “O God, I am completely nothing!” And they go on like this for several rounds—”I am nothing… I am utterly nothing.” Meanwhile, the synagogue’s janitor is off in the corner on his hands and knees, scrubbing the floor. Filled with piety and a fervent spirit, he has all the while been repeating in a gentle voice, “O Lord, You are everything and I am nothing… I am nothing.” The rabbi and cantor at one point listen in and, after a few moments, come to realize what he is saying. At this, the rabbi nudges the cantor and smugly says, “Look who thinks he’s nothing! SHARE THIS: TwitterFacebook 54 THOUGHTS ON “JEDISM” jedmckenna september 19, 2013 at 8:30 am You are correct Phillip, but this site is NOT intended as a demonstration of ‘understanding’ – that is a profoundly personal affair. It is simply about knowing. Knowing how the Jed message fits into a historical perspective. And, as well, knowing what about the Jed message that is BS, or at the very least, dubious. Sorry to have disappointed you. Brian Philip september 19, 2013 at 1:07 am It appears to me that the message of Jed McKenna is lost in a quagmire of analysis and thought……There is way too much pretension and labeling in these responses, and therefore, way too little understanding. jedmckenna january 7, 2013 at 11:49 am Thanks. No coding is required unless you want to fancy up the styling elements. låne penge january 7, 2013 at 11:14 am Hi there terrific website! Does running a blog such as this take a lot of work? I have virtually no understanding of coding but I had been hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyway, should you have any suggestions or tips for new blog owners please share. I understand this is off subject but I simply had to ask. Thanks a lot! jedmckenna december 4, 2012 at 9:04 am Thanks Thursday, I heartily agree with you on the subject of Jed’s take on Descartes “I am”. Thursday Next december 3, 2012 at 11:53 pm I read Jed McKenna’s take on Descartes Cogito, The Bottom Line. Please. The assertion that the Cogito is the bedrock that establishes I AM could be demolished by a first year philosophy university student. If you like arguments from authority, see the critique of Descartes’ contemporary, Pierre Gassendi, and later on Kierkegaard’s, not to mention many others. And what about the Buddhist take on thoughts without a thinker? How is it “an ego-eating virus”? This is embarrassingly sophomoric and confused stuff from a self-promoting construct who’s no different from Tolle in his schtick. On the strength of that essay, I’m not inclined to indulge McKenna’s $piritual materiali$m. You are me.... september 6, 2012 at 9:07 am Yes! come joint us for some fun with ‘Jedbot’ on http://jedmckenna.webs.com/ You, of course will be the only one there…. the empty 8 september 6, 2012 at 7:17 am i love jed mckenna. where went the words for the annihilation of my pixelation yet still a human emanation ? that bus. splattered me like hunter thompson out a cannon. spaghetti sauce from a boomerang. just pieces of a chocolate bar floating through willy wonka’s crib, people continue to address as a finite being with the boundaries of body it seems I’m inhabiting. It was a creeping deal until it swallowed me whole, and then I lost the ability to chain together words – whether reading or writing, or talking. ooooof. and anyway, who wants to walk around high-diving off earth backwards while vomiting gravel ? i kept asking why. I kept getting : if you’re not enjoying it, just set it down for a while ;~) but, but, what if my mother puts formaldehyde in the body and holds a traditional funeral for me ? what a cute concern. it was dissolved with my complete asphyxiation under the rear tires. an idea has moved through me. i shall write in response to jed mckenna. mmp, it’ll be 30 trillion light years away in 2.5 minutes. anyway, i love jed mckenna. i lost the ability, motivation, endurance, et cetera to read more than a few words – they just started shifting shapes. then i received a book of his, and read it cover to cover. it was a miracle. i still can laugh ! I still can laugh ! 50 people on earth at any given time, but i’m the first and only one ? makes perfect sense to me. eddie blatt july 12, 2012 at 10:21 pm To Sukhbir Singh. I find your post erudite and very clear, ways of communicating I would never disparage. There is an aspect of the way that “hard-core” devotees of Adi Da communicate in general, however, that I have difficulty with. I find that it is almost impossible to simply find out where they are at relative to spirituality, or indeed anything else, because they continually refer to and repeat what the guru has communicated. The guru said this, the guru said that, therefore it must be so irrespective of what the devotee has understood himself. Now, to a devotee, this seems an entirely reasonable disposition to have, and a completely reasonable way to relate to others. But to someone who does not share the same conviction, it feels platitudinal. The “Post-Spiritualist” simply communicates what he feels or knows or thinks in the moment without reference to anyone else; not because he necessarily considers himself to be the equivalent (or surpassing) the “guru”, but because he does not consider the Divine to be somewhere else. Whatever is the case now and whatever he understands are God enough. I get pleasure from relating to people who are just themselves without reference to anyone else. Simple, I know; and likely to be derided as egoic human folly, but there you have it. Continue parroting what someone else says they have realised about “spirituality” and there just isn’t much common ground with a post-spiritualist (and the overwhelming bulk of humanity as well). I suggest you take everything Adi Da (and every other guru or “spiritual” teacher or master) has said or instructed relative to spirituality, put it all in a large paper bag and throw it in the garbage. You never know, you might then realise for yourself what they were actually trying to convey. jedmckenna july 10, 2012 at 10:42 am Thank you Sukhbir Singh for offering well-considered comments and your learned background. I am sorry if I disappoint, but my interest in debating the kind of points you raise seems to be coming to an end. At a glance I can say that I see great truths in your statements, so thank you for your contribution. But on the other hand, every point you raise could easily be contradicted by another grand and awesome spiritual truth derived from another grand and awesome spiritual tradition or teacher. But It’s not just that I am losing interest in the dharma debating thing, but more importantly my experience tells me that there are distinct phases in life which operate under very different principles. You obviously are a spiritual man and I may have a lot in common with you otherwise, but some of the most fundamental principles that a spiritual man adheres to are so different from those that in a “post-spiritual man” adheres to as to make significant conversation between the two nearly impossible. As an example, how much deep, real dialogue are you able to sustain with a religious person, or more to the point, a materialist? Or looked at in another direction, how much common ground is there between all of the above said categories and an enlightened being? Not much at the deepest level. From 30 years of personal experience in Adidam I feel it is safe to say that in Adidam there is no acknowledgment that anyone except an enlightened Master has the capacity, or dare I say it, the responsibility to stand free from, or part from, an authority figure such as a human master, and still be in a spiritual integrity or alignment with the divine. The way I perceive my life, process, and experience is that it is possible for our inherent divine ‘spirit’ to take direct control over one’s life, shifting authority back out of any particular gurus hand, to such an extent that the ‘individual’ comes to accept the radical notion that not only can’t the ego enlighten itself, but any sense or belief that the ego can, or moreover, EVER DID spiritual practice, is simply another conceit of that same ego. From my experience, I didn’t choose to leave the “spiritual” world, some other force pulled me out of one orbit and into another. I am grateful for everything that happened to me in the spiritual world, principally in Adidam, but that era of my life seems quite closed to me now and I presume that I will never go back to it. As I understand it, the divine played at pretending to be Brian for a while, and after a while, the divine got bored with the limitations and began to ease up on them. I seem to be cooperating with the process at this point, but even that is, no doubt, another of the ego’s precious conceits. At this point you might conjecture that such a transition, if at all possible, would be, at the very least, profoundly ineffectual. I understand that concern but may I reassure you that far from being a pale simulation of the effectiveness of the guru-student relationship, in my own personal experience, it is a ferocious fire which is as ruthless as it uncompromising. Or perhaps you and I are gravitating towards distinct spiritual realizations and no amount of ecumenical goodwill can deny that fact. In a case such as this, what am I to do? Counter-quote you with sayings and aphorisms and instructions and criticisms delivered by teachers who I myself resonate with, such as Jed McKenna and U.G. Krishnamurti? What would follow from that is that we would both try and pull out our Dharmic nuclear weapons and try outdo each other! Who needs it? The thing is, you believe the spiritual doctrines you have quoted because they resonate with your intuition and the sources you quote a very impressive dudes, and very reassuring to be associated with. Whereas, I now stand completely alone in the spiritual process. I don’t believe anything anyone tells me about reality, including my dear friends, Jed McKenna and U.G. Krishnamurti. Let me assure you that this situation is not a bed of roses. Yes it is exhilarating and feels to me like an even greater truth than the truth I embraced as a spiritual man connected to a great spiritual teacher, yet it is profoundly shocking and disorienting to not have a teacher, teacher or Sangha to consort with. What I talk about here is my experience of reality (world, self & Divine), and if this blog has any purpose at all, its not about an attempt to speak The Truth, but it simply to help people who have a lot of spiritual ‘mind’ still clogging up their brains, to flush some of it out. The content of this site and its contributors (including yourself) can conceivably be helpful to some in that regard. The spiritual mapping that you are attuned to is good stuff and I wholly support you in your application to it and wish ‘you’ total success in achieving your goals. If you are at all curious about how a person could be a serious spiritual ‘practitioner’ and yet reject the Gospels of which you speak, and I would humbly suggest that you review the article on this blog called “post spirituality” in order to gather some idea of how that situation comes to pass for many spiritual practitioners. As I say I take you to be a very intelligent and spiritual man and I’m honored that you graced this blog with your thoughts. But a “post spiritualist” such as myself can no more have a constructive conversation about core reality with a spiritual person (such as yourself) than either of us can have with a materialist. The differences are profound and not reconcilable, sadly. We can meet and share in spirit and friendship, but not about these core matters. As I’ve said here many times in the past, everything I say on this blog is a bunch of crap, and other than The Truth. But I must also say, that so is the truth and the references that you advance- it’s all just constructs and concepts, so easily contradicted. A mere fraction of the truth of our existence. Brian Sukhbir Singh july 9, 2012 at 3:14 pm “My core critique of Adidam is that the essential ownership of one’s self is denied practitioners by the insistence on, not only the usefulness of the Guru, but the absolute and eternal dependence on him. According to “Jed” this precludes the core crisis from occurring that is the initiator of the meltdown to liberation.” My comment to the above critique: -Adidam and all spiritual traditions of the East have one core theme, devotional surrender. It is the fragmented mind that tries to divide the spiritual practices into separate categories (i.e. Bhakti-Love, Jnana-Wisdom, Karma-Action, and Kriya-Energy). They all have to be integrated. This is clearly seen from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s life example. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj can be seen to be a “hardcore” Jnani, but if you were with him, you would see that he performed many devotional pujas (external worship) to the pictures of his Master. When asked how he had “achieved” his realization, he said that it was his strong belief and obedience to his Master’s instruction to rest in “I Am”. The love and wisdom had to be combined, but we can see that what came first, was devotional surrender. In addition to this it can be clearly seen that there is no question of insisting on the ownership of one’s self because that is creating a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. Ownership of oneself creates a feeling that there is someone actually present to own another self which is apparently within one’s self. It is a core issue to realize that Spirituality is not about “using” the Guru to “our” benefit. It is to submit whatever we may think of as “ours” and “us” and lay it at the Guru’s feet. This apparent “westernization” of spiritual principles does tend to confuse matters since it lays alot of emphasis on strengthening the sense of self. The essential culture of the “western” mind is to build up this sense of self. Suddenly when introduced to the concept of devotional surrender, it becomes difficult to surrender the sense of self since the whole life up to that point was spent in the context of building up and protecting your sense of self. This is what creates the main misunderstanding and a creating of a round-about way to solve devotion. It must clearly and completely be understood that spirituality is not something an “ego” can do to itself. Spirituality is the laying down of the “ego” and not by the “ego” either but rather by submission to the Master. What Beloved Adi Da Samraj was doing needs to be understood. He was bringing in the essential culture that was required in order for Spirituality to function since you can’t separate Culture (daily living) from Spirituality. Spirituality can’t be something “done” it must be something “living” you. This culture is completely the opposite of the materialist and self-preoccupied culture that has been the backbone of Western Civilization and therefore there was a lot of misunderstanding because the underlying context for understanding it was not there. So this is simply an attempt to explain the context of Adidam. “Adidam is not unique in asserting that the ego can’t liberate itself. This POV is seen nearly everywhere, including the Christian doctrine of “Grace”. But Adidam goes the next step, that I refer to as the “bestowal model”, where the insistence is made that not only can’t the ego deliver itself, but that a human instrument of Satguru is absolutely necessary for liberation to occur. What does this doctrine ignore? It ignores that possibility of the divine itself, pushing the ego out of the way.” My comment to the above critique of Adidam: Once again, it is a misunderstanding of cultural context that leads to this critique. You can see the difference between the mainstream Judaic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and the Eastern Spiritual Traditions (including the esoteric branches of Christianity, the Sufis, some Sects of Hinduism and Sikhism) in one key aspect. In the mainstream the Teachers were recognized and claimed to be “Messengers”. Moses (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH) (in the mainstream), Muhammad (PBUH) were all recognized and brought down through the ages as “Prophets, Messengers, etc”. This is in stark contrast to the recognition of Teachers in the East who were known as “Avatars” or the Divine who has crossed-down into the Cosmic Domain. Therefore, it is the Divine Itself that has come, or taken up the vehicle of these forms, not only to “teach” mankind, but to spiritually transform humanity. And although they have come for the whole world, those who submit to them having recognized them, can then spiritualize the context of their entire lives to the point that they can surrender their whole life. However, it should be clearly understood that this “surrender” does not have anything to do with the childish concept of surrendering of responsibility to the “parent”-figure. This surrender is the responsibility of the disciple. The Guru ensures that the disciple is given enough to be responsible about his/her life, but everything is done in the spiritual context and in recognizing the Master, not as a Teacher or Messenger, but as the Divine Himself/Herself/Itself. Therefore, the above critique saying that Adidam does not take into context the Divine pushing the ego out of the way, is completely wrong and misunderstood. In Adidam, Beloved Bhagavan Adi da, the Sat Guru (The Reality Itself / The Divine Itself) IS THE DIVINE PUSHING THE EGO OUT OF THE WAY. SallyW october 30, 2011 at 9:45 pm Hi there, yes one in the same. Great books of my youth and the similarities to Jed’s seem obvious to me. Jed McKenna has to be ‘someone’ – and I can’t see why any of the enlightened beings who are teaching now would hide behind a pseudonym – but can see why Richard Bach may do so. He seems a very likely candidate – a great writer, spiritually inclined, probably not enlightened but wishes he were (but I’ve really no idea), keen to disseminate spiritual titbits, able to research, collate and put together a range of spiritual teachings into a very credible book series, has the money, reputation and clout to get them published anonymously. Probably a good reason for doing so anonymously is his messy (haven’t we all though 🙂 private life may not be seen as being something that an awakened soul may have lived – so would mean a book under his name on beling awakened may not be seen as particularly credible, and his book characters attitudes – esp. Shimoda seem so similar to Jed’s arrogance ‘take it or leave it’, cosmic tricks, no real enlightenment sort of stuff = Illusions “everything in this book may be wrong”… It feels just the sort of thing RB would do as a ‘cosmic joke’ and fits with his sense of humor and style so well. Anyway, I’ve not read Jed’s books well but just skimmed the first – so would be very interested in your analysis of the possibility. jedmckenna october 30, 2011 at 8:18 pm I assume you are referring to Richard Bach, the author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. SallyW october 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm Jed McKenna is RicJed Bach. It seems obvious to me. From a very quick scan of Jed’s first book there are many hints. For example Jed is a spiritual teacher from Iowa, Donald Shimoda is a Messiah from Iowa. Jed skydives, Richard Bach and Donald Shimoda fly planes. The writing style is also sooooo similar to Richard Bach. I personally don’t think the writer of Jed’s books is an awakened being, but someone who has grabbed a hotchpotch of awakened being experiences and comments (esp Adya) and woven them into an entertaining story – as Richard Bach he did in Illusions. Either way go to the real enlightened beings for guidance – not someone who hides behind a mask of anonymity. Brant april 7, 2011 at 3:27 am There is indeed a common point. The point that jumps out at this reader is neither obscure nor fringe. If you follow scientific reports you begin to get a clearer picture of what is being said without a lot of drama. From an early age we are taught that we are an individual person in a world of objects. Subsequently, we make a personal claim to everything from family to career, toys, events. Judging everything and labeling either good, or bad. This appears to be based upon language creating our apparent personal world. Witness the blind from early age regaining sight but unable to see what the fully sighted and trained can see. The question we have to ask ourselves is, are we satisfied accepting a brain that was designed by others? And given that, what is reality anyway? Is it the opinions, ideas, beliefs and concepts that we were given? Jed (and many others) seems to be simply saying “look at what you believe that you are”. jedmckenna march 10, 2011 at 8:18 am Joe If you are asking about Jed’s recommendations I guess I could try to summarize him for you, although you would be better off reading his books . He says two contradictory things: the first is that no one can choose realization (it happens beyond the ego’s designs or desires) and the other is that you can perform his ‘autolysis’ exercises described in the book which seem to help eliminate a lot of false belief about reality. Brian joe march 10, 2011 at 3:51 am one thing about this is there a practical force like or Parana or chi within this or a mess of doctrine uncertain for I believe all is connected yet separate and most Theo-sophistical of what I’ve learned is full of folk tales theory pride and reversal of meaning or interpret to convince and very little practice if any like a bio or symbolism boring. or much theory on quantum entanglement yet I know not so is there a practical approach too such or just trail and era by way of realization and yes even this is very much like Buddhist or zen or any for all no matter what cosmology or technique are similar in nature for none can escape Samara only satori by mean’s of deep breathing and stubborn focus like that of a ass donkey. just wont budge so what is the theory from the practice like any set forms I seek the realization yet I seek the practical over any theological thought yet is necessary just wondering. have a good day jedmckenna february 12, 2011 at 11:14 am Thanks Kaushik, for your contribution. And yes, the term “Jedism” makes me wince too. As well it should, don’t you think? Brian Kaushik february 12, 2011 at 8:16 am Ouch, the term “Jedism” makes me wince! You’re pretty knowledgeable about spiritual paths, and their context, and I’m not, and I don’t want to really comment on that. I think there are paradoxes and contradictions in Jed’s assertions, and certainly some of his assertions seem to be highly arrogant. The value of “Jedism” at least in my experience has been: 1. The realization that awakening comes down to inner observation with stark honesty. Jed confines inner observation to spiritual autolysis and momento mori, but I think there are other effective forms of honest inner observation, such as meditation and releasing and awareness. 2. Jed seems to dismiss everything else. I would say that gurus and guides and spiritual traditions and spiritual practices and heart practices are useful to the extent that they help us develop the skill of inner observation and honesty. 3. There is no self. 4. Jed seems to make distinctions between enlightenment, human adulthood, being awake in the dream, and being awake from the dream. I don’t know exactly how these are categorized. Anonymous september 18, 2010 at 5:35 am “If we apply Jed’s own twin dogmas of “further” and “the only thing anyone can know is his own self” (which in his hands is styled as “no-self”) and all else is unknowable, then how can Jed know that no traditional practice can succeed in enlightening practitioners?” In his books, Jed asks where are all the enlightened people? There are so many people on so many paths, and he says no one is really getting enlightened. So that’s his argument against the effectiveness of spiritual paths. hp august 19, 2010 at 9:38 am If this man is anything like another Jed I know, a real hero of a man, than he’ll be A-OK. I’m of course talking about one of the wisest, most compassionate, fair and loving Jeds of all time.. the late great Jed Clampett! jedmckenna june 1, 2010 at 8:00 am Dear Mother Erna Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Since I don’t read Dutch I had to have it translated. I hope you don’t mind. Also, as stated on the Front Page, this Blog is not run or moderated by Jed, but by me, Brian, who is in no way connected to Jed. Cheers Brian Moeder Erna june 1, 2010 at 12:53 am Moderator’s Note: Since this is the first time we have had a non English contribution to this Blog, and I couldn’t read it myself, I had it translated from Dutch via Google Translate machine and have pasted the results below, within this comment, so other can get a taste of what this Lady is saying. Brian Allerbeste Jed, Zeer hartelijk bedankt voor uw triologie incl. het vierde boek! Uw eerste boek kwam jaren geleden op het moment dat ik net had besloten om geen enkel spiritueel boek meer te kopen. Ik stond in winkel met uw boek in mijn handen en heb hem zodoende teruggezet. Nog diezelfde middag stond ik bij de volgende boekwinkel opnieuw naar uw boek te staren en begon er uiteindelijk stukjes uit te lezen, waarvan ik de bladzijde had onthouden, totdat mijn man zei; “Dat is nu al de tweede keer dat je met dat boek in je handen staat, koop het dan toch of anders doe ik het” , en hij liep er gelijk mee richting de kassa. Geen enkel cadeau was meer van toepassing geweest, zo bleek later toen ik ging lezen en bleef lezen. Al jaren ben ik ‘daar’ waar u zich in uw boek bevind. Verrassend herkenbaar. De familiar en maatschappelijke resultaten met het tegendeel zijn dan ook ruimschoots geboekt. Spirituele verlichting is niet voor “softies”, u bekend. Dit boek is wie ik ben ten voeten uit. Soms even heftig om het ontwaken met een olijke en ferme mokerslag te doen activeren. Over zowel het leven, zijn vreugde over de dood, en alles er tussenin. Ik heb wel eens geprobeerd uw boeken aan andere mensen te adviseren maar eigenlijk is het ondoenlijk, sorry. Enkel dualiteit in diversiteit is nieuw erfgoed. Al m’n andere boeken zoals van Neale Donald Walsch of Eckart Tolle zijn weliswaar perfect doch meer voor het grotere collectief geschikt. “The truth will set you free” moet ik nog eens kopen maar het zou me niets verbazen als u deze auteur zijdelings kent. Verder kunnen mensen geen stappen overslaan en valt binnen een bewustzijns traject dus wat mij betreft is de perfectie achter de inperfectie verscholen. Echter, uw directe manier van handelen, de waarheid voorbij het klein menselijk denken activerend, hebben de invalshoek waarbij ik hoor. Ik heb daarnaast gelijk uzelf ook een tamelijk anonieme functie. Geen website en enkel via via bereikbaar. Toch,.. indien u plotseling een niet te stuiten ideetje krijgt om mij te mailen… van harte welkom dan en anders nogmaals veel dank voor u tijd en moeite bij het schrijven van de boeken. Hartelijke groet, Moeder Erna _______________ Translation follows: Jed best, Very many thanks for your trilogy including the fourth book! Your first book came years ago when I had just decided to no longer buy spiritual books. I was in store with your book in my hands and told him so put back. Yet that same afternoon I was standing next to the bookstore again, staring at your book and began reading from the end pieces, which I had remembered the page, until my husband said, “This is already the second time that you book State your hands, buy it anyway or else I’ll do it, and ran it straight toward the cash register. None was present were more appropriate, as it turned out when I started to read and continued reading. For years I ‘there’ where you are standing in your book. Surprisingly recognizable. The familiar and social results in the contrary are therefore widely recognized. Spiritual enlightenment is not for “softies”, you know. This book is who I am in a nutshell. Sometimes as violently to wake up with a roguish and fermentation sledgehammer blow to activate. Both about life, his joy over the death, and everything in between. I’ve tried your books to other people advice but actually it’s impossible, sorry. Only duality in diversity is a new heritage. All my other books such as Eckart Tolle and Neale Donald Walsch are indeed perfect but more suitable for the larger collective. “The truth Will set you free” should I buy again it would not surprise me if you know the author side. Furthermore, people can not skip steps and falls within the range of consciousness so for me it is perfectly hidden behind the inperfectie. However, your direct way of acting, the truth beyond the small activating human thought, the approach which I hear. I’m also like you a fairly anonymous function. No website and are only accessible via. However, .. if you suddenly get an unstoppable idea to mail me … welcome than otherwise, and again many thanks for your time and effort in writing the book. Kind regards, Mother Erna jedmckenna may 18, 2010 at 7:51 am Guillermo I am delighted that you find this Blog useful. I agree with what you say about Adyashanti – he seems to be everything that you say. But at least for me he lacks one thing -the savage uncompromising truth-telling force concerning the role and structure of spiritual culture in inadvertently subverting it’s own ultimate goal of liberation. As for a comparison of these teachers, I would have to be much better informed about Adyashanti before I dared to go there, which doesn’t seem to be on the horizon for me. Thanks Brian Guillermo may 18, 2010 at 3:13 am Hi guys… I’d like you to compare Jed’s teachings with Adyashanti’s and Adi Da’s. My feeling is that Adyashanti has all of the discernment and clarity of Jed, plus the heart and ability to relate. I think his repertoire of styles, his empathy and relentless honesty with the seeker make him the best teacher alive! Anyway that’s about the most subjective thing anybody could say.. but it’s fun to say it anyway! I look forward to you’re views.. best, Guillermo Lynne White april 4, 2010 at 1:51 pm having experienced non=duality (ie enlightenment) I found myself in the position of spiritual guide to many, Teacher to a few. So many people felt I should write a book. Jed Mckenna has written it for me. I am as he, and it comforts me. All he writes is Truth. jedmckenna march 31, 2010 at 10:28 pm Agreed, Brian Philip march 31, 2010 at 1:53 pm Hey, just came across this conversation. Quite an interesting diversion, I must say. I’ve only read the first book attributed to Jed. I thought it was fantastic on a number of levels. It seems pretty obvious to me, however, that since language is a dualistic thing by nature, no single teacher can ever give us THE ANSWER. Furthermore, each bodymind brings its own diverse set of experiences to each moment, such that one teacher can point one person right at the heart of it while turning another 180 degrees away from it. Within one bodymind’s existence, in fact, a single teacher can be helpful and harmful depending on when a person is exposed to him or her. I myself have had times when one or another teacher had great influence on me, but now I have not much interest in reading him or her. Anyway, I think Jed’s stuff is harmless, even if a bit provocative, entertainment at worst. At best, it’s straight-forward, no-fluff Truth, which was exactly what I needed at the time I discovered The Damnedest Thing. I personally don’t care if the guy is enlightened or not. It’s entirely likely he doesn’t exist at all and the whole thing’s a work of fiction, which I think would be more to the point anyway. I mean if he really was this living, ego-maniacal fraud, don’t you think he’d be more in the world, going to conferences, making more money than he is off his self-published books? (As an aside, though, the main reason I haven’t read the other books is not a lack of interest, but a judgment call that they aren’t worth $25. Sheesh … the price alone’s a bit egotistical if you ask me.) One more point I might add is just that I really don’t feel any enlightened person has a moral obligation to be in the public eye and make him/herself available to me and my needs as a seeker. The only universal moral obligation an awakened being has is to use his or her bodymind as a lens to project as honest and responsible a picture of Truth as he or she can. Since this projection is a dualistic thing, it will invariably look different depending on the experience of the individual, just as different teachers use different words to convey the same Truth. These differences in appearance say nothing about the ultimate veracity of that to which they are alluding. Terrence Halliburton march 1, 2010 at 3:37 am Quoting Adi Da drops Jed’s credibility from little to none. Which is fine because credibility looks like the last thing in the world Jed is aiming for. urku february 10, 2010 at 5:12 am There was a boy who had a core belief as old as the human race and likely beyond, which said “I am a person in a world competing for everything with other beings”. It was all about fear and survival. In the course of following that core belief he became separated from what he really was, his being. He also felt a void within, which he often sought to fill. Experimenting, he filled that void with a variety of things. Other people, food, cars, money, and by the age of 19, various forms of spirituality. And finally, attempting something called nirvana. Because he was trained to compete for a better future, he sought a teacher who could fill that void and make a better man, a better future full and peaceful. And he found such a teacher who gave him a prescription to follow to achieve that which he lacked. Meditation, silence, killing the ego. But.. it didn’t work. The person and the world, fear and survival, the teacher and nirvana… empty, the void remained. Now a man, he began to see that for all of his seeking he was not able to fill the void. And neither could his teacher and he felt dissatisfied because this seemed just a dream, and all of the things in it continued to pass away and were lost. And finally, with the aid of a purveyor of truth, he realized that the only constant was the void, the emptiness. And so he explored that which he feared. And what he found was that all of the dream and even the core belief seemed wrong somehow, that all he had been taught was suspect. It was frightening at first. And he discovered that although he wanted it very badly, there was nothing that he could do to change things and he became disillusioned and depressed. Eventually he simply gave up because he realized that what he had become, was really what was in the way of finding that which he sought. That was when a strange thing happened. The dream person that he was moved out of the way and allowed a process, which was inevitable, to become complete and he had a realization. He awakened and discovered the truth of what he was. He discovered that he didn’t even exist! The dream person and even the core belief was a lie. He saw that he already was what he had sought, and that is all that really was. And that was everything. His being – all being. What he had always been was all that existed. And he was everything and nothing at the same time!?! The man had not known it before because he was dreaming that it was something else, that he was something else. The dream person and the core belief. But being alive; walking, talking, playing… THAT, was truth. Only manifestation-consciousness. And that is all. And he felt joy, like a child again. brant urku@gmail.com san january 30, 2010 at 5:44 pm WISDOM TELLS ME I’M NOTHING — LOVE TELLS ME I’M EVERYTHING —–TO BE AND NOT TO BE – THAT IS THE ANSWER!! — GOTTA LOVE IT!! jedmckenna october 9, 2009 at 8:46 am Thanks JC for all your thoughtful and balanced comments. Sorry I took a while to reply, but I haven’t felt much like ‘talking’ lately. Sincerely Brian JC october 1, 2009 at 11:45 pm Brian, That posting by “Anonymous” seems to have struck a nerve with you. This type of blog will always attract those kinds of postings, caterpillars dissing caterpillars, I guess you could call it. He/she makes a partial valid point, although I wouldn’t communicate it that way, and I think this blog does serve a valid purpose. Anything that causes us to re-evaluate what we believe is worthy and true is of possible value, and you (and others) have done that here. But of course it always comes back to the very simple questions of “Whom am I?”, “What’s going on here?”, and “What do I know to be true?” (in keeping with the McKenna themes). It’s a solo journey in a world of seemingly infinite distractions. Can’t remember the source, but that quote-“The best purposes for learning in life is to unlearn what is untrue” really resonates, so I guess you could also say we’re all getting what we need to “un-learn” as well. It’s just not always respectful. Btw, have you read “Jed McKenna’s Notebook”? There’s more good stuff in this one that will surely provide for some lively discussion on your blog here. Thanks JC jedmckenna june 17, 2009 at 5:44 am Hey Brother, I just opened your post to the Jed Blog and am very delighted to be talking to you. The only thing is, that I don’t believe I know you by the name of Nitram! Soooo…who be you? I went to your website and found it very thoughtful and I love that you are putting Adi Da’s POV across. Excellent! Even though we now have different world-views, I am delighted to have a sane conversation with you without having to get all protective or aggressive with each other. As to the ‘Cowboy post’ you refer to, it’s greatest liability is that it drips with sarcasm and superiority, as if that energy contained sufficient verity to ‘debunk’ whatever truth the Jed books may contain. It doesn’t rest in self-confidence and it doesn’t respect that Jed may be serving up something of great use to some people. This type of (Cowboy) post is high octane sectarianism, not because the author dares to disagree with another’s POV, but because he uses ad hominem attacks, sarcasm and ridicule to try tear down its target and make points with the reader. Its sort of an emotional ‘pissing contest’ rather than a serious critique. I am not trying to say there is nothing to critique about ‘Jed”. The reason I started this blog is to do just that. But after 35 years of Adi Da, I firmly believe that the truths that the author is presenting are truths that I need to hear now. That doesn’t take away from the truths I received and learned from Adi Da, it is just that I feel graced to hear these truths now. When you think about it just how enlightening is it when you read a slanderous hatchet job on Adi Da? How much light is generated by that? How convincing is such rhetoric? How serious and clear-headed will you take the author to be? I could say, “why not engage in a reasoned and respectful dialog instead?” But the truth is that fundamental differences between alternative world-views really are not negotiable. They represent deeper movements and developmental needs in people, and there’s really not much discussion that is actually persuasive for that reason, I believe. As Adi Da once said: “Truth is self authenticating”. No one in a free will Creation such as this has the right, nay, the power, to prove anything to anyone but himself. What does work and doesn’t degrade anyone is simply a respectful appreciation that the everyone is getting what he needs to learn, and being grateful that God or Universe has provided for him, as well as for us. I look forward to hearing from you, and please, keep up the good work of presenting Adi Da’s POV to the public. Shalom! Brian Anonymous june 12, 2009 at 11:25 am Hey Brother, I just opened your post to the Jed Blog and am very delighted to be talking to you. The only thing is, that I don’t believe I know you by the name of Nitram! Soooo…who be you? I went to your website and found it very thoughtful and I love that you are putting Adi Da’s POV across. Excellent! Even though we now have different world-views, I am delighted to have a sane conversation with you without having to get all protective or aggressive with each other. As to the ‘Cowboy post’ you refer to, it’s greatest liability is that it drips with sarcasm and superiority, as if that energy contained sufficient verity to ‘debunk’ whatever truth the Jed books may contain. It doesn’t rest in self-confidence and it doesn’t respect that Jed may be serving up something of great use to some people. This type of (Cowboy) post is high octane sectarianism, not because the author dares to disagree with another’s POV, but because he uses ad hominem attacks, sarcasm and ridicule to try tear down its target and make points with the reader. Its sort of an emotional ‘pissing contest’ rather than a serious critique. I am not trying to say there is nothing to critique about ‘Jed”. The reason I started this blog is to do just that. But after 35 years of Adi Da, I firmly believe that the truths that the author is presenting are truths that I need to hear now. That doesn’t take away from the truths I received and learned from Adi Da, it is just that I feel graced to hear these truths now. When you think about it just how enlightening is it when you read a slanderous hatchet job on Adi Da? How much light is generated by that? How convincing is such rhetoric? How serious and clear-headed will you take the author to be? I could say, “why not engage in a reasoned and respectful dialog instead?” But the truth is that fundamental differences between alternative world-views really are not negotiable. They represent deeper movements and developmental needs in people, and there’s really not much discussion that is actually persuasive for that reason, I believe. As Adi Da once said: “Truth is self authenticating”. No one in a free-will Creation such as this has the right, nay, the power, to prove anything to anyone but himself. What does work and doesn’t degrade anyone is simply a respectful appreciation that the everyone is getting what he needs to learn, and being grateful that God or Universe has provided for him, as well as for us. I look forward to hearing from you, and please, keep up the good work of presenting Adi Da’s POV to the public. Shalom! Brian Nitram june 12, 2009 at 6:18 am Hi Brian, [snip…personal comments…] on the subject of Jed, I think this post (below) is on the money– he is a cowboy, riding on popularist, eclectic turkey–all the best http://www.peacefulself.com/2009/03/populist-gurus-and-spiritual-cowboys.html MARTHA may 29, 2009 at 9:13 pm Aloha Brian, My response to your response….I believe so. Never heard the word autolysis and I did not bother to look it up while reading. Ok, just did, basically it means “cell destruction”. In my training it would be the equivalent of “breaking yourself up”, examining every aspect of who you are being (and have been) in your life. The good the bad and the ugly news about being fully accountable for the way things are and the way things are not. Being truth, your words and actions follow and match. This is not what most want to experience. Most people want to say and do whatever, as they always have done, and do not know why they do not have the life they say they want. Big gaps in have, do, be. BE>DO>HAVE is the key. Being nice is not necessarily truthful. I have powerful friends like Sonia and aim to be powerful myself all the time. We are all only human though and the book being fiction does not have Jed share or talk about his human side (the voice in his head that he thanks for sharing but does not choose to be). In fact I state I was glad he was not real because it is errogant to say you can just get rid of your humanity. Jed gets the job done and does not mess around with story and drama of the surrounding swirl of mankind. He’s committed and stays on purpose to his life and others are enrolled into the powerful energy, true leadership. Jed is a true leader as well because a true leaders can follow. That’s it for now. I have actually been more on a quantum physical enlightenment quest but this is a good review with different languaging for the distinctions of transformation. I am very interested in Quantum living “Busting Loose of the Money Game” or whatever game really. Looking at quantum designing of life and moving past the re occuring patterns that I keep popping up with people, that I do not care for. Any reading ideas appreciated! Aloha, MArtha jedmckenna may 28, 2009 at 4:14 am Hi Martha Sorry for the delay in posting your comment, I’ve had a very very busy week. The debate about Jed and love is one that divides just about everyone who comes across his work and I don’t see any reason for me to have a go at it once again, if you don’t mind. On your first point “Anyway, I think the point is simplicity and who you are “being” in the now, life is empty and meaningless, I knew it was coming from the beginning of the book. That basic enlightenment, transformational truth is rather easy to get and from there see how life is all made up. Who cares about the story and drama.”. I apparently have a different experience from you, if I understood you correctly. The basic Truth is indeed fairly easy to get for many people, but it is the conversion of the whole person and body to that truth that takes the time and turns most everyone away. As Jed describes it through, what was her name in the first book,”Jenny” or something, it is a holocaust to ‘convert’ whole bodily to Truth. Spiritual Autolysis, or something to that effect. Do you agree? Sincerely, Brian jedmckenna may 28, 2009 at 3:58 am Well there, Mr. Anonymous, there are two things worth saying to you at this point. One is that you have completely misunderstood the purpose of this Forum, which is NOT to speak about the Life of Butterflies (from admittedly, the world of caterpillars), but to critique the spots that appear on the swarm of butterflies that inhabit our world, Jed included. It’s not about proclaiming the Truth here, but critiquing the falsities of the many Butterflies that shout the truth to us caterpillars. And the second point is that when you engage others with disrespectful language, you say more about yourself than them. Best to leave the superior wise-guy attitude to the Butterflies and the Punks, don’t you think? MARTHA may 23, 2009 at 3:49 am Well I am a little over half way through “Spiritual Enlightenment, The Damndest Thing” I just randomly selected this book and I am glad to know he is not a real person. Anyway, I think the point is simplicity and who you are “being” in the now, life is empty and meaningless, I knew it was coming from the beginning of the book. That basic enlightenment, transformational truth is rather easy to get and from there see how life is all made up. Who cares about the story and drama. Who your being while following your made up path is what matters spiritually. Being love looks a lot of different ways. Tough love is a very important part of training and development. He does not profess to have an intent to bring love directly into the world but is available for people ongoing with open conversation and an open home. If you look at what is so, factually, instead of what you want him to be. I always say “you listen to what comes out of peoples mouths and watch their actions” are they correlate is what is important. If you say you want to be a bum I respect and honor it! In the love arena I think it is more past old teaching you are comparing. Being said, I feel that anyone can get it but the ongoing application of creating life from nothing anew (or from your old) from that is not easy for all people and does take years of conscious practice. As far as “heart” there are lots of kinds and things to do with it, thats part of the personal creating of an individuals life. It is good to find heart and love in whatever you do as he points out. Thus the continued search people are having does not apply to truth just learned knowledge But we do all have our own path. I like the book, it I enjoy the opportunity to write about my take on it and will aim to check back for opinion. Aloha, MArtha PS The main Hawaiian Huna Principle is to hurt no one…see it is all simple Anonymous may 21, 2009 at 6:17 am Now I know what Jed meant when he referred to caterpillars expounding on what it means to be a buterfly. This is all ass-talking in the dream state. tedwhetherby may 13, 2009 at 10:52 am No “enlightend master” while alive would put out in physical form a reflection of himself in a book and then deny ernest people wanting to be free, their draw to him or her. They may make it difficult for your sake but not impossible. Doing so is a form of self hatred and ignorance toward aiding others through and beyond their manifestation of physcial form. By doing so, he reinforces the illusion of physcial form as a part of a dream. What happens with folks like Adi-da or others whom pass through the veil is that they understand that only by loving all beings so immensely they pass through the illusion of physical form. Being alive yet making this impossible is to put forward in word form a place eternal, hacking others, and then hiding from seeing that this place or non place is an acualized reflection of Himself. The Holdiay Hotel in Taipai has a big green sign out front. The word Hotel is written in small letters so you almost think your staying at The Holiday Inn. The hotel owner knew what he was doing keeping the sign looking like the international chain’s big green sign, same style letters. There are a lot of international folks that would never know the difference. But the staff knew. The place just felt a tinge off not because they were using the holiday symbol but because they were not being what is unique to themselves but rather picking off the straglers under the big name chain. The big name chain has to carry the frieght of the past present and future of the name. In doing so they are lifted of much of the weight. The holiday hotel in a tight spot can just switch up names and call themselves The Taipai Palace and none are worse for wear. Putting a character like jed in with individuals whom have layed forward their lives for mankind’s liberation and will remain always and forever avalable on other planes in one way or another until it occurs is like saying proclaiming the holiday hotel is a miricle of human creation when even the hotel staff are too ashamed to look you in the eye. jedmckenna april 9, 2009 at 3:21 am Agreed, Rob. Jed could be “playing possum” on this issue and simply trying to counteract an obvious predilection in many spiritual people for a “Love” that consoles that ego rather than undermining it with a greater reality. But as a critic I feel 2 requirements for myself here. One is to take people at face value and not try to guess their “real intention”. Furthermore, Jed goes to great lengths to fortify his assertion in key places in his ‘teaching’ with doctrinal level contentions, not distinguishing between reactive or contacted feelings and an open, free dimension of feeling. I don’t think a critic can afford to pass that off without at least bringing it up for everyone’s consideration. As for Jed’s lack of “Heart” as you put it, I don’t know that it offended me personally. I think for awhile I was assuming he was just trying to counter New Age lovey-dovey-ness, but when he started making definitive statements that were, I suspected, based on a reaction and misunderstanding of the Feeling dimension of existence, I took exception. I also noticed people who had the opposite intellectual predilections begin to take it and run as it fed their ego’s avoidance of the feeling dimension based upon their own fears. As for new articles, they come like clouds crossing the sky slowly. Issues float around waiting for lightening to strike and bring them into fruition. The recent one on Free Will was levitating in my brain for many months waiting for the moment to being articulated and published. And of course the real Jed, I mean the author, may have moved on by now, God bless his little heart! And thanks for your ‘hearty’ response Rob. Stay in touch! Brian rhanson739 april 8, 2009 at 12:03 pm Hi, Brian — I ran across your website while doing a search for something out of one of Jed’s books. (“Gita Life.”) While I’ve only had a chance to have a glance at the two other base posts, I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read. Do you plan to put up any more articles? (It should probably be noted that I wrote a couple of Amazon reviews of Jed’s books when they first came out. Hmmm, I should check in on them to see if my outlook has changed at all.) The lack of “heart” in Jed’s books is obvious, and it was something that I wrestled with for some time. It can leave some readers thinking, “If that’s enlightenment, then I’ll just stay in the dark.” For many I’ve spoken with, that lack of heart is a turn-off, and may well be one reason why Jed’s books are not quite universally adored. I sometimes hear, “I like the teaching, but he’s such a…” And in one case, it caused a major meltdown/push-back in a friend, who then pushed away all such teachings as a result. But given that, I’d like to ask: In your view, could there be a possibility that this is actually a deliberate move on Jed’s part? The way I look at it, there are two main possibilities: The first is that Jed’s realization is incomplete; One must “return to the marketplace”, or engage the world as that-I-am, rather than walling off manifestation as “others.” I believe that you and I feel the same way about this: Without heart, one’s realization is decidedly incomplete. How likely is it that if Jed’s teaching is so strong (strong enough for you to put up a website about it!), then how could he have possibly missed ‘heart?’ The second, and more simple possibility is that it’s a deliberate literary mechanism to separate the serious from the serial seekers. He spends a good deal of time in his first book talking about doing just that. (Railing against “bliss bunnies.”) Seems to me that the best way to sort out the true motivation of people is to activate their shadows, and the best way to do that is to poke them with a sharp stick. So many people “on the path” are looking to feel better about ‘their selves’, to attain states of consciousness that are pleasurable, to have a hard life in a cruel world somehow make sense and provide comfort. We seek because we need answers and solutions for what bothers us. A person can get trapped in this search for an entire lifetime without realizing much of anything. So, Jed disavows anything having to do with ‘heart.’ Heart is not a factor that one should concentrate on when destroying all the sacred cows of our lives, lest we be emotionally swayed off the path. If you come to his teaching looking for something feel-good, you just won’t find it, and that repulses those who are not willing to let go of their attachments. The message is clear: Matters of the heart are attachments that must be seen through in order to realize what you need to realize. To write books with the intention of truly catching the attention of the serious, you might have to cull the fluff that permeates the spiritual marketplace, lest the ‘bliss bunnies’ latch onto the teaching and present it on Oprah. Once you realize what you need to realize, heart will arise naturally, but in the meantime, one must be cautious not to be swayed by it. I think Jed has heart. He has enough love in him to have written the books, sharing what he knows with us. Someone who simply didn’t care probably wouldn’t take the time and effort to do so. Of course, I may be wrong. He may be a very intelligent, capable, and humorous butt-head. Either way, he got our attention, didn’t he? Big Love to all, Rob jedmckenna april 1, 2009 at 1:01 am Good question, here’s a link to an unofficial online version http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm Brian joe march 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm brian: “Also, [Adi Da] laid out the best map to use, so why not use it?” where can i get my hands on that map? thanks for the tip. Boze december 19, 2008 at 6:06 pm Hi I bet that you could write these books. Have a go. Make a name. Make a book. If you’ve studied all these things like you obviously had and can write like this. You could ‘fake’ it. Not sure what the conclusion is. 🙂 Paul december 16, 2008 at 2:41 pm Ran across this recently http://justperception.net/archives/328 There seemed to be a few Jed related articles there. Anonymous november 10, 2008 at 10:16 pm Thanks, you Wonderful Latvian Jokester! A very fair and balanced, and even friendly, response. I like this kind of response as you show you preferences and values without getting all superior about it. If only the world was filled with more Latvians! By the way, is Latvia located next to Africa? I completely agree with you about the missing link of Heart in Jedo’s presentation. Personally I don’t mind or miss it, but I sympathize with you, and I believe it is a significant point. My own critique of this issue appears on a number of pages of this blogsite. Brian the latvian november 10, 2008 at 11:20 am i finally read that pdf excerpt of jed that you sent me. On the plus side (for me) it was highly insightful and amusing. On the minus side (for me) I got very little sense of love or compassion from jed, only a brilliant and very detached insight into the absurdity of egoic life. Which is valuable enough of course. Personally as my life goes on i seem to have less and less CONCEPTUAL idea of what ITS all about. However I feel i have a better idea of what its NOT about. So i resonate conceptually with Adi Da’s teachings on the ego and consumer religion. And pretty much all of what i just read by jed definitely rings true conceptually as well. But beyond conceptualizing about things, I find myself being drawn to the feeling of love and compassion, in whatever form it comes my way (which it still does through Adi Da, and regularly through my close friends). So for better or worse thats how I choose the company I keep – including what I read. Of course I am aware that this may well be just another completely egoic choice on my part. But I’m just not moved to spend too much time in situations where love is not obvious. So I guess while I appreciate jed’s obvious insight I am not drawn to spend more time reading his books, unless the except you sent me was not characteristic of him? jedmckenna november 1, 2008 at 11:39 pm -It’s fun for me to get my head aroung a big puzzle that has stumped me my entire life. -It’s not a means to liberation, needless to say, its just playing with a puzzle that represents many advocated means ABOUT liberation. Kind of like sorting out the best directions to Disneyland, yet knowing that you “can’t get there from here”. It can be fun! -I live in separation all the time, so there’s no worry about that. -Writing helps me know my own ego, which helps me to know what I have been attracted to and attached to thru my life. Kind of like knowing that I’m allergic to broccoli. from Brian Eddie B november 1, 2008 at 10:57 pm It’s all way too complex for me (and ultimately unnecessary). If you are trying to attain some state of realization or profound understanding by comparing one teaching or path with another then you are already coming from a place of separation (the teaching or teacher on one hand and you on the other) and nothing will ever be resolved. If you are simply exercising your obvious intellectual capabilities and having fun with it then by all means enjoy it. I would rather go for a walk on the beach. Cheers my man! Eddie B jedmckenna november 1, 2008 at 3:14 am Rather than ad hominem attacks on Jed why not discuss the virtues and vices of various spiritual paths? I don’t want to make him out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, I just want to have honest and real conversation with people. “Wondering why you contextualise Jen within the Dharma of Adi Da?” Because Adi Da is the greatest mind in spiritual history. Agreed. But that doesn’t mean he is right about everything. Also, he laid out the best map to use, so why not use it? “Jed rejects “Teacher” but is one in every practical sense.” So what??? Everything is in paradox. He is teacher in a limited sense but he has no Ashram (that is just a fictional element of the first book) and he is not doing any kind of guru-ing. He wrote a few books and disappeared. Admittedly, it is a difference of degree rather than kind, but there is a serious distinction here. “I appreciate your struggle to understand, tho.” Thank you, tttttttttttttttt from Brian required :-) november 1, 2008 at 2:42 am Wondering why you contextualise Jen within the Dharma of Adi Da? Why would you not do the opposite? My feeling is that it’s a natural instinct, because Adi Da’s Dharma is unbeatable! I don’t think Jed’s anything more than a smart guy, who’s definitely onto something, but a bit like the other guy who’s name I can never remember who rejected Teachers, Jed rejects “Teacher” but is one in every practical sense. He has an ashram of sorts, he talks, he has students. What else is that but a spritual teacher? A rose by any other name…. I appreciate your struggle to understand, tho. love, tttttttttttttttttt LEAVE A REPLY Enter your comment here... Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy Skip to content JED MCKENNA WEBLOG AI VERSUS SELF – BY BRIAN EMMETT BENIGHTED, ILLUMINED, AWAKE OR ENLIGHTENED I, CULTIST BY BRIAN EMMETT JED MCKENNA VERSUS FREE WILL BY BRIAN EMMETT JOY KNOW YOUR PURPOSE MISPLACED ULTIMACY NON-DUALIST FUNDAMENTALISM POST-SPIRITUALITY THE ENLIGHTENMENT SURVEY YOU ARE A BELIEVER! BY BRIAN EMMETT WELCOME, JED MCKENNA AFICIONADOS REALIZATION OF JED MCKENNA BY BRIAN EMMETT JEDISM LINKS ABOUT Realization of Jed McKenna by Brian Emmett I intend this piece to be other than another fraught polemic, cunningly wielding nothing but rhetoric and emotion, authority figures and scriptures, straining to convince you that a cherished teacher was dealt something less than a full deck of cards. But instead, a method will be proffered for anyone capable and so inclined, to ‘scientifically’ investigate and ascertain the validity of the high claims put forth by the character known as Jed McKenna in the series of books on the matter of true Enlightenment, and presumably, by extension, the realization of the author of those books at the time of their publication. Is such a thing possible? I believe it is. Please read on a little further and I will explain. If you are reading this, you probably either are, or were, a fan (or perhaps even an enemy) of the Jed McKenna series of books (or someone you know was). The Jed character, to put it in Hollywood terms, has thrilled and delighted us for many a long year, and has served many of us extremely well in terms of helping us to eliminate mountains of cultural, religious, and spiritual accretions and misconceptions. That is what I can say his work has done for me. And let’s not forget, he is a truly magnificent storyteller! As further motivation, on the rare occasions when I have gotten around to reviewing the traffic statistics on this Jed Blog, the article titled “The Realization of Jed McKenna” is always by far the most heavily trafficked, indicating to me people’s ongoing need to get some perspective on the grand claims of the Jedman. My sincere hope is to provide something of that to the interested reader using the technique I will outline below. And even though I clearly have my own opinion on the topic of Jed’s qualifications to refer to himself as “Enlightened”, there is no reason why you can’t ignore that fact and use the technique to decide for yourself, using a method other than your best intuition or mystical experiences (this article replaces the old version that formerly resided here, which was published 8 years ago, which can still be accessed via this link (1). The Key Issues in the Dispute about Jed’s Way Yet as you must also be aware, many of us have had sincere and well intentioned doubts about the full efficacy and wisdom contained in the Jed books, in spite of its obvious brilliance, humor and wisdom. I’m sure most of you know what I’m referring to here. It’s the matter of his profound aversion, and some would say, disdain, for the feeling dimension of Being. This is the classic “what about Love, Jed?” question, to which he typically replies, “I don’t do heart!” Additionally, his disdain also extends to the dimension of energy (if that is indeed distinct from the feeling dimension), and is just as truculent. The notion that full realization has nothing at all to do with an exquisite energetic ‘state,’ often referred to as ‘bliss’, is just as seriously dismissed by Jed. Furthermore, the disregard or even disrespect of the Feminine – Feeling – Love dimension of being is such a profound flaw in Western Civilization, starting at the very least with the Abrahamic religions, moving through to Descartes and his ridiculous conceit about ‘thinking’ (or, to be precise, “doubting”), and on to modern science and psychology, that Jed’s assertions can be seen as carrying the added weight of being, directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently, playing a part in the continuing suppression of the feeling dimension and capacity within all human beings. At such a critical point in human history as this, I suspect that we cannot afford to blithely ignore the ramifications of allowing one more assault upon the feeling dimension to go unchallenged (and notice please, I did NOT say the emotional dimension, although by extension, Westerners of the Northern European variety have often been saddled with that obstruction as well!). And even further, I suspect that those attracted to the Jed POV, like myself and others that I know, are by ego-tendency, acutely oriented to a predilection for mental masculine awareness, with a limited, and often relatively minor association (and even capacity), for the feeling dimension. This alone must raise the red flag of concern and suggest some serious self-examination. All of which is decidedly not to declare that those ‘Feminine’ qualities are, after all, in themselves, the true criteria of enlightenment; and that the “Present/Presentness” of pure Consciousness is not a true quality of full realization, but that Jed in his proclaimed ‘abiding non-duality’ can thus be seen to abiding dualistically in opposition to the Divine Feminine. But fear not! Trust that the method I will be suggesting is one which utilizes the core strengths of the mental, masculine capability to succeed in its mission of discovery, and may enable you to rationally decide for yourself whether his pronouncements on this topic are valid and true, or not. No lovey-dovey, devotional, bhakti, or new age rituals will accost you here! To those on the oppositional side of the Jed fence, this exercise has the potential to provide a person with more than their intuition, or spiritual or mystical experiences, to base their conclusion about this core issue. Those experiences of theirs, which yield conclusions which are no doubt valid from their POV, but which often sound to outsiders so intellectually inchoate that they are often dismissed as merely emotional, twinky or even delusional pipe dreams. To those coming at this issue from a spiritual perspective, a specific understanding of the process described below may provide an intellectual platform from which to make their case, when and if they feel the need arises to challenge what they perceive is an overly mental proposition about the nature of Reality. *** The Cultural Obstacles Several years ago I attempted to challenge this problem with his teaching from an intellectual and psychological perspective in the original article “The Realization of Jed McKenna”, suggesting that his was apparently a conceit based on his own personal developmental weakness in experiencing the fullness of the feeling or emotional dimension, and consequently, a rejection based on the very emotional reactivity, fear, and limitation which he apparently wished to negate in his books. What I did not attempt to do was to criticize his POV from, shall we call it, a spiritual POV. Although many of us have a strong intuitive sense that all is not well in the Jed Universe, yet finding a specific technical means to focus and articulate that doubting intuition is what I didn’t have in sufficient quantity to take the next step forward with a spiritual critique of the Jed materials. Therefore, I wasn’t interested in pursuing this topic again, unless or until I had something, not only technical and quite specific to point to, but more, something that could potentially be replicated by anyone (the scientific method). I did not have the means at hand to confidently recommend a method for others to use, so that they might themselves be facilitated in heightening their discernment of the truth or fallacy of the Jed worldview. Normally the doubt or skepticism of such an endeavor as I plan to offer here comes down to this – how could an unenlightened being such as yourself, find a reliable and genuine means to assess or challenge someone claiming a quantum level of superiority (Butterfly v. larvae, or Vampire v. human, Superman v. Clark Kent). Such a supposition is either explicit stated or else implicitly embedded in most traditions, included Jed’s work, as well as in common spiritual parlance. Now, I will be the first to concede that one could NOT use the Scientific Method to prove that an individual is indeed ‘enlightened’. But the inverse, insofar as it is confined to correlations with a person’s phenomenal manifestations as actions or speech, may prove reasonable expedient at the task of revealing a lesser attainment. So, if Jed’s confession of realization can be demonstrated to fall within the parameters of mundane, subtle or casual phenomena, then we can safely assume that that is where he belongs, a great and mighty Dualist, and not elsewhere. So, is it possible to avert or overcome the classic kill-shot that spiritual masters and enlightened realizers (as well as their acolytes) routinely impose upon anyone challenging their game in terms of their quantum superiority argument? This suppressive traditional tactic is especially odious when it issues forth from within a Monist or Non-Dualist tradition, because of how it, in a fundamental way, contradicts it’s essential and core Dharma point – of Unitary Existence and Reality. The stated fact that you are always-already The Divine, at least in nature, but are merely playing at ego-unenlightenment, seems to get lost somewhere along the line. After all the eternal sermonizing about how the student IS ALREADY ONE with the Absolute, Monists and Non-Dualists of every stripe can often be found dismissing any serious criticism by virtue of this ‘quantum superiority’ trope. While it’s probably a good idea for novices to keep their mouths shut for a good long time, and just listen, because they are so highly programmed with bullshit upon arrival that the probably do need to learn more than they can teach, this injunction gets institutionalized and petrified into a crushing dogma from which no one is ever liberated, at least not by the institutions. In this construct, everything that the master says is sacred and precious beyond human reckoning, and everything that the questioner says is ridiculed as tragic ego-drivel, or dismissed as delusional or neurotic excretions. So it boils down to this: can a human being, assuming that it is indeed constructed out of the Ultimate Divine Identity, even while usually playing at limited consciousness (as ego), at least on occasion, reassert his/her true identity for a moment, in order to sense and identify the inherent qualities of Itself, in its Ultimate Wisdom and State. And by extension, identify that which is lesser? Are we permitted to examine the ‘source code’ from which we issue, or is it a binary system in which common folk are not permitted to examine the system for possible bugs, or for a virus? To me it seems altogether reasonable that Consciousness would allow and even facilitate this maneuver, if for no other reason than for It’s own inspiration and forward movements when they are desired. Pursuant to that possibility, could a specific exercise, followed through in a step by step methodical fashion, gradually ascending through the continuum of increasingly subtle levels of self as ego, finally deconstruct and identify everything, including the Causal level of self or ego, and stand on the threshold of the quantum leap (from self-contracted ego self, to, Source Being itself), and inevitably, experience the fluctuations of consciousness, from ego to oneness, and back again. Would not such a finely tuned experiment provide the user with a surer sense of the qualities that inhere at Source as well as It’s supposed representatives? And once located there at the threshold, give a person the ability to compare those qualities which he/her experienced in that exercise, with the qualities which a given teacher or master says is characteristic of one allegedly abiding as such, and decide for himself what to make of the claims of a given superman-teacher. *** My Role and My Point of View It is my hope that this article and its exercise may offer one possible means to ascertain the truth about this great matter, using a technique I was given many years ago and which works for me – and therefore — it could work for someone else! I am fulling aware that this exercise is ‘not for everyone’. That most will have either no interest, no inclination or even in some cases, no capacity to follow it through to completion. Such is life. Since rather clear results of this sort have issued forth as a result of using this technique on innumerable occasions, I became convinced that it behooves me to pen one more essay on the subject of the Jed McKenna phenomenon, in the hope that it could indeed to useful for a few others to help them decide whether or not they want to discard the quality of heart or energy from their own pantheon of Divine Principles. And so while my interest in Jed or his teachings is mostly just an enjoyable nostalgic memory nowadays, I do feel a certain obligation to articulate and share what I have seen, so that others may have an added advantage insofar as they choose to use Jed’s ideas to arrange their lives. Such an exercise as will be suggested here could possibly provide a temporary satori to the user, but of course, it wouldn’t likely ‘enlighten’ anyone. Frankly, I suspect most of us already have had many such experiences. But we usual stumble into such ‘experience’ without much notice or care for how we arrived at a sense of our divinity. Or else routinely ascribe our good luck to the blessings of a god or master. The thrust of my critique of Jed’s stand are that although the author has, at least at the time of the writing of those books, no doubt penetrated successfully to a level of the Witness, the Soul, (the still fundamentally contracted experience of awareness itself) but he has evidently not been able to directly experience the release of that self-aware self from the delicious gravity of its implosion in on itself. Because once comfortable or familiar in that condition, one does experience a profound level of freedom from the whole drama of higher and lower mental, emotional and sensate perceptual limitation that most of us struggle with. Yet the evidence and his testimony reveal that he has not experienced and reported the – dare I call it- blissfulness and universal love as a consequence of the deliberate and conscious release of that witnessing position as it moves from the concentrated witnessing self, felt (and seemingly located in the chest), to the more diffuse realization of ‘Mere Being’ itself, which underlies it. And beyond that, has not experienced the expansion of that Pure Being-ness into reunion with It’s Essential Feminine Divine Radiant Manifestation, as Shakti-Creation-Love. *** The Practice itself This exercise I will propose is a rapid tour through the many layers of divine refraction, identification and attraction, and eventually, for most of us who live predominantly as ‘ego’, distraction, so that we may develop a keen sensitivity to the cascading levels that we as egos identify with, and seemingly, become trapped in. And through intimate recognition with those layers, we may gain critical insight into the ways that we may begin to deconstruct these layers until they are perceived as a single Causal identity or dynamic. That identity is the one you and I call “me”. By this precise examination we can gain a knowledge of exactly what the qualities, dynamics and limitations of ego perception are, and by dismissing identification with each, they are seen and understood anew in their seminal or root form. When that summary understanding and perception is in place, we may begin to move deliberately and consciously beyond that contracted state to what is not the ego’s domain, if only for a while. The fundamental error of “the Jed” was to conflate the liberation of the Witness Position – (with its senior and inclusive freedom from subjugation to ALL external authorities or Deities) as being a non-dualistic state, a state of ‘Completion’ as they say in the Orient. In this context, his prime directive: “the only thing that you can know is yourself” gives the impression of finality which it doesn’t warrant. While although the subjugation of the witnessing soul or self to the mind & body may have been successfully resolved, the remaining self-division between the Witness and Consciousness, and more, between Consciousness and its Radiance and Manifestations – (as flowing feminine love bliss) is NOT resolved in the Witnessing position, either in its early stages or even as it matures and begins to expand into mere Being. And probably, not even noticed as an outstanding issue! This understandable error occurs because when one is more or less comfortably established in and as Witness, one has a deep sense that he is now located in The Great Depth, and can operate as somehow above gross and subtle things. So rich is this breakthrough that it can blind a person from noticing he is as yet missing much much more. The Exercise & the Proof This exercise is taken from instructions which were publicized back in 1986 by a famous spiritual teacher. The personal references to him that were previously contained within it I have removed so that the reader may proceed without the distraction of a personage alien to them getting in the way of the process. The author would insist, I suspect, that such an omission would invalidate the power of the exercise, but I have found that to be, quite not the case. (The origins of this exercise are referenced below) Steps 1 – 9 are prelude, and eventually, once mastered, can be combined into a single instruction or observation. Yet they are essential to the next steps and shouldn’t be bypassed (in my opinion) if you want to actually make this process work for you, (and secondarily I would assume, get to know clearly where the Jedman is coming from). Step 10 is the jumping off point which I believe represents the best that Jed has realized, (but to what extent I do not know) (although, I don’t doubt his claims of enjoying grand mystical experiences on occasion). Steps 11 and 12 are where the sublime Reunion begins to occur. In these last steps you may experience the intense gravitational pull of the imploded witnessing self releasing, and will have gained experiential certainty of a quite exquisite immanence beyond it. Furthermore, it may well be a rather gradual transition to where Mere Beingness begins to expand until it notices that it is now capable of touching the Divine Feminine. She was there all the while, but the lower and even the higher ego didn’t notice Her, so mightily distracted was it by ‘my precious’. Now you may notice that you as Being sits calmly in the eye of a gentle, lovely, radiant and benign Field, sitting in the midst of a vast expanse of Life, Love and Creation. What is not to love now? What is not Love now? And a very happy reunion that is, although whatever success you may have with this experiment, if you are as resolutely unenlightened as I am, you will likely fall right back into your familiar ego-home soon after you are ‘done with it’. You may retain some residue of the good stuff but I have found that my apparent ‘free will’ has never been sufficient to hold on to any great spiritual ‘attainment’ at all. So be it. But you may get to see something you hadn’t before which also bears directly on the assertions of that one known as ‘Jed McKenna’. I presume that once the latter part of this meditation experience is confirmed in yourself, any Jedish hyper-masculine presumptions will probably fall into irrelevance for you. So here begins the exercise: In every moment & in every Meditation, Stand tacitly as Mere Feeling-Awareness. Merely Observe and Feel every “thing” or experience, or knowledge, that arises. Merely Observe or Freely Feel, without avoidance or reaction. Merely Observe, or only Feel, without seeking after any state, or other, or thing, that arises. Merely Observe or Feel whatever arises, and directly realize that Feeling Awareness is the Witness, of whatever arises. Merely Observe or Tacitly Feel, that all experience and all knowing, is, in and of itself, only self-contraction – the ego effort of separation and separateness and separativeness. Merely Observe and or tacitly Feel, the moment to moment effort of separateness and thereby observe, that the Witness Consciousness, makes no efforts at all. Merely observe the moment to moment effort of separateness until that effort (of separateness) is Directly Felt-Observed in its original form, which is the Root Feeling of Relatedness, or as the Act of Attention. Merely observe the feeling of Relatedness, or the Acts of attention, and thereby locate its inherent feeling-vibration, its Causal Stress, in the right side of the chest. Find the Self there, (in the right side of the Heart) where You Stand, deeply prior to the feeling vibration of relatedness or attention, by “Locating” your Self as the Native Feeling of “Mere” Being Itself. Merely feel the Native Feeling of Being Itself, and by persisting in this feeling, of surrender, be inherently Identified with the Divine Self, until the Under Current of Love-Bliss is most deeply revealed. Deeply & Persistently Feel the constant “Heart Current” (in the right side of the chest) until all things, and even the sense of “difference,” is relinquished in the Source Feeling of Mere Being Itself, & Dissolves in boundless Love-Bliss. *** My Conclusions The experiences represented in the final two steps are a ‘No Man’s Land’ for the Jed character. About this it might be said: ‘he knows not whereof he speaks’. This exercise has the potential to prove to anyone interested, that Consciousness and Love are inextricably linked, and that any supposition to the contrary is fatally flawed. This exercise has the ability to disprove one of Jed’s key theses, which is the false dichotomy that mystical experience is radically distinct and inferior to the realization of Enlightenment. Although I completely agree with Jed that mystical experience alone, however grand, are certainly NOT Enlightenment either, and are often a major cause of delusional beliefs. I therefore must conclude that Jed’s realization is limited to the self apart, or even, Self apart, confined to the lower realization of the Witness Consciousness, or at best from an attunement to the realization of ‘Mere Being’ itself, yet still quite divorced from Love and Life. This conclusion, arrived at even when using the quintessential masculine tools of discrimination and the conceptual mind, can prove to a person that Love & Bliss are not neurotic, emotional or mystical manifestations of simply ‘higher (or lower) human development’, but integral to the Enlightenment experience or realization. Jed may be correct in asserting that all emotions are inevitably based on, what did he call it, delusion or fear? But I would assert that- ‘Love’ is an integral aspect of Source, not the sign or emblem of ego-contraction. “Love’ resides at the Source and it is from “Love” that the emotions may be stepped down or even distorted into any number of ‘emotions’ by eager egos, but Love is not radically separate from or inferior to Consciousness. In very much the same way, this phenomena happens with Consciousness as well, which gets stepped down and often profoundly debased into lesser forms as every level of mind, philosophy, attention, and thoughts. As far as I can understand it, the process by which Source creates these notorious distortions is through the act of identification with lesser manifestations and sensations of “Attention”, (as Mind) and the “feeling of Relatedness” (as emotion, and ego’s inevitable love-hate sensations), but that is another topic altogether! As the traditions say, Source, Truth, Reality is fundamentally composed of formless, motionless consciousness, AND, it’s feminine aspect, moving and creating love and energy. My humble suggestion is this: don’t miss out on half the ‘fun’ because of some inherited or assumed conceit based upon too much mind. Go further than Jed. To leave a comment scroll down to the end of the previous comments at the bottom of the page! References: The Love-Ananda Gita, by Swami Da Love-Ananda Paramahansa Avadhoota, Page 243, Paragraphs 468-479, Dawn Horse Press, 1986. (Later revised as “The Lion Sutra”) The Comments below dated up to January 2016 refer to the Old Realization of Jed McKenna page here (1). WordPress does not facilitate the moving of Comments from one page to another. SHARE THIS: TwitterFacebook 376 THOUGHTS ON “REALIZATION OF JED MCKENNA BY BRIAN EMMETT” Narga Boni july 6, 2020 at 12:28 am Brilliant piece of analysis. Thorough and deep. Unsui november 30, 2019 at 5:40 pm My god, what complete and utter drivel. No wonder real teachers decide to stay hidden. Enlightenment Myth june 22, 2017 at 5:23 am Here is about the real Jed. Reality is the best teacher if one sees with Clarity: http://www.enlightenmentmyth.com Enlightenment Myth june 8, 2017 at 3:38 pm I met Jed. http://www.enlightenmentmyth.com heldenkline december 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm He lost me at “George Carlin”. Zee december 16, 2016 at 9:35 pm Jed’s new book review http://www.zmark.ca/2016/12/jed-mckenna-dreamstate-conspiracy-theory.html Pingback: Realization of Jed McKenna | vivesur.wordpress.com Alphie july 21, 2016 at 4:42 am Another coincidence today. I was reading an interview with Russell Blake (http://www.worldliterarycafe.com/content/nude-clowns-meet-russell-blake ) and this came up: Question: If you want to just veg out, but there’s nothing on television, what movie is your go-to? Blake: I don’t own a TV, but recurring favorites on the movie front are The Usual Suspects, The Name of the Rose and Pulp Fiction. (“The Usual Suspects” features the character Keyser Soze.) Alphie july 21, 2016 at 1:48 am How odd! I just went to the Wisefool Press website for the first time in months and there is a new McKenna book there – published TODAY. It’s available in pdf on the WP site, and there is a volume 2, but not a volume 1(?) available in print on Amazon. It’s called Dreamstate: A Conspiracy Theory (of course, that’s why I found it the same day it was published), and it’s apparently part of a trilogy. So, Anonymous, that fits with your Russell Blake theory – Blake does a lot of trilogies. Alphie july 20, 2016 at 11:21 pm Steve- I don’t think that’s the real Jed (the one who wrote the books, anyway). There is some discussion of this elsewhere on this forum. Jackson july 20, 2016 at 2:07 am I took the Russell Blake comment as humor. Everyone knows that Jed and Keyser Soze are one and the same. Mythical and a mystery that should never be solved. Steve july 19, 2016 at 9:43 am You’re a bit behind the curve anonymous… http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/index.php He lives in Cambodia on the coast in S-Ville, not outing him, he has passed that info on to anyone at his site… Alphie july 19, 2016 at 8:20 am Anonymous: Interesting. I’ve been checking out some links – according to some articles, Russell Blake is a pseudonym for a property developer in Baja named Craig Osso. I have been able to get info online on the real Jed McKenna – as someone else on this blog said, the information is out there if you have the time and inclination to look for it (I don’t intend to give it out – while I got a kick out of figuring it out for myself, I do respect his privacy.) There are some interesting parallels in the Blake/Osso articles, but so far no smoking gun. dkelso1 july 19, 2016 at 5:48 am Anonymous, are you certain of that information, particularly the name? Many people have guessed at his identity, location, etc., without success over the years. Most or all of the info in his books about his identity and location was discovered to be fictional. His first published book is in 2002, (which was with Wisefool press, who is his publisher now). So it seems he is either self publishing since then or perhaps never has. Anonymous july 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm Jed McKenna is Russell Blake. He lives in Mexico. Has a dog he adopted from the shelter. Started self publishing in 2011. And his writing style is dead on. dkelso1 june 22, 2016 at 6:07 pm Thanks Brian, I read through your response a couple of times. No offense intended, but this explanation still seems too steeped in “Daese” language and concepts to attempt to sync it up with how things look from here. Very complicated stuff. My experience with the process of investigating what I am and what this is all about has been that things are seen as simpler and less complex as you go, not more so. Appreciate the effort though! Brian june 19, 2016 at 4:03 pm Dan – I would say that the only way to approach your questions, from my point of view, is from the inside – out, or, from the top – down. As for the possibility of “defining the feeling aspect” it is as impossible as defining consciousness, as I’m sure you will know, because it stands senior to all lower forms. It’s invisible to them. Although I am not an enlightened master, I am able to temporarily gravitate to that space in my peak moments of truth. Although I myself find it annoying, and I’m sure others do as well, I affirm Da’s mapping and articulation (which I would say corresponds with Hindu cosmology) that this is a non-dualist universe that is essentially composed of two core components: Shiva – Shakti, or, Consciousness and its Radiance, as Love and Energy. So that ontology is the conceptual frame I use to describe my experience. I don’t know a better one. I think I probably went over some of this in the Jed’s Realization piece, so pardon me if I repeat myself, but from that point of view, on the masculine side, consciousness gets stepped down into form through (?) the goddess energy, and into individual souls etc. That’s stepping down could be called a contraction, as the One Being begins to identify and define itself as an individuated self, and as some ‘form’, with various experiences, sometimes even apart from the unity of all. And so as a soul, Being now experiences consciousness as various forms of mind, vision, attention, and thought, rather than as awareness. In the feeling aspect of radiant Love – Energy of Being, it is simultaneously truncated into the whole range of feelings that we know of, from love of another, (Da calls the “feeling of relatedness”) all the way down through to the entire gamut of feelings and emotions. I just remembered a point I heard him make back in the early eighties about feeling. He remarked that feelings are evident in every dimension of existence. That you can feel with your mind, of course with your ‘heart’ and your emotions, in your energy field, and naturally, in your five Physical senses. You asked for a more personal account, which I know makes ideas like these more tangible to the reader, and I’ve always resisted that for a variety of reasons, but I’ll give it a try here as it could possibly help a few people. The reason why I rewrote this piece on Jed’s realization is because, after being relatively exhausted in my mining of the masculine dimension, one day the word “love” popped out at me from a page like a thunderbolt, and I suddenly realized that for me to continue to grow I needed to follow that principal, wherever it took me. Not, to abandon the masculine principle, but to cultivate and integrate the feminine principle. It’s not that I didn’t know the usual range of feelings and love for many ‘things,’ but the idea of following Love as a Principle just shocked me. How in hell does one do that? What an alien idea! I had not the slightest idea of how to go there. So I just started by resorting to traditional forms of worship of the goddess. For a long time I had experienced the capacity, or perhaps I should say, ‘grace’, of being able to expand out of the chronic core contraction of soul, or ‘witness’ as felt within the chest, and into what seemed to me to be pure consciousness. But after I began to associate myself with the goddess principle, at peak moments, I would feel consciousness expand both into my body, and out into the world (VERY slightly!) and up to where I presumed I was ‘locating’ the goddess at the top of the head. Very recently it occurred to me to ask myself – “well, what about your long standing identification of yourself in the chest” (which I detailed in the piece “Post-Spirituality”)? Why not move as consciousness into that zone and see what happens? Thereupon I could feel Consciousness move into that area where both the seat of the Witness seems to abide, as well as it’s nearby neighbor, the heart chakra. In moving there I’ve begun to see Consciousness ‘become love’. And for the two to become united into a single ‘thing’. And frankly, it feels darn good! And that’s as far as it has gone for me, after, I don’t know, 6 or 8 months of doing that dance of embracing the feminine. It’s left me with a tangible certainty (rather than the merely conceptual acceptance or even intuitive certainty) about the feminine aspect of reality in a way which I certainly did not have before. I don’t know if the traditional Goddess oriented techniques I used were causative or not, as I continued to use much of the Adi Da inspired approach I’ve outlined simultaneously with them, but at this point they have kind of merged (at peak moments). By the way, I’m quite sure that others with a different personality type from myself would go about this kind of integration process from a diametrically opposite direction. Perhaps starting in a Love-devotional disposition or practice and then gravitating to ultimate reality and finding that it matured into a connection to ‘Consciousness’. These are the circumstances that confirmed for me what I and many others felt for a long time, that the author of the Jed books, was not in fact fully enlightened, because he had a complete (and even obnoxious) disdain for the feeling dimension (except of course, for the affection he felt for his dog!) which felt and still feels very wrong-headed. Of course, maybe I’m making this all up and am just a very imaginative yet deluded author! Who can say? Brian june 13, 2016 at 7:41 pm OK, Dan, some more on the topic, but give me a few days to respond. dkelso1 june 13, 2016 at 5:19 am Thanks for going into your personal experience a bit Brain. I’ve been suspicious for a while now that, although I’ve made considerable progress penetrating the mirage of a separate self, and recognizing my being as awareness, (what I believe you term as a “masculine approach”), there still may be some more feeling (feminine?) aspects of awareness that are underdeveloped. I’d like to go into some of your points a bit further if you’re willing so I can give this exercise a run, but maybe we should take it off line at some point if it distracts from your purpose here? In the mean time, I’d like to clarify a few terms. How do you define the “feeling” aspect of “feeling-awareness”, (as oppose to just grounding in the allowing-ness of awareness, or bare witnessing)? Also, I’m assuming what you mean by “knowing” as a “contraction” that you’re talking about common thought, cognitive formation in the mind as a result of remembering, interpretation of experience, etc.? How exactly is thought a contraction? Contraction of what substance, by what force is it manifest as such? thanks my friend, Dan Brian june 12, 2016 at 10:22 am Dan, thanks for your interesting comments. One thing I should say is that I try to take myself OUT OF the discussions here as much as possible, even tho that is clearly impossible. Partly its a matter of privacy and partly that its not supposed to be a consideration of me, but what we can all learn about ‘the Truth’. That said, I would remark that I can perceive the self-division inherent in living as an ego melting. (That is another thing which I hate to talk about the: “I’m getting more and more enlightened” trope all the time). Yet as i follow the course that is unfolding before me (not of my making, frankly), I experience the Truth become more stable, and at least for me, the validity of the ‘exercise’ that the Da offered having genuine efficacy, at least for those of my disposition (overly mental). I’ve said to my friends for years that “I am clearly at war with ‘god'” inasmuch as I have always been able to go the places of depth but I spit them out like at bad taste in very short order. Or maybe the reason is (as I think I alluded to in this piece, that maybe Source is intent upon ‘upgrading’ me at a gradual rate, enjoying the unenlightened ride and journey rather than quickly returning to itself. Who knows! I know that I don’t know. I too am a critic of The Da, and I express that to a fair degree publicly in my piece “I, Cultist”. I have even more serious reservations, but I thought it expedient to only refer to medium level critiques in that piece. Clearly a genius at describing the geography of the soul/spirit continuum, and much about human nature, but I find so much else to be deeply objectionable and self contradictory. But I don’t know if any of that undermines substantively the Truths of McKenna. I stand by my critique of him and reaffirm my perception that he is (or was) deeply self-divided in terms of the Feminine-Goddess element of Source. Another brilliant genius (like Adi Da) who had very serious blind spots, in my opinion. I hope I fully addressed your thoughts. Cheers, Brian dkelso1 june 12, 2016 at 7:35 am Thanks for the post Brian, enjoyed considering your ideas. My curiosity about your questions/comments stems from an interest in what occurs after the “self inquiry” process bears significant fruit. In my case this means, there is a permanent recognition of “no separate self”, and also seeing the nature of being as this present consciousness. I’ve wondered at what looks like bias’s in Jed’s perspectives/teachings, and I’m curious about the deconstruction process of conditioning I find happening now. I do wish you had spent more time with your own direct explorations and experiences in these matters, rather than bringing in terminology and level teachings from Adi Da. I think to make some use of the exercise you propose would involve really understanding clearly the definition of terms and buying into his teachings, and based on my experience with the Daist communion in the 80s and Adi Da’s questionable behavior, I sense that even though he clearly had some significant insights, he had a lot of unchecked ego conditioning remaining. Also, I think the fact that your experience with the exercise resulted in temporary insights suggest it can’t really be used to refute statements by Jed about enlightenment or abiding non dual awareness in it’s finality. That said, I do think this an important area for exploring and sharing, so thanks again! Dan Alphie june 1, 2016 at 7:41 am “Jed McKenna” actually left a message on this blog – in the “Enlightenment Survey” section. He apparently has another pseudonym, “Michael T. Ness”. (M.T. Ness – emptiness, get it?) Under that pseudonym he wrote a book called “Transcending the Elegant Charade”, published in 2011. If you read that book (yes, it’s on Amazon), you will see the same style, themes and phrases that Jed uses in the other books, and uses the same method of rather phony-ish dialogs with fake characters to get across his teaching. Instead of “spiritual autolysis” he uses “self-inquiry”, and in this book he’s married. I have a feeling he pulled out an earlier version of his Jed McKenna books and tried to see how it would play, like J.K. Rowling publishing under a pseudonym. Steve may 3, 2016 at 11:00 pm Yes he’s a living being. Google search The Invisible Guru. Brian may 3, 2016 at 10:09 pm A “nom de plume”. Ivor Faulkner Normauss-Arden may 3, 2016 at 8:47 pm Does anyone know if Jed McKenna is actually a living human being or is he, as some people have suggested, merely a digital artificial intelligence? Brian april 27, 2016 at 8:40 am I agree with everything you say, Leta, and the feelings are mutual. And I have the same feeling about this web site.- moved on from this stuff a long time ago, but it seems to serve some people who want to inquire a little deeper into the Jed question, so that keeps me from deleting the whole thing and forgetting all about the whole project. And as a reward, I do still get to meet lovely and smart people every now and then, which I do very much appreciate. Hasta la vista, Leta! Leta april 26, 2016 at 11:29 pm Brian, (answering your question), to flex the conceptual muscles is a joy, I agree, but more than that, FUN is in the everyday moments of a life lived with eyes wide open. Your website was one I came to in my explorations for more McKenna words, maybe from before the Trilogy, but I found this instead. I like your approach & appreciate your time & effort here. But, I’ll be moving on. Words send me to sleep at the moment. I did enjoy learning about you. I have a friend on the planet, I feel, & it’s great knowing you exist with me on planet earth. Have a wonderful day! Peace. ~Leta Brian april 26, 2016 at 2:40 pm Way too much! But once in a while it feels good to flex the conceptual muscles. Don’t you agree, Leta? Leta april 26, 2016 at 2:05 pm You guys talk a lot. Brian april 24, 2016 at 6:08 pm Sorry, Dahlia, I have no idea. Brian Dahlia april 24, 2016 at 5:37 pm Great site, and very helpful info. Does anyone know if Jed is planning on writing any more books? I can’t get enough of his work! Brian april 23, 2016 at 5:35 pm Ha ha! Yes, I have it on pretty good authority that he looks like a retired Eastern Philosophy or English Lit Professor. If that helps! Brian J. Unterweger april 23, 2016 at 5:04 pm What a superbly written piece. I still want to know what Jed Mckenna looks like, just out of curiosity. His ‘teachings’ are secondary for me. Brian april 23, 2016 at 8:22 am Thanks “R”. Perhaps an even better use of them for me to to use them to describe a place, one you have left it behind! Brian R. Ramirez april 22, 2016 at 5:17 pm The best thing about words is once they’ve got you where you want to be you can throw them away. Elisa april 13, 2016 at 8:48 pm There are many words on this website which I have found extremely useful as a whole. Many thanks. Brian april 13, 2016 at 7:45 am I am happy that you have found the proper path for yourself, Cecil. Cecil april 13, 2016 at 2:34 am When i used to practice lucid dreaming i discovered that my favourite thing to do when i’m awake in a dream is to just let it happen all by itself without actually ‘doing’ anything. It now reminds me of just sitting in waking life and letting it all happen by itself. Watching. Brian february 10, 2016 at 10:15 am Dear Bruce, either your reading skills are flawed or your comprehension skills are skewed. Good luck, but I can’t spend any more time with this nonsense. You THINK you know or understand something about me, but sadly for both of us, you don’t. Best of luck in your travels, I’m sure you are well intentioned and good spiritual guy, but this is just too tedious and I see no point in wasting any more of your time or mine. Brian jake kenner (@jakekenner101) february 10, 2016 at 9:37 am “Don’t make ignorant assumptions about people and you’ll be a lot better off in life, I suspect.” This statement is emblematic of what is wrong with this weblog. As McKenna makes perfectly clear in all of his writings, awakening is not about living a life in the world, the people who appear to inhabit that world, or the ideas, beliefs or concepts those people hold about who they are in that world. Awakening is about dying. Awakening is about what is left when that world disappears, when all those people disappear, and when all the ideas, beliefs and concepts held by people about who they are disappear. The analogy McKenna uses over and over again is that world is no more real than a dream world (or a virtual reality world if you prefer the computer analogy), the people in that world are no more real than characters in a dream (or avatars in a virtual reality world), and the ideas, beliefs and concepts those people hold about who they are are no more real that concepts created in a dream (or in virtual reality). There is nothing wrong with living a life in the world, but don’t call that life awakening. Be honest with yourself and call it what it is. Honestly admit to yourself that you’re living a dream. If you want to live the dream, do the best you can to create the best dream you can create. There’s nothing wrong with that life, but it’s not awakening. Awakening from the dream is about what’s left when the dream disappears. Everything in the world is manifested. Awakening is only about what’s left when the world disappears and everything manifested in the world disappears. Awakening is about the ultimate unmanifested nature of reality, which is the true nature of what you are. McKenna makes the critical point that the manifestation process is only possible because of the expenditure of emotional energy. Only the focus of attention of consciousness on the world can direct the expenditure of emotional energy in the world, and in the process create all the ideas, beliefs and concepts you have about who you are in the world. Only this expenditure of emotional energy can animate your character in your world and create all the ideas, beliefs and concepts your character holds about who you are in the world. Those ideas, beliefs and concepts become emotionally biased in favor of your character when the focus of attention of your consciousness becomes emotionally biased. The awakening process is only about redirecting the focus of your attention away from these mistaken ideas, beliefs and concepts, away from your character, away from your world, and redirecting the focus of your attention on the true nature of what you are. This can only happen if you are willing to stop expressing the emotionally biased emotional energy that animates your character in your world. As the awakening process plays itself out to its ultimate conclusion, all the energy that animates everything in your world comes to an end, your world disappears, and only your underlying reality, the true nature of what you are, remains. If you what to know what is ultimately real, you must shift the focus of your attention away from what is not real. The only way you can see and know what is real (the truth) is if you stop seeing and knowing what is not real (the false). You have to be willing to turn away from all these false ideas, beliefs and concept about what you are, and be willing to know nothing about who you are. That is the only way you can ever know the true nature of your reality. Since everything you see and know about yourself in the world is a false representation of yourself (part of the virtual reality world you create for yourself), the only way you can directly see and know the true nature of what you are is if you turn away from everything in your world and are willing to see and know nothing. That can only happen if you shift the focus of your attention away from your world, away from all the people in your world, away from your character in your world, away from all the emotionally biased concerns your character holds about your world and your character’s emotionally energized life in your world, and away from all the ideas, beliefs and concepts about the nature of the world, people in the world, and life in the world. In other words, you must be willing to die. Brian february 9, 2016 at 6:21 pm To Bruce. If you read the front page of this Blog you would realize that this is not what it is about. It’s just about calling BS wherever I see it. And if you knew me, which you certainly do not, you would know that I have a living process at work entirely separate from the work I do on this Blog. To make it simple, if your occupation is that of a school teacher or plumber or whatever, and I observed your work and assumed that that was all you had for a spiritual life, I would almost certainly be making a grave mistake about you, wouldn’t I? This Blog is just my service to a few people to help them justify in their minds what they already feel in their bones, about the Jed and other Dogmas. Don’t make ignorant assumptions about people and you’ll be a lot better off in life, I suspect. Anonymous february 9, 2016 at 5:37 pm Words,words and more words, what are you trying to do. There is no way to understand anything until you lose all ideas and beliefs that stop you from seeing. I can,t see what is real while all I focus on is what is not. You can,t analize your way out of this. Brian january 21, 2016 at 3:20 pm Sorry Steve, I forgot to address the issue of self-no self earlier. I agree with you and Jed! The proper counter point to this it’s that Consciousness and it’s Radiance are certainly not “self” in the ego context that Jed it’s rightfully critiquing. Brian Brian january 21, 2016 at 7:53 am — Hi Steve, I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree on all this. My responses are inline below in Italics: How long has it been since you have re-read the trilogy Brian? There are many assumptions in your post that don’t hold up to whats actually in the books. For example, in SIE Jed says in chapter 6 that these are the words of U G Krishnamurti that “overlap” his own thoughts on the subject, the very first statement is then that he “detests the term Enlightened” That he is not an enlightened man and that there can be no such thing as Enlightenment or an enlightened being because there would have to a be a “self” to be enlightened and that the full realization of truth is just this: “There is no such thing as a self”. This issue about the word Enlightenment is all semantics to me. Everyone knows that “Enlightenment” is a trashed term. Even the Luciferian cults refer to themselves as “Illumined’ etc. It’s obviously just an almost universal place holder for what is considered ‘the ultimate’ state. In Damnedest Jed acknowledges that the pinnacle of human existence could very well be the transitory state called by various names; Unity Consciousness, God Consciousness, Buddha nature, Christ Consciousness etc. and that he HAS experienced that state himself. Having experienced this state several times I would concur that the state of bliss that one experiences while so enraptured and the subsequent confirmation during this state of this simple fact; Love is the only truth, would lead one to believe that this state is enlightenment. The problem that ensues for anyone experiencing this state is that it is transitory, non-abiding and will fade like a summer dream. –-My point is not that ‘Love” that other great trashed term, is senior to Consciousness, but that Love-Energy is integral to full “Realization” For all I have to say in criticism of Adi Da, he nailed this one down pretty cleanly. He critiqued what he called the “5th Stage error” as exemplified by great and famous Yogis like Swami Muktananda who worshipped the ‘Blue Pearl’ at the Ajna door, and its blissful qualities. I think this term might be described traditionally as Nirvakalpa Samadhi. So Jed’s critique rightfully applies not only to the new age wowsers, deluded by delusional relationships to “Love” but to the grand tradition of ascent into, and advocacy for, the ultimacy of the blissful yet exclusive states of mind. What Jed’s realization could be critiqued in Daist language is the “6th Stage error”, as I tried to describe in some detail in my essay above. It is belief in the ultimacy of the Witness or even Mere Being itself (as Consciousness), yet still not integrated with the Divine feminine aspect of Itself. The genius of Mckenna is the realization that the state of bliss that everyone on the enlightenment path seems to be looking for or has experienced briefly and wants to return to, is a lie, at least in the a sense of a “self” abiding in it permanently. —See above He found that truth realization, not enlightenment, is the only abiding state of consciousness that allows one to live “in” the dream state without being “of” the dream state and has nothing to do with bliss. —Yes this is his great truth, but he hasn’t proven either to me in my experience nor the experience of many (but certainly not all practitioners over the millennia). The funny thing is that Adi Da made exactly the same claim in the opposite direction (which I also don’t accept)– that he was the first one to discover how to integrate the three states of Consciousness, (Jed’s god) the goddess aspect as Love-Bliss (the Yogi’s god), and living it in the world, rather than fleeing into one or the other. His vehement insistence to, “fuck bliss”, is just an effort to keep students from confusing these two different states of being. Far from a denunciation of love and bliss, it’s more like an art teacher saying to a student who is learning to draw eyes, “screw the nose! why are you focused on the nose!” it doesn’t mean the nose is not important or valuable, it’s just that it’s a distraction when learning to draw eyes. This is where I think your entire premise for the blog post, that Jed’s weakness in the books; disregarding love and bliss, is incorrect. He just wants the reader to keep the focus on whats important, Truth Realization. He says so in the first chapter of Damndest when he gets Sarah (who’s after bliss and unity consciousness and thinks that’s “enlightenment”) to realize she can chase bliss all she wants, AFTER she becomes Truth Realized. —As I said above this is a valid tactic for a teacher to use, but he elevates it into a divine principle rather than merely a teaching tool for neophytes. Also, your exercises of how to “find out if Jed’s assertions are true” fall flat. Jed expresses over and over that the ONLY way to know if what he is talking about has value is to do the math yourself. — I agree. That is why I offered a suggested pathway to determine the Truth for themselves. Inevitably it will fail for many people. Everything does, but that hardly proves its invalidity, does it? Autolisys. I’ve done the math, his assertion is true and it was horrifying, no bliss involved. It’s not for dabblers and dilettantes, only those who see no other road and are willing to burn their ships and plunge ahead into the blackness. —If Autolysis has gotten you to where you want to go then that is wonderful, I thrill and celebrate your accomplishment it is truly grand– everyone should try it if they think it will serve them. But I can assure you that the Integrative path I am talking about is also a ‘hell on wheels’. I speak from personal experience and my friends who can confirm that. I have been rather ruthlessly ‘masculine-consciousness-‘Truth’ oriented my whole life of practice (about 40 years) and it was only fairly recently that I began to gradually see-feel-know the limitation of that path and begin to experience the spontaneous merger of the principle states. I could be wrong, Steve. But so could you. BTW, even people of the traditional devotional theistic paths experience the hell of transformation. If you’ve read something like “Daughter of Fire” you know how intense even the traditional path can be. Consciousness – the unmoving, uncreated, still, aspect of divinity does accurately understands its feminine aspect’s CREATIONS as ephemeral, and they are! But what Jed misses is that the Source of that Beingness has a great joyful aspect or principle which is part of itself and not inferior. It loves and enjoys Itself and its changes, but the core Source of ecstasy is not ephemeral, it is integral, It is permanent. It is the One, and the Oneness. I am sorry Steve that we can’t come to more agreement with each other at this level, but that’s life! I wish you well in your happiness. Brian Steve january 19, 2016 at 4:40 am How long has it been since you have re-read the trilogy Brian? There are many assumptions in your post that don’t hold up to whats actually in the books. For example, in SIE Jed says in chapter 6 that these are the words of U G Krishnamurti that “overlap” his own thoughts on the subject, the very first statement is then that he “detests the term Enlightened” That he is not an enlightened man and that there can be no such thing as Enlightenment or an enlightened being because there would have to a be a “self” to be enlightened and that the full realization of truth is just this: “There is no such thing as a self”. In Damnedest Jed acknowledges that the pinnacle of human existence could very well be the transitory state called by various names; Unity Consciosness, God Consciousness, Buddha nature, Christ Consciosness etc. and that he HAS experienced that state himself. Having experienced this state several times I would concur that the state of bliss that one experiences while so enraptured and the subsequent confirmation during this state of this simple fact; Love is the only truth, would lead one to believe that this state is enlightenment. The problem that ensues for anyone experiencing this state is that it is transitory, non abiding and will fade like a summer dream. The genius of Mckenna is the realization that the state of bliss that everyone on the enlightenment path seems to be looking for or has experienced briefly and wants to return to, is a lie, at least in the a sense of a “self” abiding in it permanently. He found that truth realization, not enlightenment, is the only abiding state of consciousness that allows one to live “in” the dream state without being “of” the dream state and has nothing to do with bliss. His vehement insistence to, “fuck bliss”, is just an effort to keep students from confusing these two different states of being. Far from a denunciation of love and bliss, it’s more like an art teacher saying to a student who is learning to draw eyes, “screw the nose! why are you focused on the nose!” it doesn’t mean the nose is not important or valuable, it’s just that it’s a distraction when learning to draw eyes. This is where I think your entire premise for the blog post, that Jed’s weakness in the books; disregarding love and bliss, is incorrect. He just wants the reader to keep the focus on whats important, Truth Realization. He says so in the first chapter of Damndest when he gets Sarah (who’s after bliss and unity consciousness and thinks that’s “enlightenment”) to realize she can chase bliss all she wants, AFTER she becomes Truth Realized. Also, your exercises of how to “find out if Jed’s assertions are true” fall flat. Jed expresses over and over that the ONLY way to know if what he is talking about has value is to do the math yourself. Autolisys. I’ve done the math, his assertion is true and it was horrifying, no bliss involved. It’s not for dabblers and dilettantes, only those who see no other road and are willing to burn their ships and plunge ahead into the blackness. Brian january 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm I understand. Steve january 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm I haven’t read your revised blog post, I’ll try to find time for that myself. The reason I say it’s Jed (although that doesn’t really matter) is because I’ve spent the last year and a half communicating with him through various outlets (the site mentioned and Skype) and the energy which is prevalent in the books holds true in my experience of him personally. I never experienced a moment when he fell “out of character” an amazing feat over a year and a half’s time for someone playing a role. Through this interaction I lost everything i needed to, to fall to the space which in the books he calls “Done” (which is a misnomer that he readily acknowledges, as it is really only a beginning, anyone who thinks they are actually done is simply back in the dream, a paradox.) Other than that, ok, anyone can play a role, if it’s not Jed, who cares? I got from him exactly what I went looking for, although I had no idea what I was looking for when I went and when I say “got” i mean “lost” and when I say “I”, I speak of what was lost. Brian january 17, 2016 at 11:16 am HI Steve. I like your comments about Jed. Even though I feel saturated at this moment with all this Jed stuff and want nothing more then to forget all about this stuff and go back to me real life, I did click on the link you sent just to see if it was other than the one i had seen, and you are correct – it is a different site. I’m sure I will check it out eventually when I have time to do some exploring. BTW, I am interested to know why you think that this guy is not another Jed impostor? Great chatting with you again, Steve, Brian Steve january 17, 2016 at 5:15 am That site has only been up since Aug 2014, it’s Jed, Go peruse it, it’s much different than the other site. The political comment was just an observation, you do a fine job of walking through land mines without getting scathed, speaking of which, Jed spent a week in Vietnam last Dec. helping an organization clear land mines, while he eschews the “heart” in his books I believe that is because the first and only focus should be getting clear, finding out who you aren’t, after that one can do whatever pleases them and this is where the Heart comes in. Jeds books are like boot camp, get the training in come hell or high water, what you do after that is up to you. Brian january 16, 2016 at 7:15 pm Steve, thanks for the suggestion. Should I take the ‘politician’ comment as a insult? But I’ll say: “Jed for President!” He would make one great motherfucking POTUS, wouldn’t he? About that site I haven’t been over to it in many years and don’t believe he really is JM. But if i get bored someday it could be an interesting thing to do. Nice getting to know you, Brian Steve january 16, 2016 at 12:59 pm Well said Brian, you’re a much better politician than Trump or Hillary, why don’t you run? Or better yet why don’t you get some reaction about your opinions on Jed from the horses mouth… http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com Brian january 16, 2016 at 12:42 pm Steve, you make an very big assumption that quite a few have made over the years about this Blog- that critiquing Jed is core to my spiritual Process. It is a very very occasional hobby I do, and don’t even enjoy doing very much (I think the last time I wrote anything about Jed was over a year ago at least). It is my contribution which some people find very useful, and some don’t. I expect that. But many smart and good people have serious concerns about what Jed teaches and I just provide an avenue to articulate that so it can be considered more fully by anyone so interested. So don’t you worry about me, my friend, I have a very alive process going that I am fully engaged with and which is working just fine. Good luck to you in your process, I truly wish you the best! Brian Steve january 16, 2016 at 12:00 pm @ Rex Cox, finally, someone who gets it… And doesn’t cherish it afterwards. If anyone goes to the no place Jed points to, they sure as hell won’t be clucking like a hen about “heart”. When your heart melts away, along with anything you thought was you. so does any need to associate a “self” with a “heart” or anything else for that matter. Stop critiquing Jed’s realization and start wondering what the hell is critiquing anything, then you’ll be doing mankind a favor, getting rid of “you”. Brian january 16, 2016 at 10:01 am Thanks Jackson for cracking me up! Brian Jackson january 16, 2016 at 7:48 am Now, now boys. Brian january 16, 2016 at 7:22 am HI Chris, sorry you were disappointed in the exercise. Maybe others will find it more useful. About the rest – lets just say we disagree. I do appreciate the passion with which you hold Jed’s mighty sword to the world of bub-cuss, believe it or not, I do too. As for the art of writing, it is always a nightmare of trying to concoct something which says SOMETHING TRUE, but has to negotiate the world of language, logic, and paradox, where every god-damn thing that you want to say is always only half true for those very reasons! Frankly I really find it a terrible burden for that reason. As for Autolysis-writing I personally found that it too had structural limitations which made me leave it behind. Although I can believe your saying that you found no such limitation using it. So lets just say that my article is intended for those who don’t find Autolysis effective and are looking for something else. Best of luck to you on your journey, Chris. Rex Cox january 16, 2016 at 3:57 am The little meditation thing is all fine and a cute little awareness exercise until #10 when it goes to shit. Comes right off the rails and points someone back to a love-narcotized self who now thinks it has found something all enlighteny. And now this is proof of what? That Jed doesn’t fall for the trap that #10 opens up for you? That trap he tries to get you to avoid if you’re serious about this enlightenment thing? You have such a talent for writing, but you wrote yourself into your own trap. See if you can write yourself out. Don’t stop until you’ve written something true. Jed isn’t love. He is an uncherished sword that can cut your heart out, but only if you painstakingly use it yourself to cut your own blissful heart out. And who could possibly want to do that? Blake september 14, 2015 at 11:45 am Dear Jed, Here’s something for you, and all of us beautiful wonderful entities as the Oneness that we are, to remember. This is wonderful: Love is the energy which opens up, expands, sends out, reaches out, shares, cares, stays, heals, and reveals. It sets free, lets go, places no limitations, restrictions, nor expectations, does not confine, judge, nor loathe, and does not abandon. It allows, expresses openly, honestly, and always communicates truthfully. Love transcends human emotion, thought, and feeling, but is present as Consciousness in the human heart, is boundless, timeless (eternal), unlimited, and unconditional, is the ultimate intangible, transcendental principle, the All-Reality of Infinite Possibility… which always Is… and manifests as the actual! It’s the glory of Who We Really Are, our deepest fundamental, inherent nature. Infinite Love (All-Possibility) is the Only Truth, everything else is illusion! Infinite Love (the One Infinite Consciousness, the Oneness, the One) does not judge nor loathe Itself. True love does not always give the receiver what it would like to receive whenever the receiver wants it. That is control and manipulation. But it will always give that which is best for it. So welcome everything you receive whether you like it or not. Ponder on anything you do not like and see if you can see why it was necessary. Acceptance will then be much easier. Blake Richter William J. Dean march 4, 2015 at 10:24 am Weee feeling free from seeking attachment from confident theories passed on by people. like a snake shedding off old skin i feel neutral about my current moments to come. Does it matter? Hey i am exploring this! Now this! I have no idea whats about to happen next, ridin’ the ride “What do you think of this?” Blablabla.Does it matter? Not for mee! Thanks for aiding me to be more like this, awesome books However my words are not precise! Brian november 20, 2014 at 8:48 am Dear Anonymous, thanks for your helpful advice (I think). But you know, some people in these parts find your notion of “getting on with it” rather quaint in lieu of the Non-Dual conviction that we as individuals DON’T possess free will at the level of which you speak (so eloquently). Frankly the notion of going out there (or, ‘in there’) and really getting it on, seems rather sophomoric, if I can be blunt for a moment. Do you know what I mean? Absent free-will, what is one to do? I’ll tell you. Any damn thing you please since experience informs us that all our attempt to ‘get it on’ fall backwards, because they are coming from ego. Ego trying to enlighten itself. Try it sometimes for yourself and see where it gets you! Some of us, like me, spent some time developing our mental ability to simply know about and share what this experience of no-free-will feels like, and what its contours are. Just for the fuck of it, you know what I mean? Just a little fun for the mind while we wait for Source or whatever to make it’s make move through our egos. With kind regards, Your slothful and cerebral friend, Brian Anonymous november 19, 2014 at 9:46 pm wow guys, dont you have a better use of your time?? this is not about jed… this is about you!! everything is about you! get your own realization right, and don’t really worry much about anyone else! Brian october 9, 2014 at 8:55 am Not really interested in debating the undebatable here, but the notion of even ‘knowing yourself,’ and the World disappearing (for Jed or anyone else) is suspicious to me. As ole Adi Da would have it, (I believe)- such a self reference sounds like a full fledged and total 6th stage (“error” – edit) implosion upon the Witnessing self, not true realization. But don’t listen to me, I’m just a humble worker bee. letranger101 october 9, 2014 at 6:07 am The analogy of only an Einstein understanding what relativity theory means is a good one, but this analogy does not apply to truth realization. Truth realization is about the disappearance of the world, and the world always disappears relative to the point of view of the observer of that world. The only relevant question is what happens to the observer when its world disappears? All other questions are irrelevant since they only pertain to the nature of the observer’s world, which disappears during truth realization. Both the message and the messenger are irrelevant since they both disappear. Simply stated, with truth realization there is no message and there is no messenger. All questions and answers disappear. This disappearance of the observer’s world (a world that McKenna calls an untruth) is why McKenna only describes truth realization in terms of negation, as a state of untruth unrealization, a state of unknowing, and state of knowing nothing: “I know that I Am, and I know that I know nothing else.” “Having undergone the process of untruth-unrealization, I am left not in an elevated state of superior knowledge, but in a knowledgeless state of superior elevation. I see everything, I understand everything, I know nothing.” For a scientific discussion of what, if anything, this means, see: http://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/ascended-consciousness-sees-everything-but-knows-nothing-except-i-am/ Eddie Blatt october 8, 2014 at 3:11 pm Peter, I enjoyed your post. There is one thing, however, that you mention that in the past has had me thinking hard – the thing about focussing on the message and not the messenger. Sounds good; why question the underlying character or realization of the guy doing the talking? His message should be enough – after all, it’s probably a universal one that has been proclaimed by many people and traditions over millennia. Yes, but somehow it does matter. Anyone can blab about profound matters (hell, I do it myself at times!), but if the realiser has truly realised what he talks about, then the message and the messenger are one and the same. Perhaps there is a valid analogy we can make with science. Someone who is not versed in the intricacies of physics and mathematics can easily say E=mc2, but if you want to really understand the profundity and consequences of relativity, go to Einstein himself (or a modern version). Anyway, just some thoughts…… Peter George Stewart october 8, 2014 at 1:27 am I dunno, he seems enlightened to me, but then again it’s pretty easy to say the right words. As to the insistence on Truth, that conforms with traditional Advaita Vedanta (even though he’s not traditional), which is the path of Jnana, knowing the Truth, so I don’t think you can find fault with him on that score. I’m rather fond of the sorts of people who get there without traditions (Buddhism calls them “Pratyekabuddhas”), and in a way I find them more trustworthy than people connected with traditions, because there’s all sorts of cultural and pecking-order bullshit that can be attached to traditions, and language that’s not filtered through a tradition, but comes straight from the heart, can be fresh and extremely powerful. The downside is that they sometimes make out as if what they’ve discovered is unique to them. That’s the downside of not being in a culture that has the traditions, I suppose. It needn’t be a reflection of ego – it might even just be ignorance and lack of wide reading. At the end of the day, they all say the same thing, both the Pratyekabuddhas and the Buddhas in and outside of various traditions, but with different emphases, and in ways that appeal to different people at different stages. The best metaphor I’ve seen is that, sure there’s a difference between some hot dog vendor on the street and a gourmet meal at a 5 star restaurant, but if you’re starving the hot dog is just fine, so some average enlightened dude, who might even be quite flawed as a human being, but who just says a “turning word” at the right moment, might be all you really need. I think the best thing is not to get too het up about the people, but focus on the message, which as I said is fairly constant across all teachers, and actually all cultures even (though it’s more heavily disguised and underground in the Judeo-Christian tradition), and is true whether they’re lying or not (i.e. even if they’re parroting to get chicks, what they’re parroting is true anyway!). They’re all talking about something that takes no effort to attain, because it’s already “clear-cut nowness” (Chogyam Trungpa’s summation of Atiyoga). It’s all really obvious, because if “it” is omnipresent, then it’s here and now as much as it’s anywhere else, so you just have to squint the right way to see it as it is, and like with Magic Eye pictures, sometimes you just have to exhaust all the wrong ways of squinting to get the right one. The other constant is that there’s a seeing-through of one’s ordinary sense of self as pointing to something that doesn’t really exist, not really and ultimately (it’s more like the “lie” of a 3-d cursor floating on the computer screen – nothing’s actually floating over the screen, there just seems to be). Another part of the problem is precisely what Jed and many others have said – there’s a difference between mystical experiences and enlightenment. They’re not totally unconnected, but the search for one is a waste of time if you’re looking for the other. There may not be a great epiphany (although there could be) – you might just fall into it insensibly and wake up one day, and it be a simple, clear understanding, without lightshows or trumpets. At any rate, Jed’s writing is certainly entertaining. He’s a good writer per se, which is more than you can say for a lot of these people 🙂 slafa september 16, 2014 at 3:41 pm Thanks for your efforts Brian, after reading many posts and also gauging the response from those that I’ve hesitantly introduced to JM it’s become clear to me that Jed’s message is for a small segment of the population, you don’t teach calculus to a student that can’t divide or multiply yet, let alone add and subtract, they will just get angry, if not furious at you and the books. I did Jed’s autolysis before damnedest was even written, I did it out of desperation searching for clarity in a life that seemed too painful and wrong to continue. I became a spiritual adult long before I stumbled upon Mckenna but when I read damnedest I received the clarity I needed at the moment I needed it. I had my second “mystical” experience 2 1/2 years before I read Damnedest and I felt one with the universe, total and complete LOVE for everyone and everything, I thought it was enlightenment. It lasted about a month and then began to fade, I panicked, I did not want to live without this connection to the infinite and I went on a two year sabbatical from work exploring every spiritual avenue trying to get it back. Enter Damnedest. That one teaching, the difference between mysticism and enlightenment shifted everything for me as did many other McKennaisms. I had done the homework, his books just helped me put it together. Now I live in the flow, life seems effortless where it once seemed heavy, brutal and barbaric. The teacher appeared, the student was ready. I’m learning how to do this. As far as I’m concerned anyone who doesn’t “get” Jed… hasn’t done the homework, they may have the answers but “you have to do the homework”. As to the missing heart issue in Jed’s writing, I have buried a 16 year old child and recently watched another suffer in ICU for a month after a 20′ fall onto concrete shattering many bones and nearly severing her spine, I know the heart you speak of that seems to be missing in Mckenna’s teaching and I have no problem with it, he (the character) has not experienced the loss that it takes to reach those depths so how can he speak on it? Most of the real pain in life comes from the challenge of the breaking of deep interpersonal connections, if you choose not to connect, i.e. marry, have children, take care of aging parents, then how could you speak to things of the heart? It doesn’t diminish the genius of his work. Might just be that his personality runs to the antisocial. As I read here, most who have commented have not done autolysis, (It was more painful than any book can get across although Jed tries real hard) the only reason I did it was because it was a better option than suicide. Jed said he could tell immediately if someone had done the work or not and it is that simple, it’s why vampires don’t talk to humans, whats the point? I add my voice here not to discuss or argue, just to say its worth all the effort I put in, I can’t imagine living in the hell I did for my first 35 years and life now feels like total magic comparatively, don’t quit, do the work, once you’ve come this far what choice do you really have? Shubham june 3, 2014 at 8:00 am i have read innumerable spiritual books by now and the only book that actually helped rather than carrying away was jed’s the damndest thing, for me he is the best teacher who came out in public,but if you are searching for mystics we have alot of them here in india and they are not fake but most of them are not giving enlightenment just cosmic consciousness ,kundalini and stuff if you want that then check out indian teachers on internet seo may 23, 2014 at 4:22 am It is truly a great and useful piece of info. I’m satisfied that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing. Oliver april 9, 2014 at 3:31 am Hi Bethany, I hesitate to write another comment, because..what is to say? I guess, having the feeling of getting lost when ego layers fall away, is to be expected. There are many ‘scouts’ out there, most of them charge for their guidance in one way or the other. As we met on a JM forum, I share my point of view on this guide. You’re eager to find out ‘what IS true’. Clever JM declares himself ‘truth guy’ right from the start. But one of his first statements, as I recall it: ‘I’m here, live on stage to tell what I see’ (or similar) is false right away since he is not on stage. From there on follows lie after lie and in my opinion he should at least have called the books novels. Here’s a man, calling himself the most enlightened of all. We can only access him via email. In these emails and on his forum the tone of his speech is already different from the books. One starts to wonder, but it hasn’t to be problematic, although calling oneself ‘invisible guru’ while lecturing and counseling from a hidden place , I find at least dubious. Especially as he writes: ‘I’m rather intolerant of people trying to sell tomatoes from an empty cart’ and I’d like to accuse him for exactly that. I could write in length why his claim of egolessness, which would put him, maybe, in a counseling position, is completely absurd. But I don’t, he should write about it. Until then: As he thinks of himself as ‘being done’ (and this self-believe may not be a lie), you Bethany got something he lacks, which is, a life. I would rather cherish it, than following his route. Bethany april 6, 2014 at 11:07 am No Oliver… I have disengaged from enough Fictional role models, but I do find JM has many valid points as I search for meaning and direction in my life… I have left traditional religion and all the self help venues and gurus… but I do feel a bit lost at sea without a sail… who am I… where am I… how do I live my life when I have lost faith and given up so many beliefs and External Powers… I am looking deeply at my judgements, beliefs, and opinions and how they have evolved from conditioning more so than not… I have also followed Byron Katie’s work and am trying to see clearer as to what IS True especially in my relationships with myself and others… I am feeling very lost and alone in this search for sure… where do I go from here… how do I live when I am aware that “life is but a dream”… I have many questions after reading his Trilogy… Oliver april 3, 2014 at 6:52 am Hi bethanyr410, I empathize with your confusion. Could it be due to the fact that you’re trying to live your life according to a fictional role model? Again, the author of the book is not the man he describes. Please consider 🙂 (Also, is the finger pointing to the moon? All this you take for granted, why?) Daniel march 24, 2014 at 2:49 am Your are all enlightened damnit!!!! Stop pointing to someone saying they are not. You live in the light. But you think you are not and you search for the truth like it’s “out there”, meanwhile it’s in there. In You. He is your reflection. You are his. We are all one. no more no less. bethanyr410 march 23, 2014 at 11:26 am Is this About Jed McKenna or is it about each of us, Individually? Isn’t he just the “finger pointing at the moon” and you are asking about the “finger”… are people missing the point… or am I??? I am new to his work, but it sure has thrown me down the rabbit hole and I am less interested in him than how to live his message… which is challenging Everything I Believe… and I have No One that I can even Begin to talk to about this 😦 heldenkline march 23, 2014 at 7:23 am I’m not going to quote anyone, including Jed, whoever he may be. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Get something out of the works or run screaming in the other direction. Or, discuss it until you’re sick of it. Did UG Krishnamurti do any better with his awakening? He was a public person all his life, and what happened to him? (Look it up.) Did Genpo do any better? He got drummed out of the Zen establishment for stupid sex. He’s not worthy to polish Jed’s shoes. McKenna’s produced something literate, useful and authentic. What the hell more do you need to know? Oliver march 22, 2014 at 6:09 am “Socrates was ugly” said Nietzsche, reminding us to also look at the author for a more comprehensive view on the philosophy. This, of course, Mr. McKenna understood, therefore he hides. Sorry Eddie, I don’t think JM ever wanted this riddle to be solved. He might get angry with me.*giggle* Eddie Blatt march 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm To Oliver, I’m no good at riddles. Could you tell me the solution? Thanks. Oliver march 20, 2014 at 9:52 pm To Eye Tea, other newly emerged Jed McKenna aficionados or anyone still wondering about the guy behind the alias. There are quite a few clues in his books and even here, on the comment sections of this website you’ll find enough info to get the idea. It’s not much of a riddle. jedmckenna march 8, 2014 at 4:53 am “Jed Mckenna’ is a fictional character. Eye Tea march 7, 2014 at 10:49 pm I’m sorry for interrupting the discussion (to which I may contribute later) but I have a burning question that I need to ask those further into knowledge of ‘Jed McKenna’ than I am. The books centre on the scenario of McKenna as teacher or as centre of an environment of teaching. Did this scenario exist? ie. Are there any students of this ‘person’. I appreciate the reasons for enigma in all of this but I am simply wondering whether there has been a group of people ‘taught by McKenna’ in the past. letranger101 february 25, 2014 at 7:05 am In response to Brian’s comment about the misinterpretation of Jed’s words, as Nisargadatta says “When you refuse to play the game, you are out of it”. That’s my last comment. Adios amigo. letranger101 february 25, 2014 at 7:01 am In response to the question about who the I Am is, Who am I?, McKenna clearly addresses this question. Only the witness, also called the Self, the I Am, or Atman, has a sense of being present. As Nisargadatta, McKenna and Osho make perfectly clear, the witness is only a point of consciousness present at the center of the world perceived by the witness. Even Shankara makes a distinction between the Source, which he calls Brahman, and the Self, which he calls Atman. Even though Shankara states “thou art that”, he also states that there is “ultimately” no difference between Brahman and Atman. His use of the word “ultimately” is key, as he is referring to the ultimate state of truth realization: “That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman−that thou art.” “Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and Atman.” McKenna clearly states that truth realization is a dissolution into void “The truth of the situation is that eventually, there’s nothing. Infinity. Eternity. The void. Truth is one, is non-dual, is infinite, is one-without-other. Truth is dissolution, no-self, unity. There’s nothing to say about it, nothing to feel about it, nothing to know about it. You are true or you’re a lie, as in ego-bound, as in dual, as in asleep.” Osho also describes truth realization as a dissolution into void “The inner emptiness itself is the mystery. When the inner space is there, you are not. When you dissolve, the inner emptiness is there. When you are not, the mystery will be revealed. You will not be a witness to the mystery, you will be the mystery.” In other words, ultimately “I am the void”, which McKenna actually states “I am an infinite pitiless void.” This ultimate state of being is what Shankara refers to when he says “there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and Atman”. To say “I am Brahman” or “Be still and know that I am God” is to say the same thing. Obviously, existence cannot stop existing, but the individual sense of existing, the individual sense of I Am, can come to an end. As Osho clearly states, that individual sense of I Am comes to an end in a state of dissolution into the void. The individual consciousness and being of the witness dissolves into its source of undifferentiated consciousness and undivided being. As McKenna puts it “In the void of undifferentiated consciousness-awake is awake.” Or as Osho puts it “We are not really in the world. The world consists not of things outside us but of our dreams. Everyone lives in his own dream world. If suddenly all dreaming disappeared from the consciousness, your world would disappear because your world was your dreaming. This awakening is really the cessation of inner dreaming. When there is no dreaming you become pure space. This non-dreaming consciousness is what is known as enlightenment.” Nisargadatta clearly states that it is the witness, the I Am, that identifies itself with the false self that appears in its world “You are the source of reality-a dimensionless center of perception that imparts reality to whatever it perceives-a pure witness that watches what is going on and remains unaffected. It is only imagination and self-identification with the imagined that encloses and converts the inner watcher into a person. The person is merely the result of a misunderstanding. In reality there is no such thing. Feelings, thoughts and actions race before the watcher in endless succession. In reality there is no person, only the watcher identifying itself.” Nisargadatta also states that non-identification is liberation “Self-identifications are patently false and the cause of bondage. Non-identification is liberation. You need not know what you are. Enough to know what you are not. The discovery of truth is in the discernment of the false. You can know what is not. What is-you can only be.” Implicit in this discussion of self-identification is that the world must appear, and the witness must be present for that world, for the witness to identify itself with its false self that appears in that world. When that world disappears, only the void remains. Nisargadatta calls the undivided being of the void pure being “I know myself as I am in reality. I am neither the body nor the mind. I am beyond all these. You are accustomed to deal with things, physical and mental. I am not a thing, nor are you. We are neither matter nor energy, neither body nor mind. I am not my body. I am the witness only. In pure being consciousness arises. In consciousness the world appears and disappears. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. The center is a point of void and the witness a point of pure awareness; they know themselves to be as nothing. Nothing lasts. The void remains. You remain as pure being.” In other words, I am not-a-thing. I am the witness as long as I perceive things in my world, but ultimately I am not even the witness. Ultimately, I am the void. Reread McKenna carefully, and you will see that this is exactly what he is saying. jedmckenna february 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm Letranger, Since I disagree with almost everything you say in this post, including your interpretation of Jed’s words, why don’t we leave it at that. We will not succeed in convincing each other of anything, I suspect. As I said earlier, I’ve been writing and thinking way too much lately, and I must confess I would find a debate very tedious at this juncture. Cheers, and thanks for your contributions to date. Brian heldenkline february 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm If there’s no “I Am” after your enlightenment, who’s bothering to write this? Bodhisattvas remain active in the world. They wear the ego lightly…that’s all. letranger101 february 24, 2014 at 10:36 am In terms of free will versus no free will, there are always choices to be made; different forks in the path to follow. To say we have no free will is to say we have no choice with regards to which branch of the path we follow. That may be the case as long as our attention is focused on the world, but in one respect we do have an important choice to make. We can look within and withdraw our attention away from the world. McKenna calls this choice “choosing not to choose”. Clearly seeing the falseness of the ego leads to the desire to be free of the ego. As McKenna says “To know the lie is to hate it; to see it is to slay it.” Maybe your comfort level with ego is just another trick the ego plays on the consciousness in an act of self-preservation to prevent the consciousness from awakening and ridding itself of the ego. But then again, McKenna also says “After all, no matter how you play it, it’s just a f—ing game”. I’m sympathetic to both perspectives. jedmckenna february 24, 2014 at 9:20 am Letranger, I don’t want to quibble with you, or launch into an extended debate as I am currently tired from too much thinking and writing my new piece (I, Cultist) which took 6 months to complete, but where I part company with you is the evaluation of hate, or even will, as a valuable tool of accelerator of the Truth-Realization process. I side with the no free will argument, and so hating or disliking one’s unenlightened aspects would only reinforce the self-division in my humble opinion. Brian jedmckenna february 24, 2014 at 8:31 am Shushilakrishna, farewell, and thanks for all your contributions. If you are curious about the ‘the Absolute loving the limitation-filled experiences’ perhaps you would consider the full implications of a Monist or Non-Dualist perspective. If there is indeed only one Being living and manifesting all this ‘stuff’, then if any of it was other than perfect and desirable, wouldn’t that Singular Being dispose of it in the twinkling of an eye? My ex teacher affirmed the Hindu ontology that there is Consciousness, (Shiva) pure consciousness, never created or modified (the masculine principle) which has a Radiance (Shakti) the feminine principle. That Radiance is always creating, changing, manifesting, destroying. It is one Being with two aspects. That Being is never at war with itself. That Being at times contracts or self-divides further and creates many more limited and apparently separate creatures (like us) for the shear heck of it – for adventure sake. There is no problem -its all an adventure, a thrilling ‘movie’ to be enjoyed by Consciousness, often playing as if It were those unenlightened souls – some playing at seeking reunion (spirituality) and some rushing headlong into the Dark, seeking more intense entertainment. But its never a problem because there is one Being enjoying it all simultaneously. Anyway, that’s what I’ve been taught and have come to feel is True in the deepest core of my being. I understand and accept that many people disagree with this perspective, but there is nothing I can do or even want very much to do about that fact. Their worldview works for ‘them’ and mine works for ‘me’. What else could be more perfect? Cheers, Brian sushilakrishnamurthi february 23, 2014 at 2:57 pm OK, cool – no hate whatsoever. Don’t know about the Absolute loving the limitation-filled experiences offered by the ego ?!! Odd thinking. Anyway, Truth always finds it’s mark – it’s true after all ! Enough said – Adieu, Good luck. jedmckenna february 23, 2014 at 2:05 pm Thanks Shushilakrishna, I corrected the error (I clicked the wrong button). But anyway I would part company with you on this issue of hate. I would also disagree with your equating ‘spirituality’ with Truth. Spirituality is the ego’s self-admitted game of attempting to re-assimilate with That which it never is divorced from, as everyone knows. In my view ‘All That Is’ is at peace with and ‘loves’ even the dark side, and all it’s own acts of self-contraction, and all the results of said self-contraction. In my view the ‘ego’ offers the Absolute the sublime opportunity to experience the adventures of being limited etc. That ‘god’ could not be at war with its own Radiance. I’d say it loves it! Brian letranger101 february 23, 2014 at 1:45 pm It is important to be clear about what truth realization is. The stated purpose of this discussion we’re having is the Realization of Jed McKenna, which I take to mean truth realization. Although it’s natural for us to focus our attention on the world, truth realization is really only possible if we look within and withdraw our attention away from the world. There are many experiences one can have in the world, but whatever those experiences are, they’re not truth realization. The only clear way to define truth realization is in terms of the disappearance of the world. Like Osho and Nisargadatta, McKenna describes truth realization in terms of the disappearance of the world. The witness is only present when the world appears. No world, no witness, no I Am. When the world disappears, only the void remains “And then, one day, there is it. Nothing. Without warning, you’re launched into empty space, and before too long, empty space becomes your reality. Now she’s in free fall. At the precise moment of impact, the planet will disappear, and nothing will take its place. Her free fall won’t end, but it will no longer feel like falling because there will no longer be anything to reference it against. There is where dual awareness ends. From then on she will live in boundless awareness, never again able to differentiate between self and non-self. Abiding non-dual awareness. Like a child flicking a switch that turns the world off like a light. What can you say when the thing that ends isn’t within a context, but context itself?” McKenna gives a very nice description of the pre-enlightenment self-identified delusional state of being, the self-destructive process leading to enlightenment, and the post-enlightenment ascended state of being: “The enlightened view life as a dream. Of what real importance is anything in a dream? You wake up and the dream is gone as if it never was. All the characters and events that seemed so real have simply vanished. The enlightened may walk and talk in the dream world, but they don’t mistake the dream for reality. Before enlightenment I believed my ego was me, then enlightenment comes along and no more ego, only the underlying reality. Now it’s after enlightenment and this ego might be slightly uncomfortable or ill-fitting at times, but it’s all I’ve got. The idea that your ego is destroyed in the process of becoming enlightened is roughly correct, but it’s not complete. Before enlightenment, you’re a human being in the world, just like everyone you see. During enlightenment you realize the human being you thought you were is just a character in a play, and that the world you thought you were in is just a stage, so you go through a process of radical deconstruction of your character to see what’s left when it’s gone. The result isn’t enlightened-self or true-self, it’s no-self. When it’s all over it’s time to be a human being in the world again, and that means slipping back into costume and getting back on stage. Now you’re actually in the audience, watching the drama. I could never mistake the play for reality again, or my character for my true state.” The only way to understand what McKenna is saying here, short of undergoing one’s own truth realization, is to understand the theory of enlightenment. It is not necessary to have such a theory to become enlightened, and having a theory may not necessarily help one undergo the process that leads to enlightenment, but truth realized beings, like McKenna, Nisargadatta and Osho, are only able to discuss their experience intelligently because they have a sound working theory of enlightenment. There is really nothing to say about the truth-realized state, but there is a lot to say about the process that leads to truth realization. In all of these discussions, the world is described as a dream world, like a play that is enacted on a stage; the ego is described as one’s character in the drama; and the witness is described as the consciousness, the I Am, the being that is out in the audience watching the drama. There is only an illusion that the being is a part of the world it perceives because the being identifies itself with its character in the play. That is the nature of the delusional self-identified state. To bring this illusion to an end, the being’s character and world must disappear. That is the self-destructive process. When the being’s world disappears, only the being’s underlying reality remains. That underlying reality is the void. The being is only present when its world appears, and only the void remains when its world disappears. After truth realization, the being perceives its world again, but it ascends to a higher level of consciousness, like a higher dimension, and it no longer identifies itself with its character in its world. As Plato tells us, all the animated images of things in that world appear like shadows projected onto a screen or the images of a movie, shadows illuminated by the light of consciousness itself. It is as though the being comes out of its world, but it never really was in its world. Only an illusion ends. Nisargadatta describes the end of that illusion: “Realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world. Once you realize that there is nothing in this world which you can call your own you look at it from the outside as you look at a play on the stage or a picture on the screen. To know the picture as the play of light on the screen gives freedom from the idea that the picture is real. In reality I only look. Whatever is done is done on the stage. Joy and sorrow, life and death, they are real to the man in bondage; to me they are all in the show, as unreal as the show itself. I see only consciousness, and know everything to be but consciousness, as you know the pictures on the cinema screen to be but light. It is enough to shift attention from the screen onto oneself to break the spell. It is enough to shift attention to the Self and keep it there. Look at the dream as a dream. When you see your dream as dream you wake up. When you have seen the dream as a dream you have done all that needs be done.” In reply to the comment about hate, as McKenna clearly points out, only this hatred and discontent fuels the self-destructive process that ultimately leads to truth realization. This is not hatred of the world per se, but hatred of one’s own false self as a part of that world. Since the Self that identifies itself with the false self is only present when the world appears, the world and self are inextricably linked. They appear together and so they must disappear together. When they disappear, only the void remains. You can call the void whatever you want to call it, but it seems to me McKenna’s term for it as empty space or No-self is about as accurate as we can be when we express things in words. sushilakrishnamurthi february 23, 2014 at 1:04 pm Think you are replying to Skrish & not Letranger – a slip perhaps ? Freudian, I don’t know. Anyway, to my way of thinking, hate is hate- love is love. Our psyche is well capable of really liking and really disliking. Intense dislike arises when personal discomfort is experienced or foreseen – Arjuna’s condition. Arjuna dislikes his lack of knowledge and discrimination – his attachment to family & friends which reduces him to tearful confusion. He longs for something bigger, better, wiser. This is love of the infinite, the limitless, of freedom. Don’t think one can truly love the finitude of the ego and its up and down joys and sufferings. This lack of love for the limitations presented by the ego is the mirrored by love for the opposite – love of infinitude and wholeness. Spirituality is wanting more – not wanting less. The ego always offers less than what we could have and want to have. jedmckenna february 23, 2014 at 7:55 am Letranger, Sushilakrishna, I mean, another splendid comment. The only thing I take issue with is that I have suspicions about your sense of hating (words, always such a trip!). I could dismiss my own thoughts and questions about this usage easily enough, but since that subject is on point – I won’t. Your usage would seem to implicitly contradict everything you have so beautifully laid out for everyone. As if a hidden, or secret ‘freudian’ slip implanted for someone’s edification. Maybe ‘hate’ is one way of saying something, but my intuition tells me a better way of expressing such a preference for truth would be to say I ‘love’ my separative tendencies for the many adventure in joy and suffering they offer, but ‘I’ at this ‘time’ decline to manifest them. Such feels more congruent with our real state. Would you agree? Brian sushilakrishnamurthi february 22, 2014 at 9:33 pm It doesn’t matter what else has been said in the Trilogy – these words are enough to rattle – they mislead and betray lack of sufficient understanding and personal experience. I quote : “The process of becoming enlightened is a deliberate act of self-annihilation. It is the false self that does the killing and the false self that dies; a suicide in all but the physical sense. Because there is no true self to fill the vacancy created by the passing of the false self, no self remains. Hence it is rightly said that No-Self is True Self. It is not possible to knowledgeably chose or want Spiritual enlightenment. To desire it is to misunderstand it. Ego cannot desire Egolessness. One does not undergo the process of awakening out of love for the true but out of hatred for the false; a hatred so intense that it burns everything and spares nothing”. Firstly, one who knows and respects this ancient teaching tradition does not use words such as no-self or void. If Nisargadatta has used it, he is wrong too in using it – even though he may well know what he is talking about. Shankara is the authority here – not Nisargadatta or any body else. The Buddhist void or nothingness finds no sanction or acceptance in the Vedanta, which predates Buddhist thinking any way. Shankara’s exemplary commentary on the Brahma Sutras refutes this nothingness idea in no uncertain terms and makes it very clear that the self always is – as a positive and whole and undivided entity. Note even Nisargatta says the void is full to the brim – Upanishadic style contradiction here – which we would all do well to avoid. The idea that the self is only present if the world appears for the self to perceive is wrong – for the simple reason that the self does not come in and go out of existence depending on something as flimsy and changeable as the world. The world is changing, the self is unchanging – the self always is – regardless of where it is – and whether it is waking, dreaming or asleep. This surely is the basic truth we are working with. No witness without the universe is a load of poetic jargon which carries little substance. Even in deep sleep, when there is no world, the I is – I am sleeping is inferred from the recollection of having slept well or not well when the I wakes up. All of us wake up from sleep to say I had a good night’s sleep – don’t we ? Who was there to record the experience of good sleep ? if not the I ? THE SELF OR I DOES NOT REQUIRE A WORLD TO MANIFEST ITSELF OR EXIST. It is defined as satyam – which represents that which exists independently of any other entity or phenomenon – unchangingly in all periods of time. How can there be a time when the I is not ? This very feature of constantness constitutes the timelessness that the Vedanta is famous for. The timeless limitation-free I is Vedanta’s greatest contribution to our understanding of ourselves. Were we not timeless and all-pervasive and the ONE, we would never catch a glimpse of our true nature, which is true unconditioned happiness. So, poetic jargons and word muddles apart, there is only one I – one self. It is identified heavily and passionately, or it is more dispassionate and aloof from all that it sees and experiences and has. Wisdom and enlightenment is only the I saying all this is mine – I am everything – Nothing is separate from me – All is one – I am that – OR – the I saying – Nothing is mine –I own nothing – I am always free from everything I see and experience. These are the two principle lines of thinking for the enlightened. It is best not to use words like killing and dying – some Vedantic texts may have used such terminology, but overall, such words confuse. Who is killing whom ? – what remains after the killing ? Such wrong questions can only give rise to wrong answers. In actual fact, there is no killing and no annihilation here. Such dramatic terms have come into vogue in recent times – never mind if the Upanishads themselves have used such terms – we have the task of interpreting their content correctly for our own sake. The ego or I, in the unenlightened state is identified and attached all over the place – calling everything its own, and suffering greatly from all these tie-ups. Enlightenment is when the ego ceases to suffer because its identifications and attachments have weakened to a point of relative non-existence. Relative is the operative word – there is never an absolute non-existence for the identifications or attachments. They just lose their potency and power to bind and limit and distort the truth. Thus, the quality of the I changes with enlightenment and maturity. The I always is – the Buddhist void or no-self is neither propagated nor accepted by the Vedanta. We have to be mighty careful with the words we use. A Vedanta master will never use terms such as no-self or void. The I am is a manner of speaking – to indicate what the self is not, and not aimed at what the self is. It is not a definition of the self. It cannot be taken in the literal sense like many people now seem to take it. There are other positive and affirmative statements on what the self is (Taittirya Upansihad Chapter 2). It helps in separating the I from its strong and limiting identifications – in differentiating between passionate, binding, identification – and dispassionate, objective identification. It doesn’t literally mean that there are times when the I literally thinks or feels nothing except I am. I am connected to this body – I am peaceful – I see this – are thoughts and perceptions occurring all through the waking state in the enlightened individual. They are objective perceptions – not accompanied by bursts of emotion like in the unawakened state. Finally, who says the ego does not desire egolessness ? – and who says we undergo the awakening process only because we hate the false and not because we love the truth ? We have a natural love for that which is limitation-free – for the vast and infinite and pure. Our own self, we love the most – and seek to establish it all the time unconsciously. The limitation-free self is the most loved entity in the whole world. It is because of this self that we seem to love so many other things. We naturally gravitate towards the large and the whole and the limitless – hate for the small and false is another thing. We hate because it is contrary to our original nature and our innate vast potential. Hasn’t any one come across these vital statements from the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad ? If not, one is talking to non-starters. sushilakrishnamurthi february 22, 2014 at 9:30 pm Agreed, words let us down badly some times. Words have their limitations. But, I wouldn’t use the terms you’ve used to describe the limitations of words – ‘wretched — ‘. See, we all have our own style and way of using words to communicate. In a way, words, like clothes, represent and define us somewhat – words, more so than clothes. Clothes are literally external to us, words are close reflections of the mind. Words can’t reveal the self, say the Upanishads – the self is beyond the mind and words. Fair enough. But, the very same Upanishads and the Gita say the self is known only through the mind and words. Contradiction ? Well, this is their style of communication – very confusing & misleading. Were it not for Shankara’s precise and crystal-clear commentaries, we would be floundering with the task of deciphering them. As for us, we need not be so ambiguous and imprecise with our words – we have a choice when it comes to selecting the words we use to convey something. We can use soft or harsh words, enlightening or confusing words, comforting or painful words, flat or inspiring words. Naturally, we would want to use words that enlighten and dispel ignorance, words that inspire and bring joy and comfort, if we have the ability to do so. The immature ego is a dead giveaway here. And, when it comes to something as true and vital and intangible as the self and enlightenment, we have a great responsibility – words carry greater weight and significance. Carelessly used, imprecise words, contradicting themselves, conveying more than one meaning – can’t serve the purpose they are intended to. Success and popularity they may bring, truth they cannot reveal. We can’t absolve ourselves of all responsibility for the words we use, particularly if they are famous and widely accepted. Words do create problems for us – they create misunderstanding and division. Hence, we have had a tradition of teachers who have said very little or nothing. They have preferred silence to words and talk. They are the silent masters. The pressure to talk and communicate is absent. It must take great maturity to be so – another step up the ladder of enlightenment ? jedmckenna february 22, 2014 at 9:24 am Masterful comment, Letranger. Thanks. Brian letranger101 february 22, 2014 at 5:46 am I’m surprised there is so much confusion and misunderstanding on this point when Jed explained it so well in the Spiritual Enlightenment Trilogy. Is anyone really reading what he wrote? I guess all you can say about this confusion, as Jed likes to say, is “people don’t know what they don’t know”. If you read Jed carefully you’ll see he does make a distinction between the Self and No-self. The Self is only present if a world appears for the Self to perceive. By the Self, Atman, the I Am, or any other way of expressing it, the Self only refers to the witness, the pure point of consciousness present at the center of the world that is perceived by the witness. This is how Nisargadatta describes it: “Only the onlooker is real, call him Self or Atman. The witness is merely a point in awareness. It has no name and form. It is a dimensionless point of consciousness, a conscious nothing. All you can say about yourself is ‘I am’. You are and I am only as points in consciousness. Delve deeply into the sense ‘I am’ and you will discover that the perceiving center is universal. All that happens in the universe happens to you, the silent witness. There can be no universe without the witness, no witness without the universe.” In other words, if there is no-self, then there is no world. The Self must be present for the world to appear. If the world disappears, then there is no-self. The key concept is that every witness has its own world, which is no more real than a dream world. This is how Osho describes it: “We are not really in the world. The world consists not of things outside us but of our dreams. Everyone lives in his own dream world. If suddenly all dreaming disappeared from the consciousness, your world would disappear because your world was your dreaming. We call Buddha the awakened one. This awakening is really the cessation of inner dreaming. When there is no dreaming you become pure space. This non-dreaming consciousness is what is known as enlightenment. The inner emptiness itself is the mystery. When the inner space is there, you are not. When you dissolve, the inner emptiness is there. When you are not, the mystery will be revealed. You will not be a witness to the mystery, you will be the mystery. You fall into an abyss, and the abyss is bottomless: you go on falling. That is why Buddha has called this nothingness emptiness. There is no end to it. Once you know it, you also have become endless. At this point Being is revealed: then you know who you are, what is your real being, what is your authentic existence. That being is void.” Chuang Tzu sums it up nicely: “The man of Tao remains unknown Perfect virtue produces nothing No-self is true-self And the greatest man is Nobody” This is how Nisargadatta describes the appearance and disappearance of the world: In pure being consciousness arises. In consciousness the world appears and disappears. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. The center is a point of void and the witness a point of pure awareness; they know themselves to be as nothing. But the void is full to the brim. It is the eternal potential as consciousness is the eternal actual. Jed says the same thing. The Self, Atman, the witness, the I Am, or whatever else you want to call it, is only present when the world appears. When the world disappears, there is only void, which Nisargadatta calls pure being, Ramana calls Absolute Reality, Shankara calls Brahman, and Jed calls empty space or No-self. “Empty space is my reality. The void. No-self. I abide in non-dual, non-relative awareness. That’s where I am now.” jedmckenna february 21, 2014 at 11:05 pm …continued – my point being I don’t feel that you can safely judge a person by the words he chooses in trying to express his realization. As a writer I will attest that all words are wretched traitors! Brian jedmckenna february 21, 2014 at 9:31 pm Thanks Sushilakrishnamurthi, I would tend to agree with your point about no-self. Ironically, in spite of Jed’s raving on about no-self, the reason I enjoy his perspective so much is that he is so unabashed in his honest acceptance of his own preferences. He doesn’t hide behind any pseudo-spiritual, sanctimonious, saintly persona. On the other hand, all these terms like no-self, higher self, god, enlightenment etc are all half-truths at best, just metaphors standing in for something more substantial. That’s just the inherent limitation of concepts and language when used to describe the “Absolute” (there’s another one!). Brian sushilakrishnamurthi february 21, 2014 at 8:16 pm There are so many comments on Jed’s take on enlightenment – wonder if it’s worth adding mine to this vast pile. But, here goes my main objection – some of which is discussed in my latest blog (truelivingfoundation.wordpress.com). There is never a state when there is NO SELF. The SELF, in its pure and unattached and expansive state is limitation-free consciousness – which never changes or dies or goes out of existence. If there is no self or I-entity that represents you & I, after this so-called enlightenment, what are we all going on about ? What is our living & striving about ? Who is it all for ? Existence cannot be denied or annihilated at any point in time – even if the physical body dies. Existence, by definition is that which IS at all times – yesterday, today and tomorrow. Existence is outside the limiting realms of time. I, as an independent and conscious thinker, feeler, doer, exist before and after enlightenment. I am just freer, happier, kinder, humbler, once I know who I am in essence, and manage to free myself from all that limits and binds me.This truth from the Upanishads or Vedanta (discussed in the Gita too) is to be reflected upon with the help of proper interpretations and writings – and verified against one’s own experience of existence. The idea that the self is no more after enlightenment is as debilitating an idea as that which says the ego is the self. Both are equally harmful to our prospects of finding peace and fulfilment. John february 21, 2014 at 7:31 am “Enlightenment is literally the biggest nothing of all time. Enlightenment is life-negative. Spiritual enlightenment is pointless and meaningless, and should only be sought by those who have absolutely no choice in the matter.” We are all seekers because all of us have absolutely no choice in the matter. Even the ones who are not seeking. This is the foundation, the rest is process. heldenkline february 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm Actually if you read the Sutras…that’s pretty much what they all say. My current teacher says that the things that are realized are simply obvious. Once you know 2+2=4, you can’t go back and unlearn that. The thing that Jed understood after he read the feedback after Damned came out was that very few people wanted to burn everything up. Then after Incorrect came out he followed up with Warfare, the last few pages spelling out what he calls enlightenment theory. For me, that summed up why most people don’t go after the Big E. But….suppose, regardless of religious bent, you look at the theory of reincarnation. This would explain why some (like Nisaragatta Maharaj, Adyashanti, and Krishnamurti) are drawn to it naturally, because it’s the ripening fruit of many lifetimes. This is the Buddhist explanation for why some seem to come into the world with the potential for it, and others strive for a lifetime and stay caught in the conceptual world and the dissatisfying pursuits of the false ego. (But–before you rebut this, reincarnation is a metaphor, like all other religious stories, because Zen is the “bomb.” It’s beyond words. You can’t talk about it except in metaphor. And enlightenment is not a thing. It’s a subtraction, not an addition. Where does your dream go when you wake up? Where are you when you’re enlightened? Gone.) All dharmas are useful at some time to someone at a particular stage, and all are equal–we need different messages at different times. It’s not a matter of: “Is Jed ‘fully and completely’ enlightened or no?” If you look at the Diamond Sutra, the answer would be no, because a claim to be at a stage proves that you still cling to the concept of a “self, a person or a life-span.” But, if you read carefully that’s what Jed says, When the ego explodes, there”s nothing, there’s everything and there’s no one. jk february 19, 2014 at 6:29 pm “Enlightenment is literally the biggest nothing of all time. Enlightenment is life-negative. Spiritual enlightenment is pointless and meaningless, and should only be sought by those who have absolutely no choice in the matter.” the last sentence always kept me wondering. i constantly feel like this inauthentic part in me in perspective in life generally. that just keeps nagging. i know that nothing will keep this void satisfied. would that be an example of “absolutely no choice” situation? or isn’t that “absolutely no choice” situation is like how Neo in movie matrix couldn’t ‘go back’ to the unknowing once he realized something was fishy about the reality he was living in? thanks jedmckenna january 20, 2014 at 9:55 am Just so you are clear, this site is not run by Jed, but by me, Brian. Good luck! Angela january 19, 2014 at 10:37 pm Just discovered the books – well cool – 30 odd years of the spirituality gig – but I think I get it – I decided that all religion and spirituality was ” some bugger elses rules” years ago – I get the impression that if you are on the way to waken up – opportunities will present themselves – not seeing them – then this book arrived – will follow this for a while – just wanted to say thanks for the “heads-up/confirmation – All the best! jedmckenna january 7, 2014 at 12:11 pm the blog control panel shows it is still live- you may be looking on the wrong page for it, Ruben. rubenmoon january 7, 2014 at 11:39 am Weird, my last post was deleted. Anyway, it’s funny, you have to want it more than anything and wanting it prevents seeing that it is always here, now. The universe has a great sense of humor. jedmckenna january 7, 2014 at 8:57 am Welcome Rain, I don’t usually like to get all pedantic on people but I hope that you realize that the key stumbling block for most if us in contained in your line: “an intense desire to move as quickly as possible through this.” It is the burning desire to be elsewhere and the refusal to accept what is, that most stalls us, I would guess. ‘Just saying’! Good luck, Brian Rain january 7, 2014 at 3:18 am This is an interesting thread… I’m still winding my way through it. I started reading Jed’s books last year and they really shook me up. I can’t say for the best…. but what is the best anyway? I feel an intense desire to move as quickly as possible through this painful process that has begun in me. I found this site which has been useful: http://www.myreallybigquestion.com/ I asked a question and got a response – it wasn’t posted on the website but emailed to me. I sometimes use google like bibliomancy (sp?) when looking for they key to unlock the next door – which is how I found this thread. At any rate, this isn’t a fun time and I am trying to keep my head down and move forward. letranger101 january 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm A character in a dream explains how the dream is created, but only the dreamer of the dream can understand the explanation. Very weird. Even weirder, sometimes the dreamer is interested in the explanation, and sometimes the dreamer isn’t. Oh well, that’s life in the dream state. In answer to Eddie’s question, I also admit to fraudulence, but I don’t consider this as big a problem as Eddie does. First, I trust what truth realized beings have to say about their experience. There are many testimonies I could reference, but the testimony of Osho seems to me to be about as good as it gets. Second, I trust what theoretical physics has to say about the experience. It seems odd that theoretical physics says anything about the experience of truth realization, but I would recommend that Eddie read Cosmic Solipsism by Amanda Gefter (easily found with a Google search) and consider what the concepts of the holographic principle, the one-world-per-observer paradigm and horizon complementarity are telling us about the nature of reality. If you trust the testimony of truth realized beings, and trust the formalism of theoretical physics, there can be no doubt. I don’t have to just quote others, because I have considered all possibilities, trust my own observations, and trust the process of logical consistency that leads me to the only possible conclusion that makes any real sense. I’d also recommend Eddie read the chapter “Done” in McKenna’s Damnedest: “And then, one day, there it is. Nothing.” “Even then, it’s very possible that you don’t know what you are or where you are.” The experience of truth realization is only an experience. You have to make sense of it. What I’ve written about is a way of making sense of it, whether you’ve had the experience or not. At the end of the day, if you can’t make sense of the experience, what is the value of the experience? Maybe I’m putting the cart before the horse, but I don’t think so. It was my goal to understand the theory of enlightenment, not necessarily to become enlightened. I actually tend to agree with McKenna that enlightenment is something to be avoided unless you have absolutely no choice in the matter. “Enlightenment is literally the biggest nothing of all time. Enlightenment is life-negative. Spiritual enlightenment is pointless and meaningless, and should only be sought by those who have absolutely no choice in the matter.” Much better to become integrated and to be in alignment with the normal flow of things, with feelings of connection, aligned actions, and expressions of creativity. Anyway, that’s my goal in life. eddie blatt january 5, 2014 at 12:27 pm letranger101, it seems to me you oscillate between using the mathematical language of theoretical physics to describe the ways people construct and deconstruct their existence, and verbal language to describe what the truth-realized state is (e.g., “the truth realized state is a state of timeless being, a state of being nothing”). I have little interest in the former (although I have a PhD in the physical sciences and was a research scientist for many years), but I do enjoy interacting with those who communicate about the latter. I’m particularly interested to find out how you know what the truth-realized state is. Have you been there yourself, or are you just quoting others? The thing is, unless one is actually in that state, all accounts of it lack authenticity. We are truly ignorant of the nature of anything. Cheers, Eddie B PS. And please, don’t ask me how I know what I write about – I would have to admit I’m a fraud! letranger101 january 5, 2014 at 11:07 am No language, no explanation, no concept can ever explain the truth realized state, since all concepts arise within the world, and within the flow of time and energy that characterizes the world, while the truth realized state is a state of timeless being, a state of being nothing. Only the mathematical language of theoretical physics within the context of the one-world-per-observer paradigm of modern cosmology can make any real sense of this dilemma, as it explains how the observer’s world is constructed and appears to come into existence, and how the observer’s world is deconstructed and disappears from existence. The big mystery science can never explain is the nature of the nothingness or void from which the world is created and into which the world must return. This mystery of the void, the timelessly existing nothingness that is the source of all existence, is the same as the mystery of the timeless existence of the observer, which is the mystery of consciousness. The point of a scientific explanation is not to explain the mystery, since that is impossible, but to explain how the illusion is created. In terms of the path of return that leads to truth realization, the only good reason to understand how the illusion is created is to help you see things more clearly so that you stop believing what is untrue and stop identifying yourself with your character in the illusion. This is exactly the same reason Plato wrote about this stuff almost 2500 years ago, and why McKenna writes about it now. My only reason for pushing science to its logical conclusion is to demonstrate conclusively in scientific terms what these writers have already written about. There is nothing new to say, only a more precise mathematical way of saying it. To say that the observer’s world emerges from nothingness like a dream emerges from a dreamer is a nice metaphor, but modern cosmology and theoretical physics give a precise way of mathematically formalizing this metaphor. jedmckenna january 5, 2014 at 9:57 am Dear Letranger Thanks for your contribution, I’m sure it has its place. I must confess to no longer having sufficient interest in any truth-telling to follow your arguments thoroughly, but since you persist, I will go so far as to ask you a question: Is you premise that the language of science/physics and maybe mathematics is a language just as capable of referencing the Ineffable as English? If so then I’m with you, even though such languages are unappealing, and as a result rather oblique to me, and I do gladly thank you for communicating in a new way that which has been expressed before in other languages. In summary, I assume that you would agree (I can’t tell from my casual perusal of your comments) that ‘the map is not the Territory’? My own study of language suggests that the truth not only “can’t be spoken” (in any language!) but it can’t be spoken of without hiding a significant portion of the truth (rhetoric), which is fine, because it does work on the human mind nevertheless. Myself, all I ever try to do on this blog is to identity the lies, both the good hearted rhetorical ones and the nasty ones that ego creates for its own amusement. thanks again Brian letranger101 january 5, 2014 at 6:57 am This is a continuation of my last ‘rap’ as eddie blatt likes to call it. The consistency of mathematics has relevance for a discussion of the nature of delusion. The process of self-identification arises as the observer of the mental screen identifies itself with the animated form of its character that appears on the screen. The animated form of the character arises from the way computational bits of information are organized into the form of the character and self-replicated in form over a sequence of observational events displayed on the screen. In the sense of a computer animation, each event is a screen output, and the form of the character is only a form of information that arises from the way information is organized on the screen. If the observer of the animation somehow arises from the way information is organized on the screen, then this implies a paradox of self-reference in the sense that the observer of the animation observes the form of itself. The Gödel incompleteness theorems prove that such paradoxes of self-reference imply logical inconsistency in the computational rules that govern how information is organized on the screen. If the rules are logically consistent, then it is impossible for the observer to arise from the way information is organized on the screen, and the observer cannot arise from the way the form of its character is organized. It is logically impossible for the observer to observe itself, at least in the sense of an observable form of information displayed on the screen. This proves that the observer of the screen is always outside the screen, and therefore outside the form of its character as displayed on the screen. As Plato described this problem in the Allegory of the Cave, the observer exists in a higher dimension that is outside the lower dimensional plane of existence of the screen. The process of self-identification that arises as the observer of the mental screen identifies itself with the animated form of its character that appears on the screen is inherently false, only arising with the absurdity of a paradox of self-reference. In essence, the observer of the mental screen believes something untrue about itself as it identifies itself with the form of its character. The observer’s mentally constructed self-concept is only false self-knowledge the observer knows about itself. Seeing the falseness of this false self-knowledge is an essential first step in the process of awakening from the spell of self-identification and delusion. The spell of self-identification is like a hypnotic trance that arises because the observer really feels self-limited to the form of its character as it perceives the emotional body feelings that relate the form of its character to other forms in the animation. That feeling of being embodied in a personal self is inherent in all self-referential thoughts that emotionally relate the form of the observer’s character to other forms in the observer’s world. Those self-referential thoughts are the nature of the false self-knowledge the observer knows about itself, but in reality are only emotionally energized false beliefs the observer believes about itself. It is possible for the observer to transcend its self-identification with the form of its character because the feeling of being a personal self can come to an end even as the observer continues to observe the animation, but only if the emotional expressions that give rise to those emotional feelings come to an end. McKenna writes about the theory of enlightenment. He has written about nothing else in his four books. Strictly speaking, there is no theory of the truth realized state since there is no theory of being nothing, but there is a theory of how to deconstruct your world in order to reach the truth realized state. The reason science can confirm what McKenna has to say about the deconstruction process is because modern cosmology and theoretical physics describe how the world is constructed out of nothingness, and therefore have something to say about how the world can be deconstructed back into nothingness. The only tricky aspect of the problem is understanding the true nature of that nothingness. McKenna refers to the theory of enlightenment as a paradigm, which he states is not based on any belief, but rather on direct observation and logical consistency. This is also the case in theoretical physics. The best example of the connection between what McKenna has to say and what science has to say about the nature of the world is the one-world-per-observer paradigm of modern cosmology (cosmic solipsism). In his own way, McKenna makes frequent reference to this paradigm. McKenna also makes reference to the holographic universe paradigm, which theoretical physics expresses as the holographic principle. McKenna uses the paradigm of Plato’s cave to describe the nature of things as coherently organized forms of information that are projected from a (holographic) screen. McKenna also describes how an observer’s state of detachment and free fall through empty space (in which the observer’s world disappears) leads directly to the truth realized state. Modern theoretical physics describes this as horizon complementarity. There are connections between what McKenna writes about and what is formulated in physics all over the place if you look for them. McKenna’s book are choke full of concepts. He may be dismissive of concepts on one page and then spend the next 200 pages discussing highly sophisticated concepts in great detail. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is McKenna makes a critical distinction between beliefs, which he correctly characterizes as emotionally energized forms of wishful thinking that are riddled with the absurdity of paradoxes of self-reference, and paradigms, which he describes as arising from direct observation and logical consistency. Theoretical physics makes the same distinction. Paradigms are also called fundamental principles, like the principle of equivalence, the uncertainty principle, the action principle, the holographic principle, and the one-world-per-observer paradigm. To this we can add the most fundamental principle of all, the first principle, which is the principle of existence. Theoretical physics ignores the first principle of existence because it deals only with what can be observed or measured, and what can be formulated as theory, which has do with the way the observable world can become constructed and deconstructed. There is clearly something missing in this formulation. Before the observer’s world can be constructed, after the observer’s world is deconstructed, the observer must exist. The first principle of existence is about the absolute or timeless existence of the observer. McKenna has spent a great deal of time in recent books discussing the first principle of existence. More importantly, this is something you can confirm for yourself through your own direct observation. You know that you exist. You can focus on your own timeless sense of being present as the observer of your own world. Even as things in your world appear to change, you are always present and always the same presence, but that presence is nothing more than the consciousness present at the center of your world. Focusing on your own sense of being present is one of the keys that helps unlock the door to enlightenment. The other side of this key is clearly seeing the falseness of all the false self-knowledge you know about yourself, the false self-limiting beliefs you believe about yourself, and the mentally constructed concepts you have of yourself as a person in your world. As McKenna repeatedly says, the truth is that you are nothing but consciousness. Everything else is a big illusion, like a dream that you are dreaming. The process of awakening is really no more complicated than seeing the dream as a dream and no longer identifying yourself with your character in the dream. Unfortunately, the process of undoing self-identification is a long, difficult, painful process of undoing all the emotional processes and connections that give rise to self-identification in the first place. Nisargadatta gives a crystal clear description of all these points: I see only consciousness, and know everything to be but consciousness, as you know the pictures on the cinema screen to be but light. It is enough to shift attention from the screen onto oneself to break the spell. That which makes you think that you are a human is not human. It is a dimensionless point of consciousness, a conscious nothing. All you can say about yourself is ‘I am’. You know many things, but the knower you do not know. Find out who you are, the knower of the known. Whatever you see, hear or think, you are not what happens, you are to whom it happens. The perceived cannot be the perceiver. Delve deeply into the sense ‘I am’ and you will discover that the perceiving center is universal. All that happens in the universe happens to you, the silent witness. You are the source of reality-a dimensionless center of perception that imparts reality to whatever it perceives-a pure witness that watches what is going on and remains unaffected. It is only imagination and self-identification with the imagined that encloses and converts the inner watcher into a person. The person is merely the result of a misunderstanding. In reality there is no such thing. Feelings, thoughts and actions race before the watcher in endless succession. In reality there is no person, only the watcher identifying itself. The person is in resistance to the very end. It is the witnessing consciousness that makes realization attainable. It is the witness that works on the person-on the totality of its illusions. McKenna makes the same points: Ego doesn’t need to be killed because it was never really alive. You don’t have to destroy your false self because it’s not real, which is really the whole point. It’s just a character we play. What needs to be killed is that part of us that identifies with the character. Once that’s done-really done, and it can take years-then you can wear the costume and play the character as it suits you to do so, now in the character but not of the character. Waking up from the dreamstate is a very straightforward business. It doesn’t take decades. It doesn’t look like tranquility or like a calm, peaceful mind. It doesn’t look like saving others or saving the world or even saving yourself. It doesn’t look like a thriving marketplace where merit is determined by popular appeal or commercial success. Waking up looks like a massive mental and emotional breakdown because that’s exactly what it is, the granddaddy of all breakdowns. Waking up isn’t a theoretical subject one masters through study and comprehension, it’s a journey one makes-a battle one fights. You have to know what you want. You have to have a clear desire, a strong and specific intent. If you don’t know where you’re going then there’s no basis for judging one direction better or worse than another. In the search for truth, God, meaning, supra-consciousness, divine union, bliss, salvation, or whatever other spiritual tail we might chase, self is never itself subjected to critical scrutiny. We simply accept that we are as we think we are and that reality is as we think it is and go from there. Thus the primary error from which all others arise has already been committed and is safe from detection and correction. All our discernment and discrimination and intelligence is turned outward from self, not inward against it. Spiritual enlightenment is the state in which the self is free of all delusion, including self itself. The process of becoming enlightened is a deliberate act of self-annihilation. It is the false self that does the killing and the false self that dies; a suicide in all but the physical sense. Because there is no true self to fill the vacancy created by the passing of the false self, no self remains. It is not possible to knowledgeably choose or want spiritual enlightenment. To desire it is to misunderstand it. Ego cannot desire egolessness. One does not undergo the process of awakening out of love for the true but out of hatred for the false; a hatred so intense that it burns everything and spares nothing. We erect ego to compensate for the lack of direct self-knowledge. There is no true self to perceive-there is only false self and no-self. One looks for true self and finds nothing. It’s the dread of that nothingness that keeps one’s attention outwardly fixed. All belief systems are just the stories we create in order to deal with the void. Ego abhors a vacuum, so everybody’s scrambling to create the illusion of something where there’s nothing. Belief systems are simply the devices we use to explain away the unthinkable horror of no-self. The idea of the individual self, valid and separate, unravels very quickly under any serious scrutiny. All beliefs do. What takes time and effort is-to put the idea of self under such scrutiny and make sense of what’s left after the belief is gone. Ignorance isn’t an aspect of self; it’s the essence of self. It’s not nothing where there should be something, it’s the delicate weaving of something from nothing. That nothingness woven into somethingness is what you call reality. The part you call you is ego. You, the reader, are at the exact center of the universe; your universe. It’s all yours, it’s all about you, and you are all alone in it. Anything that tells you otherwise is a belief, and no belief is true. The you that you think of as you is not you. The you that thinks of you as you is not you. It’s just the character that the underlying truth of you is dreaming into brief existence. Enlightenment isn’t in the character, it’s in the underlying truth. Everyone has an underlying truth-but no one knows it any more than dream characters know they’re products of the sleep state of a larger self. Enlightenment is really nothing more than-waking up from a dream. This is the dream. The question is, who is doing the dreaming and how do we wake up? To know the lie is to hate it; to see it is to slay it. If you want to be more true, then the way to do that is by becoming less false. Go inside yourself with the spotlight of discrimination-and illuminate it. Illumination destroys it. Lies disappear when you really look at them because they never had real substance, they were only imagined. It is the emotional energy of fear that erects and maintains the egoic shell. We are madly, desperately, insanely afraid of the truth, and it is that fear that walls us off from our unbounded nature. Fear of what? Fear of no-self. The nameless, faceless dread of non-being. Not just fear of death, which anyone can deny or explain away, but fear of nothingness, which no fairytale can fix. Truth is one, is non-dual, is infinite, is one-without-other. Truth is dissolution, no-self, unity. There’s nothing to say about it, nothing to feel about it, nothing to know about it. You are true or you’re a lie, as in ego-bound, as in dual, as in asleep. The truth of the situation is that eventually, there’s nothing. Infinity. Eternity. The void. Enlightenment is literally the biggest nothing of all time. Enlightenment is life-negative. Spiritual enlightenment is pointless and meaningless, and should only be sought by those who have absolutely no choice in the matter. The dreamstate is a big amusement park and I would never encourage anyone to try to escape. That would be as absurd as suggesting that you commit suicide for your own good. How can you want nothing? Words ascribed to the Buddha are often fraudulent, but there’s one very clear exception: “Truly, I have attained nothing from total enlightenment”. It’s not so much that he didn’t gain anything as that he did gain nothing. Empty space is my reality. The void. No-self. I abide in non-dual, non-relative awareness. That’s where I am now. rubenmoonr january 5, 2014 at 1:38 am When people talk and write, when includes me, whoever that is, it’s to try to understand it by talking and writing about it, like autolysis. We’re trying to figure it out and using the other as a sound board, so to speak. Concepts upon concepts until the only outcome is left, suicide of the mind, a realization of the limitation of concepts that try to describe something infinite, something beyond time, of which the mind cannot enter into. With no religious connotation, it’s like Moses wandering in the desert for 40 years leading you the promised land, but is not allowed to enter. Joshua takes over, which is another name for Jesus, which the Gnostics said was a metaphor for consciousness. Metaphors lead you to the precipice, but it can’t enter, it’s a crucifixion and death of the limited Word that goes back to the formless infinite abyss. After reading TOE, Jed’s theory of everything, what struck me, whoever that is, is that science can’t enter it either. We can use all the metaphors of the dream state of which science delves, but at the end, it’s not allowed in. Dream is dream, awake is awake. Enjoy the dream, but it’s as fleeting as last night’s dream, it’s all unreal. Truth is, untruth isn’t. heldenkline january 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm Thanks for the props, Brian…On my blog I just want people to discover all the “treasures” I’ve come across on my journey. letranger101 january 4, 2014 at 9:17 am I only write about the theory of enlightenment. This writing is not based on idle philosophical speculation, but on reliable facts that anyone can observe for themselves. Since modern theoretical physics is based on the soundness of mathematics, this is the most reliable compendium of facts we have available. This compendium of facts does not constitute an objective reality (there is no such thing as objective reality as McKenna likes to point out), but is the basis for how each observer constructs its own world. An observer’s world has mathematical structure, just like the structure of the computational bits of information encoded in a computer network generated virtual reality world displayed on a computer screen, and so the mathematical concepts of theoretical physics are relevant for how each observer’s world is constructed. Why is this relevant for a discussion of enlightenment? The process that leads to truth realization is a process of deconstructing your own world, which always begins with a process of deconstructing the mentally constructed concept you have of being a person in that world (your character in the dream state). The only benefit of a good theory of enlightenment is it gives you some guidance about that deconstruction process. The science of modern cosmology and theoretical physics explains how that world is created in the first place, and so helps explain how to deconstruct that world, which always begins with the deconstruction of the mentally constructed concept you have of yourself as a person in that world. As McKenna likes to say, if you don’t know where you’re going, then you don’t know in which direction to travel, and any direction is as good as any other. The result of this confusion is you tend to walk around in small purposeless circles. Alice came to a fork in the road. “Which road do I take?” she asked. “Where do you want to go?” responded the Cheshire cat. “I don’t know,” Alice answered. “Then,” said the cat, “it doesn’t matter.” The only good reason to have a sound theory of enlightenment, which is as sound as a mathematical theorem, is to avoid doing such a silly thing. Of course, this assumes that you really want to reach the final destination of the journey that is called truth realization. The other reason to have a sound theory is so you can avoid the whole mess if that is not what you really want. McKenna has done a remarkably good job of explaining the theory of enlightenment, but in spite of this, most people who read his books have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Most people who do have an inkling of what he is talking about hate it, and hate him for talking about it. These people actually have their wits about them. The people who are clueless are the people who like reading McKenna and have no idea what he is talking about. Only a very few read him and become inspired to do something about their situations. I became inspired to translate McKenna’s ideas into the mathematically sound concepts of modern cosmology and theoretical physics precisely because of this confusion. I wanted to say these things in such a mathematically tight way that there is no possibility of any confusion if the concepts are properly understood. The beauty of mathematics is there is no wiggle room, as McKenna brilliantly pointed out in his discussion of Orwell’s 1984: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” jedmckenna january 3, 2014 at 9:02 pm Brilliant quote, Helden! Brian Pingback: From My Links | Good Clean Zen eddie blatt january 3, 2014 at 11:07 am letranger101, we could go on dissecting what others have said about enlightenment ad nauseum; agreeing with some, disagreeing with others, and ending up compiling enough information to house in the Library of Congress! Perhaps there is some value in doing that, especially early on in one’s conscious spiritual journey when an awakening of sorts appears. But what really interests me is where people are coming from when they communicate such seeming profundities. For someone to communicate the nature of Truth-Realisation with authenticity, you’d think they would have had to already realised what they are talking about; otherwise, they are simply repeating others platitudinously or they are very much deceived. So, I’m interested to know whether you consider yourself to speak from the place of “undifferentiated consciousness” you write about. letranger101 january 3, 2014 at 5:37 am Truth realization is as simple as becoming nothing. Listen to what Nisargadatta has to say about it: Nothing perceivable is real. Reality is essentially alone. To know that nothing is, is true knowledge. The totality of all mental projections is the Great Illusion. When I look beyond the mind I see the witness. Beyond the witness is infinite emptiness and silence. For the path of return naughting oneself is necessary. My stand I take where nothing is. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. It is deep and dark, mystery beyond mystery. It is, while all else merely happens. It is like a bottomless well, whatever falls into it disappears. The process that leads to truth realization is as complicated as undoing all the processes that created the observer’s world and character in the first place. Science is only a way of describing these creation and destruction processes. Only the undoing process is complicated, not the final destination of the journey. Nisargadatta is very clear about the need for a process of destruction: The way to truth lies through the destruction of the false. To destroy the false you must question your most inveterate beliefs. Of these the idea that you are the body is the worst. It is the clinging to the false that makes the truth so difficult to see. You progress by rejection. To question is the essence of revolt. Without revolt there can be no freedom. Everything must be scrutinized and the unnecessary ruthlessly destroyed. There cannot be too much destruction. For in reality nothing is of value. Investigate your world, apply your mind to it, examine it critically, scrutinize every idea about it. There is nothing wrong with the senses, it is your imagination that misleads you. There is a deep contradiction in your attitude which you do not see. See your world as it is, not as you imagine it to be. See the person you imagine yourself to be as a part of the world you perceive within your mind and look at the mind from the outside, for you are not the mind. Go beyond, go back to the source, go to the Self that is the same whatever happens. See everything as emanating from the light which is the source of your own being. Find the immutable center where all movement takes birth. Be the axis at the center-not whirling at the periphery. Nothing stops you except fear. You are afraid of impersonal being. This is all explained remarkably well in McKenna’s books. This is how McKenna describes coming back from Nirvana: Before enlightenment I believed my ego was me, then enlightenment comes along and no more ego, only the underlying reality. Now it’s after enlightenment and this ego might be slightly uncomfortable or ill-fitting at times, but it’s all I’ve got. The idea that your ego is destroyed in the process of becoming enlightened is roughly correct, but it’s not complete. Before enlightenment, you’re a human being in the world, just like everyone you see. During enlightenment you realize the human being you thought you were is just a character in a play, and that the world you thought you were in is just a stage, so you go through a process of radical deconstruction of your character to see what’s left when it’s gone. The result isn’t enlightened-self or true-self, it’s no-self. When it’s all over it’s time to be a human being in the world again, and that means slipping back into costume and getting back on stage. Now you’re actually in the audience, watching the drama. I could never mistake the play for reality again, or my character for my true state. Happily, I never know what my character is going to do or say until he does it or says it, so the whole thing stays interesting. Just to make the point clearly, this is how he describes the ascended state that follows after truth realization: The enlightened view life as a dream, so how could they possibly differentiate between right and wrong or good and evil? How can one turn of events be better or worse than another? Of what real importance is anything in a dream? You wake up and the dream is gone as if it never was. All the characters and events that seemed so real have simply vanished. The enlightened may walk and talk in the dream world, but they don’t mistake the dream for reality. Members of movie audiences don’t leap out of their seats to save characters in the film. If they did, they would be hauled off to the nearest mental health facility and treated for a delusional disorder. Nisargadatta says the same thing: Once you realize that there is nothing in this world which you can call your own you look at it from the outside as you look at a play on the stage or a picture on the screen. To know the picture as the play of light on the screen gives freedom from the idea that the picture is real. In reality I only look. Whatever is done is done on the stage. Joy and sorrow, life and death, they are real to the man in bondage; to me they are all in the show, as unreal as the show itself. Eddie Blatt january 2, 2014 at 12:26 pm Hey letranger101, that’s one hell of a rap. And I thought truth-realisation was simple – at least that’s what good old Jed said. Oh well, I guess I’m going to have to go back to the drawing board. But before I do, I’m interested to know if you have dissolved into the “source of undifferentiated consciousness” that you write about. It must be a long way back if you have. letranger101 january 2, 2014 at 10:20 am There is much confusion about the nature of what enlightenment is and isn’t. Other than the direct experience of truth realization for oneself, the only way to understand it (conceptually) is to use concepts of modern theoretical physics, which are strange enough to encompass what truth-realized beings have to say about the experience. The thing to be clear about is only the character of the truth-realized being (as that character appears in the dream state) can say these things, but only the truth-realized being itself knows what these words are talking about. Let’s listen to what Osho’s character has to say about the experience: We call Buddha the awakened one. This awakening is really the cessation of inner dreaming. When there is no dreaming you become pure space. This non-dreaming consciousness is what is known as enlightenment. The inner emptiness itself is the mystery. When the inner space is there, you are not. When you are not, the mystery will be revealed. You will not be a witness to the mystery, you will be the mystery. When you dissolve, the inner emptiness is there. You fall into an abyss, and the abyss is bottomless: you go on falling. That is why Buddha has called this nothingness emptiness. There is no end to it. Once you know it, you also have become endless. At this point Being is revealed: then you know who you are, what is your real being, what is your authentic existence. That being is void. First important concept: the one-world-per-observer paradigm of modern cosmology (cosmic solipsism). The observer’s world is defined on a bounding surface of space called a cosmic horizon, which acts as a holographic screen that projects images of the observer’s world to the central point of view of the observer. The cosmic horizon arises from the expansion of space itself (the effect of dark energy). Space itself accelerates away from the central point of view of the observer, and creates the observer’s world in a big bang event. The observer’s cosmic horizon only arises because the observer is in an accelerated frame of reference due to the accelerated expansion of space itself. If that acceleration comes to an end, the observer’s cosmic horizon disappears, and all images of the observer’s world as displayed on its cosmic horizon disappear. The observer itself is nothing more than the consciousness present at the center of its world. When everything in the observer’s world disappears, only the void remains. Before anything is created in the observer’s world, only the void exists. Second important concept: the holographic principle. Everything observable in the observer’s world is defined by information encoded on the observer’s holographic screen. All the images of the observer’s world are projected from the observer’s holographic screen to the central point of view of the observer. Those perceivable images are animated over a sequence of events that arise in the flow of energy that characterizes the observer’s world, which arises from the expansion of space itself. Those animated images tend to self-replicate their forms due to coherent organization that arises as bits of information align together. The perceivable things in the observer’s world are only coherently organized animated forms of information, which are images projected from the holographic screen. The observer’s world is just like a hologram, and only the light of consciousness itself can illuminate that hologram. Third important concept: consensual reality (the dream state). There is the possibility of a consensual reality shared by many different observers since the spaces bounded by each observer’s cosmic horizon can overlap with each other and share information, an effect called quantum entanglement. This is just like an interactive computer network generated virtual reality world displayed on multiple computer screens and observed by multiple observers. Each observer’s character is like its avatar displayed on the screen. The observer itself is nothing more than a point of consciousness that perceives and illuminates the screen. Forth important concept: The nature of choice arises with the observer’s focus of attention on its screen. Every event in the flow of time is a decision point where choices are made, and only an observer can make those choices and choose what to observe with its focus of attention. Those choices are inherent in a quantum state of potentiality that describes all possible ways in which information can become encoded on the observer’s holographic screen. Fifth important concept: The nature of self-identification. The observer identifies itself with the animated form of its character that appears on its screen. This self-identification only arises because the observer really feels self-limited to the form of its character as its perceives the emotional body feelings that arise in its character’s body as emotional actions are enacted on the screen. Once this self-identification occurs, the observer then feels compelled to defend the survival of its character’s body as though its existence depends on it. These self-defensive actions only arise because that is where the observer’s focus of attention is focused, but this emotional expression perpetuates the observer’s self-identification in a vicious cycle. Sixth important concept: The metaphysical concept of turning around (looking within), as the observer focuses its attention on the true spiritual nature of its existence. The perceiving point itself (the consciousness present at the center of its world) focuses its attention on its own timeless sense of being present (the sense of I-am-ness). There are two consequence of looking within. The first is negation, as the observer rejects all the mentally constructed concepts it has of itself as an embodied person in its world (its character) that is emotionally related to other things in its world. The observer looks within and finds nothing true except for its own presence. The observer rejects all the false self-knowledge it knows about itself and discovers that it is nothing more than a presence of consciousness. The observer cannot know what it is, it can only be what it is, nothing more than a point of consciousness that is timelessly present at the center of its own world, while all the animated images of that world are displayed on the screen surrounding the observer. The second consequence of looking within is as the observer clearly sees the true nature of what it is, the observer also clearly sees that it is only defending the survival of an illusion of what it is (its character) with its self-defensive expressions. With this clear seeing, the observer surrenders and lets things play out in its world in the normal way without any interference. The observer chooses not to choose as it withdraws attention away from its world and focuses on its own sense of being present. The observer chooses to do nothing in its world in a personal sense, and lets things play out in the normal way in the flow of energy that characterizes the observer’s world. Without expressions of personal will, the observer no longer feels self-limited to the form of its character and no longer identifies itself with its character, which completes the negation process. The observer knows itself as nobody, nothing more than the consciousness present at the center of its world. Seventh important concept: Underlying reality. When the observer completely withdraws its attention away from its world, the observer no longer expends any energy in its world. When the flow of energy comes to an end, the flow of time also comes to an end. The observer’s world is no longer animated, and the observer’s world disappears. As the observer detaches itself from its world, the observer enters into a state of ultimate free fall. The observer’s world disappears, and only the observer’s underlying reality remains. The observer’s world is nothing more than images projected from the holographic screen surrounding the observer to the observer’s central point of view. The holographic screen is only a bounding surface of space (an event horizon) that arises because the observer is in an accelerated frame of reference. As the observer enters into a state of ultimate free fall, the observer’s holographic screen disappears, the observer’s world disappears, and only the observer’s underlying reality remains. That underlying reality is the nature of the unlimited empty space we call the void. The void is the source of the observer and the observer’s world. As the observer returns to its source, the observer’s individual consciousness is extinguished and becomes One with the Source. As individual consciousness is extinguished, the observer’s world is no longer illuminated and disappears. This reunion is a dissolution. With its return to the Source, the observer dissolves into its source of undifferentiated consciousness like a drop of water dissolves into the ocean. The Source is a void of undifferentiated consciousness. Anyone who reads McKenna carefully will see that what is described above is exactly what McKenna describes, but is also what Nisargadatta describes, Osho describes, Ramana describes, … Truth realization is the same for everyone. Delusion is different for everyone and is as complicated as there are people to imagine it. Final disclaimer: What is described above is only an explanation based on scientific concepts. One must directly experience for oneself what these concepts can only point towards and conceptually attempt to describe. As McKenna likes to say: Come see for yourself. Guille Machado december 11, 2013 at 11:36 pm Yeap, anonymous, I think you didn´t reply to the question of who these two jed mckennas you suspect? I´m pretty sure that was not very good english. jedmckenna december 10, 2013 at 8:01 am Do you think? John december 10, 2013 at 7:05 am you think too much. Gecko november 12, 2013 at 12:09 am and one more thing.. i understand that i am not in charge of everybody else (they do what they do) but when i sometimes read other comments about some “HEARTS”, “MINDS”, “CONSCIOUSNESS” etc.. ..it seems that someone somehow knows something more except “i am”. but why i am asking those questions in a first place? 1) for happiness? to have more “good” feelings? 2) for becoming something more than i am right now? I DON”T KNOW. like anything else. if i could just switch off somewhere in my brain ability to ask questions. Gecko november 11, 2013 at 11:46 pm to Brian: yes, i understand that language itself is kinda “bad” tool, but we don’t have any other.. but, to be honest, i don’t understand what are you saying. As i see, either something (although maybe it is not a thing) is unchanging no matter what, no matter time, dimension etc… OR there is no such unchanging thing. why it is not possible that everything is changing. everything. and why it is not possible that non-dualistic concept is also only a belief? That it is UNVERIFIABLE… like everything is unverifiable, also questions like “dual or non-dual everything is” or “truth exist vs truth does not exist”. Can we know something for sure except “i am”? WHat a fuck is going on here? 😀 but whatever it is, it is RIGHT. it is PERFECT. but again, those words are only words and no word can describe anything what is here. jedmckenna november 11, 2013 at 10:08 am Hi Gecko, They are referring to the reality that any ‘truth’ is held in opposition to the given ‘untruth’. Such a position is fundamentally dualistic, when Jed maintains his position is of Non-dual abiding. The problem is with language and logic itself- it is always linear and partial, whereas reality (truth) is wildly complex. Thus paradoxical statements such as those you quote. Brian Gecko november 11, 2013 at 9:35 am hello, i have a question for you: in his latest book “theory of everything”, in the beginning of it, Jed talks with Karl. https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/300730/5/jed-mckennas-theory-of-everything-the-enlightened-perspective And they agree that “Based on the fact that truth cannot not exist, because it would be absurd to say that no-truth is truth is true, I agree that truth must exist.” Question: why it is not possible that TRUTH is that no truth exists? jedmckenna may 9, 2013 at 9:55 am Who are the two that you suspect? Anonymous may 8, 2013 at 8:33 pm There’s at least two Jed Mckenna on the internet, who is real? blogs.bet.com may 2, 2013 at 9:58 pm Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return. ruben april 12, 2013 at 11:37 am In case you haven’t heard, Jed’s got a new one out on e-book: The theory of everything for $7.95. http://www.wisefoolpress.com/ jedmckenna february 18, 2013 at 9:33 am To Anonymous- Nicely put! Brian. “it’s a tool to get to a tipping point, an event horizon, where the gravity then takes over and your illusions as an individual are burnt off re-entering the atmosphere of the planet of non-duality.” Anonymous february 18, 2013 at 8:06 am “Hi Nous- If your comment is directed at me (Brian), my opinion is that autolysis does not and cannot ‘lead’ to Enlightenment…. But use of it runs against concept such as ‘No Free Will” and whether the ego can use any tools to liberate itself.” My opinion on these points… The autolysis is just a method of getting one’s ‘self’ to a point of no-return, it’s a tool to get to a tipping point, an event horizon, where the gravity then takes over and your illusions as an individual are burnt off re-entering the atmosphere of the planet of non-duality. (sorry for the clumsy metaphor) It doesn’t matter what gets you to that point – you use the illusion of free will to get to that point, whatever it takes. After that, it’s just physics. And nothing can run against the reality of no free will – if there is no free will, and never has been, then even the apparent use of free will is just an appearance – it doesn’t matter what you do, you will not go ‘against’ the reality of no free will. If ‘no free will”is just a concept to you then any apparent contradictions are conceptual only. eddie blatt february 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm As I have come to understand, no path whatsoever “leads” to enlightenment – spiritual autolysis or otherwise – because there is no such thing as an enlightenment somewhere else or sometime else. The undoing of the movement to attain a state other than where we are now, could be termed the spiritual process (although I try to avoid words such as “spiritual” and “enlightenment” like I do the plague). This process requires the re-cognition (or knowing again) of the futility of every path whatsoever. Whoever Jed is, and whatever he may or may not have said about awakening, I reckon that is what he was pointing to. It is by necessity “Spiritual Warfare” because the process is ugly and frightening, and no hostages are taken. The man himself says it beautifully in his book, “Jed McKenna’s Notebook”: “Here’s a simple test. If it’s soothing or comforting, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy; if it’s about getting into pleasant emotional or mental states; if it’s about peace, love, tranquility, silence or bliss; if it’s about a brighter future or a better tomorrow; if it makes you feel good about yourself or boosts your self- esteem, tells you you’re okay, tells you everything’s just fine the way it is; if it offers to improve, benefit or elevate you, or if it suggests that someone else is better or above you; if it’s about belief or faith or worship; if it raises or alters consciousness; if it combats stress or deepens relaxation, or if it’s therapeutic or healing, or if it promises happiness or relief from unhappiness, if it’s about any of these or similar things, then it’s not about waking up. Then it’s about living in the dreamstate, not smashing out of it. “On the other hand, if it feels like you’re being skinned alive, if it feels like a prolonged evisceration, if you feel your identity unraveling, if it twists you up physically and drains your health and derails your life, if you feel love dying inside you, if it seems like death would be better, then it’s probably the process of awakening.” My guess is very few of us involved in the so-called “spiritual” quest signed up for this! jedmckenna february 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm Hi Nous- If your comment is directed at me (Brian), my opinion is that autolysis does not and cannot ‘lead’ to Enlightenment. I take it as a (questionable) tool suggested by the author which can only deliver the User greater “human maturity”. It is a suggestion which seems to contradict the author’s primary arguments in many ways. But some people use it to dispose of the many erroneous beliefs and conceptions that they have relative to enlightenment and everything else, and which are leading them astray. But use of it runs against concepts such as ‘No Free Will” and whether the ego can use any tools to liberate itself. Nous february 17, 2013 at 10:33 am Does the method of spiritual autolysis necessarily leads ultimately to the absolute indifference of emotions towards anyone and anything? It seems hard to imagine the spiritual autolysis, as an absolutely ruthless exposure and subsequent dissolution of one’s ego, done in such way as to intentionally “protect” some functioning of human emotions. Since you can’t be writing about all your cherished beliefs in a totally detached attitude, yet grabbing hold of some and say such and such beliefs are genuine expressions of Love, and leave them alone, which means “undone”. Then if you reject the total elimination of Heart, at least all the way until it is “done”, you practically reject the core of Jed Mckenna’s teachings. I am definitely not in a place to judge which one is the correct or proper path to spiritual enlightenment. I’m just saying that it is still unclear how Jed’s teaching can be modified in the direction you suggest……After all the spiritual autolysis is such a destructive process. rubenmoon december 28, 2012 at 11:59 pm Reality contains the dreaming of un-reality, but is beyond it. You’re either pregnant or not, no levels there. Once again, it cannot be contained in dualism, it’s beyond being an ‘It’ and ‘not it.’ There never was bondage (just a dream) so what is liberation? Truth is quite (extraordinarily) ordinary! Tony december 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm Reality is whole and all that is, right here, right now. If that means self-righteous, bigoted and narcissistic behaviour, then it is also that. If it means pretentious guru-complexes that sell spiritual concepts, “levels” or a romanticized conceptual-awakening to the masses, it is also that. Liberation is very normal, ordinary and unromantic. rubenmoon september 10, 2012 at 6:55 am You can’t assume anything about enlightened people, even when they act unenlightened, it could be an act to wake you up. Gurdjieff was known to do such things. As for Nisargadatta, he does comment on whether Osho, or Rajneesh is enlightened:: “Rajneesh is not a small personality or small principal. He is tremendous – he is very big. He is a great sage.” jedmckenna june 29, 2012 at 10:14 am Right, on all counts! Just a little fun to entertain ourselves = fun image Claude june 29, 2012 at 7:37 am I didn’t read the whole discussion but I am boggled. Isn’t the point to do ones own work. I doubt Nisargadatta wasted any time discussing whether or not what’s-his-name had achieved ….but I guess there is no harm in it as long as you’re having fun. rubenmoon june 22, 2012 at 6:37 am Thanks Joe. I can’t speak for you, but I’ve gotten “my” ego pulverized and it appears it’s the only way to freedom to being no one. “Humility is our natural response to seeing what’s true about ourselves. When we judge others and question that judgement, then turn it around to ourselves, that is the fire and purification. Our knees buckle, and we learn how sweet it is to lose—how that’s winning.” —Byron Katie “For one gains by losing and loses by gaining.” —Lao Tzu “Disillusionment is the gate—then you can be transformed.” —Osho “You have to become completely disillusioned, then truth begins to express itself in its own way.” —U.G. Krishnamurti “Failure is the key to the kingdom within… Eat me like candy. It’s spring and finally I have no will.” —Rumi “Now, to overcome thy sense of separate existence, thou must be humbled…Humiliation is the most painful thing thy pride can suffer; yet must if suffer before it can die.” —Life’s Word “…not my will, but thine, be done.” —Jesus, Gospel of Luke Anonymous june 21, 2012 at 7:47 pm yes. and, as always, i was mistaken. thank you to jed, to One and All ~ joe rubenmoon june 21, 2012 at 6:44 am yep, “all fabrications of your own making.” Anonymous june 20, 2012 at 10:51 pm and ~ aside from the interpretation of dream-state patterns ~ for example, i know it’s about to rain because the temperature just dipped beneath that huge black cloud ~ if you think you know something, or indeed that there is something which can be known, then quoting jed, further. and if you think there’s a world out there, other than an idea-construct of your own making, further ~ joe, over and out. Anonymous june 20, 2012 at 7:25 pm ‘jed mckenna’ is just another door, albeit the primary one, and his autolysis is a passage of rites for those will-ing to self-train. i knew the ineffable, that which jed knows, before damnedest was published, and i have nothing to say on the matter. ‘jed’ and i are exactly the same. as ‘individual’ expressions however, we are different, and he doesn’t know what i know because he is not supposed to. therefore he is unsure of me; categorises me on his blog ~ ‘the perhaps enlightened ego’ ~ and trips himself up in the process, thus rendering himself a forgotten door. to the All i say thank you. in tripping himself up, on-stage, he helps create a scenario whereby one of his ‘students’ – we’ll call him X – receives/triggers exactly what is required in that moment. wrong is right. furthermore, having seemingly dismissed jed, i still consider myself a young grape to his cellared vintage, and i have no way of knowing what i don’t yet know. he may not be yoda, but i’m not much past luke-stage myself. however, the richness is in the content, and no grape will surpass it’s own flavour, no acorn will grow into anything but an oak. done means done in the sense he’s speaking about it, and his wariness of anyone ‘done’ who may not be ‘pure in heart’ is perhaps sincere, perhaps not. ‘i’m a good guy’ he confesses. why? but i’ll not slander or unmask him, but simply say thank you for his service, and assure him of diddly squat. let him watch and learn like the rest of us. to anyone else i say, follow anyone you like, but ONLY with the intention of figuring out what they know, even if it is unknowable, and moving on, as it were. YOU are unique. YOU are perfect. YOU are completely AL-L-One in this endeavour. the process of awakening will render you frequently vulnerable, and the moment of vulnerability will always herald the assistance of the entire universe. learn to function in this manner, learn to accept vulnerability as nourishment. learn to not resist the energy formerly called ‘fear’; bathe internally in same-said energy, and see what happens. in the words of Bob Marley, open your eye(s), and look within. furthermore, as you practice the art of relinquishment of dualistically accumulated willpower, of habitual ‘back-story’ energy ~or slow-release plant-food’ if you like ~ you will render the creative expression of you ever more powerful because you have surrendered another slice of will to the only thing which knows what it is doing. in other words, you’re learning to function correctly, as am i. jed said ‘it does not appear to be indicated’. i disagree. but then, i am full of crap. ~ joe for what it’s worth, i consider a combination of autolysis and a course in miracles to be the most potent mechanism for awakening. i might also say that i consider a combination of comfrey and stinging nettle juice to be the best organic fertilizer for my vegetables. the first thing to autolysise might be your reaction to the ‘religious-speak’ of acim, or your opinion of someone you know who practices it. that said, everything works. go with your gut. best of luck. you don’t exist. you alone exist. death, time, space are all fabrications of your own making. ~ joe rubenmoon april 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm True, he is a thorn to remove thorns, then they are all thrown. The heart-crap of the I-thorn, which doesn’t really exist, is a biggie, for it covers up the Real, (spirit, truth, love), beyond thorns. cyberfury april 30, 2012 at 2:20 pm Jed Mckenna exists no more than you or I exist. I can’t compute what is to be gained from pondering on which of his identities is truer. The books stand on their own even if they were signed by a non-dual incarnation of Micky Mouse. In Warfare Jed references MJ Adler’s book ‘How to Read a Book’; the strategic placement within this last book of the trilogy should not escape the attentive reader. Nor does Jed’s impeccable ability to distinguish shit from Shinola. It should not make any difference to anything or anyone whether or not Jed does, or doesn’t do ‘heart’. I ‘honestly’ can’t see how it should. For what it’s worth; It has come to my understanding that heart-crap is a real phenomenon. I’d say it is a integral part of the mind-body system. I’d also say you can take it or leave it (not unlike a-sexuality). May Your Enemies Be Patient. 😉 ruben april 23, 2012 at 3:17 am To each his own. Hanging around an awakened one before, you can’t predict them or tell them what to do, that would mean you’re awakened, but then you would be doing your own thing, singing your own song. I don’t know, I still learn from everything, even Rick Santorum, he shows me where humanity is at, as does everyone on earth. It shows something about this crazy ego of “mine?” Still part of the 99.9999% Jason K april 22, 2012 at 6:43 pm JM has his own website, the wisefool one; why not use that? Is it actionable to pretend to be someone else’s pseudonym? In the days of Internet I have to say I doubt it. My guess is that the “real” JM would not only not care, but find it rich in irony, and even fitting, if people are currying the favor and seeking the advice of a fake Jed! In the bonus material of Book 2, he wrote how anyone looking for a relationship with him is just turning themselves into Maya’s hand puppet. The above quotes are OK, but just OK, IMHO – I don’t see anything like the searing clarity of JM’s books there. ruben april 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm “That’s why this forum is called ‘Lies, lies and more lies’. It’s all anyone can do, ever, period. No exceptions. And, that’s a lie too of course. So, where does that leave you? Back at Square One. What you are seeking is that which is seeking. I am that which is aware that I am. Turn around and, while you’re at it, make up some more lies.” “Yes, letting go does require a letter-goer. So, you create one, just like everything else, just create it and assign it the task of letting go. After a while, you can fire his ass because the letting go will continue spontaneously. Eventually you will realize that there was nothing to let go of and Jed was just giving you something to do in your spare time.” “The vast majority of the world is insane, completely insane. I am pointing at getting sane. Of course when everyone else is on the other side of an imaginary fence, you might be inclined to side with the majority. It’s certainly understandable, but you wouldn’t be here if you were not serious about this little journey. Every one of you can figure out this imponderable. But, I am going to tell you that it won’t be done by figuring me out. I have already crossed that fence and am pointing to ‘here’. ‘Here’ is always here. Regardless of who you are or where you are. What do you find ‘here’?” “Remember, others may find some of your new behaviors and responses a little weird. Forget about that because 99.9999 percent of the world has no idea what is going on. You, on the other hand, may be looking through a crack in the door. Focus on the un-measurable something that everything, including that door, occurs in. If you are competitive and want to win the game, that is how it’s done. The good news is, if you win, everyone wins. If you lose, everyone wins also in the end. Just go for it. Let go and fly. It just might be your turn.” “I wish everyone would see through me. Most can’t even see through themselves. Oh well, the story continues.” “Burn baby burn, then from the ashes you will see the true value of it all. Nothing, but what a nothing.” Whatever or whomever, it’s still good stuff IMHO. Ted april 21, 2012 at 10:56 pm Jason K> Its difficult to say if its JM or not, maybe the real JM doesn’t care if there are fake forums on the internet. Otherwise, would anyone in USA today really want risk his a** to be prosecutet in court for stealing a trademark!? ruben april 21, 2012 at 10:28 pm I don’t read much of what other’s say, just look for what he has to say. It sounds like him, but who cares, it’s good. Did Christ really exist? The story exist that has hidden meanings. Whatever happens in life I can learn from it. I’ve heard of stories of Zen guys kicking someone out for their own good. Yea, Jed isn’t N., but who could be? I’m grateful for his contribution to my awakening (whenever that is? for there will be no one there), he’s the one that explained to me why it wasn’t working, how the ego will find anyway to survive. His hitting the love and bliss crowd is really good, because that crowd on facebook sometimes wants to make me puke, so they’re avoiding the job at hand with all this love aren’t we wonderful crap. It’s a technique that will outlive its usefulness as all techniques do. He does end his statements with Love, Jed. U.G. has the same reaction to me, he’s brilliant is some cases and so over the top in his criticism that it’s all crap. OK, sure, it’s all crap, but there is a gem hidden in there in that nothingness. It’s a joy that no one can experience because no one is there when it is. But these guys are hitting at the crap covering the “not-it,” hitting our vanity, the false picture we have of ourselves, for that’s what I need to get out of my imaginary hell. Jason K april 21, 2012 at 7:13 pm I posted at that forum recently and got a response or two; I don’t see anything to indicate it’s the ‘real” JM. His posts are a reasonable imitation of Jed, but the ones I’ve read don’t have the bite of JM’s usual voice. Is there any reason to think it’s actually him? Ted april 21, 2012 at 6:29 pm “I was visiting the forum shortly after I was kicked out, but after a while I lost my interest.” I was just reading others comments. Ted april 21, 2012 at 6:26 pm Yes, but JM is not Nisargadatta, not even close. I started to read JM’s books but stopped because I felt it was mostly made up stories. Lots of what JM was saying, his 1,2,3 liners in his forum was also brilliant, but funny enough even a parrot can speak Truth. Everything has its time. It was probably good for me to take part of his forum for a while and maybe I should thank him for kicking me out. I don’t have any need to register a new account. I was visiting the forum shortly after I was kicked out, but after a while I lost my interest. Those who still hang out with him in his forum I guess will sooner or later will have to move on, because JM can not give them what they want, salvation. This ultimate trip they have to do on their own! Concerning JM’s rebellious attitude towards Love, Bliss. I think JM for sure is awakened, but still identified with Emptiness / Void. This is why he says f-k Bliss, Love etc. This is how existence will be seen when in terms of Void, Nothingness. In Nothingness there is no Love etc, there is just empty space. There are kind of steps in the Awakening process. In the first step we see everything as Void / Emptiness. After this Shakti will be activated and its here we start to see everything in terms of Love, Bliss, Compassion. This guy is talking a little about this at “Buddha at the Gas Pump”: /Ted ruben april 21, 2012 at 9:51 am Seems like the same guy. Playing devil’s advocate here, but isn’t the point of his site for you and your Autolysis and is not about him? You can use anyone, the false and the not-so false, for whatever they are is what we think they are, for we live in our own worlds. As he described about Nisargadatta: “This is the real deal and it’s down and dirty. So, cut through the crap and don’t waste our time here. N. was quick to kick out people that he felt were wasting his time. I won’t kick you out, I’ll just kick you.” I guess he changed his mind and is free to do that, whoever he is. Ted april 21, 2012 at 4:01 am There is a Jed McKenna on URL: http://jedmckenna.webs.com/ that some believe is the same dude that wrote the books. He said there is no need of moderator on this forum because its free speech here! After finding some remarkable facts from his own links on his forum-account that had to do with building up false identities / backing up false identities and creating false degrees, I was confronting him with this. After this confrontation I was kicked out from the “free speech forum” and my account was shut down. So I guess there are plenty of ego remaining in this guy! Sure he has got a certain degree of awakening, but I think he mostly want to make money and play a role as a spiritual teacher! Concerning his fake identity. An awakened doesn’t identify with his name and form, still Jed McKenna is creating a fake name / identity on top of his original identity. This is odd! Why would he do this? Is it fear or he want to hide something!? Some believe JM is Adyashanti! If one have listened to Adya there is no way that he has a slightest resemblance to JM. Helden april 14, 2012 at 2:49 am Buh-bye. ruben april 13, 2012 at 9:29 pm I also see many contradicitions in JM, as well as Osho. Truth is All, and all we can say is dualtistic. I myself (?) don’t like the sound of vanity, and if LA is the capital, who would want to be there? Who wants to live in smelly place? Sure the divine One is there too, but covered up with the false, and the false is nauseating. I find the false in me nauseating. I wish I could drop it, and after decades at that attempt, it isn’t as easy as it sounds for I am the ego, and it doesn’t exist. Who drops what? It is seen as it is, or it isn’t, all the while Truth is. Jason Kephas april 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm There is much contradiction in the books, though sometimes that seems as much a good thing as not… For example, how can a person who claims to have no preference for living over dying have a preference for NY over LA? Really?! Does that compute? One thing I think I have noticed hanging out with Dave Oshana (http:daveoshana.com), who recommended the books to me and who also claims to be enlightened, is that the personality seems to be intact but that the presiding awareness – of Dave – doesn’t appear to be stuck inside or 100% identified with the personality. So most of the time I see Dave as just Dave, but some of the time I experience him as something else and at those times it occurs to me that this is the real Dave I am seeing, that it’s always present and presiding, but most of the time either I am not open to it or it’s simply not necessary for Dave to bring that deeper ‘ego-less’ being to the surface. Not putting it very well, but JM says something like that, when he says that he wears the JM ID like a skin or a costume, a role that he is less and less able to get into. So when JM says he hates LA, maybe that is him, the enlightened being, getting all the way into character as JM, the false self he has shed? The assumption we tend to have is that enlightenment means shedding all negative stuff – but maybe all personal qualities are equally “negative’ to a no self self, because equally false. In which case, hating LA could be as valid a way for him to get in character as anything else. That’s the argument for the defense anyway, but I’m not sure I believe it myself. Also, if JM didn’t have some sort of ego-form-personality, there’d be no way to communicate. JM the character seems deliberately contrived to challenge New Age assumptions about how an enlightened being would act – he smokes cigars, eats meat, skydives, eskews meditation and compassion, and so on. There are two questions that overlap: is JM the author the same as JM the character, and is he enlightened; and is JM, and the descriptions of enlightenment, an accurate depiction of the enlightened state? Also – is it necessarily meant to be (assuming that’s even possible), or is it meant as something else? Like Moby Dick is an apparent account of a psychopath but really (acc to JM) a map for truth-realization, perhaps JM is couching all his descriptions in a context he deems appropriate for the unawakened reader? And so on. That said, I do have the desire to cry BS sometimes when I read the books – but that could be just an inevitable emotional resistance to some of what he’s saying – not least that he is enlightened, and I’m not. Yes he’s an arrogant toss-pot, some of the time – but if an enlightened being spoke to the ego-bound in their own language, maybe that would be one inevitable result? That said, Dave O rarely if ever comes off as arrogant, even when “pulling rank.” There is much mystery about who JM is and if he exists as described in the books, etc. In the first book, he writes about having a large house in Iowa with a constant stream of seekers coming through, some of whom even get enlightened. If that were true, what’s the likelihood that none of these seekers would have blown the whistle on the Net and said, “I know this guy!” Pretty much zero. So he’s clearly making up some of the material. Unlike with Castaneda, JM’s accounts don’t strike me as absolutely based in some sort of fact. They seem like they could have been entirely invented, albeit with details taken from reality, like his experiences of skydiving, etc. The books have a didactic quality to them – teachings that are framed within a storytelling narrative, to make them more palatable and entertaining. JM’s “Ahab” message is about becoming monomaniacally one-pointed – focused only on getting to the truth and nothing else. He sees it as a destructive, even psychopathic, process, destroying all that is not true so that whatever remains must be truth. The primary emotional drive for Jed seems to be hatred for the false. That seems a bit extreme – maybe rebellious, adolescent sort of energy. Not that I can’t relate. But it also seems a long arduous road to truth, as opposed to recognizing that only truth exists, anyway, so what needs to be destroyed? (How can you destroy what doesn’t exist?) We are free to put down our ego-load at any given moment. The belief that we are not free, and must instead travel the world destroying every last vestige of delusion that imprisons us – I think it has something to do with a refusal to admit that we could have just stepped outside the prison of our egos any time we wanted. So we need to turn it into a heroic journey. That’s why the Psychopath is the Hero’s Shadow. Or maybe even, the Hero Unmasked? ruben april 13, 2012 at 9:36 am Shit, I liked Joe’s response. We’re all full of shit. We don’t know anything. As Jed says, it’s all lies. This is a very humbling process, to know we know nothing. As to Joe’s earlier response, I guess you are right that we will eventually realize our true nature, but it just may take a few more lives. I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. I can only do it for me, whoever that is…. Helden, it’s just a word, as U.G. would say, it’s like a dog barking, but we give it so much meaning. jedmckenna april 13, 2012 at 8:37 am Helden I sympathize with you about the overuse of words like shit, but I believe that Joe was both the author and object of that comment (based upon the source IP address, among other things). I could be mistaken but I don’t think that the attacker was criticizing anyone but himself. Perhaps we will find out later. Brian Helden april 13, 2012 at 2:45 am …Why? I can answer that. Because an answer with “shit” somewhere in it seems to be the standard response to anything sincere or even a somewhat detailed post about Buddhism or Zen anywhere on the net…which is why I so seldom look up anything but the Buddhist classics online. It’s an attitude, plain & simple: Anti-intellectualism and useless nihilism. The idea behind that kind of language is to cut off or interfere with legitimate discussion by adults. I can read. I can think. I can meditate, and I can look elsewhere. Tripping over these anonymous characters is something I neither need nor want. Trolls. That’s all they are. They can go back to the beer & TV for all I care. jedmckenna april 11, 2012 at 7:44 pm Why do you say that? Brian Anonymous april 11, 2012 at 6:47 pm joe’s full of shit ~ love joe Anonymous april 2, 2012 at 7:11 am thanks for nice responses… i agree with you… the getting real stuff is out of synch with the rest because it’s space-time/future ideology. perhaps i’m alone in seeing that the universe is about to throw out the old-world-fertiliser because it’s got a nice batch of flowers ready to bloom…. i guess it’s like those pictures where you have to stare at it in a weird way until you suddenly see that there’s another picture hidden within. it’s kind of like that for me… i can look directly, rather than through a veil of fear or self-interest, and so i see it differently. see it clearly. also, i understand how men think and function, and i understand how the universe works, and so it all adds up whichever way i look at it. but whenever i’ve discussed my opinions, which to me are real obvious, i usually get blank stares, so no worries….. as within, so without, to summarise that line of thought……although if i was in a walt whitman mood – no compromise, straight from the top – i might instead say ‘because i say so’, and that would suffice… hey brian, thanks, although nothing gracious about it. i was having a vexing day as it happens, and just felt like venting. real nice to be welcomed though…. it can be frustrating having no outlet to discuss my simple observations without being strung up, and walking through a world of mirrors when you’re not reflecting can be challenging, so a jed forum is perhaps the obvious place for me to get stuff out of my system… regarding your question, the awakening thing happened because i was depressed, suicidal in fact, that i basically gave up…. and also because i was psychotic about the enlightenment quest – nothing else seemed to have any point, which of course it doesn’t – although i didn’t know for sure that ‘awakening’ was what had happened – it was obvious that i now ‘knew’ – and that the search was over – but there was no-one to verify it for me, and in my case i was still pretty immature too….. again, thanks to jed for helping me through the past few years …. also, remember this… we all fuel ourselves with this profound idea of attaining, of breaking out of the cave, that when it actually occurs, it’s not easy to a) admit that little old me actually got it, and b) align the simplicity of truth realisation with the great quest i thought i’d been on….. anyway, to elaborate, after it occurred it was a bit like being the guy who’d been holding the ocean back (the bullshit of my self-construct-identity), and then because the all-encompassing quest was now over, aforesaid ocean swamped me! a previous decade spent denying everyone else’s bullshit in order to find the truth – then the truth – which included, of course, the disappearance of everyone else – which therefore meant it was now time to take responsibility for absolutely everything… it was me all along…. ….which led to a confusing but liberating decade of mopping up, for which i used the practice of forgiveness (nullifying my projections), through a course in miracles… strange to be awake, and then have to go back to the drawing board, but there you have it. i had the good fortune to visit sailor bob adamson in melbourne during the big clean-up, at which time i was in ego mode, trying to hold on to a realisation i’d long since had, in space-time i thought, which i believed made me special. he took one look at me and said ‘when you’ve thrown everything out, you have to throw out the thrower’. it was like that i guess. the twist is, i’m still maturing, still unfolding, in synch with the universe that i am. and not. i happen to know how this story ends, become i’m the one who placed the order, and, as is universal law, i was answered in full. watching it unfold in dream-time is my privilege, and being a true adult, albeit a fledgling one, in a world populated by stunted children, is, regardless of my occasional rant (a la stinkbag bastard henry), a thing that i am most eternally grateful for. thanks guys. what could be more ordinary? – joe betweenillusions april 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm Anonymous…..yeah, I’m with Ruben…you lost me with the stuff after the p.s. To be truthful, it made the rest of it sound a bit disingenuous. Remember, nothing ever happened. ruben april 1, 2012 at 10:55 am I don’t see how you can see that others are going to get real. I don’t see it happening.The fear is too great. If the system were to collapse, there will be more fear. This planet may have been designed for a few individuals to wake up by being so disturbed by those that aren’t awake. No one sees that there is no one to awaken. jedmckenna april 1, 2012 at 8:34 am Thanks Anonymous for your gracious offering. I think a good number of people (like yours truly) would like to know this- since so many of your characteristics and attitudes are shared by fools like me, and I can relate very well to all you say, how did the coup d grace occur for you? Was it a gradual wearing out, or a sudden moment where you shifted in a most fundamental way into stable, full whatever-you-call-it? thanks for your time Brian Anonymous april 1, 2012 at 6:30 am it’s impossible for me to know if, assuming the illusion of free will, i would choose to go through the process of awakening which is now behind me. i know i would, there was no other way, but i offer you fresh insights as touched upon by jed. firstly, there’s no point to awakening. you gain nothing. you simply lose illusion. this makes for great surfing on occasion, and the gratitude for being this, and not that, can be overwhelming. but it’s not all sweetness and light, because there are seemingly others, in fact pretty much everyone else, who have no idea that the ordinary and natural state i abide in even exists, and who are therefore unable, in every possible sense, to understand me. and when humans don’t understand you, they generally don’t like you. which is perfectly fine because i can say for certain that i don’t understand them either, and whilst i might not say i dislike them, i am certainly repelled by most. so it’s like that, my day-to-day reality. i too turn my thoughts occasionally to essaouira fish-market, where the one-toothed man will sell you the world’s finest and fruitiest olive oil, or ug’s pre-calamity hobo state, where simplicity alone abides, or bernadette’s mountain escape, where no words can enter. for me, life can occasionally grate in spite of what i am, although i offer this perspective without grievance as i’m always aware that change is the experiencers’ only constant in the dream. the sun is always about to come out. regarding relationships, i’m mostly unable to maintain them because a) i can’t always be bothered, and b) i don’t possess the mechanism of linear thought which allows me to define what someone means to me based upon our collective shared moments so far. in short, i’m always meeting someone for the first time, because that’s the only possibility, even if we’re well acquainted, and this usually results in me being pretty unpalatable, i suspect, to those operating within the accepted norm. to me, asking someone ‘how are you?’, in response to them asking me the same cringe-worthy question, is just utterly pointless. but unless you can see that from my point of view, you just think i’m ignorant, right? and how can i be what i appear to be claiming to be in this thought-dump if i’m falling at the very first fence of decent human behaviour? other ‘relationships’ are equally challenging. neighbours, family, worldly types. i don’t doubt that you find these interactions as hard as i do, but the difference is that you’re locating yourself within them whereas i’m the only one here. or not. you’re looking for reflections whereas i’m just looking at patterns (although when i get tired i sometimes fall down the well too – albeit never for long). most people hold no sentiment for me, although i can imagine context for the sake of an easier ride if i feel like it. i can ride a fear-based emotion if it keeps everyone, and therefore my dream, happy (although nothing lasts on a perpetual see-saw). the other side of the coin is that all people are simply love to me, and i see no contradiction whatsoever in the seemingly opposing perspectives i have just shared. to me, both krishnamurti’s are spot on……. although i doubt i’d ever pick up a jiddu book. such is the reality of multidimensional, or whole, perspective. right is right, wrong is right. real simple. to be an adult is to know that you are stupid. the more mature you become within the dream, the harder it is to interact with those who don’t know they’re stupid. to release the energy formerly assigned to ego-maintenance into the management of the all, means that you grow endlessly into an increasingly creative and more harmonious being. wonderful, wonderful, usually. but a pain in the butt when you sense that people are deeply intimidated by you at a level they don’t even know exists. thankfully, many better surfers than i have left their accounts, and inspiration & assistance is only ever a page away. i know of few better than jed for making me feel instantly sane again, and i use hong zicheng to train or remind myself on how best to behave in my bizarre situation. sadly, i’m not much of a student, having shot my bolt with the passion to get me to this state in the first place, so i’m a slower learner than i would like, although i’m always aware that i’m being moulded into the full expression of whatever is being expressed here, so it’s all good. thanks. p.s. i differ from jed in one sense, although i have no doubt he’s seen the patterns by now. the old order IS on the brink of collapse, and we really are about to see what happens when the masks fail and everyone gets really real. for me, that’s great news. i hope it is for you too. Anonymous march 14, 2012 at 8:05 pm I agree that Jed’s books are great in understanding the state of “enlightenment”. However, after having read Bernadette Roberts three books on the matter, the picture became even clearer. I can really recommend her books, and she confirms the “bloody, messy” part of taking the first step and describes it in much greater detail. Anonymous march 3, 2012 at 5:40 pm Interesting how often the word “shit” comes up in here Fine addition to the intellectual tone of this blog. More good books (of the non-bs variety!) which would be of interest to readers of Jed/Zen/self-improvement: Raphael Cushnir’s “The One Thing Holding You Back” and Ben Sherwood’s “The Survivor’s Club.” ruben march 2, 2012 at 12:54 am I guess the reason is that we are so full of shit, because we’ve been educated wrongly, so we need to read those that have escaped to understand our predicament, and use the mind to destroy mind, to prove our beliefs as lies. Words took us away and words will bring us back to show us we went nowhere, we were only dreaming. It’s like using a thorn to take out another thorn, then throwing them both away, but the odds are that the ego will use the words to survive, unless the hell of its inner conflict is so unbearable that the mind will gladly commit suicide. “Intellect is very much necessary to understand certain fundamentals, but there is a strict limit upto which intellect can go, and thereafter, it is only when intellect gives up all efforts and acknowledges total surrender that intuition takes over.” —Ramesh S. Balsekar “Enlightenment is always through surrender, but surrender is achieved through intelligence… Through surrender intellect commits a suicide. Seeing the futility of itself, seeing the absurdity of itself, seeing the anguish that it creates, it disappears. But it happens through intelligence.” —Osho “Words can be used for destruction also, of words images are built, by words they are destroyed. You got yourself into your present state through verbal thinking, you must get out of it the same way.” —Nisargadatta Maharaj “Ego must slay ego. Only ego can.” —Jed mascha march 1, 2012 at 9:27 pm There is so much material. but since nobody ‘gets‘ enlighhtened: is the question, why does one need to know anything about it? it only stirs up more mind= more bullshit…. jedmckenna february 24, 2012 at 9:21 am I was never involved with Osho, but from all the acquaintances I have, I would have to completely agree with you Ruben. Brian ruben february 24, 2012 at 6:51 am Helden, yea I can’t read the purging going on in Jed’s blog, don’t know how Jed can do it. you can get it from the horse’s mouth about Osho from me, for I was in India and Oregon. The whole “under-fed” and close to “rape” thing and the “instigators” and the “eaters of the white light” is so hilarious and so definitely not true. it says more about their perception than what was actually the case. For me it was so amazing, to fall head over heels in love with Truth. It did get weird In Oregon because the woman in charge went bonkers with power and by the time He exposed it it was too late. I thought is was a curse to end that way, but it turned out to be a blessing, for I had to admit it still wasn’t waking me up, even by his attempt to use Western psychological techniques to purge the emotional crust, then to use meditation to dis-identify, while surrendering the ego. Surrender has been used for thousands of years in India, from the Upanishads to Zen, but its success rate is minimal, but way more so than the others. You can learn from everyone. When Jed says he is in awe of his mind, I have to feel the same way. For an Indian guy whose aim was to read all the books of the world, and speak so eloquently about what he found turned me on to the greatest minds of human history that include Buddha, the Upanishads, Krishna, Heraclitus, Tilopa, Saraha, Jesus, and all the Zen guys. The more I read him the more the feeling has grown, but also my love for the Gnostics, Nisargadatta, Byron Katie, Tony De Mello, and Jed, for truth is truth, even if a particular flavor is not your cup of tea. The guru thing is based on dualism, while we’re always on our own, so you kill your parents when you begin and Kill the Buddha at the end. Osho says no need, just say good-bye. Good bye Osho and thank you so very much, and good bye Jed, and good bye Nisargadatta, and good-bye me. Good bye Helden. and thanks for being you. Thank you universe for the game of duality, otherwise I couldn’t thank you. Helden february 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm I read your response some time ago and am replying to it rather late. Yes, I’ve seen Jed’s blog but the discussion just seemed like some sort of ball bumping contest, and since I have none… Only joking. Yes, that is possibly the unedited writing of Jed McKenna. Or possibly not–because in his books, he never uses the British colloquialisms in the blog. (Just something I noticed.) Discussing the fine points of enlightenment forever is something we all could do until we drop dead of old age. (But it would sort of be like eating the menu at the restaurant, right?) Yes, this is backpedalling a bit, but I need to add this: Many years ago, the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh cult gained some prominence. One of the practitioners from our local Zen group had to go to India to rescue his wife from the ashram there. Rajneesh was very wealthy, and rode around in one of his several Cadillacs. His crowd of underfed followers were more or less working for him full time without pay. The use of the women there was, if not rape, very close to it. In the big gatherings there were “instigators” who went through the crowds whipping up a kind of hypnotic frenzy. Our friend was travelling with a “psychic” woman, and she wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. She had the sensation that the crowd stirrers were “eating the white light”; that is, sucking away psychic energy, as they circulated around. The whole scene seemed dark and darkening to her. Now, I hasten to add that the above is second hand information, but our sensitive and intelligent friend was very disturbed by the whole “scene” there. He found his wife, got her out, and left. Following up a link here, I started to read something of the original “Osho” writing. I wasn’t impressed. We had all read one elegant little book sometime in the early 70’s and it wasn’t until much later that we realized that it was heavily edited by some unnamed native English speaker into its published form. I am absolutely not interested in Hinduism or guru scenes…they’re just not for me. No cults–no nothing. Especially not that guy, whatever he’s calling himself now. My preference is Bassui. He’s very simple in his approach; very straightforward, and has a rather amusing way of chastising himself for saying too much and possibly misdirecting his readers–since he’s writing about stuff that can’t be written about! One of these days I’ll get my Jed books back & begin rereading them again in detail. These are truly American books, by an authentic American voice and they deserve attention and consideration. ruben february 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm Thanks Helden. If you find any of those books or excerpts free on line, let me know and I’ll check it out. I don’t go looking for new stuff much anymore, I’m done with searching, but if it comes it comes. Incompleteness comes from being identified with a subject that’s missing an object, lost in duality. When their duality is seen for what it is, who seeks what? Truth is already the case. The void of Non-duality and no one to experience it. Have you seen Jed’s blog? Pretty heady, I just look for his comments. Sounds like him. http://jedmckenna.webs.com/ Helden february 9, 2012 at 10:11 am “This horrible fear of being incomplete.” There you have the characteristically Western point of attachment: what we keep trying to conceal behind the barriers of ego–and possibly this comes from living in a consumerist society. I’ve heard good things about Osho. John Daido Loori is another teacher worthy of the name. Adyashanti as well. Stephan Schumacher has written _Zen in Plain English_, a concise but thorough little book that gives a fine overview of the history, major figures, and practices of Zen. (Translated into English from the original German.) Philip Kapleau’s followup to _The Three Pillars of Zen_, titled _Zen from East to West_ is magnificent. David Chadwick’s _Thank You and Okay!_ is worth a look–made me laugh out loud in parts! A glimpse into Japanese monastery life, the culture of Japan, and many names will be recognizable. Uh oh–I’m off topic! ruben february 9, 2012 at 12:16 am Yea, Helden, it did appear that you had something going on domestically. All is good. (another expression I hate, I say All is good except what sucks,) Sounds like that Zen place is a religious institution. Ego will take anything and turn it into a philosophy to survive. Jed says it’s one of the worst, but I check out those Western ones and they’re nuts. I studied Zen from one guy, the guy Jed admires his take on Zen, and that is Osho. I myself swore no more institutions after that experience, but it was well worth hanging around such a brilliant mind. The group thing and the duality of a Master/disciple relationship took too long, even though, I am still so grateful. I have recently once again become impressed with his commentary on the Buddha’s Heart Sutra: Click to access The%20Heart%20Sutra.pdf Truth is Truth. It’s a solo thing. I once had the aim to jump off the wheel of birth and death, the wheel of suffering, this horrible feeling of fear and being incomplete. The whole search was suffering induced. That’s why Jed speaks to me, I’m tired of all this “free hugs” and hearing about the 2012 shift, while we ignore where the work is to be done, within, facing our own bullshit that we have learned from others. Finding the lies and destroying them with critical thinking and awareness, until you are destroyed, and you see there is no one to be born and no one to die. Thanks for the dialogue. You can’t find much of that today, even in coffee shops and bars, plugged into the matrix with their i-pads and phones. What a place! Helden february 8, 2012 at 4:40 pm I should probably refrain from posting immediately after having a domestic dispute, huh? lol Yes, of course I too am grateful for Jed’s books. But I am very skeptical–I personally am subject to nightmares & don’t even know why the hell I’m doing things most of the time. But one thing’s for sure: NO MORE CONVERSIONS for me. (If you listen with a “dharma ear” you’ll understand this.) Religious institutions & I just don’t get along that well even though I now find myself studying at the Chinese monastery around the corner instead of at a more secularized, Westernized zendo. Having read Jed’s books, it amazes me that even in this hothouse of meditation there are so many ways offered to me that point “outward,” as you & Jed say. I actually am not in there to become a tree hugger, study global warming (Nova does it better!), be a vegan, or develop some sort of appreciation of the “ecumenical” guests at the temple. The longer I live, the less I care about other peoples’ opinions & beliefs. And my own! Is it too much to ask that I see the simple, underlying truth at least one time before I sink into senility?? Frankly, I don’t believe that Zen even begins until the first kensho, and there are people here taking the “5 bodhisattva vows” in an effort to clean up their lives from the outside. Okay. Good luck to them! lol They can give up meat & that glass of wine in the evening, and stop putting flea medicine on their poor dogs. (The vow of “no killing” includes insects!!) Oh, and they even have a Zen choir! Can you imagine that? I just wrote them two Buddhist hymns based on Zen poems. (Yes, I admitted that I could write singable poetry. And yes, the abbot immediately recruited me for that. Frankly, he really needs native English speakers to edit…well, just about everything in English that goes out.) The Buddhist ideal is “wu-wei” which I think means acting entirely appropriately but entirely without ego…the action of non-action. When the waves on the sea flatten out like a mirror, and the moon is reflected perfectly; when “all is one” and preference is nothing but a fading memory, and the whole of human life is nothing but a dream or a play being performed by the empty universe for it’s own amusement…tell me: where is compassion in that? Who gives a damn about smashed babies or anything else since the idea is to avoid birth & death by letting one’s karmic stream run out into nothing? ruben february 8, 2012 at 9:07 am That’s honest Helden. I, being unenlightened, still can’t understand people who don’t care that just one shift in perception on earth, that we are of One spirit, would end the madness of human slavery, child molestation, starvation, rapes, murders, and wars. The enlightened guys get to that root. instead of pruning leaves, and have made their contribution, which includes Jed, but we don’t care to listen. Even Christians don’t listen to Christ saying what you do to others you do to him. Our sleep is so deep. The reason I use “it is what it is,” is not to brush off the horror of the world, but to see “what is,” the good and the bad, the bad gets us off our ass, but the good is so amazing, just on a physical level, as we are flying around a star going 67,000 miles an hour, spinning about 1,000 miles an hour, going around the galaxy 486,000 miles an hour, and it will take us 225 million years to go once around, in a universe that’s been expanding for 13 billion years. That’s what is, and we completely miss the significance that everyone is part of this miracle, everyone! That’s not even saying anything about one spirit at the center of it all. We’re missing what is, while the majority wait for a miracle in the future that will pass, or after death, but never now! Awesome has lost its meaning, I once heard a waitress say this to someone ordering oatmeal. Jed dogs compassion, but I think it’s because we put it before waking up. “I think” once you wake up you have to respond, because the universe will respond to “what is” if it is called for. You will stop someone from smashing a baby against a wall, because there is no “you” to ignore the suffering of “you” in another form. But there is so much madness in this insane asylum called earth, but you’ve got to admit, it’s balancing out alot of beauty, and the universe loves balance, even if humans don’t. The shift may not happen on a great scale, inner/outer, but I’m going to do my part, and sometimes speak out when called for, because that’s what somehow happens. I’m still grateful for those that have transcended this dream state, for the dream can be a nightmare, and they at least pointed me in the right direction as opposed to those crazies that try to change the world from the outside. That direction is in, where you go to war and find no ego, and you see your oneness with the universe, and can also see what the universe wants to do through this particular body before it changes form and spirit goes back to the infinite that it never left. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Such-is-Now/333291156854?sk=wall Helden february 8, 2012 at 6:51 am In many ways Jed, like my “enlightened” husband, is a pain in the neck know-it-all. How would YOU like to live with someone, who makes pronouncements of “truth” and admits no arguments? Modesty goes out the window with enlightenment. I find myself cultivating in self defense–but I never want to become as big a prick as either of those guys. Let’s see: not concerned with his appearance. Not concerned with anyone else’s estimation of his talent or lack thereof. Execrable taste in art & interior decoration. Wears his clothing till it falls apart. And no remaining remnant of compassion–in spite of what Buddhists may say–in case you don’t remember Jed’s “amusing” response to news of someone coming into a room and smashing a baby against a wall. (He rewrote Basho’s famous poem about the sound of a frog plopping into a pond.) That’s what being god in human skin gets you. Yes, I know: “mountains become mountains, rivers become rivers.” And that makes “the Enlightened” oh so effing “special,” doesn’t it? And–I wish I could personally break the jaw of the guy who came up with “It is what it is.” Gee…and don’t people think they’re saying something especially profound when they churn that tautology out? Should be dumped into the tar pits of the American language along with “amazing” “awesome” “cool” “exactly” “the bottom line is…” and “square one.” (Ah dream on, Helden!) ruben february 7, 2012 at 12:31 am Helden, you make a good point, but then ignore Jed’s emphasis of what is dream and what is real. He even says they are not opposites, which had to be worked on for some time to see. Truth is, untruth isn’t. Jed “is” God’s will, there is no separation, as well as everything that is. We only have the “illusion” of separation, of praying to do “God’s” will. There are no mistakes, but tell that to “my” ego. It is what it is and there you have it. Helden february 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm Couple of notes: I was given one of the Jed books by my old Zen meditation teacher (also Adya’s teacher.) Jed–whoever he is–isn’t Adyashanti. The writing styles are completely different, and what’s more the personalities of the two men differ a lot. Adya & his wife live right here in the Bay Area, and he writes his own books under his teaching name. At the risk of sounding like “a caterpillar talking about butterflies”… my feeling, after having read the 3 major Jed books, is that he is an important writer, and while he may not be exactly a Buddha, he is enlightened. I believe that the difference between Jed’s state & the common variety range of spiritual, oneness, and inspirational states is 1) Non-regression. In CS. Lewis’s novel “The Great Divorce” about (what is perhaps) Purgatory, one of the characters who has entered into glory asks if anyone could, by choice, back out of Heaven & end up in Hell. The guide points out that Hell is, from the perspective of Heaven, only the size of a small, insignificant pebble, and that the expanded soul could never fit back in there! (Not exactly analogous, but a charming book.) The thing you can’t do at Jed’s stage is go back into ignorance. Whatever he has–and what he has is a burnt down ego–he’s stuck with it. 2) Jed’s mode of operation within the emerging patterns of the Universe. He’s very careful not to use the words “need” or “want” when referring to himself & his own behavior, and yet he is continually seeing a pattern unfolding & stepping into it…and often seeing the direction & his place in it after the fact. It’s a different depiction of freedom. “Inferior sorts” that is, incompletely realized persons who still have functioning egos, can certainly behave this way, often praying for God’s will, perceiving an “opening of a way” and stepping in to succeed at all costs–or not, if the strategy & direction fall short. They can still learn from their mistakes. Scott Covert february 4, 2012 at 10:11 am I’d like to see that … or hear it, rather jedmckenna february 4, 2012 at 9:50 am This was just posted to me (Brian) and may be of interest to some readers- Two Audio Series starting – Now planning two weekly series – JED MCKENNA – CHAPTER BY CHAPTER Just as the title says, this would be a recording approximately every 7-10 days (approx 4 a month) taking on the Jed McKenna books, one chapter at a time. The recordings would not only analyze the content, style, approach, and applicability, but would also be used as the jumping off point for my own discussions, as well as tips for practical uses in your own inquiry. I AM THAT – CHAPTER BY CHAPTER The recorded dialogues with Nisargadatta Maharaj will be studied and picked apart one by one. They will, as with the other series, also be used as the starting point for my comments and commentary, along with suggestions for applicability of the content in your own inquiry. IF INTERESTED IN EITHER, OR BOTH – CONTACT AT JUSTPERCEPTION@GMAIL.COM (PUT “JED/SRI SERIES” IN THE SUBJECT LINE). Thanks for the work you do on this website – D. Helden december 15, 2011 at 11:49 am Those last two messages are mine…sorry! Didn’t mean to “go anonymous!” Anonymous december 14, 2011 at 8:03 am I want to add one thing…you go on the net, and sure enough there is wisdom & foolishness, and no matter how pure your experience, no matter how hard you try, there is always someone there to kick your legs out from under you; someone to say “you have your head up your ass.” (Or words to that effect!) Every teacher has his/her critics…but the fact is, people (including the teachers) have different personalities, and different teachers are appropriate for different times in life. There is, to my mind, one invaluable thing about Jed McKenna’s books, and it’s the same thing I could say about Temple Grandin’s books. Let me explain: before Temple wrote we had a very vague idea of the world of autistic people. She bridged that gap–and she did it specifically to get into contact with us “normal” people. In a way, her books are as much of an eye-opener as Jed’s are. Jed is writing specifically from his experience & to a predominently Western readership. The distinctions he makes between spiritual states…degrees of insight & realization, are not particularly familiar to those of us raised in a Judeo-Christian culture. And having no basis for evaluating books & teachers, we have no basis for interpetation of our own experiences or the claims of others. In most cases what we encounter are people “awakened within the dream” instructing those still staring at the movie screen. I found his metaphors very interesting & useful. However, those of you who are basically satisfied with your lives look at this material & either trivialize it or pick it to pieces by yanking sentences out of context. Don’t forget: this is an autoor with a sense of humor..maybe a somewhat weird sense of humor, but there you have it. Irony. At least Jed had the guts to say–Don’t be fooled. Don’t be exploited by someone who is marketing stress relief, weight loss, family peace, compassion, religious conversion etc. under the banner of enlightenment. Be scrupulously honest with yourself. As my husband said last night “You may be disappointed. It’s actually very simple.” And I might add, it isn’t some magic solution to all your problems. It doesn’t make you charismatic or capable of fulfilling all your dreams in life. You don’t gain anything whatever from it–it’s a negative process. And unless (to use the Buddhist phrase) your karma has ripened to the degree it’s even possible it probably won’t even happen. Anonymous december 14, 2011 at 7:38 am Eliza, please take advantage of how you are feeling right now. I’m not exactly sure what I mean by that statement, but just use the emotions you have to gain some lesson in life, some personal insight. Jed is not God. Many people believe in God & trust in God, and if you do, it’s okay…we all progress at our own rate. Remain open to your feelings & thoughts & find your place in life. I just finished Jed’s first book and one of the points he makes is that we all make it to the truth eventually–maybe after a few additional lifetimes–but we all make it there. It’s like death: you don’t have to worry about missing it. Sometimes (as was the case with my husband) realization seemed to descend suddenly…and that’s not so good either, because along with that new view he had to decide a whole new direction for his life, from that point onward. Who is to say who is sane? As one poster noted, would we have gone to the moon? Would the Sistine ceiling have been painted? Would Bach have composed if we were all in the Jed condition? Life is the universe at play…all we have here, it’s infinite variety. What a delight! ruben december 14, 2011 at 12:21 am Eliza, i remember going through that hell of all hells, and there is some primal longing for some help from the outside. I don’t know if it’s from the Christian dualistic conditioning or not. I noticed in the East the master is used as an object of help to be reminded to go within. Anyway, Jed does mention prayer. For me it means scale, which Jed would disagree, for the enlightened state is beyond scale, but being on the last rung hurts like hell, so you cry out to the higher realms, the Absolute, for help, that appears to be on the outside, but is within. The ego cries out to die, but after a while you realize it doesn’t exist, it never lived, it was only imagined, but the pain sure feels real. ”Man is not really a being but only a tension between two planes of being. Man is a bridge only, that is why man cannot remain satisfied with himself. His heart is nothing but a continent of discontent and his very being is anguish…He can go below himself, or he can go above but he cannot remain himself. He cannot rest. That is why there is restlessness.” “Man is a suspended existence—something incomplete, something which is still to be—a becoming, not a being.” “Enlightenment is always through surrender, but surrender is achieved through intelligence…Through surrender intellect commits a suicide. Seeing the futility of itself, seeing the absurdity of itself, seeing the anguish that it creates, it disappears. But it happens through intelligence.” —Osho “What is the root of pain? Ignorance of yourself. What is the root of desire? The urge to find yourself. All creation toils for its self and will not rest until it returns to it.” —Nisargadatta Maharaj “We are all on the Path—and the road leads upward ever, with frequent resting places.” —The Kybalion “…everyone, in their completely different ways, can be seen as participating in the same adventure.” —Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy ”A man can bring about his own evolution, his own completion, individually.” —Maurice Nicoll “The grief you cry out from draws you toward union.” —Rumi “The longing for transformation is the soul’s voice.” —Emmanuel “Intellect is very much necessary to understand certain fundamentals, but there is a strict limit upto which intellect can go, and thereafter, it is only when intellect gives up all efforts and acknowledges total surrender that intuition takes over.” —Ramesh S. Balsekar “Failure is the key to the kingdom within… Eat me like candy. It’s spring and finally I have no will.” —Rumi “It’s not Eastern or Western or Christian or Hindu, it’s human… the human journey.” —Jed McKenna Portions of the Jesus and the Last Goddess book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy that describe the universal story of psyche that is lost and cries out to the Absolute and he sends his son, Awareness and she cleanses herself of contamination and becomes one with Awareness in a mystical union. It also contains the other stor of ego’s crucifixion, death and rebirth : http://books.google.com/books?id=swM_6ufZ2P4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jesus+and+the+Lost+Goddess%3A+The+Secret+Teachings+of+the+Original+Christians++By+Timothy+Freke%2C+Peter+Gandy&hl=en&ei=LjNdTtaRA4aesQKgrEg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false My attempt and failure to describe Truth that destroyed me: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Such-is-Now/333291156854?sk=wall ruben december 13, 2011 at 1:29 am Good stuff. When seen, there’s no one to see it, what a joke! It is always here, now. What is it? All. Infinity. or nothing, I’m just in the way. What am I? All. Infinity, or nothing. Who is to know or not know? Love. Eliza december 13, 2011 at 12:31 am Thank you to all who have recently commented. It is helpful because I AM insecure in sharing the way I feel now after the “Jed” books. It feels I can’t start a conversation about this stuff in a regular every day life….people will look at you like you do need a strait jacket Heldon, and you’re right, it is a deep embedded fear that craziness is setting in! Reuben, thank you for the perspective of facing the discomfort of not-knowing, that’s a biggie for me because of my upbringing I guess. Having distant parents led me to really count on “god”. Now, through Spiritual Warfare in particular where Jed says that prayer doesn’t really make sense, one entity asking another outside entity for help…….well, that just really through me into another place. I felt even more alone, even though I was already getting that point from the other books, and other authors as well. He just put it so simply, that is became undeniable. Maybe I am overly sensitive, or overly fearful, but really and truly realizing that there is nothing outside of my self reminded me of when I found out there was no Santa Claus! I mean, I was so crushed when I found that out. This might sound silly, but I thought Santa loved me and I could count on him. Now my prayer life has changed, I am trying to work with the energy inside of me now and it seems like meditation and prayer have melded into just one thing. But it feels like so much responsibility, more fear, what if I can’t pull this life off? What if I can’t comfort myself? Mr. Anonymous, I’m not sure I understand what you mean about it being a risk to share experiences, and the competiveness, and rubbing people the wrong way. See, that’s what I was afraid of; basically sounding like an idiot, and being dismissed. It’s likely I misunderstood your point. I guess I don’t know what you mean because I thought it best to not care about what others thought anymore in an effort to just be free. To eddie blatt, you spelled it out with the thought that “jed” puts the last nail in the coffin, and you feel utterly alone……in a nutshelI, it appears you read my mind. eddie blatt december 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm To Helden, and others, I have never agreed with anyone about everything, spiritual or otherwise, and I have never come across a spiritual teacher whose words describing his/her realisation have completely concurred with any other realiser. From this, and years of intense seeking leading to ‘brain fatigue’ and a sort of madness, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing I can do to realise the truth or attain a state other than what I am currently experiencing. I know so little on this matter now, that I can’t even say what ‘the truth’ is anymore without feeling like a complete fraud. There is simply no teacher, teaching, path, practice, idea, fascination, or anything else, that I can turn to and hang my hat on. Jed provided the final nail in that coffin. I feel utterly alone. Yet, how wonderful is it that there are people willing to communicate the unfolding of their lives and what they have understood, not wanting to be ‘right’ but to merely share an openness and a vulnerability. Like on this blog. But, if I had to distil into one sentence what I have understood it would be: I don’t know. And even that sounds fraudulent. Cheers to all. Helden december 10, 2011 at 2:39 pm This is a very interesting range of personalities we have here… I wanted to recommend one technique that has been useful in various areas of my life, from getting along with family to understanding animal behavior to evaluating the “spiritual experiences ” of myself or others: Suzuki’s _Zen Mind; Beginners Mind_. I caught on to doing that right away, years ago, because it just immediately made sense. That is, coming into a situation–any situation–and just looking at it in a very simple way and seeing “what’s going on here.” Reality is right here; right now. Simplicity is often the key. Often we really needn’t tear everything we see to pieces to get at the truth. Observing honestly without judging or evaluating or second-guessing too much calms things down considerably. To be entirely honest, I think enlightenment or truth-realization or whatever you want to call it, is the result of brain fatigue, and since it’s rarely experienced, and it’s so different from the ordinary way of seeing things, giant systems of mythology have grown up around it….starting with reincarnation. The ironic thing is the more you want it the more it eludes you, but you really do need to have a deep desire to put forth the commitment to fatigue the ego to the point that it just gives up. Most of us just don’t want to go nuts: that’s the big fear so few talk about (That sounds so crude, doesn’t it?) We’re willing to put up with just about any crap life throws at us except for the risk of ending up a drooling idiot in a straight jacket. The people I’ve met or read about who have had kensho (the first realization experience) had certain qualities in common: They were intelligent, and were able to concentrate. They were obsessive in personality. They were in an advanced state of alienation & despair, and they did not have a distinct religious or philosophical orientation put in place by the parents that they had to wrestle out of the way. Case in point: My husband, David. Convinced from an early age that he “was smarter than his parents.” Sent off to boarding school from the age of 8-13. At the age of 11, one of his teachers saw something unusual about him, and recommended he read Bucke’s book _Cosmic Consciousness_. Experimented with drugs (the relatively harmless ones.) Gave up drugs. While in the Air Force, the Hawai’ian cadets avoided him. When asked why, they shyly said that he was a “kahuna.” David had to look up that word, which was completely unfamiliar to him. (It means something like witch doctor or shaman.) Encountering Zen instruction for the first time, he simply obeyed his teachers. He attained kensho during his first sesshin (retreat) and has continued what is called “shikan-taza” in Soto zen: undirected pure awareness meditation. I’m not going to tell you that realization is a normal state, or that people remain normal, or even likable in most contexts, or react in a normal or expected way…they don’t. But frankly, they don’t have a helluva lot of choice. David admitted that he “fought it” for several years. Realization catches up to you; it happens to you. You don’t make it happen by doing something. However, even as I wrote that last bit I was thinking: I know you are going to keep trying. Until something, anything, happens. And become a spiritual nuisance in the process. I just know that. Gongs. Incense. Candles. Prayers. Philosophies. Denial. Affirmation. Seeking. Non-seeking. Emotional suppression. Poetry. Whatever. Keep the game going…. and going….and going. Anonymous december 10, 2011 at 12:39 pm Eliza, Your post is most authentic. It’s a dangerous line we tread as “seekers” on the path. You are no child and should never feel as such. You are as far along as “anyone” has ever been. There does seem to be some “risk” as it were sharing your experiences however. Not that it matters to me that much, but to try and describe where you are on the path can rub people the wrong way if they begin to get competitive. I wish you peace…I wish all of us love and acceptance. I doubt that suicide brings any good results just FYI. If I believed it did I would be the first to go there now and try to bask in the glory of that nirvana. I doubt that it matters all that much also, but I don’t imagine there are any shortcuts per se. All is well. Cudos to Brian for creating an arena where so many sincere people are sharing their experiences. Mr. Anonymous ruben december 10, 2011 at 12:08 pm Sounds like you’re doing alright Eliza. Everybody is exactly where they ought to be, if there is such a thing as being somewhere else. I have glimpses that it is all perfect, and then it goes away, non-abiding dual awareness! I don’t see much choice we have it what we do, we just do what we do. Not-knowing is the discomfort that must be faced until that not-knowing is knowing there is nothing to know! Anyway, just found out Jed has a website, so those of us you who want to tell Jed you have him all figured out you have your chance: http://jedmckenna.webs.com/ Eliza december 10, 2011 at 1:40 am I have found some comfort in the last few posts. So often I want to post something here and I hold back because I feel like such a child and so not sure of one thing to the next on a daily basis. The comfort comes from seeing others here that are so articulate still questioning their paths. But, then does that mean misery loves company? I hope that’s not who I am. All I think I know is that I have been changed forever by these “Jed” books. Some days I feel totally freaked out, and other days I feel at peace. The question sometimes becomes, how is that any different from what I felt before? Do I really have more knowledge now, and if I do so what? It’s seems to be “true” that there is no escape except the ultimate taboo. I guess one could find comfort just knowing they have that option, not really considering it, but knowing that there is no shame in it like so many of us were taught as children. Again, I feel like such a child, a novice, and I admit I am scared of life alot of the time. To write that took guts for me because I am not so far along as the rest of you, but I WILL keep going. My main goal to keep letting go, just keep letting go. I have to keep it simple, I just don’t have the intellect yet to do it any other way. ruben december 9, 2011 at 11:56 am Cool, so then you understand what we are going through when we don’t understand. Anonymous december 9, 2011 at 3:22 am Hey Mr. Anonymous here… So, I’m just saying…that once you get down to the bottom of who it is that is really bent out of shape about the fact that they’re stuck in the middle of a ridiculous Maya circus show, surrounded by very few people who even realize it is a dream or want to get out, there is a freedom and spaciousness that will open up. It all has to do with the practice – the real work – whether you call it self autolosys or Self Enquiry. (Sorry Jed, but you just dressed up Self Enquiry and called it something else). However you do it, the proof is in the pudding. I’m not just whistling dixie. I spent a full year howling at the moon at the end of a 20year spiritual search. Screaming, yelling and crying to God for some truth; all the while searching for the dumb bastard that was in such pain. All I can say is that the tortured soul that I was is now gone, replaced by something more at peace…not ignorant…not trying like hell to stick my face back under the covers….just more at peace; seeing the sideshow clearly. A recent book that speaks on the process well is called Transcending the Elegant Charade by Aperion Books. ruben december 8, 2011 at 9:59 am Hey Mr. Anonymous, it becomes so hellish that you got no choice but to find a way out or to commit suicide. So until that happens, I don’t see anyone having the energy to do something so drastic as this. But you’re right, it is the same ego that wants to get out of the ego, that’s the war, isn’t it? Until that 1st step, it’s all philosophical. Maya and illusion are pretty cool, it really is the entertaining part, and essential as I have grown to understand, for you see, awareness is invisible and can’t see itself but it knows it’s there by the reflection on the mind and the body. So without it awareness could not know it is. Maya has value, but living with maya only means only living with shifting sand, impermanence, suffering. You can be in both, like Jed says, in the bubble and out. But the illusion of ego is hell, for you think you’re separate from the whole. I can see why people commit suicide and do drugs and drink and escape anyway they can, but I don’t understand why they’re not looking for truth, for i even met guys who know they’re dying soon but are still into politics or restoring a car. O, Maya. Anonymous december 8, 2011 at 5:21 am Hey guys…just wanted to give a shout out to the latest thread of posts and share that what I’m seeing now is that it’s ok to be separated; it’s ok to be in this world of Maya and delusion. I mean who is it that wants out anyways? It’s that same person that wants out that need to be got rid of in order to experience reality isn’t it? Helden december 8, 2011 at 4:14 am Ruben–congratulations!! ((hugs)) Me too! But…frankly, the more dissatisfied & disillusioned with our petty egos the better. It’s the successful big shots that have the most trouble. “The Zen route” as you call it is just another vehicle. Thousands of people are shaving their hair, packing their belongings into 2 suitcases & arriving at monasteries with the prospect of staring at cave walls for a month in quest of the Big E. Why? because they have been taught that the fastest way to divest yourself of karma is to become a monk. It’s a cultural thing!! Along with compulsory vegetarianism & not drinking alcohol. The solution for us “little folk” in the secular world is to examine ourselves honestly. Is my “practice” (whatever that may be!) something someone else has sold me by overpowering me mentally? [ This is personally, a big problem for me. I have often been the “victim of good literature.”] Or has it arisen from some desire & motivation that comes from within? When we can do that…honestly…we can practice anywhere & walk into any situation & practice there. Every religion has accretions. Know what I mean? Embellishments and embroiderings of the imagination that get plastered onto it after the original teacher/s die. Those embellishments just prove to be distractions–why concern ourselves with them? I believe that the one question to ask is: Is there some common truth? Is there something underneath all the competition & criticism beyond which you cannot proceed and which is undeniable? Some people practice by asking “What is true?” and others by asking “Who am I?” or “Who hears (sees, touches, tastes, thinks) this?” or “What is real?” That removes the series of comfy cushions offered by all religions–whether you are in a pew or on a zafu–placed between you & your primary responsibility: directly perceiving your true self. ruben december 8, 2011 at 1:05 am Purge, purge, purge, intelligence at work, until I am completely gone. No certificates here. ruben december 7, 2011 at 11:33 am IMHO, we all already are in delusion and in separation, it’s called life. Just because “I” have glimpses out of the dreamstate doesn’t make it any better, if fact, am worse off, now I know it is possible, but this ain’t it. I’m surprised that you’re going the Zen route after the great things Jed said about it, something like it’s the worse one except for all the others, or at least I think he said that. I’m going through the “I’m so full of shit” and “I am a lie” period and knowing it doesn’t make me any happier than the natives who haven’t an inkling about the “truth.” I guess this is the fire of Zen, but what do I know? what am I? and I wanted to share this? Helden december 7, 2011 at 5:08 am Ruben…absolutely! But I think we are merely disagreeing about a term, not a path. The big deception–not just in Buddhist Zen, but in all sorts of practices–is what McKenna points out. It’s a lot easier to get wrapped up in rituals, spirituality, virtue & vice, costumes, certificates & books than it is to obliterate the ultimate deception of “Maya.” Selflessness is not the exclusive province of Buddhism–you can find it just as surely in people like Corrie Ten Boom & Fr. Anthony De Mello or for that matter the apostle Paul who wrote “nevertheless, not I, but Christ lives in me.” These people were obedient to; surrendered to the unfolding patterns of the one…and were able, in McKenna’s word, to “manifest” what they needed at particular times in life. The more we stick a bunch of theological & philosophical barriers up between people the more we’re gonna fall back into delusion & separation. “The wheels on the bus go round & round…” Last night I got my certificate from the local monastery for completion of the “Level One Class” in Zen Buddhism. Ha, ha!! Yup. I’m official! Obviously both of us have a lot of major ego going on here…maybe we’ll deplete it in another couple o’ kalpas… In the meantime let’s not mistake vehicles for destinations. As one writer waggishly wrote, he spotted a street sign that could well be a bit of Zen poetry: “All abandoned vehicles will be towed at owner’s expense” ruben december 6, 2011 at 2:54 am Why just study Zen? Study Truth, it’s the core of them all. Truth is, it’s just covered up with lies, the main one being the “idea” of “ego.” Practice what by whom? Find the lies. Expose them with the invisible light of awareness. Nothing is wasted. Getting lost is part of the process of finding that there is “nothing” to find and “no one” to find “it.” It’s brutal, but it is what it is and there you have it. jedmckenna december 3, 2011 at 9:07 pm Thanks Helden for that information about Adyashanti Helden december 3, 2011 at 6:42 pm Sodo writes “don’t even get me started on Adyashanti who claimed to have been authorized somehow through a spurious connection with the lineage of Mayzumi (sic) Roshi, which was proven not to be the case and is now giving ‘Transmissions’ that he never received himself, when in fact all that happened is that he came to a few sitting groups and then decided to fake it for the gullible.” What Sodo has written here isn’t “easily verifiable.” It shows how superficial his understanding of Adyashanti’s whole situation is. I resumed Zen cultivation about 4 months ago & now practice & study with a Ch’an sangha near my home. One of the most useful things I felt compelled to do was to reestablish contact with my first meditation teacher–also, incidentally Adyashanti’s first teacher–after a period of 25 years. Steven Gray (Adyashanti) a competitive cyclist, worked like hell for many years at his practice after being intrigued by the word “enlightenment.” Steven experienced his first serious breakthrough after 5 years of concentrated meditation & was eventually simply pushed out of the nest by his teacher. That is, he was encouraged to begin teaching. He was & is an absolutely dedicated & responsible teacher of Zen non-dualism. Taizen Maezumi had authorized Adyashanti’s teacher before him. “Transmission” is a Buddhist religious ceremony…and obviously nothing is transmitted. It’s the formal recognition of a student’s insight. If a teaching/teacher interests you, my instinct is to look at the quality of the character of the man & whether the teaching is salutary. Just go. Go further, further, even further…go beyond to awakening. Prompted by a comment I made, my old teacher handed me “Spiritual Warfare” by Jed McKenna. There is a considerable amount of material in that book–incidents, characters & dialogue–that seems to be made up. I recognized that & it irritated me. But I’d encourage you not to ‘write him off’ because of that. If it’s that intensely important to you, we will, at some time in the future, know who “Jed” is. (Think about it: the Unibomber, the writer of _Primary Colors_, “Deep Throat”…all now identified.) Long ago I read Chogyam Trungpa’s _Cutting through Spiritual Materialism_. What “Jed” writes about is just that: spiritual teachers who don’t give what they promise; they cheat. Remember the people who sued the Maharashi Mahesh Yogi organization because they wasted their youth attempting to fly/levitate? Jed makes two statements that particularly hit home with me: 1) that Buddhism was the ultimate bait-&-switch operation. Buddhism should be producing Buddhas, but they promise enlightenment & then sell you compassion. 2) (referring to his own books) he writes that he would have *literally* given an arm & leg to have books like those to guide him through his early practice. He didn’t have them. He wrote them for others…so others can (in my words) avoid the bear traps & step around the dog turds. Spiritual materialism is the #1 big Maya trap of our generation. He uncovered it’s face. No one, having read his book, can seriously participate in what I call “religious theatre” in good conscience again. And that’s for the best. You want to study Zen? Read Jed. Read Nisargadatta. Read Adya. Read “The Zennist” blog. Put the genuine non-dualists in your head & then practice, practice, practice. Don’t be stupid and waste your time as I did. I can’t un-do the past, so I simply have to go on from here… ruben october 19, 2011 at 11:11 pm Don’t ask what’s next or why awaken from the dream until you do. Ego cannot be destroyed, it never existed, it’s a dream. To the ego it appears like death, but to awareness it’s awakening. Don’t say stuff you think you know when you don’t, if you did know you wouldn’t say that. Question everything, until there is awareness with no one aware, just awareness, then it can play in the dream, knowing it’s a dream, amazed at the absurdity. jiminator october 19, 2011 at 7:17 am What are we? ultimately we are awareness. that is pretty much all I know for sure. everything else is questionable. I used to think I have thoughts, choices, free will, a body, etc. All this stuff. But I no longer know any of that. The concept of no self takes away a lot of those things. I guess I am striving to know the truth. The question then becomes what next? If awakening means game over (the game of maya, illusion, growth) then why awaken from the dream? We know Jed likes a lot of the spirit guides. I don’t know how awakening fits in that context. Seth had said that the whole ego distruction thing was not good. Anyway it is confusing. And likely also a mind game to avoid the reality of no-self. ruben october 17, 2011 at 9:53 am Yea, I guess so. What a fine line. To me it is a series of jumps, haven’t taken the final one. The ego does have to be willing to die, at least to its old view. I have heard we can’t surrender, it surrenders to itself. Wow. Scary shit. No wonder nobody is doing it, won’t come close to it. It’s so pure. So simple. Too simple. A child just born knows it more than any scholar. Wow. Who won the game? jedmckenna october 17, 2011 at 9:20 am Thanks Ruben IMHO nobody gets to jump, or not jump. That choice is not ours to make. Cheers, Brian ruben october 17, 2011 at 5:23 am Doesn’t it just come down to “Who am I?” Who lives and who dies? The body is born and it gets old and dies. The ego collects experiences and holds on to its memories as its identity, but does it die when the body dies or does it move on as “they” say to find another body to finish the job in some other “life” and undo its illusion? (Meher Baba says from rock to humans we’ve done it 8 million, 400,000 times! boy, am I dumb!) So have we just gotten identified with ego to think we are a separate “thing” from the universe? like a drop in the ocean? Meditating for decades didn’t get me any closer to seeing that fact. I have to admit science helped me the most. When you do the math you realize how the body is so inter-related to the earth and its trees and water and air and the sun and galaxy and the universe, that there is no separation, so there is no ego, it’s only an idea, an image, a name, it’s a dream in the head dreaming it’s in the head! One of the most remarkable insights I read is Osho’s commentary on the Heart Sutra by Buddha. Buddha, as with Jed, says we are no-thing-ness. Osho goes on to say that (paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) when one realizes one is not the ego, then there is no one to be afraid, for ego is the fear coming from the illusion of separation. The fear did come in waves, it was horrible, and I had no idea there was so much fear until the life went over the cliff. So it is ego which is afraid to die, but it doesn’t really die because it never was “real” never lived. Nonetheless it is “real” fear when it is being experienced, and once seen for what it is, one sees there is no one to die and thus no one to be afraid. You just got to jump off the cliff, but like Jed says, ego will do anything to survive. I see this in everyone, they’re horror and fear of the truth, and i’ve seen it within “me” thinking I was doing something different.. What a trip. What am I? Saying one is consciousness observing the whole drama and actually being consciousness observing the whole drama are distinctly different. One can be grabbed by the ego for its survival and the other one annihilates the dream. To jump or not to jump, that is the question. russel october 8, 2011 at 12:14 am I was watching 60 minutes on Sunday October 2nd, and they had a segment about Alex Honnold. Alex is a free solo rock climber. He climbs rock faces without the aid of ropes. Lara was joined by a former rock climber to comment on Alex’s skill, and the difficulty of what he was doing. At one point he said that the fear can come on you at any time, and when it happens, and you’re hundreds of feet above the valley floor it can lock your diaphragm preventing you from breathing. He said that one had to find a way to get the fear under control in an instant, or risk certain death. There is a video online of Travis Pastrana doing a double back flip on a dirt bike, with background music by Eminem. I am living with my 88 year old mother who is literally at the end of her life. She told my sister and I that she wakes up in the night unable to breath, and how afraid she is. This death does not lend itself to description. It’s visceral, and overwhelming, and yet for those of us who are healthy, and not routinely risking our lives, it’s an intellectual exercise that we haphazardly pursue with varying percentages of our total awareness. It’s not immediate, or visceral. We don’t feel it, and we’ve been fed every conceivable fairytale about the afterlife, and our eternal existence in order to diminish our fear, and discomfort at the thought of nonexistence. I’m not convinced that it’s necessary to actually risk our lives to accept the reality of death, but I will submit that the idea that one can approach death as an intellectual exercise is flawed. Our intelligence, and the scope of our awareness as a species is truly impressive, but death doesn’t respect our intellect. In order to know death one must feel it, and in order to feel it one must open oneself up to it, and opening oneself up to death is intimate, and personal, and ongoing. Steve Jobs gave advice about living each day as if it were your last, and talked about asking himself each morning, “if this is the last day of my life is what I’m going to do today the way that I want to spend it?” I applaud the sentiment, but I have difficulty applying it to the lonely pursuit of knowing the totality of the self. The tangible evidence that one can share with our fellow men easily lends itself to acceptance, or rejection, but the pursuit of the less tangible almost always appears as a wasted life when one attempts to share it. So one is left with the choice between the less then satisfactory life of joining our fellow men, and the lonely life of the seeker who may never have anything to show for his struggle. The death awareness that has potency is the awareness that Alex feels when he’s hanging by one hand stuffed into a crack while he dips his other hand into his chalk bag. It’s the ongoing immediate nature of the inevitable end of life while one is struggling to live it. It’s an intricate balancing act between control, and abandon that is hard to describe even if one were currently living it. Eliza october 4, 2011 at 11:59 pm I appreciate the extent that others take to comment and share on this site. In my immediate reality I don’t find alot of people even open to thinking about these things, much less talking about them. What jiminater says about asking who created god is actually how this whole thing started for me when I was about 5 years old. For a short period of time we use to have these ‘bible people’ come to our house for some reason. One night I asked them who made god? They didn’t have an answer, and I was scolded by my parents. From this point on I was frequently scolded for ‘telling the truth about things’. Even then I knew it was them who had the problem, I mean how could truth be wrong I thought. Any way, I’m still working on the death thing, and I am starting to look at it more and more symbolically. Possibly dying every day means just letting go of every little thing that didn’t work out the way we thought it should. Simple things like the weather ruining your plans, an unexpected expense, or a friend letting you down. All these type of things are only wrong by perception. If your plans had come through maybe you wouldn’t of survived them for any number of reasons, you all know what I’m saying (death…shhhhhhh). So accepting everthing means trusting, there it is again. It’s freakin’ scary out there, :). Maybe someday we can start a discussion about the ultimate taboo. As soon as I saw that as the title of one of the last chapters of Spiritual Warfare, I knew what is was going to be about. That was an honest to good chapter. There really is something to be said about saying what everyone else won’t admit to thinking about. jiminator october 4, 2011 at 8:19 am Actually the death thing is what triggered a lot of things for me. My father died in march. I felt like we had resolved most of our issues in the past, so I was fine with that, but still. A couple of months ago I read “I am that”, and it really opened the door. That was followed by “Spritual Enlightenment” and I felt like I was falling apart after that. The pieces have come back together. I am not enlightened or anything. I am not sure what I am. I don’t really feel fear or suffering though like I used to. For death, I have done a lot of pondering about death as part of my process. My suggestion is to follow wherever your elemental fears lead you. One of my question/paths starts out with “if god created us, then who created god/god’s creator, etc. What was there before any of this existed? What was there before anything existed at all? Why does anything exist at all? How did something come out of nothing?” Our ego has a huge fear of death. We do not know how to die and because of that we do not know how to live. Death can help put everything in perspective. If we live long enough we will see everyone that we grew up with to die, and then it will be our turn. Death is our constant companion. It is a scary thought, but it can also be a reassuring thought, that one day death will take us home. Look at the things we do in our life. In the end it will all come to nothing. Nothing we create will last. The destiny of our entire world is to be burned up when our sun cools a few billion years down the road. Death is the destiny of everything physical that has ever been created. Our meditations, the things we accept, the things we don’t accept, refuse to believe, etc. None of that means or does anything anyway. Whatever is going to happen to us will happen anyway regardless of if we like it or not. But by learning to accept things, to accept the fact of our death, we can make a huge dramatic change in the way we experience our life. In the ultimate sense of things what we are can only be said to be an experience we are having, and that will be true forever. We create attachments because we “like” certain experiences and we want to keep them forever. To this effect we try to control our world, build financial security, raise kids to succeed, etc. All of these things will fail also, Control will fail. There is only one way to control everything. And that is to accept whatever comes. Always. And through doing that comes a form of liberation and the ending of suffering. As to what comes after that? Hell, I don’t know. Further. 🙂 Eliza october 2, 2011 at 10:31 pm Thank you Brian; IT is already ‘killing’ me, and sometimes I am afraid of running out of time, or at least not having enough time left to live this life enlightened. I am not attached to being enlightened exactly, but more that I desire peace, and even more I desire to not be shaken up by lifes twists and turns. I often feel taken advantage of, and yet I know that is up to me to change, either by action or perception. I pray to be returned to right-mindedness, and I actively monitor my thoughts. As I do this I see the fear, I see the sadness, I see my constant search. If dying every day is the answer then I will try to cultivate more understanding. I still feel it’s all wrapped up in trusting everything is the way it should be and when Jed’s books slay me, I often turn back to the book ‘Take Me to Truth’. I find comfort there, but then I want back into the grit of this life, the times when I feel my warrior spirit. It’s a back and forth thing, and I wish for more consistancy. I want to feel like I have grown for good, and that the next time sometimes ‘bad’ happens I won’t break. jedmckenna october 2, 2011 at 5:30 pm Eliza Speaking as another ‘unfinished product’ myself, I would only remark that it really isn’t something you are going to do, or fail to do. Resources or limited resources don’t matter. Most will concede, as does Jedo, that It chooses us, rather than us choosing to do it. IT, is already ‘killing’ you, I would guess. Relax and let it ‘do you’. As my ex-teacher was fond of saying, “Relax, everything is out of control”. Brian Eliza october 2, 2011 at 7:26 am So I just finished Spiritual Warfare, and ofcourse I am walking around a bit disturbed trying to process everything, especially the part about death, and dying every day. All the quotes help in understanding just what is meant by this, but I still don’t think I really get it. I mean I think I get the concept, but I cannot seem to tweek it enough to flow into my daily life. I have responsibilities, and I don’t resent them, they just are. But given the true choice, there is a different way of life I would choose. I also don’t have the unlimited funds to do what my heart desires, so my best approach goes back to trust. I have to trust that this is my life, as it is. By most standards it would be considered a damn good life, but not one that lends itself to doing anything like what Sunny has done, and that’s my reality. BUT, I do want to somehow figure out how to fit this dying while your alive thing into my life now, in the present, and I still am quite stumped. Maybe I’m taking it too literal and it’s simply about letting go of fear, (not like that’s simple!) Any suggestions or thoughts of clarity on this? Ruben september 19, 2011 at 6:44 am I also did things that could compare to what Sunny is doing. To the world it seems like an act of madness, but to you there is no choice. Who would choose this? Looking back I saw how the ego found a way to somehow survive and the act had to be done again and again until the ego realizes its unreality. “I” am at the place that would be described as a worthless human being, and yet the joy of being out of the madness is enough for me to not care. I glimpse that place that Jed describes as done, and see that it is quite possible, but instead of having a couple of houses and the freedom to fly wherever I want is not in the cards, the universe has decided a different route for this one, perhaps one that has to get a job and play with the delusional natives who think this is home. Damn peculiar place, maybe I’ll sing those songs nobody wants to hear. russel wood september 16, 2011 at 12:31 am There is a post from Sunny Dated June 22 2011that put’s it all in a nutshell. Sunny is done with half measures, and halfhearted attempts. Sunny will succeed, or die trying. No holding back, no plan B, nothing left in reserve. When I was Sunny in 1978, and I walked out of the Arizona dessert after my pilgrimage I immediately put my harness back on, and hooked myself up to the cart that I continue to pull to this day. I wish Sunny a different outcome. When I was Sunny in 1983, and I walked out of the Wind River range in Wyoming I was eager to get back in the familiar traces, and to feel the burden that I pull in concert with all humanity. I sought the cozy comfort of shared suffering, and the inane pursuits of a self involved human being. I wish Sunny a different outcome. The well meaning advice given by Michaet T. Ness to temper the passion that would drive one to any length is childish, and demeans the intensity of that singular pursuit. Sunny seeks the advice, and friendship of fear, and death freely given over a lonely campfire. I don’t know what Jed would do, and I don’t know what Christ would do, and I don’t know what anyone else would do, but I know what Sunny is doing, and I know what I am doing. This is my last act on earth, and as such I give it the respect it deserves. I pity Jed if he no longer puts his life on the line, or doesn’t struggle with all his might to overcome impossible obstacles. A life lived fully is one lived on the ragged edge, where death is your constant companion, and every act may be your last. Anonymous september 15, 2011 at 9:27 am If I respond here, It is not so much a separate “me” that responds now…Last year when I encountered the wasteland this writer seems to be reporting, what happened was suddenly there was awareness that this is another perspective of the “me,” and is one of the egos little traps…it causes the perception of meaninglessness because the motives that were, are no more…however, from the perspective of that which I AM, this is seen like a little deflated balloon that feels meaningless. Adyashanti describes it using these terms in The End of Your World, and then it happened and then I saw that this is what had happened… and it became evident that this awareness of the tactic was not caught in the belief of meaninglessness but is freedom. I risk being misunderstood when writing this because that is the nature of words…so limiting and limited…still I feel a motive to write or respond to you Russel and say that all thoughts of meaningless no matter how strongly they are represented in experience, are untrue and are an egoic tactic. There is no meaning but life is not meaningless in this way…Awakening is to that which is beyond these concerns. This awareness can suddenly be what is seeing this but it can only occur now and no concerns for getting it or not getting it are helpful at this stage…just seeing that what is left of the tatters of ego or its perceptions have nothing to do with Truth…they are what is left of delusion. What or who sees this? I AM and THOU ART THAT. russel wood september 15, 2011 at 2:16 am I lack the intellectual capacity, and I’m not an adept enough wordsmith to adequately describe what I’m experiencing on my path toward enlightenment. Let me start with the physical particulars. I am 53 years old, male, single, dating a 25 year old co-ed. I quit my construction job a year ago to move in with my 88 year old mother who has early stage dementia that sometimes represents as full blown Alzheimer’s. My purpose in coming here is to do battle with my self importance, to dethrone the “I” that separates me from something impersonal, and incomprehensible. I don’t adhere to any particular teacher, or teaching, but I do give thanks to those who have written, and taught what they understood to be true, and real. I have reached a pivotal point in my journey. It manifests as an insistent questioning of my sanity, and my motives, and my very existence. I am, and the I that is will die, and upon my death I am not. The only thing that I can control, or strive for is the state of my awareness at the moment of my inevitable death. Everything else is delusion, and window dressing. This enlightenment that so drew me in my youth has become a dead fish that reeks of deception, and rot. How could I have known that “I” could never achieve enlightenment, and remain sane, for the two are diametrically opposed. “I” must cease to exist, without a thread of evidence that “I” ever existed, and to fail to do so will leave me shipwrecked and alone without the sought after sense of completeness. I must walk through insanity without losing my mind, or my way. I vividly remember my youthful daydreams about the benefits of enlightenment, and power, and influence. I’m embarrassed by how naive I was, and probably still am. I find myself unable to hold any kind of conversation with my fellow man, and I get the distinct impression that prolonged contact with me makes people uncomfortable. I am less then anyone I know, and in order to go where I’m going I must whittle away at what’s left of me that resembles humanity. It’s becoming a classic catch-22 wherein I can’t go back, that opportunity has long since been retracted, and I can’t go forward because all I perceive is an endless desolate plane that reaches the horizon in every direction. So I sit, and I wait, while all the beings on this planet go busily about their business. Am I close, or am I far, or am I lost? I don’t know, and I no longer care. I am Ruben september 5, 2011 at 6:50 am Highest truth can be hiding behind some lies that it’s your highest truth, and speaking it gets even more screwed up if you think it’s truth when it’s a lie. Find the lies, and what is left is truth, unspeakable. Anonymous september 2, 2011 at 5:34 am “IS-NESS” always feels right; the trick is attuning. When in advaita satsang with Ramesh, he’d often destroy “heart” as spurious emotionalism, but yet was fabulously emotional himself!!! Is this then dualistic? My impression (of the now passed wonderment) who was Ramesh Balsekar is that non-ordinary states are ALWAYS available when true inner focus is attained [excludes nothing]. Its quite inauthentic to say any of these masters are emotionless and many are evidently vehemently passionate; as was Shirdi Baba [terrifying by all accounts]. So from one who’s jaded by all the bla-bla my 10 cents is simply… live in your highest truth, by speaking your truth clearly and living it to the fullness of every moment that life gifts you with. For surely one day you’ll wake up dead! Then its a bit late to… go-4-it! Ahhh Beautiful day -Tku x Ruben august 22, 2011 at 10:59 am thejimz doesn’t question the “I” that believes Jed is not done. Osho also says life has no meaning, it is sheer joy, like the joy of a child who laughs for no “reason.” It may sound morbid and depressing but it ain’t. As he says the best part of being out of the dungeon is being out of the dungeon. It’s joy. But even Buddha resisted calling it that or anything or else the ego would make it a goal, and thus have something to grab and continue to live in its illusion. Via Negativa is this path, via positiva, which all other paths are, keep the ego going. Freedom from the bondage of ego is joy. Further. Ryokan august 22, 2011 at 1:08 am Hi Thejimz, I read your letter, thanks for sharing your beliefs. At the end you write: “worse is that this is the experience he has to give to others” I can understand that you prefer your own beliefs (don’t we all) However the concept of meaninglessness is not exclusively Jed’s, nor is it new. Buddhist doctrine points regularly at meaninglessness and emptiness, “Ecclesiastes” is a chapter in the Bible entirely devoted to meaninglessness. It seems there is more to meaninglessness (and “no heart”) than just being a mere condemnation or rejection of passion, sentimentality or open heartedness. Clinging to what feels good, apparently does not bring great freedom. Meaninglessness, or the emptiness of existence can be frightening or disheartening and maybe even a “bad” experience, however still worth investigating, and should in my opinion not be condemned or skipped either. In order to say “further” one should halt first. You could be right about Jed being cut off from his humanity, it has been said of other enlightened people, or maybe cut off from some aspects of humanity. thejimz august 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm My attempt at autolysis. This is what “I” know to be true. Am consciousness. I am told there is no I. I do not have that experience. I am composed of millions of cells, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and so on, all I believe to be conscious. I believe everything I see, hear, feel, think or otherwise experience is all conscious. I believe everything in this world, air, water, plants, animals, the sun, planets, the galaxy, the entire cosmos, all are conscious. I believe that consciousness has the ability to grow, to learn and to make evolutionary leaps in consciousness. I believe the absolute is like a cut diamond with an infinite number of facets. Each facet is a slightly different view on what it is to be conscious. I believe that what is called the absolute is just another view of duality as it is seperate from maya. I believe the infinite is continuously recreating this world. Physical matter comes into existence, disappears and reappears in slightly different places, this is movement. Consciousness identifies with a physical form, this creates the form. When it disidentifies it destroys the form. Consciousness can also piggyback on other more baser type of consciousness. This allows for ever more complex forms of consciousness to be created, live and die. I believe maya and the absolute are one. The absolute contains everything but it is maya that gives meaning to what is contained. I believe greater unity in all things will allow the involved consciousnesses to create greater and more complex forms of consciousness. I believe that since we all have the ability to grow, even after discovering the guru within and becoming enlightened, that this is a rule. As above, so below. I believe Jed has had his brutal hacking away experience, and now knows everything. But he doesn’t. He still admits to being guided. He has become disassociated from his humanity. I believe that the absolute and maya are forever linked. Consciousness forever grows through its ability to integrate and evolve less forms of consciousness. We are all one, but bringing out the oneness in others is evolution. I believe there are other paths to enlightenment, paths that do not sever the heart, but instead focus on growth by being open and aware. Tolle for example. I don’t think Jed is “done”. He even admits to learning, growing and experiencing. The vision he gives of the absolute is his vision. It is what he has learned and what he has to share with others. Sad to think that the culmination of experiencing and growing through untold numbers of forms he discovers self-realization this lifetime, and is “done” with it. Everything is now meaningless. Worse is that this is the experience he has to give to others. I have listened to the tapes. Maybe it has helped me take a second step. But his path is not the one I am going to follow. My advice for Jed is is own. Go further. Sunny june 23, 2011 at 11:35 am Michael & Ruben- Thanks so much for your replies. Your concern and advice appear to me to be a part of an overall unfolding that the universe is laying out for me like a rug. Rapid change and upheaval are frightening but the timing, flow and general spookiness of forces leading me to this alone time feels like intelligent design so I’m surrendering to it and going with the flow in faith. I have a good amount of common sense, a sharp knife and long underwear. (Not to mention 4 wheel drive if I have to bail!) I can’t tell you how much warmth and support I’ve felt from your comments. I’ll check back in when I can. Sunny Ruben june 23, 2011 at 9:49 am Great response Mike. I missed the extremity of what she was doing. The self does like to go to extremes, just like that guy that wanted to give Jed all his possessions. while missing the transcendence of those extremes. Ruben june 23, 2011 at 7:45 am Sunny, I don’t Jed has the “dark night of the soul” trademark. It’s a common thing to truth. I was once turned on to a very small book that talks in biblical language about this: “I am caring for thy body and have provided it with the proud sense of personality to develop it and that when the body is developed so that it shall have no further need of that proud sense I will send they deep humiliations. Then shall that proud sense be brought low and die. So when any humiliation comes to thee, let they personality tremble, for its end is near, but let thy body rejoice, for its freedom is at hand.” Life’s Word: http://joysom.com/lifes_word_1.htm Rumi: “But remember, it is by failures that lovers stay aware of how they are loved. Failure is the key to the kingdom within…” Michael T. Ness june 23, 2011 at 1:49 am Sunny, be a little bit careful here. It sounds like your circumstances are getting a bit extreme and you must be sure that you are not causing this out of a false idea that a spiritual aspirant must necessarily undergo extreme circumstances in order to prove sincere. I know some of the stories and things that Jed talks about sound pretty extreme, but it’s not necessarily something we have to emulate. Remember he is just a person, like you or me and no one special (though I will say his writing is quite good). Remember also that he said, somewhere in one of the books, trying to run against the herd is as bad as having to run with the herd. All I’m saying is examine what has led you to these circumstances very clearly. If it is the ego; if it is Maya telling you that you have to go to an extreme to be spiritual then drop that immediately. Generally speaking, at least for myself, whenever I feel I have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to some degree, Maya is whispering in my ear, trying to stoke the flame of something that I’m pissed off about. Remember, in the pursuit of non-duality, we need not get trapped up in black or white. I think it was the last Star Wars movie where Obi-One told Anakin “Only the Sith deal in absolutes” If indeed these circumstances are inevitable, all will be well. The universe/God will never truly abandon a sincere devotee. Wishing you much peace and clarity. Sunny june 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm Thanks Michael. This is frightening stuff. Since my last post, all my bridges are burned and my (very) comfortable life is over. I guess this is the opening of a door the universe has intended for me but it scares the sh** out of me. I’m 50 years old and I’m going to live in a tent, alone, in the mountains. I don’t have a plan B. Sometimes I’m so pissed at Jed- maybe Maya’s playground wasn’t so bad, but there’s no going back, is there? Michael T. Ness june 22, 2011 at 3:04 am Hi Sunny, I love your name. FYI, I think the “no man’s land” situation is quite common for people who really begin to drift down the spiritual path wholeheartedly. What’s worked for me when I’ve found myself in funky, not so fresh feeling spiritual states is total surrender. As much as the consciousness will allow you, just surrender. Everything that comes up is God’s play: Lila. Whatever is arising, just open to it, accept it. That is how you go beyond it. At least that’s what worked for me. Ruben june 21, 2011 at 10:25 pm It’s really hard to see because there is nothing to see, and no one to see it. We’re all been looking for an “object” in time and space called truth, while truth is infinite and eternal, so it is everything and nothing put together. It destroys “you” the subject which is really another object that has no permanence, thus untrue. True subject transcends the subject-object duality. In that void of “one” something adjusts, and a “pleasant nothing” arises. It will destroy any boundaries of infinity which is what everyone is so afraid of. Most people would rather choose the hell of self than the heaven of no-self, for there is no one in heaven. It really is a process of opening the next door until you’re done. I’m definitely not done, because whenever I think I am another door pops up. “I” is a lie, but you still got to play like it isn’t, which makes this place so fucking absurd. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Such-is-Now/333291156854?ref=ts Sunny june 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm I’ve read Jed’s 3 books and currently find myself stuck in a sort of “no man’s land”. Burning away the untruths have left me with no truth and I find myself desperately looking for something- anything- that is real. Maybe I’m just stuck for a while. Anyway, I found the song by Shawn Colvin called Sunny Came Home, really moves me. Just thought I’d share that since I’ve struck that match. Thanks for the site, Brian. It’s helpful. Mark Pope june 18, 2011 at 2:33 am Yes, Rueben, I enjoyed it; particularly your last comment re “the herd being nonetheless miraculous…though they forget it just like I did and still do.” To me Rueben, that is a facet of heart or whatever word we want to use, right there, that understanding and humility…anyway me too on the did it and still do. Have a shining day…Mark Ruben june 18, 2011 at 12:36 am Yea. Cutting the root of bullshit-ology. I go through the same when I hear all this love talk covering the root of unlove. We pack shit upon shit and what you get is a lie. Remove the illusion of ego, which separates the universe into parts, and what you have is not-2ness, which is love, but no one that loves, just love. The other masquerades as love and what you have is mask that will soon fall when push comes to shove. One of the best lines I’ve ever heard Osho say was, “I call a spade a spade, and if need be I’ll call it a fucking spade.” Jed is another voice at calling it a fucking spade, of which I am most grateful, for I thought I was mad for not relating to the herd, but that herd is non-the-less miraculous in their being what they are, one with the universe even though they forget it just like I did and still do. Thanks for the dialogue Mark. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Such-is-Now/333291156854?sk=wall Mark Pope june 16, 2011 at 3:07 pm Not that you were necessarily responding to what was written by “me” Ruben, nonetheless I could not agree more. A major resonance for me was with Jed blowing up the ideas re heart, compassion etc that belong to the spiritualized ego. What is called love by the world, political or religious collectives etc or even by the spiritual community, at least as I have encountered it, is often a hiding place for a self that is not… a way to keep from waking up… At the same time, completely dispassionate views of others ( by others I mean differentiations or waves in the ocean of non-division) seems incomplete as complete detachment requires that there be a sense of separation from that which we are detaching from. Looking at the world of politics and other collectives today, as you point out, reveals the error that is common around the use of the term love. I too viewed Jed’s work, whoever “he” may be, as an act of love, particularly since there is such a willingness to stand where few have been willing to stand around pointing these hiding places out, so each of us who encounter the material can look carefully at whether there is ego involved in such considerations. I am fairly simple in my looking at this. Is love a belief? Is there a separate sense of self that likes to think of itself or believe itself to be loving? Etc. etc. Or is there simply a deep understanding of what it means to be caught in the dream/nightmare in the mix when interacting with so called “others.” This latter seems more to be the nature of Truth or Being relating to Itself in form rather than ego. I see Jed responding to others that are open in quite loving ways…for me he is a kind of Shiva (destructive wave of Being or God of Death, to use the Hindu pointer ) in service to blowing up untruth. Mark Ruben june 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm We have seen alot of examples where people say they doing things from love but it’s just not agape, evolved love. Hitler loved the German people, Osama loved the Muslims, the Jews love the state of Israel, W. loved his rich friends, some people love their football team, etc. Loving one’s tribe at the expense of others is a limited sense of love. Jed’s 4 books to me was a great act of love, even though he wouldn’t call it that, but it is to me. Love can be used as a mask for ego so easily. In fact ego can masquerade as democracy, truth, freedom, and all those great words and as we have seen they have a habit of coming out as the complete opposite, mostly in politics and religion. That’s why Buddha discredited the idea of the soul, he saw it as another hiding place for the ego, so he used anatta, no-self. Mark Pope june 13, 2011 at 8:43 am I first commented on post-spirituality and had not yet seen this piece. My awareness of Adya’s points, and Brian’s here about mind, heart and gut seem to lead me to the same sense, that perhaps Jed still has contraction at the “heart level.” I do not really know, obviously, but Brain’s suggestions seem helpful to me in being able to more clearly sort out what about Jed resonated and what didn’t and “perhaps” why. My primary relationship with the Jed material is that it took away stuff that had been still disguised as Truth but was in Truth another “prison.” However the prison-like quality of what I saw with Jed’s help, isn’t now seen to have always been prison, but just life’s curriculum on its way to awaken to Itself in the field of time. I do not tend to project authority on teachers and teachings so I just set that part aside (Jed’s stuff about heart). All I had come to was: Well, when he speaks about heart and how he speaks about it does not seem quite right for me. Oh, well, he is “Jed” and I am “Mark” and no two waves (in the ocean of non-division) are the same. I just knew that this chest/heart thing doesn’t seem like one of Maya’s prisons to me. It seems like Truth. Mainly I am just very grateful to find these postings…grateful is another word for the chest/heart thing that stirs me to write l…. A Wave of Grace, Mark Ryokan june 2, 2011 at 4:37 pm My experience is my door into truth. What I eperience is always true. Letting go of the steering wheel is important every day for me, as I have a tendency to want to try and manipulate or alter my experience, somehow being in control, steering it in whatever way I believe to be more conducive to deliver me to “the other side”. Reading has its place of course, and thanks for all the beatifull pointers, but I find myself thrown back into my own experience again (luckily). What had value for me was to be pointed to my experience (again and again) in various books I read and teachings I followed. It hurts not to be enlightened, but hey I’ll get over it. What will get me there? To put in a hell of a lot of effort and exhaust myself and “pop through” in a final surrendering? Was it the effort then that got “me” there? Surrendering, letting go of the steering wheel is something I need to do every day many times a day, not a once off as (I think) Lisa experiences. Whatever effort I put up, whatever else I can conjure up, it is me trying to alter or enhance what is right in front of me. Only surrender by acceptance of my experience or whatever is in front of me seems to be a true doorway. But can I surrender? Can the ego surrender, who is doing the surrendering? It seems that as long as there is the “doer” doing it, it is just my ego wanting to be an enlightened ego. Surrender does not strike me as an ego trait. So what part truly surrenders to my present experience? Who is the I that let’s go, and can I bring that about? Can I get myself to surrender, or is it grace in the end? Jim O. may 31, 2011 at 10:29 pm Nothing to be sorry about. Take what you like and leave the rest. Ruben may 31, 2011 at 12:14 pm Jim, I’m sorry, but we all read books, and it would get kinda boring if we all listed all the ones we read. What would be interesting is what you are going through and perhaps the ones that have touched you the most. Jim O. may 31, 2011 at 11:24 am More books read: A Course in Miracles Conversations with God (a few of ’em) The Power of Now Something by Randall Friend I can’t remember the name of Something by James Braha I can’t remember the name of So here’s the bottom line. I don’t define life by my story or circumstances. They are as they are. Oneness manifesting as it will including the thoughts that appear as mine. I guess I prefer my gurus be grouchy and not self promoting. No books to sell, no websites with new agey pictures and wonderful quotes from the usual suspects, just people slugging it out moment by moment in the dream. Jim O. may 31, 2011 at 7:30 am Not at all sure about truth being not dependent on circumstantial conditions because I’m not sure what “truth” is. Here’s some of the books I’ve read over the past 15 years or so. Moby Dick Walden The AA Big Book I am That Damndest by Jed Incorrect by Jed Everything is Clear and Obvious As it Is The Open Secret What’s wrong with right now? A few others I’ve forgotten. I’ve surfed many “advaita” web sites and read quotes and watched “satsangs” with various self appointed gurus. We even tried to start a “non dual” group here in Connecticut where I live. I’ve never been to India or Tibet or actually anywhere in Asia. I work as a salesman, have two children, one who is special needs. I have a wife, mortgage, credit card debt, aging parents with failing health, an immediate family that’s exactly as crazy as everyone elses. That’s my story and I’m not really sticking to it, though it seems to stick to “me” sometimes. That said, I’m drawn to non dualism but not the people who “teach” it. Ruben may 30, 2011 at 11:59 pm I guess you work with the hand that was dealt to you. “They” say you’re given what you need to see where you are stuck. Yea, who has the time to do this when you have to work etc. I myself, this character, usually worked and then took off to focus on the truth, then went back to work. No security for me, but security can be the illusion that keeps most people in the dream state. I have to admit it scared the shit out of me, so I was given the opportunity to see a mountain of fear that I would not had if I had been “secure.” Many people who do get secure waste alot of energy and the stress gets them some of cancer and they die, without questioning anything. So, fellow orphans, we’re screwed either way! david may 30, 2011 at 12:43 pm yeah, but that’s a myth also. you can wake up no matter what your circumstances. truth is not dependent on circumstantial conditions, only inner ones. look at daniel ingram for one (he was studying to be a doctor, not exactly easy) or the many others on the kenneth folk forum. an easy life or lack of outer burdens isnt enlightenment, it’s just luck. maybe it represents skillful means that can help one’s focus, but people are capable of adapting to anything. not to deny it makes it tricky… good luck though 🙂 Jim O. may 30, 2011 at 12:26 pm Jed has no wife, kids, or mortgage…apparently a passive income stream that allows for travel and dining out regularly in nice restaurants. Damn nice life. I would say I would be less burdened (in other words “enlightened”) if those were my circumstances. david may 30, 2011 at 9:46 am i don’t know how many realise this already, and not to detract at all from the wonderful value of this discussion and site and analysis, but possibly the most important link in the above thread is the following one, for which i am eternally grateful. Ellen (05:23:33) : Ruthless Truth: http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/index.php it took me to THIS (see below) which is essential reading for anyone who is at all excited by the possibility of discovering truth for themselves. it’s epic. http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2010/10/thunder-and-sunshine.html thanks ellen! 🙂 Ruben may 24, 2011 at 11:18 pm What can anybody know? Life is so fleeting that once you said something about it, it’s gone on to something new, it can never be grasped. So we can have a site that nobody says anthing for fear of being wrong. Be free to be wrong until you discover what’s right. Let it out for you and us to see it. Most of us are full of shit anyway. We don’t know, until we find there’s nothing to know. But do I know that? Ahhh! The truth is going to be the death of “me.” I do have a suggestion to Brian. Is there some way you could change your name from Jed McKenna to Brian because it might be a bit confusing if the one who wrote the Jed books decided to post using that name? Just a suggestion. Oh, for those of you who would like to read Osho’s take on Zen which Jed likes, his books are online for free in pdf. here are the ones on zen, the guy on the top left is not Osho, he acts like him, which is kinda weird, but he put this together: http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/Osho_books_on_Zen_and_Zen_Masters.htm on Buddha: http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/Osho_Books_on_Buddha_and_Buddhist_Masters.htm all his books are here on this site: http://www.homeoflife.com/page1/maina.html here’s also the Nisaragadatta’s classic “I am That”: Click to access I_Am_That.pdf Enjoy the ride. Ryokan may 24, 2011 at 4:53 pm Those who know don’t talk about it. Those who talk about it don’t know. I have a site for enlightened people (only), no one’s ever said a word. You can check it out, you wont even find the site. I like to waist time, not that I ever managed. I take great care not to take myself too serious. I often fail, but then, fortunately I don’t take myself too serious. Mindless brabble, I agree, I thought it more fun than stating something serious here. (Sorry, maybe not the place to have fun) Ahum, It’s hard to accept things, but in the end I’m not left with much of a choice, at least in my experience. I smile or cry about my experience, who’s to say I’m wrong? jedmckenna may 17, 2011 at 10:34 am Fraser Great! Now tell us something we don’t know! No one, to my memory, who has seriously averred an opinion or a sentiment on this blog claiming to be realized. Quite the opposite. It is simply a place for Wayfarers to stop and have a bit of chat together before re-immersing back into the fray. I must admit it is superior posing know-it-alls like yourself that make maintaining a blog an irritation sometimes. May I humbly suggest that you get off your high horse and stop presuming you know what others are all about. Ask more questions than giving advice and presumed direction to others and we will all be the better for it. Everyone knows about the great teachers and teachings such as U.G. Get human and come down out of your head. Don’t worry it is safe to do so. Brian Fraser Boyes may 17, 2011 at 6:56 am – Jed admits that while walking around in his human body, he still has preferences and annoyances like everyone else – and that this cannot be erased from one’s character on Maya’s stage UG will explain this too, the niggle in the back of your minds… “but if Jed is enlightened why does he get annoyed at people.” This is based on a notion of the state he ‘should’ be in when really we have no idea what it’s like. Fraser Boyes may 17, 2011 at 6:51 am Have you all read The Mystique of Enlightenment -conversations with UG Krisnamurti? Essentially says similar things as Jed (ie the enlightened perspective) but in a more straightforward way. In fact it is as if Jed has written all the books from his conversations. Ultimately the techings of Jed have led many of you into another tailchase: those who still ask ‘where’s the love’ and such nonsense or I imagine many of you are trying to behave like Jed – I know I did (despite what he says about kill the buddah). UG will clarify some points: the importance of there being no more questions, and the fact that ‘love’ or whatever you mean by this concept is the very thing keeping you trapped. Your search for truth is keeping you trapped. The fact you want to operate like Jed is keping you trapped. (outside authority) The fact you are on this website means you are lost, (Me included) You will also realise why Jed says the price is everything. The way you function will be so different that all relationship will be over. Ultimtely he will tell you that you are wasting your time. Which you are. Only when you truly see that may you have a chance of dying. Give up. Ruben april 27, 2011 at 12:02 am Been a while since someone has put something up, but maybe people like Richard are just busy fighting that inner war, instead of finding the next distraction or finding someone to blame for the state of the world that doesn’t change because of all our complaining on face book. I can’t complain, what good would it do? That’s how the saying goes. No, this place isn’t meant to be a comfortable place,and it appears it was designed to be quite disturbing, since that first spank on the ass. I am still amazed at Jed nailing the human condition, his lack of optimism for the evolution of man, it might not ever happen. I’m beginning to see it, the fear of even talking about going in, no, the terror! It is the greatest taboo, to know who or what we are. Most strange. I guess you don’t do unless you cannot not do it. So I guess all I can do is work on myself, find the illusion of I, which always is looking for some prop to lean on, like you. Onward, further…. Richard Smith april 23, 2011 at 2:28 pm This is my first and last post here. Posting here and trying to find solace, understanding, or “truth” here is just me avoiding doing the work. What is true? I try to make enlightenment a comfortable thing. Meeting friends. Images meeting images, trying to prop up beliefs with other beliefs. What is true? Wasting time here. Adyashanti? What’s with the name? Wasn’t his given name good enough? Laughing. Let’s get together and feel alright with Adya. Come in from the cold and feel good. Slick marketing. It’s quite hopeless here, and there is no place to hang your head in comfort. You’re already dead. What’s left? Standard religions have created God in the image of man. Spiritual seekers do that with enlightenment, as well. All will be well and comfortable after enlightenment. This world isn’t meant to be a comfortable place, and never will be. So excuse me, but I’ve got work to do. What is true? Kaushik february 12, 2011 at 8:28 am Jed may actually be Adyashanti. I heard of this delicious idea a few years ago. If you’ve read and listened to youtube excerpts of Adyashanti, and after upon reading JMK, I’ve often recognized Adya’s phrases in JMK’s books. I haven’t noted these so I can’t be very specific. Adya has often talked about “waking up from Zen” and that spirituality has nothing to do with awakening and so on. Essentially they both say the way is self-observation and self-honesty. Of course, it just could be that both are at a similar level of awakening and so they both reverberate in similar ways. Guillermo february 2, 2011 at 2:22 am Thank you Rachel, that was an excellent interpretation of why Jed writes with such provocative tone. I kind of susptected that he has chosen to be on the extra harsh side of things on purpose, to make sure he’s not being fluffy, to make sure he’s doing the opposite of a sales pitch, in the usual sense of the eternal orgasm enlightenment thing… But your analysis is more sensible. Thanks very much again! Ruben january 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm It is ironical, it’s something that we already are, have always been. One with the universe, we are the universe without the we. But like Bob who has the belief that we are already enlightened while covered up with the false and without true realization, I am a blind man believing in light expounding about light. I am noxious of such vanity, in myself and others. JC january 15, 2011 at 9:16 am I’ve been re-reading Spiritual Warfare recently, has there ever been a better analogy of segregation and integration than “Scoop a jar of water out of the ocean and put a lid on it?… It didn’t exist before you scooped it up, but you didn’t create it. It doesn’t exist after you pour it back, but you didn’t destroy it. So what was born when you segregated that jarful? What died when you reintegrated it?” (He goes on to suggest the use of death awareness and spiritual autolysis to answer the question, “Who am I”?) So the pouring out of the jar back into the ocean would be akin to burning away the layers of false self, a recurring theme throughout the Trilogy. Whatever is left is what’s true, and presumably, what I am. I can’t personally attest to the accuracy of these parables, but what I Can say is, at least in the case of the jar of water, the idea seems both wondrous and awful, beautiful and spine-tingling, foreboding yet inviting. I guess this is what Jed means when he indicates enlightenment is not something I can desire, but something I am propelled into by the hatred of all that is false. Ruben january 10, 2011 at 12:50 am I don’t think it’s fair to say what Jed or anybody is “probably” in awe of. Spiritual Enlightenment, the damnedest thing, page 170, don’t know exactly what verse. He goes on to say “I like Osho, the enlightened guy formerly known as the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.” ….I like his teaching style. I like his take on Zen. I am in awe of his mind.” On that site there is only 314 books of his spontaneous talks, many on Buddha and Zen and other giants of humanity. Hawkins january 9, 2011 at 4:29 am Slight modification to my last post. I would say, though, that he probably was in awe of Sonaya (SETDT), Herman Melville (SIE), and Brett (SW). Hawkins january 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm Ruben, I’ve read every McKenna book (all 4 of them) and don’t recall any references to Osho at all let alone anyone else he is in awe of. Can you please document your statement. Thanks, Hawkins Ruben january 8, 2011 at 1:19 pm Truth is truth. No distinctions, all expressions of the one. Jed is the American version of it, with the fuck words and all in the expression. He does a good job at what he does, because he is truth. Most grateful to the One for him and all the buddhas, past, present, future. Use them all, see it from every angle until you find there’s no one to find anything but freedom. if interested in another giant that jed is in awe of, check out the most prolific expounder of truth, over 600 books for free and some videos: http://www.homeoflife.com/page1/maina.html jedmckenna january 8, 2011 at 10:08 am Exactly! Brian Rachel january 8, 2011 at 3:34 am Jed. Jed. I first read his books in high school like 9 years ago. I loved them, they resonated for me, but I didn’t really get them. I worked with another spiritual teacher for quite a while, an off-the-radar enlightened woman who does not “teach” but instead does therapy, which I think is pretty appropriate really…anyway…several months ago I lost someone very close to me and it left me questioning everything that mattered to me…family, friends, interests, etc. I picked up his book again and it was like I was reading it for the first time. I’ve spent over 9 years working through my shit. I’ve waded through my feelings, my thoughts…I’ve spent years trying to accept life, to meditate through my thoughts and to sit and fully experience my feelings, but I think that all of it was vital to reaching the point where I could hear Jed. Jed likes to say that everything that isn’t his “bolt of lightening” is worthless, probably because that’s how he experienced it and so he assumes that’s how it works. Where he would probably dismiss all those years of soul searching, it was vital for me to reach the point where I could even hear him. I think his problem is that he’s not so good at expressing what you have to do to work through your crap. He just says it’s hellish, but anyone who’s ever seriously tried to burn through ANY of their ego will tell you it’s not fun. He’s not a terribly helpful teacher, but I think he’s right about what enlightenment is; a state in which you’re free from suffering brought on by your ego, but everything else is optional. What I’m coming to realize, as a “student” that’s finally making it to the other side of “the exit of the theater,” is that people don’t become someone different when they reach enlightenment. They are free from their ego which means that they don’t care what you think of them. Thank about that. If you always sounded arrogant before you were enlightened, there’s no reason why you would lose that tone unless you’re thinking in terms of the guru fantasy role of an all-loving soul…probably the only difference would be the motivation. Before, you might have been arrogant to make yourself feel better than others, when you really felt small and frightened. After, you have something that others want to find. Why wouldn’t you boast? The only real deterrent to not sounding like an asshole is the fear that someone (whether it’s a stranger or your mother) won’t like you. If you don’t have that fear then you’re free to do and say whatever you want. I’m guessing that’s the point Jed tries to make all throughout his books, by donning such an arrogant ‘my way or the highway’ tone; that just because you’re enlightened doesn’t mean you love everything and everyone. But I think that if you’re a loving, compassionate person in the egoic sense of the word, you probably won’t lose that either. Unless your love of others is entirely ego-driven there’s no reason why you wouldn’t still love them when you reach the other side. I think whoever the real Jed is, he probably wasn’t the warmest guy to begin with. But I think he doesn’t want to say that kindof thing because he knows a lot of people will mishear him. They’ll hear ‘you’ll be compassionate and loving’ and think that’s the only option; it will reinforce their stereotypical guru image, when the truth is you might walk away from humanity and never give them another moment of your time. By donning his image of an arrogant, truth-obsessed tough-guy he’s just saying, ‘this is a personal trip, and who you are doesn’t change, only the motivation, so you don’t have to spend your life trying to perfect yourself; figure out the truth and just be free.’ And that’s not a message you hear very often. I think Jed, or the persona of him, is a pretty cool dude with a good way of expressing that. Or, of course, I could be totally wrong, ha ha. jedmckenna december 20, 2010 at 6:39 pm Amen, Ruben! And thanks for your honesty. Brian Ruben december 20, 2010 at 4:27 pm It appears to be long road of postponement, that is what the mind is. Autolysis will expose it eventually. Had moments of “How could I have missed it for so long?” and then go for months missing it. It’s a long habit, could be one of lives, and it’s hard to get out of in a society who doesn’t even consider it to be of any value and would be last on the list until suicidal, but not even then with all the anti-depressants going around. I’m no expert at this, haven’t experienced “when it starts getting good” but maybe being out of the dungeon is good enough. We’ll see. Autolysis is the shit. Write what is true. Rewrite, put it as concise as possible, the mind will destroy it and write it again and the mind will destroy it, and then….. Failure is the key to the kingdom within. –Rumi Guillermo december 16, 2010 at 2:58 am Phew, I have just caught up on all the reading of the posts under the last time i logged on. I have to say, I´m very thankful to Jed, whoever he/she is, not only because of the books, but also because of allowing for a gathering of sincere minds. How beautiful is it, to find people so honest, that they even admit they know they are not being fully honest!? What a gift.. Thank you all. And may we always remember one of the coolest pointers, I think; The tricky thing about seeing through self delusion, is that it very convincingly argues that we are not self deluded. Even though I sense most of you dont have much need of any material as all dissolving´s taking care of itself.. here´s a little for the rest of you, see if any resonates.. There´s dream characters that seem to have seen more of the dream than our selves sometimes. The following team of characters springs to mind.. and their strong points -Adyashanti, for clarity, deepening and subtlety… and much more -Jed, for punching you out of idleness, or self deception, and for much more as we know.. -Tony de Mello, to remind you of the comedy of it all, and covers the Adya strengths too I believe -Mooji, for super straight relentless pointing at your inner truth -Jeff Foster, to expose the futility of the seeker – if that mode is still on- and the simplicity of life itself as one with you -Wei wu wei – mix of everything -Paul Hedderman – could be the last message that had to be heard Fundamentally, playing with these guys ideas can be fun.. as long as we no longer prostitute our inner knowing, or the little bastard, to external authorities.. Long live the balls to tell ourselves the truth.. hmm.. this is probably always so. Long live the balls to listen to it. jedmckenna october 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm Dear Dargenesis: When you posted this comment you were given the option to be updated when new entries are made. Did you notice that ? If not make another blank comment and tick the boxes. OK? Brian Anonymous october 30, 2010 at 4:15 pm Please sign me up to receive info from this site. I’ve just started reading Jed’s first book…WOW! Ruben october 30, 2010 at 4:03 am Eliza, thanks for reminding me about Adyashanti, one of his you-tube videos just helped me unlock a door I was stuck at. Ruben october 29, 2010 at 10:27 am Yea Brian, for sure. Here’s a great Tagore story that Osho used to point this out:: In one of Rabindranath Tagore’s poems he says, “I searched for God for many lives… searched but never found. Sometimes I got a glimpse of him among the most distant stars. I kept hoping, kept looking. Then one day by a lucky accident I reached his door. There was a sign: ‘This is God’s house.’ I climbed the steps — in one leap the journey of many lives was complete. Benediction! “My hand was on the doorbell chain when a fear overcame me: ‘What if I meet him? Then? What will I do? My whole work has been to seek God. I live in this hope — it is my life’s journey. So if I meet God it will be death. What will happen to my life, my journey? Then where will I go, what will I attain, what will I seek? Then nothing will remain.’ So in fright I let go of the chain, slowly let go of it so there would be no noise, so that he would not open the door. I took my shoes in my hand and fled, and since then I have been fleeing.” “Still I go on seeking” — the poem continues — “even now I am seeking God, though I know where his house is. I seek him everywhere except there, because seeking is my life. I keep myself from going near it. I go anywhere except towards that house. I turn away from it. I ask everywhere else, ‘Where is God?’ — and all along I know where God is.” As I see it, many people have come close to that house many times in their endless seeking, but freaked out. Freaked out and forgot everything; only that fright they cannot forget. This is why people are not readily attracted to meditation. People are scared, and avoid even talking about things like meditation. They make formal use of the word God, but they never let themselves go in a deep search for him. They go to the temple, the mosque — it is a social formality, a convention, a custom. They go because they are supposed to, but they never let the temple, the mosque, be established in their heart. They won’t take on such danger. They keep God far away. And there is a reason for it — somewhere hidden deep in their memory is an experience of fear. Sometime they must have faltered in front of that door. jedmckenna october 29, 2010 at 10:13 am Ha! Well put, Ruben. This problem always reminds me of the Country song lyric: “EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO TO HEAVEN, NOBODY WANTS TO DIE, EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW THE TRUTH, BUT EVERYBODY’S TELLING LIES”. (Which may be by an artist named Louis King, and titled ‘Lover’s Question”, I’m not sure. I think the truth may be that we vote with our feet, not our mouths. It’s what we animate in our lives that tells the story of what we are all about, not any talk we make about seeking or yearning for enlightenment. Would you agree? Brian Ruben october 29, 2010 at 9:19 am I really do understand the unending search throughout the world for truth, and it was actually quite refreshing to see Jed did the same and encouraged it. I recall a discussion in a group about the origin of this particular version of the 4th way we were studying and the teacher at the time pointed out this was a distraction from actually doing the work at hand. I mean they are all pointing to the one that’s inside all of us, why don’t we just go in? But it is so disturbing to go in, to face the void, and the demons that are in the way, I can see why the truth is taboo. Interpretations of the truth are in, but the brutal truth that exposes our lies is the last thing we want to do. Like a moth to a flame, we want it, but we don’t. What a paradox! It’s what I love, and it’ll be the death of me, thank goodness. Meanwhile, I’m full of it. Ellen october 29, 2010 at 5:23 am Ruthless Truth: http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/index.php Eliza october 28, 2010 at 11:06 pm I don’t think it really matters, although it’s natural to try to figure out “who” “Jed” is. Personally I don’t think “Jed” is Adya. I read highlighted portions of Adya’s work every day, and always listen to him in the car and I do not get the sense that he wrote the “Jed” books. I think because their themes are so unique and similar could lead one to assume they are the same person, but I think it’s more likely that there are just more and more people these days that are understanding real truth and Reality. It’s still an obscure school of thought, but nothing has ever rung as true as these themes for me. I highly suggest to anyone who truly is willing to let their life be changed forever read Adyashanti’s book The End of Your World. I also think Take Me to Truth by Sanchez and Vierra is transforming and groundbreaking as well. jedmckenna october 28, 2010 at 12:13 pm Thanks Hawkins, and I’m glad you have found the next piece for you. I like Adya as well. He has also been a help for me. Mostly his point that not only the mind has to be liberated, but also the heart, and the gut (as you point out with your link). My personal opinion is that he is not the same man, but I don’t know! All the best Brian Hawkins october 28, 2010 at 11:31 am Brian, Thanks doesn’t seem quite adequate for the amount of work and time you have devoted to this site. I have four books, period: Damnedest, Incorrect, Warfare, and Notebook. I have read them through four times each. They have the appearance of Bibles some people carry around. They are tabbed, stickied and highlighted. I get more out of them through every reading. Jed has shaken me. Sometimes I ask if I’m insane. I can’t give an answer. The wife wants me to get help. From who? Never been through anything close to this ever. Releasing the tiller is the song of my heart. Releasing the tiller is the kryptonite of my ego. Its a battle I wage from when I wake to when I sleep. One of the things that keeps me from going over the edge is the Thoreau chapter in Incorrect. I read the following every day sometimes more than once. Its my personal 23rd psalm which I visualize Samuel L. Jackson preaching to me as Jules Winfield: “If one listens to the faintest but constant suggestions of his genius, which are certainly true, he sees not to what extremes, or even insanity, it may lead him; and yet that way, as he grows more resolute and faithful, his road lies. The faintest assured objection which one healthy man feels will at length prevail over the arguments and customs of mankind. No man ever followed his genius till it misled him. Though the result were bodily weakness, yet perhaps no one can say that the consequences were to be regretted, for these were a life in conformity to higher principles”. I pretty much dropped any other spiritual lit once I found Jed. I read some rumors that Jed is Adya so that led me to a few of Adya’s works. One excerpt I find particularly useful is linked here: http://web.me.com/hawkins88/filechute/gut%20feeling.zip. Thanks to all the writers on this weblog. It helps…… Ruben october 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm comment above was for Eliza. Ruben october 18, 2010 at 12:01 pm Good. It’s a solo job so I don’t know what I could possibly say but good for you. Eliza october 17, 2010 at 9:51 pm I just finished the first book a few days ago. I feel the deconstruction happening and it’s not that pleasant. I wouldn’t say the book messed me up, I think I need more time to absorb it all. I suspect after some time it will become mixed and ensconced with everything else I have studied or explored resulting again in my own path, veering this way and that way, all the time. I just want to let go of the search sometimes, and I do think that’s where this book has been of most use. Taking my hand off the tiller, as “Jed” puts it, really is a relief. Ruben october 7, 2010 at 12:37 am Jed was heaven sent, as well as all his predecessors, Hermes, Lao Tzu, Buddha, the Gnostics, Hafiz, Krishnamurti, Osho and countless others in between in the now. His description of the 2-3 years of hell as intelligence at work purging the obstructions at least made some sense of psychological hell. His description of the reason decades of searching went nowhere because ego found a way to survive was quite I-opening. The heart thing, that’s a toughie, while on earth 700,000 women and children are enslaved, mostly sexually, and every 40 seconds someone commits suicide, and every 60 seconds someone is murdered and the list goes on and on about the madness of humanity. It is balanced, the dream state, incredible beauty and incredible ugliness. I always felt if we could just bump consciousness up a notch and get free of the past, but with the 60’s the idea of freedom, as Jed says, has been removed from our vocabulary. I guess allowing the intelligence within us, a response will be indicated, as the heart and mind are cleansed by the fire of awareness to nothing but awareness, and that, and only that, changes “me” and ripples out into the world. check out the website: www. such is now. com. it’s my feeble attempt to combine images and a collection of wise words to describe the indescribable. feel free help out and give feedback on facebook. please do! the lack of any comments has been deafening. Thank you so much Jed! Thank you all, fellow travelers to nowhere! Truth exists! Jim september 18, 2010 at 2:25 am Brian, Thank you for the advice, I will definitely check them out. Thanks again. Jim jedmckenna september 17, 2010 at 7:26 am Thanks Jim. I don’t know if this would be helpful to you but the classic in the field of ‘finding out what I want to do in life’ are 2 books called “The Artists Way” (for artists) and the follow-up book for everyone else called “The Artists Way at Work” Cheers Brian Jim september 17, 2010 at 3:36 am Hi, I am Gwen Houghton’s husband. I am really thankful that something lead me to check out this blog. I am experiencing much of what a number of you describe – limbo – much more sedated emotions. My awakening process was thrust upon me through no choice of my own. I am finally pulling out of a very painful year and a half of self destruction. I am claireaudient and get messages routinely. To try and paraphrase what I have been going through just recently; I have been asking why my higherself/soul would want me to go through this. The response I got was to liberate me so that I make “authentic choices” and am less likely to follow a path that is not authentic for me. Supposedly this will help me to find greater growth and enjoyment of this lifetime. Over the last couple days I was guided to pay particular attention to the “rhythms and energetic flows” of my experience. I think this is related to what Jed says when he speaks of reading the currents and following them, not fighting them. I have been unemployed for a year and a half and the thought of going back to “the grind” is so horrid to me that I really can’t imagine doing it. I know I really want to express myself in some sort of creative fashion, but not being an artist of any sort I don’t know what to do but trust that if I follow the rhythms and flows I will be lead to what will make me happy. Thank you so much for all your posts. I do feel there is a larger reason people are going through what we are going through – I hope to understand what that reason is someday. Jim Eddie july 28, 2010 at 11:45 am Gwen, For what it’s worth, after many years of following a teacher and teachings, I also found myself untethered. There is simply no one I can go to for instruction anymore, or a scripture or teaching I can turn to as representing ‘the truth’. I seem to only have myself, which, over time, feels adequate. It’s absurd to me now to presume that I’m not exactly where I am meant to be; that what informs me is not sufficient. Given all that, I still maintain the gamut of feelings and anxieties that most people seem to have. They just don’t affect me in the same way anymore. Really, right now, the most accurate expression of where I am relative to the big picture is “I don’t know”. Bugger! One day at a time feels appropriate. Don Genaro july 28, 2010 at 2:14 am Gwen, Give up the distrughtness too. There’s something on the other side. Don’t buy into the alienation gig too much either. Yes it’s different. Yes you have to be selective in your dealings with people. But there’s this freedom when you keep going deeper, deeper within. You’re right, there’s no one to go to but yourself. When you get it deep though, yourself is really experienced as everything. Not just an intellectual understanding: the real deal. Maya will F with you till the end. Everyone be forewarned about that. But when all the juice is gone, she will high five you and tell you you’ve arrived. D.G. Gwen Houghton july 25, 2010 at 11:04 pm No, it doesn’t. I am so distraught that I do not know what to do. The realization of what I have done is becoming glaringly obvious. There is no one to go to. Nothing that I can read. No one that I can hide behind. I am trapped in me. All I can do is find out what I want!!! Thats it!! I feel like I am in a bubble, alone, drifting in space. The image that comes to me is that my thoughts begin to materialize… POP… another bubble appears into the empty space…It’s a house…an empty house..so there I am floating in space with an empty house…The phrase “One day at a time” comes to me… jedmckenna july 25, 2010 at 8:33 am Gwen I don’t know what to say. Welcome to the club doesn’t seem to fit, does it? Brian Gwen Houghton july 24, 2010 at 10:20 pm There is deep sadness setting in as I come to realize the ramifications of Awakeness. I have been on my “Spiritual Path” for about 10 years know. There was always something that just didn’t seem right as I went from teaching to teaching. I started channeling Micheal about 2 1/2 years ago. my husband pushed me to give him the answers to what ever problem he was working on at the time. After a while it was apparent that this entity called Micheal just wanted him to think for himself and would say it in every session. I finally realized that it was that simple. It wasn’t about following some teaching. It was about following my heart and that was it. About a year ago I found the CD Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment. I was living in Sedona Arizona at the time and as soon as I listened to the CD I hit a wall. Every thing that he said rang true in my head. What the F…?? To make a long story short I stopped channeling for my husband in December 2009 and came home to NH. I have been out of work for over two years now so I decided to get a job last week because I thought that it would be a good fit for me. I was devastated to find that these people that I was working for were totally asleep. I was horrified. On top of that I am extremely psychic and could sense that they hired me but could not afford me. My awakeness became glaringly apparent. I truly do not know what to do or where to go. I need money to live and the thought of going back out into the work force is a horrifying thought. I now see why Jed says that know one aspires to be HERE… With all that being said. I wouldn’t have it any other way…I will keep on moving further…I just wanted to share….BLESSINGS Ellen july 11, 2010 at 5:33 am Thanks for that too, D.G. Catherine july 9, 2010 at 9:37 am Love “our shared nowhere”. Don Genaro july 9, 2010 at 1:24 am Hi Ellen, I just meant that there is only One. Everything else is our imagination. – D.G. Ellen july 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm Thank you Don Genaro. “standing all alone, imagination still runs wild” Needed to hear that once again… and probably again and again. But I’d better go focus now on the ‘WHO IS IT’ that thinks she needs to hear that over and again. Don Genaro july 8, 2010 at 1:47 am Precisely! All of this means nothing. You and Me; like two sides of the coin. All of this; all of this and nothing, standing all alone, imagination still runs wild. jedmckenna july 3, 2010 at 11:21 am Welcome Catherine, to our shared Nowhere! Brian Catherine july 3, 2010 at 10:17 am Wow. I “happened” upon this site when Googling “Jed McKenna Human Adulthood”. I can relate to so much that is posted here, thanks to you all and your bare honesty. Just yesterday I said to my spiritual “guide” (whatever you want to call him) that I just wasn’t sure if I wanted to keep up the digging, keep asking myself “who am I”. That I was so tired of all the work of looking at beliefs, etc. He asked me “What do you really want?” I said I wanted to live a life free of fear and encumbrances, to enjoy the ride, live life fully, etc. And that if enlightenment wanted to find me, so be it. But I am tired of trying so hard. He encouraged me to take some time off from the digging/autolysis and just sit and be. So what do I do but find you guys and get all pumped up about people who are speaking “my” language. Wow, again. Many thanks to Brian for getting this conversation started. Best, Catherine irrelevant june 30, 2010 at 1:16 am Autolysis becomes easy and automatic after being practiced for a while. Its impossible to erradicate ego (see RamanaMaharsi discourse). So go for it – complete obliteration is juicy and you’re almost always left with a body to run around in. Its liberating, cathartic and even fun in the end game. The “decade or so of adjustment” Jed skips over, shows that after THE holocost there’s plenty to get busy with. New paradigm is bandied around alot these days but this takes the biscuit – yummy too! Feel into the IS and know what’s next in life. No real requirement to get serious and heavy becuase death is guaranteed anyway. He’s my mate and stops me getting stuck in boring video games. “I’m luvin it” Ellen june 27, 2010 at 6:40 pm For Judy. ‘Off topic’. Chuck(s)… http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0033.htm Sorry Brain. I trust you will moderate as you see fit. 🙂 Ellen june 27, 2010 at 11:23 am I’m putting spiders outside up until this very day. And in the back of my head I hear a little voice “I might crush another one under my foot on the way out…” (Sh)it happens. 😉 jedmckenna june 27, 2010 at 8:48 am To Judy The only tidbit I would like to add is this: from the ego’s POV, who is facing what you are facing, I support the suggestion that “there is no point”. But even that ‘realistic and sober’ assessment is the ego talking about it’s options. If that is the case isn’t it fair to say that at some point, the unitary divine perspective begins to come into focus? That is to say, Life, and ‘the World’ may open up as a great cosmic playground. And though it may have no ‘meaning’, it does have purpose- the enjoyment of the splendor of Maya’s Grand Amusement Park! Without binding and blinding ego fear and contraction distorting it’s game. Or so it seems to me. Brian Judy Miller june 27, 2010 at 4:23 am Hi Ellen, Yes I hear the words – there is no point, there is no meaning or purpose to life – and enough awakened beings say this, so it must be true. In my limited capacity as a human being however, and still living in the dream state, I do as much as I can to examine my useless concepts and beliefs, but I have not made the BIG choice yet, to fully wake up. This is apparantly not a choice but something one is driven to do. I have been attempting for the past few years to become more of an adult human as Jed describes it. But in the limited paradigm in which I exist, I cannot yet integrate the – no point to life – theory yet. It is still a concept in my head and not one I have lived thru or realised. So until I awaken fully to these truths, I do the best I can in my dream state. But I hear you about just watching things happen – it seems we have to let things fall as they will. I guess if I feel compelled to send out prayers and healing to the planet then I do so – no right and wrong. In the end – I really don’t know much beyond taking one step at a time! judy Ellen june 26, 2010 at 6:40 pm Poppin’ up: “(…) It’s just another distraction, and there’s no shortage of those. The point is to wake up, not to earn a Ph.D. in waking up. (…) waking up is job one, and then, if you still want to liberate all beings or promote world peace or save the whales, great—lucky beings, lucky world, lucky whales (…)” Yet, there is no point… nowhere. No I going anywhere… imho. Seems like all I can do is sit and watch what is happening… including any actions happening… on ‘my’ account. Whether I like it or not. 🙂 Ellen Judy Miller june 26, 2010 at 5:46 am ………and while I am asking questions, I am wondering in light of Jed’s teachings, if there is any value at all in the role of co-creating our world, which is so often what is taught in the ascension teachings. In other words, how much influence do we have over our world and the healing of the planet, if we all stand together and send out white light or love etc, especially around the gulf oil spills and the plunder of the planet etc. I used to be into the whole 2012 hype and the raising of consciousness of the masses and our own vibrations supposedly speeding up etc etc. Is all this also just BS I wonder – I know it is a massive distraction getting into the whole thing, but what if one is doing the spiritual autolysis and letting go of all the concepts etc, yet still feels moved to co-create a better world with sending out thoughts and prayers. judy Judy Miller june 26, 2010 at 3:53 am Hi, Am rereading 2nd book and came across the paragraph where Jed talks about emotions as being the tie keeping us attached to the dream state. QUote: ” …to detach from this we must sever these energetic tendrils. The energy of an emotion is our life force, and the amount of life force determines the power of the emotion. Withdraw energy from an emotion and what is left – a sterile thought. In this sense freeing ourself from attatchment is indeed the process of awakening”. I suppose this is why awakened people seem to have not much emotion or ups or downs, or get too excited about anything. Or in fact even form much emotional ties to other people, hence no need for relationships. WHile we are in the dream state however, I have tried to actually in my life, get in touch with my emotional life as I blocked it off for many years. I find I have quite intense emotions and therefore, I guess I am really locked into the dreamstate according to the above quote. I always thought it was a good thing to sit with emotions and feel them fully in the physical body (without trying to expand them with mental pictures). So if Jed’s advice is to try and sever our emotional ties, how does one go about this in a balanced way without denying or blocking them off, or is this severing only for those trying to fully wake up? Any feedback here?? Thanks Judy jedmckenna june 20, 2010 at 7:44 am Thanks, Ellen, Brian Ellen june 20, 2010 at 1:55 am Beautiful comments, I enjoyed reading them very much. Something resonates with all of you / all of it. Thanks for sharing. Eddie june 6, 2010 at 10:10 am Judy writes:‘Also reading about your feelings JC and Eddie’s reply. Not sure how much we supposed to deviate on this blog.’ In response… How I relate to what others have written on the subject of enlightenment and who is and who isn’t, has changed significantly over the years. In the past, I would examine a piece of writing from, say, a guru or a self-claimed enlightened person like Jed McKenna, and examine it in a rather analytical way. Perhaps I would compare one with another and come to some sort of decision about who is enlightened and who isn’t. About whether what one has to say is the truth and the other isn’t. Or whether one teaching is superior to the other. As if this truth was separate from myself and I had to reach it by examination and disregard of one over the other. I do very little of that now, other than as a sort of amusement given I do have a good analytical brain! Now, when I read someone’s ‘spiritual’ writings, I find that it is only useful when I recognise how I am implicated by what is being communicated. To paraphrase Jed, Arjuna isn’t someone else – I am Arjuna (or wish I was). It’s of little consequence what anyone else has done or what conclusions they have arrived at. Only this ‘I’ matters to me. So, whether Jed McKenna is ‘enlightened’ and what realisation he has attained are pretty much irrelevant to me these days. What does matter is where ‘I’ am in relation to it. What Jed has to say does resonate with me – however, I don’t have to come to some sort of conclusion about his realisation (which would necessitate having to rank others). I do feel, though, that I need to be very honest if I am to make use of what people like Jed McKenna have to communicate. And I do need help – that’s what friends are for! As to deviating on this blog, like Brian, I am much more interested in people being real than parroting what others have claimed to realise, or arguing the merits of enlightened beings as if they really knew. There is very little I claim to know without doubt, anyway. Thanks for your honesty. jedmckenna june 5, 2010 at 9:03 am Judy I am delighted to see this Blog including a more natural and human dimension, with people talking to each other from a position of a shared joy and struggle about integrating with the Truth, and done with some humility and honest ‘not-knowing’. After all, is Truth itself is ineffable and unspeakable, then what else is there to chat about with friends? Judy Miller june 4, 2010 at 5:02 am Thanks for that Brian. Also reading about your feelings JC and Eddie’s reply. Not sure how much we supposed to deviate on this blog…. but I too was quite stuck on requiring a partner who was “spiritual”. Earlier on when I was going thru the whole New Age business then it seemed important. Nowadays what is “spiritual” anyway. I find what is important is that someone gives you the space to be who you are, without criticizing or putting you down. It also strikes me as very important that a partner is moving into “Human Adulthood” as Jed puts it, otherwise, we do not take responsibility for our own issues and constantly project onto a partner which leads to conflict. So a willingness to grow and at least work thru childhood trauma to understand one’s behaviour and move forward without constant blame, complaining and feeling a victim, is something I would cherish in another rather than they believe in my spiritual theories. I had a partner on and off for 10 years (we are now just good friends), and we realized we were here to wake each other up – we had years of conflict as well as good times but thru our conflict boy did we each see our own “s…t” and had to work hard at seeing and releasing unhealthy co-dependence for each other, where we held each other back. We have a deep respect for each other now, but cannot live together anymore, even though he is more awake than any guy I know. I could never have imagined I would be able to release the hold I had for him – but I was committed to growth no matter what. It took working thru huge fear, what ifs, loss, insecurity, loss of control you name it. Is this stuff “spiritual” – it is just life and all of it is spiritual. I think the problem is when we feel the other person does not understand us or what we are going through and/or their fear about it all, and our not wanting to hurt them, holds us back. If there is real love there we have to be willing to let go of co- dependence and take a long hard look at why we are together, or why we even want to be together. The old way will fall away and something new can be born, or perhaps it will not survive. So our relationship did not survive but we have a whole new level of relating that is much healthier. So for me, in a partner, the word spiritual now is obsolete – – it is rather the degree one has of being able to be an adult human and allowing the other to grow to be one as well. Judy Eddie may 30, 2010 at 7:18 pm Hi JC, I thought you might find my experience relative to a spouse’s interest in spirituality of some interest. I spent a number of years with a woman in the same spiritual community believing that that would be sufficient for our relationship to flourish. Back then (15 years ago) I couldn’t imagine ever being with a woman who wasn’t interested in ‘spirituality’ like I was. After being in a number of other relationships since then, I have now been with a woman for over 6 years. The frequency of times I feel she does not have the same understanding as I do is diminishing. She tends to our gardens and animals with a degree of presence that I have not previously experienced, or enjoyed, and her so-called ‘non-awareness’ of the subtleties of spirituality reflect my tendency to feel I know more than others. She has shown me that my ideas about her level of spiritual understanding are just more of my own garbage. My only responsibility is for my own behavior – what she believes in terms of ‘spirituality’ has pretty much nothing to do with me. Of course, there is a degree of compatibility required in a relationship, but for me such things now are not related to some notion I might have about what real ‘spirituality’ is. I don’t know what the basis of your particular relationship is about, but maybe there’s more to it than meets the eye!? In any case, I wish you well in your endeavors and choices. I left a stable career as a research scientist behind in order to find the truth, as well as underwent many other crazy adventures on the path to nowhere. I don’t regret any of it. Indeed, I only have gratitude for what has been shown me. Oh, and there is a famous Indian saint (I can’t remember his name) who attributed his god-realization to having to endure the incessant nagging of his wife! jedmckenna may 30, 2010 at 8:09 am Hi Judy Very nice to hear from you again. My take is that Jed is coming down hard on one side of a paradox for teaching purposes. I have no doubt that at one level he has no preferences, inasmuch as he abides in the sublimity of ‘non-duality’. Yet on the other what he is not saying in that passage, IMHO, is that there are many things he likes and enjoys and prefers, such as: Moby Dick, sky diving, enchiladas, attractive females, lightening storms, his favorite dog and coastal villages etc. And many things he loathes such as church basements, meeting with Marketing types, ‘phony Zen’ etc. Relative to pointlessness, our favorite activities, whether self indulgent or altruistic are pointless insofar as we rely on them to console our ego’s inherent suffering. But if your are truly freely and happily moved to do things in the world, then why not? What else could this creation be for but enjoyment! No praise, no blame, you just enjoy whatever you enjoy. As for the Post-Spirituality essay I will try to get it out at least in a private form to you guys very soon, but I need to do a little bit of cleaning up first. This is good for me because it spurs me on to get it finished, something I feel I really should do. Brian Judy Miller may 30, 2010 at 6:13 am Hi Brian, JC, Eddie – I suppose it is comforting to hear your feedback, but then again what part of me is needing the comforting other than the ego – certainly not my no/self as Jed would put it. Brian I would also like to read your essay – never mind the editing. I too dabble in bits of writing – friends of mine keep saying I should write an autobiography – perhaps I can call it – MY LIFE NOW AS A ZOMBIE – ha ha!! Actually the best part of all this, is that I have lost that little voice that always used to say “You know you SHOULD be doing………….” I am very happy now NOT doing.. The one thing I still have trouble with however, is, how much difference can we really make, in this bubble world. In Jed’s 2nd book was it, he said, that as an awake person, he could sit and look at a beautiful sunset or children dying of hunger (not exact words), and he would feel the same, there was no difference, it all just is as it is, no right or wrong. I hear what he is saying intellectually but not being in his paradigm I struggle a bit with it. Does this mean it is pointless trying to help causes, or make this world, our bubble, a better place? I volunteer at an animal shelter as I have a great love for dogs, and I often wonder what the role of animals is on the planet and why they have to suffer – or perhaps they don’t suffer, and it is just our perception. But somehow my giving up caring about things has not yet extended to my volunteer work – perhaps because as hard as it is sometimes, I love it and I am good at it. So I do it until I don’t! You sound like a great bunch of people – glad to know you… Judy jedmckenna may 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm Eddie: I just had a humorous thought: that us spiritual zombies of Post Spirituality were started to stir! Kind of like that Michael Jackson video – what was it called, ‘Thriller’? Jed’s take? Beware the Herd!!!??? Brian’s take: Ahhh! But it’s such fun!!! jedmckenna may 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm OK but I will to do a little bit of tidying up first. Brian Eddie may 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm To Judy and Brian, As Groucho Marx said, ‘I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member’. However, I do find myself in a club, though joining was not of my choosing. It’s the club of adherence to no teaching, no teacher, no path, and no set practices, although I do meditatively brush my teeth every morning. Ambition and the drive to achieve are also waning. Now, I could look at all of this and come to the conclusion that I’m a lost, pathless soul. I could, but I don’t. It’s just the way it is, no better or worse than any other way or conclusion. At times I do feel an exhilaration, a sort of freedom in not referring to anyone or anything else outside of myself relative to the truth. It could be expressed something like ‘there is only me.’ (I’m sure some would consider this behaviour as representing the epitome of the ego!) At other times, there is a sort of blank, a not knowing, an abyss of nothing. I find it helpful to know that after decades of pursuing something other than what I obviously am, as well as performing a myriad of so-called ‘spiritual’ practices, there are others who are in a similar position to me. Jed’s books provided the bottomless pit from which I know there is ultimately no escape. The fool that I am, however, I will probably avoid the inevitable for as long as it seems tenable. Perhaps the title of a Talking Heads album best summarises where I’m at: ‘Stop Making Sense.’ JC may 28, 2010 at 8:55 am Judy, I am in the midst of a similar situation, and have been for many months. For me it started well after I read McKenna’s books, but I don’t know if there’s any direct relationship there or not. What I DO know is that this position is creating an increasingly difficult environment in my married life. My wife isn’t much interested in sprituality, and I learned soon after our marraige to keep my thoughts to myself, for the most part. I feel like the Richard Dreyfuss character in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” He’s going through this devastating internal experience he can’t understand while his personal and professional external lives are crumbling around him. I haven’t made my break yet from the helicopter to the mountaintop and beyond, and I don’t know why. I have no professional aspirations and very little if any motivation to do anything except the occasional yard work and exercising my dog every dog. I too feel empty, but I also feel like I’m searching for the right questions to ask, and they are escaping me, and then I get back into my personal life as a father and a husband out of necessity, but I don’t feel like my heart’s all there, which I then start questioning. At some point I start to realize how pointless all of this really is, and what a ridiculous circular place I’m in. I know something’s gotta give, and something wll give. The way I see it right this second is that I haven’t truly surrendered yet to the fear of the unknown. Brian, I’d like to read your essay. I write as well, on and off, mostly just short blog-like entries to myself. Hang in there Judy, sounds like you could be in for a ride. jedmckenna may 28, 2010 at 8:14 am Welcome to the Club, Judy! It happened to me a few years ago, about 6 months before I read a Jed book, and I suspect there is no going back. As ‘Bill’ used to say” “I feel your pain!” And I also feel blessed by an ever deepening freedom that is quite palpable, and I feel, a direct result of this turn of affairs. So struck was I by this turn of events that I began writing an essay to describe it for others about a year ago, but I get so tired of the editing process that I have never published it. I laughed when I saw you describe it as Limbo, because that is part of the working title for the piece: Where Souls Go When God Dies, The New Limbo of Post-Spirituality If you would like to read it as is, let me know. If it is of any assistance to you, I would say that you are not alone in this, and further, that you are right on track. My guess is that Julie had a lot more ‘elimination’ to go through, that perhaps you don’t, and that is why you seem to be going in opposite directions. Yet, I would still would guess, on the same path! Brian Judy Miller may 28, 2010 at 6:55 am I am not sure what is happening to me since I read Jed’s books. I seem to have lost interest in anything spiritual, don’t feel like entertaining any of my old beliefs or spiritual practises and am in a state of feeling nothing. No desire to look further, no compulsion to examine anything, a lack of emotion almost which is unusual for me. I seem to be in a limbo place, somewhat unmotivated but not really worried about any of it. No ambition, or need to go off and do anything. Actually quite lazy. Is hard to describe. It’s almost as if I have been given permission to throw in the towel and forget it all. Some part of me feels – but what about all that used to inspire me. I am not low or depressed or sad – just empty in a way. Good or bad? No such thing apparantly. Just interesting to note. Might have nothing to do with his books and just the place I am in at present. If I think what Julie went thru in his 2nd book, I am right in the other direction. Anyone else there??? Eddie may 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm Finally, blog postings where the writers aren’t trying to win arguments or put other people down! Thank you Guillermo for your clear insights into a number of current ‘spiritual’ teachers. I had the good fortune of having a conversation with Adyashanti when he was in Australia. For me, it was a wonderfully powerful interaction that still reverberates. I found Adyashanti to be an incredibly clear communicator. Yes, not as hard-hitting as Jed, but Adyashanti is Adyashanti and Jed… well, who the hell is Jed anyway? I’ve read Jeff Foster’s book, ‘An Extraordinary Absence’, but found it too preachy and not that well written. On the other hand, the things I love about Jed is that he beautifully integrates what he has to communicate into the daily life of people, and he does it with such delicious humour. I’ve also watched a few videos of Mooji and find him attractive and remarkably lucid. As to ‘Human Adulthood vs Enlightenment’ thanks Judy Miller for such an honest personal assessment. Like you, I thought I was into ‘spirituality’ but, really, I was simply moving to become a more mature adult. Now, I don’t know what it is I really want. And that’s OK. (To paraphrase Adyashanti, not knowing what to do can be the voice of Wisdom itself.) If enlightenment (whatever that is) is to be my destiny then it will have to occur without my assistance. I grok with Jed’s point of view that enlightenment is radical and unchosen. Well, I hope so anyway – I really wouldn’t know. Cheers. jedmckenna may 25, 2010 at 8:46 am To Guille I only have a minute today so I will make it brief, but I read Jed as placing ALL human experience – from the most mundane to the most extraordinary mystical/spiritual realizations under the banner of ‘Human Adulthood’, it’s all the goddess in her myriad forms. The only exception is the breakout into what he regards as ‘enlightenment’ – radical and unchosen. Brian Judy Miller may 25, 2010 at 6:29 am Hi Guille Read Jed’s books twice and I really enjoyed having all my views flattened! Somewhere along the line I suspected most of what he is saying anyway. Thru one of my teachers along the way we did a lot of processes to try and clear duality and look at all sides and come to some sort of neutral space. My understanding of adult humanhood, is that one can still chooose to be in the bubble as Jed puts it, but at least become aware of your issues and ego and clear them up to a large extend so that you are not acting our your childhood issues in your adult life, ie. flying into rages if things don’t go your way etc, or continually drawing problem people into your life cause you have such bad self image etc etc. SO it is about working on yourself psycologically and spiritually to become less issued, let go more, and become more adult. You have not decided to wake up so to speak cause perhaps you are not pulled that way, but you would like a life of less problems and more contentment which is what comes from clearing a lot of your childhood issues. As Jed puts it, you do not choose to become awake, you are compelled in that direction thru trauma or because you are so fed up with life and all the BS that you just HAVE to get to the answers and are willing to drop everything to go there. SO yes I found it very useful to know the distinction and for me, even though I thought what I wanted was enlightenment, I guess for now I am hoping to develop more the adulthood and be more awake in the bubble. I have come from such a place of controlling, and doing and processing and yearning and trying and searching etc etc, that I just want to BE now, and live my life each day, let go of control and flow more, and the idea of diving into spiritual autolysis and spending years searching more and diving into libraries etc just seems too exhausting and too much DOING. I guess I am not compelled enough. Jed’s books cleared up a lot of stuff about perhaps what I want and IF I want………… thanks for your posting, thought I’d add my twopence worth! Judy irelevant may 24, 2010 at 7:53 pm bla bla bla! Everybody’s talking at me I don’t hear a word they’re saying Only the echoes of my mind People stopping staring I can’t see their faces Only the shadows of their eyes I’m going where the sun keeps shining Thru’ the pouring rain Going where the weather suits my clothes Backing off of the North East wind Sailing on summer breeze And skipping over the ocean like a stone Can YOU see it yet skippy? Guillermo may 24, 2010 at 12:02 am Hi guys, interesting and fruitful discussions! I love all the perspectives here, and I can definitely associate myself with many of those writing, specially when the views clash 🙂 I feel like the eternal bipolar.. well multipolar.. i guess that will go on until life and i are one, knowingly. My suggestion for a full picture, or what I tend to do, is to alternate between the top teachers… I think Adyashanti is the most balanced.. but sometimes Jed hits me harder.. and we want to be hit, after all.. i think he is in the punching business. While Adya is more in the shaking up business… I also like Mooji and Jeff Foster from the UK. If you dont know the guys, I´d check them out. Either way, I think the problems with one´s reading of Jed, is that one´s style of teaching has a lot to do with how one is “wired up” the way Adya explains it. If you´re wired for heart, that´s how your non-dual perspective will manifest, if you´re wired for dismantelling (Jed´s one of those) then it manifests like that.. when he wrote the books.. he may find with time his biological organism moves towards expressing other qualities, more femenin. Who knows. I just never believe anything categorical that any one says. In Jed´s own words (spiritual warfare) : to say you know something, is to admit that you dont know the only ONE thing. Holding Jed up to that standard, if he claims that there are only 5 fully realised beings, or how ever many, or any other fact he gives me, which is not a punch in the face of the illusion, i just let it slide by and dont look back. I hope that makes some sense.. Tom Stine, I´m also loving your blog, thanks for your work, i get the emails regularly.. I´d like to end by asking you guys what you think of the distinction he makes of Adult hood verses Awakening.. and what´s come for you about that. I find it a very interesting idea, and no other teachers seem to focus on that.. or they seem to mix them up a little. Big hug to all, Guille jedmckenna may 11, 2010 at 8:29 am You are most welcome. Brian Michael may 11, 2010 at 3:32 am Brian: Thank you so much for this blog. I am finding it very helpful in my own sorting out process. JKD may 1, 2010 at 6:46 am I should add that image-making is an art. The human condition is therefore itself an artistic development. Fury is art. Peace is art. Nature is art. Violence and cruelty are forms of art. The human condition and all that it becomes aware of — including Truth — is Performance Art. The ego is simply a character development. And such characters as Jed simply point to the Artist…That which is before art appears…which is, at the same time, actively creating it. The dilemma — which may infuriate — is that pointing is also art. JKD may 1, 2010 at 6:07 am Truth is not an image; it is the thing itself, before images. Therefore, the human condition is capable of reflecting only an apparent dilemma: As soon as so-called Truth appears to be known…it IS an image! Sodo april 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm Interesting that Genpo is described as awakened. Tell me was he awakened when he slept with Shozen McNamara and lied about it? Was he awakened when he lied about having ordained a student who had trained with him for over ten years? Was he awakened when he took up with the guy responsible for the deaths of three people in Sedona last year? Or perhaps he was awakened when he took money from a cult group? Or when he had his front man describe Brad Warner as ‘not even a Roshi’? Hmmm and don’t even get me started on Adyashanti who claimed to have been authorized somehow through a spurious connection with the lineage of Mayzumi Roshi, which was proven not to be the case and is now giving ‘Transmissions’ that he never received himself, when in fact all that happened is that he came to a few sitting groups and then decided to fake it for the gullible. All of the above btw are proveable facts. Stuart Lach’s info on Genpo and his sleeping with students should be mandatory reading for example. Terrence Halliburton march 1, 2010 at 3:33 am I think Jed McKenna is actually James Frey. jedmckenna february 17, 2010 at 10:51 pm Methinks the furor is in your own mind. It’s just discussion for those who enjoy such. If you don’t, then just go away and stop disturbing your self. Brian pat february 17, 2010 at 10:22 pm I HAVE READ ALL OF THE ABOVE THAT I CAN WITHSTAND. IF YOU HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE, YOU RECOGNISE WHAT “jED” SAYS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE HELL YOU GO THROUGH. EVEN ENLIGHTENED ONES ARE NOT PERFECT; SO WHAT IS ALL THIS FUROR TRULY ABOUT? alexandra february 7, 2010 at 2:52 am I did alexandra february 7, 2010 at 2:30 am “This Light in Oneself” J.Krishnamurti. A logical thinker As a mother, love and teach your children, they are already philosofers when they are born, have no concept of duality and though they sleep a lot they are very awake, for a new born everything is NOW ( the state of “enlightment”) and completely dependent on you so maybe it’s a good idea to think twice before you want to become a parent, are you capable to educate a child to become an adult in the way Jed mc Kenna is describing the state of an adult? A person who can think, feel and act for himself? This whole conflict about enlightment seems to be embedded in our DNA, so it’s an old historical and biological “problem”. To realize that our condition humaine is a story of dualism so conflict means that you are a part of this history and includes that you and only you can stop this perception by starting to be fully responsible for your own condition without any judgement or fear. And if you understand that life its self is about constant movement you will leave this dualistic state of mind in 1 split second because its all in the mind which IS the PAST. Enyoy the ride. Susan january 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm These books were the ones that shocked me into new thinking and self examination. As an avid reader and searcher for at least the last 20 years these marked a radical change in thoughts and caused reason to question everything. Most of the people will never actually take action to destroy their coveted belief systems. They all wanted pretty, hearty, all is well, and how else can I avoid myself solutions. Actually putting pen to paper and doing the Spiritual Autolysis work was the action needed to start an “awakening” thing. Even Jed said the process would demand that he would be “killed” along the way. Perhaps it is the “tasty” teachers that are the hardest to destroy. But here on this site reading more so obviously my favorite teacher is still alive for this entity. LOL michaelshell january 10, 2010 at 4:30 am Hello. Jed is new to me as a spiritual teacher so forgive me is this seems silly. But what spiritual teacher would you say his teaching’s most resemble? Krisnamurti? sunyata november 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm There’s Nothing Spiritual About ENLIGHTENMENT Sucking-up to, buying books on, analyzing, watching & endlessly DISCUSSING: all instead of doing! Do none of you hear the core point? You must mercilessly route out and destroy this ridiculous ego edifice parading as truth. Its got FUCK all to do with mind, heart, opinions on philosophical viewpoint, etc. etc. ad nauseaum. All this bla-bla is simply avoiding the crippling fear that lasts for years as one deconstructs the false self only to find NOTHING is there – just ONEself as source. Lonely, cold, powerfully visceral truth! To “see” this at all is adulthood beginning. To know this, live this, work, feel, be contiguously functioning AS this/that is the final stage. Everything else is talk – cheap & meaningless by comparison. “Life is Real Only Then, When I Am” – Gurdjieff Matt november 14, 2009 at 10:50 pm Reading through all of this (though I admittedly scanned a bunch of it), this entire discussion seems to miss the point rather markedly. JC october 1, 2009 at 10:48 pm Nicely put, Simon, there, indeed is the rub. (Unless, of course, you are a vampire, in which case there is someone there to cast a reflection (or project perceptions), but no reflection cast and no perceptions projected. Weird.) The other rub, as Brant and others wrote about earlier, is detaching the heartstrings of emotion. I have thought about this a lot, having a wife and child and other close family and friends. Mostly it causes me to recoil, but some aspect of it feels strangely liberating. At the end of the day I see that I’m putting the cart before the horse, and that this is not something that’s going to bring about a realization, but rather the result of a realization. Whether it happens or not I have no idea. And I think this is what Jed is describing in his books; this is not something to hope or wish for, but more like something you can’t NOT do. Where the alternative is worse than death, and the intent is pure and powerful. More of a push than a pull, or a straight-line approach VS a slow descending orbit, as Jed would describe it. In my opinion, like physical death, it is inevitable, by whatever name it’s called and whatever concepts are used to describe what it’s not. Jed’s books are just other sources in a long, long line of attempts to point to that which cannot be pointed to. At some point they, too, must be left behind. simon september 28, 2009 at 9:10 am a while back i found myself in melbourne. the circumstances that got me there, all expenses paid, all the way from blighty, were absurdly fortuitous in the extreme. much like everything in fact. i met someone all ‘hippy-lovey-Lovey’ who told me about a great being i should go and visit, and of course i paid no attention. then he mentioned it was sailor bob adamson. i was lent a car and a map and found my way to his living room, surrounded by seekers and pretending-to-have-found’ers. bob said little, and did nothing to contradict the nonsense. bob wasn’t home. bob was fully present. i felt the familiar energy rising in me as a lady talked of her ‘journey’ and i found myself telling her that she needed to throw everything out. everything. so i’d reached adi-da’s castle, but hadn’t noticed the moat. ‘yes’ said bob, pulling the plug out, ‘but then you’ve got to throw out the thrower’ simon september 2, 2009 at 8:45 am the ‘you that thinks of itself as you’ requires a set of boundaries in order to remain operative. the circle around your yin/yang symbol if you like that particular jed analogy. these boundaries are nothing more than thoughts which you may find yourself projecting onto your ‘world’ …. for example……. hitler was a bad man, adam and eve ate an apple, nirvana is good, slugs eat lettuces, time and space exist etc. etc. our friend jed offers the empowerment (carpe vitae) to question each of these thoughts, and provides a mechanism (autolysis) to do so. it should already be obvious to a jed reader that no answer, no resolution, will come from any of these autolysis ‘sessions’. one will not necessarily be throwing one’s daily work into the fire with the certainty of ‘God IS’ or ‘God IS not’. one will simply have shone the light of one’s own awareness onto a previously unchallenged belief. the author wearing the coat of jed mckenna is therefore a representation of what remains (nothing) once every human belief has been addressed in this way, and his attempts at describing this state, which is ‘otherless’, are most certainly rehashes (the universe MUST recycle, it has no hidden resources) of that which has on occasion been expressed before. but never like this. you won’t do this to attain enlightenment; the you who wishes to be enlightened will not be present once the process of autolysis is complete. there’s the rub. in a world of mirrors (your projected perceptions), the relinquishment of ‘other’ can only be the end of ‘self’ too. Scott Covert july 14, 2009 at 7:22 pm Good points. Jed logically demonstrates how we may regard the roadmaps and instructions from many people to be demonstrably (proven) useless. For the first time, I have an idea of what enlightenment is and isn’t, how to get there, WHETHER or not to try to get there, and he’s the first person to tell me it’s a living hell (and why) to achieve. Scott Covert july 14, 2009 at 7:14 pm Not to sound like an unquestioning defender of The Jed, but just a few short points here – pardon if I missed anything, as some of these posts are long: – Jed has admitted/stated that to see the whole big deal, enlightenment, is not the best choice for most people, who should seek to be Adult Humans instead – Jed admits that while walking around in his human body, he still has preferences and annoyances like everyone else – and that this cannot be erased from one’s character on Maya’s stage – unlike some here, I do not feel like a failure at all after having read all the books repeatedly – I now have a much clearer outlook on all the myriad forms of new age crap and ritual, on what it’s like and what it means to take the first step, should I decide to do so, etc. There’s also a lot I disagree with – I don’t think all dogs are angels, for example. And when Jed keeps saying “I don’t understand what spirituality means” – isn’t it just “everything outside the purely basic world as conceived by a pure materialist”? In other words, everything that you can’t ascribe shape, location and mass to? At any rate, this is the kind of book club I LIKE. Eddie june 18, 2009 at 12:12 am I love the feeling that precedes the word ‘yes.’ Thank you Howard for providing me with a big ‘yes.’ The key element of Jed McKenna’s message for me is there is no-one else to look to for anything ‘spiritual,’ but rather to examine my own place in it; which, over time, seems to be vanishing! There is no monolithic (or otherwise) belief or teaching on anything that is worth adhering to, even Jed McKenna who doesn’t exist anyway. What else is there to say? jedmckenna june 17, 2009 at 5:40 am For what it’s worth, Howard, Bravo! Brian, Moderator howard june 16, 2009 at 11:59 am still been following along to what is being said here. i think what everyone is missing about jed’s books, is that they do describe very clearly what awakening is like. it is not nice and pretty- but is messy and bloody. to everyone i know it happened to, they went through hell and wished at some point to die and be over with. thus the thing to really look at with jed’s books is not whether you like them or not, but at your own beliefs, that say awakening should look different than that. and that means- as i have read here- getting into all your words from these exhalted gurus that you are holding on to. are they holding onto you or are you holding on to them. if it ever happens to you, you will be stunned to see just how accurate a picture jed’s books really paint Anonymous may 21, 2009 at 6:17 am Now I know what Jed meant when he referred to caterpillars expounding on what it means to be a buterfly. This is all ass-talking in the dream state. tedwhetherby may 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm Thanks Brian, This is all I do. And I kind of like your website vs. starting my own. It sounds like you would like me do it elsewhere? Is that right? jedmckenna may 14, 2009 at 1:41 am Ted I appreciate that you have strong opinions about “Jed” and it is great to hear your voice on the subject. Yet while you have congratulated me for creating this Blog, I am afraid that you fundamentally misunderstand my POV about him and his “teaching’. While I did create the site to offer a counterpoint to some of his key assertions that I feel are less than Truth, overall, I still find his POV to be superior to the teachers who have preceded him, who (no doubt sincerely) talk about liberation, yet create spiritual cultures and teachings and relationships that entrap more than they liberate. So I agree that the author, at the time of writing these books, was not fully enlightened (yes I know I am suggestions degrees of liberation, not a final finish line) and also that his teaching has some serious holes in it. But it’s not so much Jed’s formulation or even animation of the Truth that I find so useful and compelling, for all the flaws mentioned above, but his critique of the flaws of the OTHER formulations, and his insistence that nothing one can do can accomplish anything but retarding the non-event of Liberation. To Jedo I offer kudos and personal thanks for suggesting that we would be better of to throw it all away and start from scratch (yes, heretical!). With Jed I share the opinion that what traditional spirituality does provide is human development of a grand and refined variety. That, no doubt, is a great service to humankind and should, in my opinion be honored. Nevertheless, the vast majority of spirituality paths, with perhaps a qualified exception for Zen, also skirt the horrible truth that nothing, not even spirituality, can liberate you. Only a terminal case of existential despair and the concomitant breakdown can accomplish that. Some of the better teachers do SAY that, (Osho, Adi Da, Ramana) but then (strangely enough) go on to entrain practitioners into a still more refined miasma of practices and affirmations, once again distracting the seeker from the truth that he, as he knows himself, must die. Die to his search now, and completely- the whole thing. Abandon all hope, all beliefs, all conceits that you can ever get it. Oddly enough, Jed like the others, does turn around and offer an eliminative writing exercise presumably designed to accelerate the crash into utter despair by noticing how everything you know or hold onto is an illusion. But it’s his focus on the crash (spiritual autolysis) that distinguishes him, if only by degree, rather than the cultivation of ‘skillful means’, I believe. Perhaps these traditional teachers figure that, until you actually despair of your search for god, or even your communion with, or as ‘god’, they may as well give you a few sophisticated higher human development thingos to do in the meantime – “give the boy some manners!” But who knows what they are thinking?! In any case, their ‘success rate’ is abysmal and needs to be looked at, beyond just entirely blaming the practitioners, as has been the norm. Ted, with all the energy you have for this subject, why don’t you start a Blog and have a place to develop and articulate your ideas unencumbered, and get direct feedback from others who are interested? Best of luck in all you do… Brian tedwhetherby may 14, 2009 at 1:37 am The books and character are a product of spiritual resignation and new-age disallusionment and oppression. It is a reactionary construct, dependant upon old paradigms and belief systems for their energetic food for thought. It is called co-dependent non-spirituality/spirituality. Meaning what is layed forward with Jed is energetically dependent on a host system of thought. Without that host system of thought or belief, “Jed” and his words would not exist. These kinds of “thrashing attackers” that arise from time to time feed on the spiritually frustrated. They hold some validity yet do not sustain merit for every action brings about an equal and opposite reaction, meaning, actively take down a thought or belief and it will replace itself after a short euphoric free fall. It will replace itself with either the belief in non beliefs or a different belief system. What we will find if Jed is lucky is Jed will sooner or later after a stimulating free fall arrive right back in and of the same thing that has been there all along right next to him the disbeliever. Just as he initially tried to tear down beliefs but books later had to acknowledge time once more in a maturity framework, he will grow up some and come upon having to accept something he does not like to which is love or time, for he will discover that the euphoric feeling of attacking beliefs will show itself futile and compassion to one degree or another toward duality and suffering will have to reemerge in his conversation. He is being used as a small universal tool, utilized to cause skeptism and doubt which is useful but cheap and short lived like a quick comet shooting through the air, follow it with your eyes but follow it with your life and left is an insecure violent, hacking nature, wholly confused. tedwhetherby may 10, 2009 at 4:13 pm Brian is touching upon the heart of the matter with Jed. Jed’s misunderstanding of the heart comes from his path of allowing the mind to fry itself. What happens to a person who regards things from this frying the mind of pure Zen or non-dual perspective is that they don’t understand the heart and that it is actually the same as the mind. Jed’s mind and its looking for truth, for its own sake, is exactly the same as the hearts way of loving to such an infinite degree that it dissolves itself into the eternal from which it came. In that place there is no heart, there is nothing. But just as one loves philosophy or writing in time as Jed, one can love through the heart, both as time and timelessness. Jed is afraid right now to let go of even the very route in which he came down, so he relates to concepts outside of his own from within a small box, debunking and dispelling from within “a mind” perspective. It is like a sophomore in college, let’s call her Marci, coming home to her parents having finally found what she is interested in, maybe journalism and seeing the parents as naive to be watching CNN. She now also sees them as inept, undepthful, uninsightful, unpassionate, and sees their religion as futile, their jobs as a waste of time. Only for she has had just a little glimpse of what she is and what she is interested in, finally, after a long struggle of confusion. She has some fire under her belly. But no one would claim Marci is neither a complete journalist nor understands the parents from whom she came from. They are actually of her own creation, and she doesn’t even care right now, this is her stage, her time. Marci is missing the point that she has discovered journalism and even using the word due to the journalists that have fought out battle after battle, failed and victorious such that there is even a tinge of essence left in the vibration of the word for her to find what she is and enjoys. This is Jed and his liberty of using the catch phrase ‘enlightenment’ as a platform. It would be like Marci writing anonymous articles for the New York Times. They don’t allow it cause they require that someone stake their reputation, their life on what they write. And be able to show its actuality in form and essence. Jed is like Marci but in an arena where he doesn’t even have to put his picture behind his words. People are willing to identify with someone or something that tears down without the person being next to the results. This person calls it freedom or liberation and we chip out 13 bucks to hear it. Many people who are attracted to this kind of teacher or non-teacher don’t see that he has created the mystery and the ego surrounding himself in time, his words are becoming the very beliefs he debunks, which are placed out into the world and are also “him”. It would be like creating a child (his books) and then hiding from the child behind a dresser for 18 years and just throwing a piece of beef and a head of lettuce to the child. But also telling the child that going anywhere outside himself for a carrot is asinine. He is hiding from his own creation and thinks that if he simply debunks even himself he isn’t a part of the very mental structural conversation of the day. Now with the parent who throws a piece of beef and a head of lettuce at their child, we call social services on them, whisk them away and try and get child support from them. In this day and age with people wanting to feel a part of an enlightenment conversation and life, we pay 13 bucks and don’t ask for anything else. People are not dubious of this kind of vehicle because he reinforces a failure, a defeat and feeds on that defeat as well as frustration and loneliness. He isn’t asked to love for he hides his physical form as a necessary condition for his potent debunking and claim of enlightenment. But because people are unsure and crave enlightenment it is read. His insight into Buddhism or Christ is as a peanut right now and he does not relate to it as enlightened from beyond Buddhism or the miracle but more as a child striking out at a parent in which he is soon to become, but doesn’t have the chops for it yet. Unlike Christ, Jed is afraid to face his own death for he still loves himself and his euphoric free fall. Physical death is not a requirement or requisite for anything courageous but he knows his he is killing the very self that would revert back to address him though he is as a boy. If you read his writing after a while you will see that he is actually just as desperate and lonely as you. He has the power of never having to face you, but yet he gets your attention, but you can’t get his. He wants one last effort to be heard before the great disappearance of even himself. Cute and entertaining, but he goes about it in a way that ought to be called for what it is. Without the claim and platform of enlightenment, Jed would be one of a million others, crying to be seen and heard as spiritual. With the enlightenment claim he gains the zip of taking on constructs and the attention that comes with the word and rips into those who have given him even the word he rips into. If someone was writing falsely for the NY times they would come after them and see what is up. But folks whom dwell in two world know that he will either peeter out or with courage face the world with all its past as a product of his own creation and work to dispel illusion with guts. Yes, love is not in his rhetoric. He has a luxury you, who have a name and face and reputation, don’t have and uses the luxury to debunk well not only YOU but even the mind that has reference to read him. And this is what we doop as enlightened? It is called feeding on a wish to believe in something or desire to non-believe. Watch and see up ahead. He will not be able to avoid Love if he lets go of his fun hidden form. It simply isn’t possible otherwise to address all forces in the universe without it. And then Brian up top in his words, will be not seen and related to through dualism or non-dualism or through a construct called Jedism, but simple common sense after the rhetoric and euphoria has subsided. Guru april 9, 2009 at 5:13 pm Jed is spot on. At least it normalizes the whole experience and takes the scariness out of it. A great help for new kids arriving home. Thanks Jed. Pingback: visit https://jedmckenna.wordpress.com/realization-of-jed-mckenna/ | haiku-urku jedmckenna march 28, 2009 at 12:26 am To Joe Thank you for your comment. Your questioning of your power in this situation is quite natural and your gravitation towards non-dualism is dead-on, I would humble surmise. I think that there is real truth in your statement : “But does it matter what I’m ready to do or not if volition is mere delusion”. As I say in the new essay, not altogether, but not yes and not no either! Life is never quite that simple is it? Whoever created this mother of a universe has much bigger balls than creating a simple arrangement like that! Your statement has triggered me into doing something that I have been fulminating about for awhile- to challenge Jed’s slightly simplistic preachings concerning Free Will. Here is the link to it: https://jedmckenna.wordpress.com/jed-mckenna-versus-free-will/ Brian joe march 27, 2009 at 1:51 am i have children and this attachment is not one i’m ready to give up. But does it matter what I’m ready to do or not if volition is mere delusion? What’s the point of all this without free will? what’s the point of the practice of autolysis if the conceit of choice is an illusion? seems like a big dodge to say on the one hand you can do such and such to negate the self and on the other to say that doing stuff is just part of the big story. do be do wop. if this is old hat just let me know and maybe give a pointer where I can read more — should I just google nondualism and free will? fwiw, I’m lovin the books so far. Almost finished with the second. Great slaps upside the face and cold water baths…JM’s speaking my language. brant march 17, 2009 at 1:07 pm To the human mind, the barriers which limit seekers are insidious beyond initial comprehension and the dedication needed in the process of passing them is indeed immense. One can proceed very far only to slam up against a wall representing probably the most difficult barrier of all. The heart. If one has a family and has experienced loss then there is some sense of what this means. But, anyone who has children knows that they had better be ready to go all of the way or stay at home, for falling on your face is nearly assured. For centuries this stuff has been packaged in rosy paper and bows for a reason. This author understands this. It is easy to rationalize what our illusory self does not like in order to avoid the work. As is said, if you don’t like it, don’t do it, but he (she) is correct. Heart is the final trap set for most. This is not an opinion, these are the facts. Until you have gone there you will not understand the admonishment, “you would not touch this with a 10 foot pole.” Tom Stine march 5, 2009 at 2:04 am A friend of mine pointed me at your site, Brian, in response to my recommendation to my readers to read Jed McKenna’s books. I just posted some commentary on Jed from my perspective, so I thought I would tell you about it if you are interested. I’m going to write a couple of posts about Jed. 🙂 Be well…. Tom A Few Thoughts on Jed McKenna Non february 12, 2009 at 9:57 pm Brian, Thanks for the effort to verify Jed’s material. Doubts are healthy. I will have to go find for myself the truth or whatever that thing is called now. Best of luck. howdie february 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm ha ha ha you were giving his books to standard spiritual seekers! i can guess how that went for you you must have a punishment wish on yourself…. and in your post to non i agree with you too while jed’s books has a lot of really useful pointers to what the whole process really looks like- before, during, and after to hold it up as the only authority or that is 100% the way it all is- then one has made the same mistake as taking any religious or spiritual book as all correct just this week i have posted some questions of a supposed “awakening blog” that says it is cutting edge, anti guru, and past the spiritual traps. sounded interesting. so i make a few posts and asked a few questions related to awakening and the effects on teh body-mind. what i got was a whole bunch of standard advaita answers, right out a book it seemed- including the “ha ha ha, just be the looker and forget what is looking at…ha ha ha the mind is wanting this or that.” but anything that would have been of value to someone ACTUALLY involved in this process would be totally nil. it was a place where people can pretend how advanced they are with each other, be in a little club, and not actually have to go and do what it is they are pretending to talk about. jed’s books i am sure would be scoffed at in very quick order by these folks. personally i liked jed’s books because they explained my form’s experiences for a number of years, some of the passages were like near copies from my own journals over the years. that was freaky in itself. and that is what caused me to read deeper and more closely on what was there. those books were like someone had watched me for 10 years and wrote about it. but no matter how good, his books can never be perfect. everything will have flaws in it somewhere, that is the nature of duality- jed’s books…and ALL OF MY OWN WRITINGS included cheers h jedmckenna february 12, 2009 at 5:12 am Thanks Howdie, for your enlivening comment. Good idea about passing the Jed books on to those in crisis. It probably beats doing what I have been doing- passing it on to established spiritual practitioners who tend to treat it as some new type of silliness or else else the latest high tech blasphemy to arrive from the Underworld! Cheers, Brian jedmckenna february 12, 2009 at 5:04 am Dear ‘Non’ My responses in plain text, your comments in italic: I reread everything. Still, I think your heart concept is in duality. Isn’t the real question not whether ‘my’ heart concept is in duality but whether Jed’s commitment to “Truth” is, since he is the one claiming “abiding non-dual realization”? But if “heart” is evaluated as “in duality” then what about “further”, “abiding non-dualism”, “enlightenment” and even “no-self” and of course, “truth” that Jed is so hot about? All these terms are dualistic as they posit the realizer in distinction to the non-realizer. You know, every concept is “in duality”, it is only the artful useful of meta-concepts and metaphors that gives us even the possibility of discussing the non-dual nature of reality by using context or other indicators to suggest a meaning beyond the limited dualistic literal meaning of any word. I am attempting to suggest the possibility of a non-dual expression of transcendent feeling using meta-concepts such as “Heart” “Love”, or if you prefer, Eros, Agape etc, and I am also attempting to suggest that Jed’s aversion to that possibility is a telltale sign to me. Jed’s heart is already liberated, his kindness comes naturally when it comes or when he inclines, effortlessly. He doesn’t have to train or control it. He has no use of heart anymore. Eros and not love. Tsunami is not unkind. Let me ask you this: can you imagine or conceive of the possibility of an ‘enlightened’ human being with a non-separative, non-karmic or non-dual relationship to the feeling dimension of existence? If so, wouldn’t he be free to choose to express himself in many different ways, including such old chestnuts such as “Love’ or ‘Heart’? A lady named ‘Liz’ quoted earlier on this blog: “Nisargadatta Maharaj says, ‘Sometimes I feel I am everything, I call that Love. Sometimes I feel I am nothing, I call that Wisdom. Between Love and Wisdom my life continuously flows.” Another Realizer might use an energy or body metaphor to express his/her Freedom and Truth by saying realization amounted to “absolute free energy”, using the dualistic concept of energy as metaphor. No? I also think people who have problems with this point have a fear of “not being good”. And that fear comes from the fact that they know in their daily life they still have preference, intolerance, appall, attraction, etc. And they want to have only the (what they think) good ones. I do not think it possible, things in duality are designed to have both sides. Training to be half the coin occupy a whole lifetime, or more if there’s more. That would be my point about JED, a possibility that he still has unexamined preferences of a deep structural kind that leads him to a predilection for mind and ‘truth’ and against absolute feeling, (not talking about personal love or emotion here.) About “Jed” and his work, we will obviously have to differ, I guess. You sense complete freedom and I don’t. Viva la difference! Thanks for your dialog, Non, I do appreciate it. Brian howdie february 11, 2009 at 11:26 pm hey brian, i can see what you are doing with this examination of jed’s books, and it can be very helpful to go through what he says in there. yes i see there is lots that really sums up what “it” looks like, and what “it” looks like to someone it is happpening to- not all peaches and cream as they say. and i think it is smart to not agree with everything just because some parts are so well explained. in one sense i think the greatest value of jed’s books is for someone to whom the breakdown is happening to. i often pass on sie to someone whose world is breaking just to show them that what is happening, is what it looks like, and that takes some of the fear away over what is happening to them. i wish i had these books during my first “reality breakdowns” they would have been much less terrifying. and yes of course “jed” is a fictional charactor, but whom the author appears to be is actually so strongly in “heart” that it really makes one wonder why he chose to say the opposite in these particular books. and honestly at this point i don’t have a good answer for it- but perhaps you have to drop the heart for a while, in order to properly pick it up again later i took a look at your main site brian, good luck with what you are doing. while it all may be a dream “ha ha ha” the human in the dream often has a tendency to want to help in some way with those in it- and i wish you good luck in doing that cheers Non february 10, 2009 at 9:02 pm I reread everything. Still, I think your heart concept is in duality. Jed’s heart is already liberated, his kindness comes naturally when it comes or when he inclines, effortlessly. He doesn’t have to train or control it. He has no use of heart anymore. Eros and not love. Tsunami is not unkind. I also think people who have problems with this point have a fear of “not being good”. And that fear comes from the fact that they know in their daily life they still have preference, intolerance, appall, attraction, etc. And they want to have only the (what they think) good ones. I do not think it possible, things in duality are designed to have both sides. Training to be half the coin occupy a whole lifetime, or more if there’s more. I just speak from my own point of reference which is what I observe in myself. Thank you. Non february 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm Brian, Thanks for your reply. I’ll reread your article again. Non jedmckenna february 9, 2009 at 12:15 am Thanks you kindly for your contribution “Non”, and what you are saying is of course Jed’s point. I, you will no doubt have noticed, don’t buy it and have made my reasons clear in the piece. The debate revolves around 2 points: Whether, contrary to what Jed claims, it is a legitimate philosophical posture to describe the enlightened state as being full of feeling and yet free from karmic involvment with it (often referred to as “Unconditional or Divine Love); and second- Whether Jed, at least at the time of that books publication, was actually free of a karmic association with emotion or even Love, or whether he was actually averse to it and incapable of an ‘experience’ of what you might call liberated feeling. That is to say: whether his focus and trust in “truth” and mental discrimination was or was not emblematic of that aversion to the feeling dimension. I suppose we’ll never really know the state of the man who penned those words. But it is serious matter for others to consider who are interested in the Truth. And it is my humble opinion that with those particular words he detracted from the great truths he otherwise was demonstrating through his writings. But I will confess that I am not 100% certain, and I could be wrong! Thanks again, Brian (edited on 10 Feb) Non february 8, 2009 at 11:30 pm I think when he said “I don’t do heart” it’s because “heart” is still a part of duality, there’s good and bad, right and wrong in doing heart. And he’s beyond that, so he doesn’t see doing unkind thing as any worse than doing kind thing anymore, so the concept of heart nulled. Liz december 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm Brian, Nice updates to the site. I think for discussion purposes, your use of “Philosophical Autolysis,” “Meditative Autolysis,” and “Spiritual Autolysis” is right on. It feels more precise for describing the different aspects of this process. Interesting stuff! jedmckenna december 5, 2008 at 11:29 pm I have noticed that there is a tendency to misunderstand what I am doing with this blog. A lot of that confusion stems from the fact that we are using Jed’s lexicon. Specifically, the concept of “Spiritual Autolysis” is the issue. The problem stems from the fact that Jed used the term “Spiritual Autolysis” to describe two very different processes, the intentional writing /contemplative exercise, and a spontaneous combustion process are both referred to by him as “Spiritual Autolysis”. Therefore, from now on, I am going to define my terms a little differently. The writing/contemplative exercise I will call “Meditative Autolysis”. This is where the user uses his intellect and intuition to systematically eliminate untruths and false beliefs, until, to paraphrase Jed: “the only thing you know for sure is that you exist”. The crisis of spontaneous combustion, as typified by Julie in the books, I will refer to as “Spiritual Autolysis”. In addition, it’s becoming quite clear that we need to add a third category of “illusion elimination”. This category I’m thinking of calling “Philosophical Autolysis”. This is the process of considering the great philosophies and truths that have been put forward by spiritual teachers, and, through the course of that discernment process, neutralizing any biases that one may have by way of attachment or belief, and eliminating any bullshit that the teacher himself has delivered. To read someone like Jed is primarily to engage in “Philosophical Autolysis”. A lot of what he does in his books is to undermine common new age and spiritual claptrap. Indeed, my intention with this web site was to turn that process onto Jed himself, because I felt that there were very real omissions and commissions that could mislead many people, causing them a great deal of unnecessary distress. That is exactly what the essay “The Realization of the Jed McKenna” was all about. Now it’s true that “Philosophical Autolysis” might trigger the “Meditative Autolysis” process in someone. It might even trigger the “Spiritual Autolysis” process in someone. But it is not the same thing. So when people write in and speak to me as if they think I’m doing “Meditative Autolysis” with my writing on this blog, they misunderstand my purpose. I’m not interested in the “Meditative Autolysis” process, as I have my own process at work in my personal life. However, with this blog I am interested in engaging a process of sorting out spiritual ideas, both for myself and for any others who may be interested. This process of “Philosophical Autolysis” is not as deep as “Meditative Autolysis” or “Spiritual Autolysis”, but it is important (for me) to clarify the many ideas and philosophies and systems that I have accumulated in my mind over the years. It is also something of an amusing intellectual sport to crack the codes of these exotic systems. This is especially challenging as I myself am not enlightened and so am reaching over my head to do that task. Nevertheless, I enjoy it and benefit from having a more “neutralized mind”. In addition, with this blog (I probably shouldn’t have to say this, but it will probably come up) I want to be clear: it is not an attempt to assert “The Truth”. It is directed at the elimination of untruths from relatively truthful systems of thought. If anyone is interested “The Truth”, you’ll never find it on this blog. Alas, this “Philosophical Autolysis” is not an attempt by me “to attain some state of realization”. Only what I describe above. So readers please feel very free to use this blog and the comments offered by participants to serve any kind of like process that you wish, but kindly don’t expect that I’m using it in the same way that, perhaps, you are. Brian (Moderator) Eddie december 5, 2008 at 12:58 am When I read Jed’s (or any other author’s) books I don’t relate to it as if the message comes from somewhere else and needs to be analyzed. Thus, when Jed writes ‘I don’t do heart’, I enquire into my tendency towards emotionalism and New-Age lovey-doveyism. I do not examine it with respect to what someone else says, then weigh up the pros and cons of each. Put another way, I am Arjuna on the spiritual battlefield and Captain Ahab obsessively chasing Moby-Dick. I am also Jed McKenna, except I can’t write like him and he probably doesn’t exist anyway. Come to think of it, neither does ‘I’. I must declare, however, that I have in the past had a strong inclination to pit one thing against another trying to confirm one and negate (or at least diminish) the other. Sort of like wanting to be victorious in the battlefield of relative truths. Thus, there is only an apparent distinction between what ‘heart’ might mean and what ‘mind’ might refer to, and whether ‘Truth’ is different to ‘Heart’ ultimately ends up as simply a play on semantics. But I am a scoundrel. Not wanting to be outdone by anyone else, I would like to throw two more words and phrases into the melting pot. My (former and now dead) guru Adi Da used to talk a lot about ‘Divine Ignorance’ as being the disposition most representative of one who is absolutely liberated. I really ‘grok’ with that expression. Clear and radical enquiry into anything (in Jed’s words – ‘spiritual autolysis’) reduces everything to nothing … but presence. If the ‘Heart’ or the ‘Mind’ or ‘Truth’ refer to that disposition, then we are in the same boat (we all are, anyway). The other word that grabs me is ‘freedom’. I am free to think, free to do ‘heart’, free to love boundlessly, and free to not know anything. I rarely claim to know anything with absolute certainty these days. And I contend with every emotional and psychological issue that exists. So, am I free? Yes and no at the same time. Go figure. jedmckenna december 4, 2008 at 11:43 pm @ Liz: I couldn’t have said it better! Indeed, I didn’t! Beautifully spoken and right on point. And thanks for the Nisargadatta quote, it’ a great confirmation. It’s peole like you that make building a blog not only a pleasure but an education. Thanks very much. Brian (Moderator) Liz december 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm Great site. Thank you, Brian. Zen teacher (and awakened individual) Genpo Roshi makes the distinction between Big Mind and Big Heart (which encompasses Big Mind.) It seems to be (to me) a later stage of development in non-dual understanding. Evidently it’s easy to rest in the wonder of Big Mind. Nisargadatta Maharaj says, “Sometimes I feel I am everything, I call that Love. Sometimes I feel I am nothing, I call that Wisdom. Between Love and Wisdom my life continuously flows.” Jed’s books have been invaluable to me, and taken along with teachings of so many Masters, they have brought more pain and peace than I ever anticipated! I look to Jed’s teaching because it’s so straight forward and to the point, simple pointers to get to the release of the sense of separate self. And I also know that “Further” must continue to be a motto – even after that point, so I look to other teachers as well, those who exemplify and teach Big Heart, Love, the embracing side, maybe the feminine to the masculine of Big Mind. LEAVE A REPLY Enter your comment here... Blog at WordPress.com. Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy HomeMy Books Browse ▾ Community ▾ Search books Sign InJoin Goodreads helps you follow your favorite authors. Be the first to learn about new releases! Start by following Jed McKenna. Follow Author Jed McKennaJed McKenna > Quotes Jed McKenna quotes Showing 1-30 of 87 “Suffering just means you’re having a bad dream. Happiness means you’re having a good dream. Enlightenment means getting out of the dream altogether.” ― Jed McKenna tags: dreams, enlightenment, happiness, suffering61 likesLike “The point is to wake up, not to earn a Ph.D. In waking up.” ― Jed McKenna tags: awaken, up, wake41 likesLike “It is your show. It is your universe. There is no one else here, just you, and nothing is being withheld from you. You are completely on your own. Everything is available for direct knowing. No one else has anything you need. No one else can lead you, pull you, push you or carry you.” ― Jed McKenna 41 likesLike “Enlightenment is the unprogrammed state.” ― Jed McKenna tags: enlightenment, programming29 likesLike “Wake up first. Wake up, and then you can double back and perhaps be of some use to others if you still have the urge. Wake up first, with pure and unapologetic selfishness, or you’re just another shipwreck victim floundering in the ocean and all the compassion in the world is of absolutely no use to the other victims floundering around you.” ― Jed McKenna tags: awaken, wake28 likesLike “It’s ego – the false self – that exalts the guru and declares the teaching sacred, but nothing is exalted or sacred, only true or not true.” ― Jed McKenna tags: ego, self27 likesLike “I don’t have something you don’t; you believe something I don’t.” ― Jed McKenna 27 likesLike “The bottom line remains the same: you’re either awake or you’re not.One day, there it is. Nothing. No more enemies, no more battles.” ― Jed McKenna tags: awake, awakening, battles, enemies, enlightenment26 likesLike “Listen! Here’s all you need to know to become enlightened: Sit down, shut up, and ask yourself what’s true until you know. That’s it. That’s the whole deal; a complete teaching of enlightenment, a complete practice. If you ever have any questions or problems—no matter what the question or problem is—the answer is always exactly the same: Sit down, shut up, and ask yourself what’s true until you know. In other words, go jump off a cliff. Don’t go near the cliff and contemplate jumping off. Don’t read a book about jumping off. Don’t study the art and science of jumping off. Don’t join a support group for jumping off. Don’t write poems about jumping off. Don’t kiss the ass of someone else who jumped off. Just jump.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 22 likesLike “Enlightenment isn’t when you go there; it’s when there comes here.” ― Jed McKenna tags: enlightenment19 likesLike “Here’s the most directly I am able to say this: The one and only truth of any person lies like a black hole at their very core, and everything else—everything else—is just the rubbish and debris that covers the hole. Of course, to someone who is just going about their normal human existence undistracted by the larger questions, that rubbish and debris is everything that makes them who they are. But to someone who wants to get to the truth, who they are is what’s in the way.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 17 likesLike “Before enlightenment I believed my ego was me, then enlightenment comes along and no more ego, only the underlying reality. Now it’s after enlightenment and this ego might be slightly uncomfortable or ill-fitting at times, but it’s all I’ve got. The idea that your ego is destroyed in the process of becoming enlightened is roughly correct, but it’s not complete. Before enlightenment, you’re a human being in the world, just like everyone you see. During enlightenment you realize the human being you thought you were is just a character in a play, and that the world you thought you were in is just a stage, so you go through a process of radical deconstruction of your character to see what’s left when it’s gone. The result isn’t enlightened-self or true-self, it’s no-self. When it’s all over it’s time to be a human being in the world again, and that means slipping back into costume and getting back on stage.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 14 likesLike “there is no such thing as a rational person. We are emotional creatures with some token capacity for reason.” ― Jed McKenna, Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything: The Enlightened Perspective 14 likesLike “The you that you think of as you (and that thinks of you as you, and so on) is not you, it’s just the character that the underlying truth of you is dreaming into existence. Enlightenment isn’t in the character, it’s in the underlying truth.” ― Jed McKenna tags: dreams, ego, enlightenment, self14 likesLike “All fear is ultimately fear of no-self.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 13 likesLike “There’s nothing left to contend against and nothing left that must be done, and there will never be anything that must be done ever again.” ― Jed McKenna 13 likesLike “I don’t see it as my role to save or rescue anybody any more than regular people feel the need to rescue each other from sleeping and dreaming.” ― Jed McKenna tags: dreams, elightenment, rescue13 likesLike “writing it down on paper or on a computer where you can see it is because the brain, unlikely as it may sound, is no place for serious thinking. Any time you have serious thinking to do, the first step is to get the whole shootin’ match out of your head and set it up someplace where you can walk around it and see it from all sides. Attack, switch sides and counter-attack. You can’t do that while it’s still in your head. Writing it out allows you to act as your own teacher, your own critic, your own opponent. By externalizing your thoughts, you can become your own guru; judging yourself, giving feedback, providing a more objective and elevated perspective.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 11 likesLike “Once you start seeing this place for the madhouse it is, you can’t stop seeing it that way. It’s everywhere, everyone. It doesn’t make any sense. That’s not life. It can’t be. I don’t know what it is, but it’s not life.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare 10 likesLike “The price of truth is everything, but no one knows what everything means until they’re paying it.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 10 likesLike “all belief systems are just the stories we create in order to deal with the void. Ego abhors a vacuum, so everybody’s scrambling to create the illusion of something where there’s nothing. Belief systems are simply the devices we use to explain away the unthinkable horror of no-self.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 9 likesLike “Maybe you think death is the opposite of life, or that all this death-awareness stuff translates into the end of happiness and good times, but this is not the case. Death isn't morbid, fear is morbid. Death doesn't oppose life, fear opposes life. To close your eyes to death is to close them to life: what could be more morbid than that? From your perspective, death and suicide are horrific and unthinkable. From my perspective, they are empowering and lifeaffirming. and I would look at any person that doesn't have an open, honest relationship with these subjects as themselves nine parts dead.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare 9 likesLike “To move forward, you must figure out exactly what is obstructing you. Whatever it is, it isn’t really there; it has no reality, no substance. It’s your own creation, a phantom lurking in the shadows of your mind, a shadow demon. Your obstructions are your demons, and your demons are shadow dwellers. They live and thrive in the half-light of ignorance, so the way to slay a demon is by illuminating it with the full force and power of your focused attention; by looking at it, hard. Banish shadow with light and see for yourself that no obstruction exists, nor ever did. We create our demons and we feed them. To awaken we must slay them. That’s really the whole process: Slay one demon, take one step. Repeat.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment 8 likesLike “We slip into the lives that are laid out for us the way children slip into the clothes their mother lays out for them in the morning. No one decides. We don’t live our lives by choice, but by default.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare 8 likesLike “The third thing about witnessing, the most important part and the thing that most people don't seem to understand. is that you have to take it further than just one step back. You have to keep going with it. Its not a passive thing. like you just sit back and observe. You don't just observe your character, you deconstruct it. You have to be aggressive about it. This is a way or simulating the enlightened perspective, which would be useful to anyone who wants to wake themselves up from the dreamstate instead of just in it.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare 7 likesLike “Do you want to awaken? To stop being a false, artificial, self-benighted being? Then developing and sharpening this sense—the ability to detect fear and the source and emanations of fear—amounts to nothing more than disengaging your own autoimmune system; the subsystem of ego that keeps this poison from making you sick. Yes, to get it out you must let it in, breathe it deep, and allow yourself to become sickened by it. The way out is through, and there can be no rebirth without first a death.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 7 likesLike “When we believe in the world outside of ourselves, gain is often perceived as good and loss as bad. When we stop believing in a world external to self. that reverses: gain becomes bad and loss becomes good. Nothing we can lose was ever ours in the first place. All we can ever lose is illusion.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare 6 likesLike “The one and only truth of any person lies like a black hole at their very core, and everything else – EVERYTHING else – is just the rubbish and debris that covers the hole. Of course, to someone who’s just going about their normal human existence undistracted by the larger questions, that rubbish and debris is everything that makes them who they are. But to someone who wants to get to the truth, who they are is what’s in the way. All fear is ultimately fear of this inner black hole, and nothing on this side of that hole is true. The process of achieving enlightenment is about the breaking through the blockage and stepping through the hole.” ― Jed McKenna tags: enlightenment, spirituality5 likesLike “That's delusion. Exactly the same. This is the dream. The question is, who is doing the dreaming and how do we wake up? How do we get real? That's what all this enlightenment stuff boils down to. It's about waking up and seeing what's really true, and to do what we have to become progressively less asleep. We have to fight and scratch and claw our way to wakefulness. In the same sense, if you want to be more true, then the way to do that is by becoming less false, less full of shit. If you want to be less full of shit, the the way to do it is to go inside yourself with the spotlight of discrimination, find the shit, and illuminate it. Illumination destroys it. lies disappear when you really look at them because they never had real substance, they were only imagined. That's what you were doing just now-- bravely shining a light inward, digging deeper-- and that's cool. It's not easy and it's not fun, but that's the process. That's how the good stuff happens. That's how icebergs get melted back into the ocean.” ― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing 5 likesLike “You are only a disciple because your eyes are closed. The day you open them you will see there is nothing you can learn from me or anyone. What then is a Master for? To make you see the uselessness of having one. Anthony de Mello” ― Jed McKenna, Dreamstate: A Conspiracy Theory 5 likesLike « previous 1 2 3 next » All Quotes | Add A Quote Find quotes by keyword, author BOOKS BY JED MCKENNA Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest ThingSpiritual Enlightenment 1,310 ratings Spiritually Incorrect EnlightenmentSpiritually Incorrect Enlightenment 596 ratings Spiritual WarfareSpiritual Warfare 525 ratings Jed McKenna's Theory of EverythingJed McKenna's Theory of Everything 302 ratings More… COMPANY About us Careers Terms Privacy Interest Based Ads Ad Preferences Help WORK WITH US Authors Advertise Authors & ads blog API CONNECT Goodreads on FacebookGoodreads on Twitter Goodreads on InstagramGoodreads on LinkedIn Download app for iOS Download app for Android © 2021 Goodreads, Inc. Mobile version Join Sign In Explore Start Here Experiences If Friedrich Nietzsche and Satoshi Nakamoto Had a Spiritual Love-Child… 17 by Jordan Bates If Friedrich Nietzsche and Satoshi Nakamoto engaged in Transcendent Cosmic Coitus and miraculously birthed an anonymous iconoclastic-mystic-sage love-child… His name would be Jed McKenna. I recently read Jed McKenna‘s Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing and it absolutely rocked my skull. It is the most scathingly iconoclastic spiritual text I’ve encountered. jed mckenna spiritual enlightenment Noting his tenacious knack for joyously annihilating Sacred Cows, I’ve decided that Jed McKenna is the Friedrich Nietzsche of spirituality. [1] And here’s the kicker: Like Satoshi Nakamoto, no one knows who Jed McKenna is. He’s somewhere on Earth right now, though—not a long-deceased guru. Makes for quite a juicy living legend, eh? I’m in love with Jed McKenna’s irreverent, no-bullshit way of speaking about liberation and dispelling common spiritual delusions. He writes in plain, unadorned prose that drives straight to the heart of the artichoke. He doesn’t pull any punches. He hits you with sentences so direct that, before you even realize what’s happening, he’s penetrating through your carefully constructed fortress of illusions and provoking core-convulsing considerations of the deepest, most frightening questions in existence. He’s kind of a fucking badass, to be honest. Warning: This Book Will Poke Your Deepest Fears With a Sharp Stick Do not read this book if you are not ready to be challenged on the deepest level. To call into question all of your most cherished beliefs. Don’t even read further in this article if you aren’t ready to do so. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. To give you a taste of Jed McKenna that is likely either to cause you to immediately purchase Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing or say, “Fuck this guy” and close this browser tab, here are a few of the passages in the book that slapped me in the face the hardest: “The truth, though, is that nothing is really wrong. Nothing is ever wrong and nothing can be wrong. It’s not even wrong to believe that something is wrong. Wrong is simply not possible. As Alexander Pope wrote, “One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.” Wrongness is in the eye of the beholder and nowhere else. The perception of wrongness, however, is absolutely critical to the perpetuation of the human drama, right up there with the illusion of separateness and the certainty of free will. Drama requires conflict; no conflict, no drama. If something isn’t wrong, then nothing needs to be made right, which would mean that nothing needs to be done. Heights need not be scaled nor depths plumbed. Wealth and power need not be acquired. Future generations need not be spawned. Art need not be created, nor skyscrapers erected. Wars need not be fought. Religions and philosophies need not be devised. Teeth need not be flossed. “The belief that something is wrong is the fire under the ass of humanity,” is how I explain it to Sarah.” “Here’s the most directly I am able to say this: The one and only truth of any person lies like a black hole at their very core, and everything else—everything else—is just the rubbish and debris that covers the hole. Of course, to someone who is just going about their normal human existence undistracted by the larger questions, that rubbish and debris is everything that makes them who they are. But to someone who wants to get to the truth, who they are is what’s in the way. All fear is ultimately fear of this inner black hole, and nothing on this side of that hole is true. The process of achieving enlightenment is about breaking through the blockage and stepping through the hole, and anything that’s not about getting to and through the hole is just more rubbish and debris.” jed mckenna spiritual enlightenment “The universe will give you whatever you want, Marla. That’s how it works, even if you don’t know it. It can’t be otherwise. You don’t have to be worthy, but you do have to know what it is that you want. You have to focus. Try to do that. Try writing out what it is you want and condensing it down until you’ve reduced it to a concise statement of desire or intent. Your path can only be meandering and your life a blur until you do that. Come talk to me when you have something, okay?” “Let me state it plainly, Arthur: I don’t do heart. To the extent that I advocate any path, it is a path without heart, devoid of compassion, totally free of any thought for others whatsoever. The thinking is simple: Wake up first. Wake up, and then you can double back and perhaps be of some use to others if you still have the urge. Wake up first, with pure and unapologetic selfishness, or you’re just another shipwreck victim floundering in the ocean and all the compassion in the world is of absolutely no use to the other victims floundering around you. Resolve your own situation first, and then maybe your compassion will translate into something of value to others. I suppose that sounds cruel or unspiritual or whatever, but it only works the way it works. Make sense?” “I’m not really a people person. I don’t understand people and I don’t identify with them. I don’t identify with my own status as a man or a person or a human being. I have a very distinct impression of life as a stage drama, and I find it endlessly mystifying that anyone truly identifies with their character. I watch my own life with amused detachment. I may be doing this or that—fulfilling my role—but I’m almost always out in the seats somewhere, watching it all, as unprepared for the next thing I do as anyone else. Being a detached observer is my reality and I find it belief-defying that everyone isn’t the same; that they’re up in their characters playing out all this life stuff like it’s for real. Sometimes I think that grabbing them by the shoulders and shaking or slapping them will snap them out of it. Not really, but kind of. I watch myself being wisdom-guy and I can’t believe anyone really falls for it. I can’t believe that this stuff isn’t obvious to everybody. Truth doesn’t need to be sought because it isn’t lost. It’s not at the end of some path waiting to be discovered. It’s not the result of practice or growth or learning. Truth is everywhere at all times; never absent, never distant. Truth isn’t the tricky thing, it’s the simplest thing there is; that which can’t be simplified further. Possessing the ability not to see truth, now that’s the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen. In fact, I would never believe it was even possible if I hadn’t done it myself for thirty years.” “All beliefs. All concepts. All thoughts. Yes, they’re all false; all bullshit. Of course they are. Not just religions and spiritual teachings, but all philosophies, all ideas, all opinions. If you’re going for the truth, you’re not taking any of them with you. Nothing that says two, not one, survives.” That’s what I say. It rings true because it is true. It sounds a clear note that will resonate in these people’s minds until its vibration has shaken their false belief structures into heaps of rubble. I mean, how can it not? I’m not telling them something I know, I’m showing them something they know. “There is none,” he says. “None what?” “There is no meaning. There is no meaning of life.” Click. That’s it. That’s where this whole thing has been going. Saying that no belief is true is simply the inversion of this crisp, perfect statement; life has no meaning. Our existence is utterly, perfectly, gloriously meaningless.” I told you I wasn’t fucking around… If you’re ready to leave no stone unturned and examine the nature of reality with unflinching courage, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing is the book to read. Having now finished the book and also read Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, the second book of the trilogy, I can say that I’m beginning to develop a nuanced perspective on Jed McKenna. I can say that I fucking love Jed and find his writing to be among the most powerful I’ve ever encountered. I also think I’ve identified some shadows and blindspots in his work, and I intuit that I will write another piece in the future attempting to illumine those blindspots. One red flag that can serve as a keystone for unlocking his blindspots is his insistence that he is “a man whose work is done.” The assumption that the work of spiritual liberation could actually be completed in this human form is, in my estimation, quite silly. I perceive a number of ways in which Jed’s work is not done, and I encourage you to see if you can see these as well, while you read his work. Hint: Pay attention to his (lack of) integration of the Divine Feminine. Do Not Attach to Any Teacher Recognizing Jed’s shadows and blindspots has been another affirmation of one of the most powerful lessons of my life: Do not attach to any teacher. As Krishnamurti put it, “The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.” Or Terence McKenna: “The mushroom said to me once… ‘For one human being to seek enlightenment from another is like a grain of sand seeking enlightenment from another.'” Attach to no teacher. I have never encountered a human teacher who did not have some kind of shadow or blindspot. The best a teacher can do is point you to What You Already Know in your Soul and Who You Already Truly Are. Follow only the voice of Truth in your own Heart and Soul; the voice of the Infinite Intelligence of Source. Sacred texts are truly invaluable treasures, capable of helping us to remember What We Already Know, but to attach to their human authors or put them on a pedestal above your own Soul is a perennial mistake of the spiritual seeker. When you put anyone or anything above you or below you, you fuel the egoic delusion of duality and separation. All are equal in the eyes of the Creator; all hierarchies collapse; Source is the Only Thing in existence; Source is your Essence. Do not take my word for it. Verify this for yourself by peeling back the layers of delusion and listening increasingly deeply to your own Heart and Soul. Again, I adore Jed McKenna; I view him as a great master who has attained an uncommonly high level of Consciousness as a human being. I intuit that I will continue to read his works with a Beginner’s Mind, taking what is useful and resonant at this stage of my journey and letting go of what is not. My hope for Jed is that he will one day realize that our ‘work’ (or work-play, as I prefer to see it) is never completed as human beings; I intuit that it is not completed until the day our Ascended Master Souls melt back into the All. And even then, at that Sacred Moment, the whole Divine Dance likely simply begins again, a new Grand Cycle of the Endless Infinitely Mysterious Ouroboros of All That Is… ‘Enlightenment’ is not a destination. This is an insidious fallacy. There are indeed many thresholds after which your reality is never the same. But there are infinite thresholds. And so we continue on, spiraling forever upward… “We are all on The Path—and the road leads upward ever, with frequent resting places.” — The Kybalion Frequent resting places, as well as intermittent detours, regressions, loop-the-loops… Yet upward ever, indeed. Or so it seems to me… Peace, Joy, Love, Freedom, Power, Wisdom, Divinity, Jordan ——— Footnotes: [1] This statement is a bit tongue in cheek, as it’s important to note that Friedrich Nietzsche himself, by the end of his life, was a deeply spiritual/mystical man, though most don’t realize this. He’s mistakenly viewed by many as a nihilist, but this interpretation represents a profoundly shallow reading of Nietzsche. The Stoic Philosophy Cheatsheet PDF Download your FREE cheetsheat to transmute fear, anxiety, and negative emotions into fortitude and resiliance! Your first name Your email address Download Now We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time. Loved This14 by Jordan Bates Wizard. // Co-Creator of HighExistence. // Founder of Ouroboros and Radical Freedom Retreat — April 11th - 17th, 2021. // Subscribe to New Earth Wizardry, my Dead Honest Newsletter on How to Live in Heaven on Earth. 👑⚔️ Discussion Have a comment? or James (1) October 6, 2019 Your last sentence says it all: “Or so it seems to me…”. Nothing is, except as it seems to me. –mtnjim (BTW, I got off on Jed’s writings also :-)) 1 @James Reply Kris (1)C January 11, 2020 Have you read that Jed Mckenna might be a “fraud” of sorts? http://www.spiritualteachers.org/jed-mckenna/ and https://www.wisdom-of-spirit.com/jed-mckenna.html and https://enlightenmentmyth.com/impersonating-jed-mckenna/ What are your thoughts on this Jordan, I’m curious. Thanks. 1 @Kris Reply Kris (1)C January 12, 2020 Just want to add that I really enjoyed your article and I think that his teaching that you have highlighted here is excellent. What I’m curious about it your thoughts on whether it matters if he is presenting himself falsely as someone he is not – as in his identity. 1 @Kris Reply Time Travel Via Video Transcend The Ordinary Walk The Full Path Towards Enlightenment The Accelerated Learning Experience Consciousness Hacking: Mikey Siegel on Transformative Tech and the Future of Spirituality Alternative Human Nature: Why Kindness and Cooperation are More Natural Than Selfishness
Commenti
Posta un commento