Jed

[thekid]

I was never much into spiritual stuff. And still don't really like the term. Makes me think of wishy washy stuff. But I digress, a while ago I was deep into philosophy and things of that sort, Human psychology, and for some odd reason I had a fire lit under my ass. Probably because I was alone in a new country living by myself and I had nothing to do, and no people to see. I had no real intent for any thing I was looking into. I was just trying to clarify my thoughts as much as possible. Writing on happiness, what it needed. How love needed to work. How a man needed to live to be happy. Morality, blah blah blah, yada yada. Never really put any mind to God, spiritual stuff, I was content to be an agnostic kind of person who considered a lot of the religious junk to be fairy tale. As far as a higher power was considered, I felt it was possible but unlikely. Either way I explored everything I could and then one day like a bolt of lightning I was struck and I got a "taste" of some foreign experience. The only thing I could conclude was that it had something to do with what is now coined "spirit".

So about a year after that, I came across a guy called Jed. Jed Mckenna. I look at this board and I don't know it seems a lot of you might be familiar with his work. Anyways he's an enlightened guy. And he's convinced me that he is. Not because I know anything of what enlightenment is, but because he seems to navigate life differently than the way I and most other people do. The way he writes/speaks is very powerful and it just seems like he's not bullshitting and he really does have something to say. Like that there really is something to realize. Anyways. He says that to get out of this cycle of delusion you just have to sit down and truly think for yourself about what is true. He says there is only one question that has you stuck and in order to get beyond it you have to find that question. But fucking A, I can't find my question because I can't get past the fact that I can't seem to find anything that is true. I can't even get an inkling of an idea as to what is true. As in I can't even go on to express any idea that I feel has some sort of chance of being positively absolutely true. I'm stuck on the fact that the possibility that everything in this world, you included, this computer included are real is the same exact possibility that they can all just be a figment of my imagination. I mean if I can't know if my life is true, if all this is true, then how can I even go about getting onto any other ideas? Like as in morality. or even God. blah blah. I just can't seem to know and I'm stuck.

To make a long introduction shorter, I'm gonna ask a couple questions. Obviously I'm gonna take all that you can say with a grain of salt because honestly I'm not convinced that any of you are actually truth-realized or whatever the hell you wanna call it. But I guess the only difference between you and Jed, as a question to who has authoritative knowledge, is that he wrote a book and you write on a board, so the possibility that you are enlightened, I guess, is the same. First of all let me ask this question to an Enlightened guy. Or Gal. Whatever. But please before you start a reply (and I know it's not proper ettiquette to be making demands while asking a favor), please state first whether or not your writing is opinion or fact. As in a header saying something along the lines of, "I am fully enlightened, to the extent that Buddha is claimed to have been and that Jed claims to be" or simply, "I am not enlightened"

What the hell does it mean to be enlightened? What do you enjoy(experience) that "normal people" (I) don't? What does it mean to have attained (gotten) nothing?? What is the difference between our day to day existence? Have you been able to "break out" of physical, three-dimensional reality (this dreamstate where nothing can known to be a part of my imagination or not), can you (your conciousness) "exist" outside of the dreamstate whenever you wish?

The question basically is, Is there a tangible difference between your existence and mine? Or is it just that you have a different perspective on living that has you navigating through life differently than I?

The next question is one that is a little more dangerous for me. So if you are enlightened and blah blah, just tell me what you think I need to hear to get to the truth-realized state (these are jed's coined words for enlightenment, other words he uses to describe enlightenment are "abiding non-dual awareness") If there IS a tangible difference, Is it only arrived at once you've let everything go. As in does surrender come first before the state of enlightenment? Problem that I have is this. Jed and apparently all religions state that victory comes through surrender. I don't know what it means to surrender. What am I surrendering to? Am i surrendering to the fact that any question I can have is something that can't be answered? Obviously right now what's fighting in me, or what's driving is some sort of desire for truth. Am I supposed to say "ahh fuck it, I'm gonna let go of that desire I'm going to let go of trying to find the truth". Problem is, I have a feeling that's what it means, but there's also that other feeling that that's just copping out of the fucking battle. And another reason why an answer to this question could potentially be so dangerous for me, is because I'm "quitting" because of my desire for truth. I'm quitting because I've heard that that's the way to get the truth. Thus "quitting" becomes just another way of finding. But I've gotten to that point so many times where I've just felt like quitting. But problem is I can't, because I feel like it's just me copping out.

I know I'm supposed to be figuring this out for myself, but I feel the first two paragraphs of questions HAVE to be answered first. Those are answers that I can't find by myself. I need some sort of authority on the matter of enlightenment to give it to me. Why? because if it's just a different perspective on life it makes giving up a lot easier, because fuckin A, I'm pretty ok with my perspective as it fucking already is. But if the truth is a tangible difference within or outside the realms of "physically" being, then it makes me know that I am far from truth. I can't answer these things by myself because I am not enlightened. I do not know what the state of enlightment entails.

I'd like as many answers to this question as possible. Apparently what a lot of people think to be enlightenment isn't enlightenment at all. That's why I have this feeling that a lot of you are fooling yourselves. I guess a majority concensus isn't gonna help that feeling. But if there's one truly enlightened person who contradicts all these other claiming to be enlightened people. Maybe they can help to give me a straightforward answer to it. Honestly I'd like to be able to ask Jed himself, but I highly doubt he's on these boards. If he is, help a brother out.

At the end of the road you're apparently supposed to "kill the buddha". I assume that means in matters of stuff like Buddha's "beliefs" on reincarnation. Those things cannot be assumed or taken to be truth from this side of the "fence". Maybe his beliefs are some that he came across when he got to the other side. But as far as I'm concerned I guess buddha isn't really my buddha anyways. Jed is my buddha. So I'm gonna have to "kill Jed". Which from my perspective now would mean to stop hunting for demons and acknowledge that there is no further. Although I can't even say for sure if I've even gone far, or even started going at all. Which ticks me off extremely.

[Animus]

"I am not enlightened"

If one says "I am enlightened" then one has misunderstood what enlightenment is, in my opinion. Enlightenment is a process of expanding one's consciousness. To say one has been "enlightened" suggests they have attained the maximum expansion of consciousness. A Buddhist text I once read said the monk entering Nirvana does not say "I have entered Nirvana" for his mind is already so prepared that he has no such thoughts.

The method of Buddha seems to me to reveal something important about ourselves and reality. That they are one and the same thing. If you could look around at the world without labelling it, without perceiving contours and boundaries you would see the world how it really is. Meditation, focusing on one thing and nothing is a method to indeed "see" the world in such a way. This is not "enlightenment" per se, it is simply part of the path to enlightenment.

Enlightenment is characterized by an expanding consicousness. An expanding consciousness can only mean the ability to experience reality with greater clarity. In mechanistic terminology this would be discovering the natural order. Realizing the influences upon the mind which determine its status. Making these connections enables the mind to mediate the influences.

"Submission" to God or to any other ideal is really a submission of the ego. In Buddhism this is characterized by the realization that the self consists of aggregates and is, at bottom, false. In other words the mind is part of the universe that moves along with the universe.

First realizing that we are not uncaused causers and then realizing what we actually are allows the mind to evolve into something else.

"But," you will say, "I feel free." This is an illusion, that may be compared to that of the fly in the fable,who, lighting upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly, who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it. - Baron D'Holbach

I hope this helps. Others may have different conceptions.

Friede

[divine focus]

I know I'm supposed to be figuring this out for myself, but I feel the first two paragraphs of questions HAVE to be answered first. Those are answers that I can't find by myself. I need some sort of authority on the matter of enlightenment to give it to me. Why? because if it's just a different perspective on life it makes giving up a lot easier, because fuckin A, I'm pretty ok with my perspective as it fucking already is.

Everyone has their own perspective (period). Also, everyone has perspective on the same thing. There is no question of true or false (false is false) but of expansion versus stagnation. Stagnation is also expansion, but very slow.

[Dan Rowden]

McKenna does appear to be a relatively interesting fellow - whomever he really is. Here's a couple of quotes:

... maybe a life of drudgery and carrot-chasing is exactly what we would chose if we did chose, but we don't. That's what it means to be unconscious; to be asleep within the dream. 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. We play the roles we are born to. We don't live our lives, we dispose of them. We throw them away because we don't know any better, and the reason we don't know any better is because we never asked. We never questioned or doubted, never stood up, never drew a line. We never walked up to our parents or our spiritual advisors or our teachers or our gurus or any other formative presences in our early lives and asked one simple, honest, straightforward question, the one question that must be answered before any other question can be asked:

What the hell is going on here?

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.

But what about when people explore their inner selves? Make journeys of self-discovery? Aren't they going within to find the truth?

They're just exploring the ego, making a study of the false self, which is a lifequest as valid as any other. But you don't wake up by perfecting your dream character, you wake up by breaking free of it. There's no truth to the ego, so no degree of mastery over it results in anything true. Putting attention on the false self merely reinforces it.

[Shahrazad]

I like this Jed guy already.

Jed, quoted by Dan:

We never walked up to our parents or our spiritual advisors or our teachers or our gurus or any other formative presences in our early lives and asked one simple, honest, straightforward question, the one question that must be answered before any other question can be asked:

What the hell is going on here?

Why would we ask them that? Do you believe they would've told us the truth?

[Animus]

Oddly though, many of us nagged our parents with the incessant "Why?", "But, Why?", "Yea. but.... why?" and they were unable to divine the truth then either. They'd just get angry.

[rebecca702]

Here is what I think about Jed's method:

Autolysis means self-digestion. You're basically gnawing your own delusions off. I think what he was trying to accomplish with autolysis and "finding your own question" is to get you to find out what makes you uncomfortable. We have all of our tricks to ward off the infinite, but what are our real fears? We have ideas in our minds of what our fears are, but what are they really? So basically (in my opinion) the physical act of autolysis, writing until you know the truth, is to get through these layers of delusion in a shorter time than if you were to just ponder them now and then up in your head. Getting it out on paper gets your whole organism involved, is more an act of war.

I find that reading things that make me very angry are great for this. Because why am I angry? Oh, I guess I have a whole bunch more hidden fears, well what are those all about, etc etc. It is an archaeology project... but what is left when all is said and done? Presumably, nothing is left but Truth. So "you" are done. I don't claim to know because I am still doing this! But at the same time I know that the "I" that thinks it's making progress is the same "I" that is supposedly dying... so there are paradoxes all over the goddamn place.

I don't know what I am talking about. I just wanted to share this info since I thought it was pretty uncanny to see Jed McKenna pop up in two places on the same day:

Jed McKenna (or someone impersonating him) just showed up on the Facebook group called Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment that has been discussing his books and ideas for a few months now... http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic ... 5882735121

[thekid]

Everyone has their own perspective (period). Also, everyone has perspective on the same thing. There is no question of true or false (false is false) but of expansion versus stagnation. Stagnation is also expansion, but very slow.

Follow up-question on expansion and stagnation. Expanding into what? How does one go about expanding? And what would one who is expanding be going through?

Same question applies to stagnatation. How does one go about stagnating? And what would one who is stagnating be going through?

I'm not sure if everyones expansion or stagnation follows in in the exact same suit, but if you could give an example of a certain ego and first set the premises of it. This would be as equally helpful as a general model too. IE. Mr. A was conflicted with his fear of inadequacy. There are many things he wanted to do as a child such as become a musician, but his fear of failure resulted in him working an office job for twenty years of his life. Not wanting to experience the possible humiliation of passionately working towards his music goals to end up failing, he's trudging (If that's even a word) through an unsatisfying deskjob. It seemed to him that his sole purpose of waking up in the morning was to be able to go to sleep at night. That's what he looked forward to most.......Then if you could proceed to explain how he was stagnating, and then explain how he would expand.

So please if possible could you try to come up with premises for any sort of hypothetical individual specimen, and try to explain how he would go about Expanding. What led up to him seeking truth, how he would go about it. And if he were on the path to success what would it look like and how would things have to go? And if he were on the path to fail (in awakening) what would that look like?

Sorry though for asking so much of your effort. Hope you can have fun with it though.

One more question. False is false? Well apples are apples. What is false?

And please call me out on any and all of my bullshit. That would be a great service to me. Thank you.

McKenna does appear to be a relatively interesting fellow - whomever he really is. Here's a couple of quotes:

... maybe a life of drudgery and carrot-chasing is exactly what we would chose if we did chose, but we don't. That's what it means to be unconscious; to be asleep within the dream. 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. We play the roles we are born to. We don't live our lives, we dispose of them. We throw them away because we don't know any better, and the reason we don't know any better is because we never asked. We never questioned or doubted, never stood up, never drew a line. We never walked up to our parents or our spiritual advisors or our teachers or our gurus or any other formative presences in our early lives and asked one simple, honest, straightforward question, the one question that must be answered before any other question can be asked:

What the hell is going on here?

Does he mean only sleeping people don't live by choice? But awake people can make their choices? I know there are going to be contradictions in any reply that can be made here. But I'm beginning to understand a little bit that there is no choice that I can make and it would be better just to fuck it and decide there's no point in even trying to choose anything. Which if that were to play out, would mean I would have to desire/want to not choose anything or any outcome.

The only way I can answer that what the hell is going on here question is. I'm a walking, talking, thinking, perceiving, concious entity. In a certain space. The conciousness that I have is always still and never moves. The only thing that moves are really the surroundings around me. My body transports my conciousness everywhere. But my conciousness is always in the center of the physical space that I can perceive. That's the only thing I can say about what's going on here. Pretty much, I don't fucking know.

Probably I'm misunderstand the quotes and the question. But fuck it.

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.

You know I got into this telling myself that I was going for truth. I mean what good would my life be if I knew that everything was a lie. Nowadays the driving force behind this is, I can't live my life knowing that I'm missing something, that I'm deluding myself.

But recently I've been thinking you know what. Fuck the truth. Fuck enlightenment. I'm sure you've read jed's books so I'm sure you know what he says about "Human Adulthood". At first I thought that wasn't for me, it's all or fucking nothing (I guess I felt that way because I wanted to be done and finished it with, maybe it was partially for an egoic need to be able to say ahahaha motherfuckers I know everything you know nothing and you all are a bunch of fucking fools living life wrongly), but now I'm feeling like that's the better course. I mean I am still a young guy. 20. And fucking A, I mean who the fuck am I kidding? There's still a lot of things within the dreamstate that could amuse me... I think. It appears that enlightenment brings about a certain apprehension towards other people. As in you would prefer to be away from them than with them. Now I'm sure once you're there that's fine and fucking dandy. But hell I'd much rather prefer it if that were to not happen to me. If I could remain myself relatively unattached to people, as in not giving a rats fucking ass about what they thought or how I would need to maintain a relationship with them, but could find myself still enjoying their company. As in enjoying the company of other people, but just as much as liking being alone. I mean I think I would prefer being fine and dandy by myself, rather than only being fine and dandy amongst the presence of others. But is having the best of both worlds trying to "have your cake and eat it too?"

Jed says anything you can imagine accomplishing from spiritual pursuits can be had from the state of human adulthood (not a direct quote, so don't really take this as what he claims to be fact. I'm assuming that he means any sort of personal goal such as say making a billion dollars, but PLEASE tell me if I'm understanding that wrong). I figure it would be wiser to enter into this state for at least the good part of my youth, and then if I get bored of all the nice things and nice achievements (which I probably will) than I could finish myself up and be done with it when im 35-50.

But, like your first quote said. I don't know if I have the luxury of choosing between the two. (It's hard to stop investigating if you feel like there's something else to know. Feel that there is a further to go.) Maybe I've gone past the point of no return. Or fucking A. Maybe I'm just another one of those spiritual jerkoffs (Something I fear that I might be).

But what about when people explore their inner selves? Make journeys of self-discovery? Aren't they going within to find the truth?

They're just exploring the ego, making a study of the false self, which is a lifequest as valid as any other. But you don't wake up by perfecting your dream character, you wake up by breaking free of it. There's no truth to the ego, so no degree of mastery over it results in anything true. Putting attention on the false self merely reinforces it.

Now this is the part about Jed that confuses me. He says to write all your thoughts, figure out what's true. Blah Blah. I mean what's the difference between studying your ego (finding where all your fears are coming from) and destroying it. He says that putting your attention and realizing the irrationality of your fears is what you have to "see" to get past it and move beyond it. Once again my understanding maybe flawed so shed light on that please.

Autolysis means self-digestion. You're basically gnawing your own delusions off. I think what he was trying to accomplish with autolysis and "finding your own question" is to get you to find out what makes you uncomfortable. We have all of our tricks to ward off the infinite, but what are our real fears? We have ideas in our minds of what our fears are, but what are they really? So basically (in my opinion) the physical act of autolysis, writing until you know the truth, is to get through these layers of delusion in a shorter time than if you were to just ponder them now and then up in your head. Getting it out on paper gets your whole organism involved, is more an act of war.

So how is this different from "exploring the ego, making a study of the false self"?

[rebecca702]

So how is this different from "exploring the ego, making a study of the false self"?

Well, that's a great question, and I think that's where you have to study your motives. Are you doing the writing because you know your self is false? Or are you doing it because you want to better yourself? If you were just doing it to understand your fears, and your childhood traumas, and figure out what your neuroses are, so you can be more functional, then obviously you're making a study of the false self. But if you're actively dispelling erroneous beliefs as they appear, seeing fears come up and then immediately seeing through them, I think you're doing autolysis.

[Dan Rowden]

There's a difference between exploration and relinquishment. Lots of people go on journeys of self-exploration with the idea of ridding themselves of certain things, but what are those certain things? They are merely those things that bring sorrow or a bad reputation with others or some other self-validating motive. Look at the New Age movement - you couldn't get a better example of this sort of dynamic. It has nothing to do with self-examination in order to discover the false, but merely the inconvenient and troublesome. Such people never try to rid themselves of love and humility and empathy and the panoply of psychological traits that are as much a product of the ego as evil, greed, anger, hate etc etc.

McKenna is really just saying that psychoanalysis is not philosophy.

[rebecca702]

Thanks for that Dan, and you bring up a good point.

How many New Agers would lash out at you if you said, "love is evil." I think this all ties in with the masculine/feminine thing. The feminine wants to believe that nothing needs to be done except to rid yourself of the negative traits and bask in the ocean of love and peace that's there waiting for you.

Psychoanalysis is not philosophy. I was watching your video about "Philosophy is not for the faint of heart" and it seems your one-line definition of philosophy would be the pursuit of Truth. Would you also phrase that in the negative? The killing of the untrue?

[thekid]

validation of our own self-image is what we're all about? What we all do at all times? Which is why I'm posting on this board to validate to myself that I'm a questioner. I mean no disrespect but aren't you (dan) doing the same thing except taking on the role of wise see-er and know-er of all? Well that's what your ego is doing is it not? I mean you're helping people find the truth, because you want them to experience the profound reality that you have entered into? Wouldn't that be validation by veneration (respect from other posters and questioners)? But I assume you have no attachment to this board? Or perhaps you're not enlightened? And instead of taking a guru gimmick you've decided that you'll take on the wise-guy this ain't no bullshit, buddha's rotting head stuff, because it seems to you less common and more plausible than wishy washy heart stuff?

But we'll assume that you are in fact enlightened, I mean it seems you are quite knowledgable and you are well-versed in philosophy from all corners of the world. I mean you and I, we both have egos. I am here probing this board seeing how far along I am, if I'm doing things rightly. Perhaps I'm trying to find comfort in the fact that there are other people here. Also hoping that someone could help lend a clue and speeden up the process. Or perhaps contemplating ending this little farce. Perhaps it just gives me something to do, somewhere to ponder aloud. You on the other hand are helping people discover the truth? Perhaps this board helps you convince yourself that you are in full knowledge of the truth? Obviously this is possible is it not? But you are enlightened so you can explain the difference between you and I? And you'll say something like "I'm detached from my ego". As in "I have no invested interest in what the hell this ego does?" As in your ego has no emotional effect on you? You just let it play like you're watching a crappy movie, not really caring what the hell happens to you. Like I said, this isn't an attack, just a clarification, sorry though perhaps you've answered this sort of thing a couple hundred times already. But I mean is that whole detachment from the ego the only difference between you and I?

My original question still remains but let me rephrase it. In one of Jed's poems, "I can destroy the universe with a thought." Have you elected not to answer for my benefit and the benefit of others? Or do you have no idea what the hell he is talking about? And in Incorrect he's talking about the breakout archetype and he explains why it's undiscovered; From the viewpoint of caterpillars the break-out archetype is interesting in theory but not plausible because you can't break out of reality. and then he says "Where would you go?" insinuating that you can break out and i guess implying that he himself has. and from that line in his poem i assume he can "leave" the universe (physical reality) with a thought?

This whole thing is mind boggling. It's sad I mean I would so love to quit. But these thoughts keep coming at me. And I can't stop. Maybe it's just that I won't stop. Or don't have enough things to do in reality so I need to keep myself doing this to make me feel like I'm doing something important. Maybe I do this to keep myself from feeling like the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, the biggest piece of shit in the world? Maybe I'm saying hey assholes sure I aint in college, sure I ain't making a lot of money, but hahha motherfuckers I'm going for truth. Something so important that you assholes can't even begin to comprehend it. I mean sincerely. Why the hell would anyone else go for truth?

Is this whole thing just about loving yourself without the aid of any non-self forces (job, people)? I mean is that fucking it? I mean people need romantic relationships so they can say to themselves hey if this so and so person loves me, then I got reason to love myself. I get a crazy salary and people have to listen to me, im important, thus I can love myself? Is that where the error in ego is? Having non-self forces being the basis for how much you deserve to love yourself? Is that what this destroying the ego is? Cutting out the middle men and deciding that your love for yourself is independant of everything fucking else. And then deciding that since the word truth is so arbitrary it can apply to everything and nothing so its something that can never be lost, thus being the only thing permanent, readily available, and free, thus being the only thing you can base your love of yourself on for all eternity? Is that what it is at the end for an ego? I have truth so I can love myself? I can never lose truth so I can never stop loving myself?? And of course "myself" ends up translating into "universe", "everything", "life", "no-self"? Yeah, I'm talking out of my ass. but hey I thought it was fun.

I've had this suspicion that perhaps this search for truth is my way of escaping reality. As in my way of saying you know what fuck it, I don't need to work my ass off to get a respectable job, I don't need money. Hey this truth thing is better than all that. This truth thing is what's really important. All the rest of that stuff is bullshit. But maybe this search for truth is rooted in the fact that I'm afraid to go out into the world where things appear to be out of my hands. Where my success is contingent on how good I am in comparison to others and how well received i am and judged by others. Maybe I'm too afraid to work my ass off and find out that I'm no good and that compared to other people I'm a no-good talent less bum? Truth sounded like a viable route out of heading down a path where success can be measured quantitatively. Is that what this search is? I mean Miss Rebecca can you tell me about your little search? I mean what else could possibly be your motive. I mean this sounds completely logical and plausible to me, but perhaps I'm not seeing the honor and courage in anything I'm doing. (maybe thats because it's not)

Sounds like I'm whining here. But you know what I'm just gonna say that I'm clarifying so it makes this message sound somewhat important. I mean the closest you can get to truth is this moment is it not? What else could it possible be? I mean how complicated is that? I mean any thought, any word is bullshit, because I'm creating it so it has no existence by itself right? And even this moment has no existence by itself because without me there would be no fucking moment or let's say any knowledge of a moment (like sleep). So essentially by perceiving something, I am creating/the creator of it?? no? Well I guess it could be a yes or could be a no. Thus meaning that this moment isn't even true (.00000001% of false is completely false?). Thus equalling the fact that I am only true. But then BOOM if my conciousness can't exist without everything else within this moment ie, body, space. (which through my experience can't unless I'm asleep) I am this moment, thus I am everything, blah blah, yada yada? ......Unless of course there is a way to break out of reality...and experience conciousness without reality?

"Truth has no confines" "Freedom" "His delusion creates the walls and ceilings of his cell" What else could it possibly be mean?

If none of you know what the hell he's talking about does that mean you are one of those 9999/10000 who think they're enlightened, but aren't? Who believe they're free, but aren't?

Or is Jed plain and simple a bullshit guy?

Or Have I misunderstood?

or Have you misunderstood?

Sorry, a blanket accusation of this board is my ego's way of making itself feel like it's not inferior to the rest of you enlightened folk and that it doesn't have anything to learn from you folk. my egos need to sound intelligent and thought provoking. hitting the ball hard back into your court. Or actually perhaps its just an innocent question.

[Animus]

I broke my Rock Band kick pedal last night. I wasn't even playing it, just resting my foot on it.

My first reaction was "That does happen?" because I read about it. My second "Well that just proves its impermanence".

And at least I broke it so no one feels the compulsion to apologize. Of course I knew all along that something of this nature would eventually happen. So. while it was entertaining at the time, it's now gone and that can't be changed. Such is life.

http://www.cnet.com.au/i/r/2007/games/J ... -pedal.jpg

[Shahrazad]

thekid,

Why the hell would anyone else go for truth?

I have asked Dan this question before, and his reply is that he has no choice. It is not a hobby, it is his whole life. He cannot stop, just like you said you cannot. IMO, you belong here.

I've had this suspicion that perhaps this search for truth is my way of escaping reality. As in my way of saying you know what fuck it, I don't need to work my ass off to get a respectable job, I don't need money.

You're not escaping reality; you're escaping the conventional paradigm. At your age, I did not escape the paradigm. I was probably afraid to starve. And probably also to be seen as a loser.

Conventional success is greatly overrated, thekid. It does not bring you happiness. Don't feel guilty for not going for it.

[Dan Rowden]

[...]I was watching your video about "Philosophy is not for the faint of heart" and it seems your one-line definition of philosophy would be the pursuit of Truth. Would you also phrase that in the negative? The killing of the untrue?

I should say for the sake of this thread that I have not read any of McKenna's books, but have only seen a smattering of quotes. What I did like about his approach is that he approaches things from the point of view of dismantling the false, rather than a search for what is true. The reason I like that way of speaking of things, even though it isn't necessary the only way to do so, is that it's a constant reminder that the path is indeed one of dismantling and relinquishing the false. People need to be reminded of that all the time otherwise they can cling to their seemingly trivial falsities in the midst of their discoveries of the true. Those clung to "trivialities" eventually become a whole bag of bullshit that weighs them down and brings their journey to an eventual halt, or at least greatly slows it.

You can't hope to fly higher if you're not prepared to cast off the flotsam and jetsam.

[Dan Rowden]

validation of our own self-image is what we're all about? What we all do at all times?

Where the ego is present, it makes its nature felt in most of what we think and do. You'll find ego in almost every thought and judgement, if you know what to look for. But that state of affairs is not absolutely or inevitably true for us. It's possible for us to cast aside the delusions of the ego, upon which time our thoughts and actions take on a different character.

Which is why I'm posting on this board to validate to myself that I'm a questioner.

That may or may not be the specific motive, but where ego is present, it is largely driving the bus. This is unavoidable. The search and desire for truth - or anything - initially arises from egotistical forces. This is true for everyone. It's just how it has to be given that we develop as ego-based entities. Because it's inevitable, it doesn't really matter. One can acknowledge this fact then move on.

I mean no disrespect but aren't you (dan) doing the same thing except taking on the role of wise see-er and know-er of all? Well that's what your ego is doing is it not?

Only to the extent that there's still some ego present. Mostly it is just my nature to do this. It's like the natural momentum of an object through space. This is a crap analogy, but it'll do on the run: think of it like a spaceship that's been launched; the ego is the rocket propulsion. The ship goes because of that propulsion, but eventually the rockets are cast adrift and the ship continues on its natural course. All courses are initially directed by our egotistical nature.

It's one of the ironies of the spiritual and philosophical path that the course to the true is set in motion by the false. It's just how it is.

I mean you're helping people find the truth, because you want them to experience the profound reality that you have entered into?

Not really. My motive isn't as altruistic as that. My aim is really just to propagate wisdom and help it survive. I don't really care about people that much. Or, not more than I care about dogs and cats and periwinkles.

Wouldn't that be validation by veneration (respect from other posters and questioners)? But I assume you have no attachment to this board?

To be honest, the only attachment to this place I feel these days is a sort of administrative sense of duty, which is nevertheless an attachment. But I don't give a shit what people here think of me personally. I got over that sort of nonsense - with people in general - long ago.

The board and other various activities are simply a means to and end, that of the propagation of wisdom. Why do I have that purpose? Because it most authentically expresses my nature.

Or perhaps you're not enlightened? And instead of taking a guru gimmick you've decided that you'll take on the wise-guy this ain't no bullshit, buddha's rotting head stuff, because it seems to you less common and more plausible than wishy washy heart stuff?

I take the positions I take because I know they are true. There is no affectation in what I do at all. I cannot stand spiritual affectation.

But we'll assume that you are in fact enlightened,

You don't have to assume any such thing. Indeed, I would encourage you not to. It's a bad way to think of people. I'm a source of potentially useful data; no more, no less.

I mean it seems you are quite knowledgable and you are well-versed in philosophy from all corners of the world. I mean you and I, we both have egos. I am here probing this board seeing how far along I am, if I'm doing things rightly. Perhaps I'm trying to find comfort in the fact that there are other people here.

That's probably true. But, look, it's understandable. It's something to be moved past, of course, but it's still understandable. Just consider why you need to feel that you're not alone. It's important to face that because at some point you simply have to be alone.

Also hoping that someone could help lend a clue and speeden up the process.

The speed at which you develop is really up to you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink through more straws than it can fit in its mouth.

Or perhaps contemplating ending this little farce.

What farce? Life? Life is not a farce. It's farcical to think of life that way.

Perhaps it just gives me something to do, somewhere to ponder aloud. You on the other hand are helping people discover the truth?

That's the idea. But we're at different stages. Yours is yours. Forget what I'm doing and look to yourself.

Perhaps this board helps you convince yourself that you are in full knowledge of the truth? Obviously this is possible is it not?

Hahaha. Er, no. The board was created on the basis of that conviction. It remains unaffected by the board's existence and history.

But you are enlightened so you can explain the difference between you and I?

You need that explained?

And you'll say something like "I'm detached from my ego". As in "I have no invested interest in what the hell this ego does?"

I wouldn't say that because there's no such thing as being detached from your ego. Attachment is ego; attachment arises from ego; attachment is a primary facet of egotistical function.

As in your ego has no emotional effect on you?

No, it's that the ego is no longer present. It is not that the ego no longer affects/effects you. Ego is simply false thinking, a false conceptual construction. Emotions, as we conventionally understand them, arise from this false construction.

You just let it play like you're watching a crappy movie, not really caring what the hell happens to you.

I care in the sense that what best facilitates my purpose is what I put value on, and therefore I avoid what doesn't. But I don't care what happens from an egotistical point of view because I do not cling to any particular state of affairs. Reality just unfolds as it must.

Like I said, this isn't an attack, just a clarification, sorry though perhaps you've answered this sort of thing a couple hundred times already.

Hey, I'm machine. It's my programming :)

But I mean is that whole detachment from the ego the only difference between you and I?

More or less, yes. But it's no minor thing. Non-attachment is the absence of delusion.

My original question still remains but let me rephrase it. In one of Jed's poems, "I can destroy the universe with a thought." Have you elected not to answer for my benefit and the benefit of others? Or do you have no idea what the hell he is talking about?

Well, I'm pretty busy at the moment. As for Jed, I think I'd have to see the whole poem to know what he means.

And in Incorrect he's talking about the breakout archetype and he explains why it's undiscovered; From the viewpoint of caterpillars the break-out archetype is interesting in theory but not plausible because you can't break out of reality. and then he says "Where would you go?" insinuating that you can break out and i guess implying that he himself has. and from that line in his poem i assume he can "leave" the universe (physical reality) with a thought?

I doubt he means anything like that. As I said in another post, I've not read his books and so my understanding of his views is limited to various excerpts I've seen. My sense is he's just talking about the delusional dreamstate. You certainly can't break out of Reality, though you can abide in a delusional version of it and break out of that.

This whole thing is mind boggling. It's sad I mean I would so love to quit. But these thoughts keep coming at me. And I can't stop. Maybe it's just that I won't stop. Or don't have enough things to do in reality so I need to keep myself doing this to make me feel like I'm doing something important. Maybe I do this to keep myself from feeling like the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, the biggest piece of shit in the world?

All of that is possible. Or, it could simply be that you're built this way and have little natural talent for egotistical living.

Maybe I'm saying hey assholes sure I aint in college, sure I ain't making a lot of money, but hahha motherfuckers I'm going for truth. Something so important that you assholes can't even begin to comprehend it. I mean sincerely. Why the hell would anyone else go for truth?

Funny, I never thought that way - comparing myself to others like that. I spent a considerable time in a conventional existence, only to find I just wasn't really cut out for it, that it couldn't bring my anything. Thinking and philosophy was just in my blood. I realised it was that or nothing at all. You might want to seriously consider if philosophy is really in your blood or if those other motives are what is driving you.

Is this whole thing just about loving yourself without the aid of any non-self forces (job, people)?

No, it's not about that. It's about understanding why people, and oneself, need those other forces in the first place. Thereafter, going beyond such need. There's no self to love.

I mean is that fucking it? I mean people need romantic relationships so they can say to themselves hey if this so and so person loves me, then I got reason to love myself. I get a crazy salary and people have to listen to me, im important, thus I can love myself? Is that where the error in ego is?

Yes, in part. But the thing is to examine how ego functions and therefore why those dynamics occur. I don't have time to go into that just now, but that's where you need to search for understanding - how ego functions.

Having non-self forces being the basis for how much you deserve to love yourself?

I know it seems pretty fucked up, but think about it - doesn't self exist in relation and comparison to "not-self"? Therefore, wouldn't it seem reasonable that self would go looking for comparison and relation so as to validate its own existence, worth etc?

Is that what this destroying the ego is? Cutting out the middle men and deciding that your love for yourself is independant of everything fucking else.

No, it's no that. That would just be a flight into narcissism. Wisdom is dispensing with the delusions of the self.

I've had this suspicion that perhaps this search for truth is my way of escaping reality.

It's borne of a flight from suffering, certainly, but it's hardly a flight from reality. You may find the first part of this dialogue from an old radio series interesting:
Hour of Judgement

As in my way of saying you know what fuck it, I don't need to work my ass off to get a respectable job, I don't need money. Hey this truth thing is better than all that. This truth thing is what's really important. All the rest of that stuff is bullshit.

Without truth, who can say what is and is not bullshit? That's what makes truth important. Without it, one's judgements are worthless.

But maybe this search for truth is rooted in the fact that I'm afraid to go out into the world where things appear to be out of my hands. Where my success is contingent on how good I am in comparison to others and how well received i am and judged by others. Maybe I'm too afraid to work my ass off and find out that I'm no good and that compared to other people I'm a no-good talent less bum? Truth sounded like a viable route out of heading down a path where success can be measured quantitatively. Is that what this search is?

All of that is entirely possible. But, only you can determine this. The way to determine it is by considering the dedication and desire you bring to the search for that truth. If you don't approach it with absolute conviction, then it's highly likely that your ideas about why you're doing are correct. But even then, stick with it, it may grow on you.

Sounds like I'm whining here.

Yeah, it's a bit whiny, but it's pretty honest whining, so that's ok.

But you know what I'm just gonna say that I'm clarifying so it makes this message sound somewhat important. I mean the closest you can get to truth is this moment is it not?

It can also be the furthermost away you can get. Depends on how you understand, "this moment".

What else could it possible be? I mean how complicated is that? I mean any thought, any word is bullshit, because I'm creating it so it has no existence by itself right? And even this moment has no existence by itself because without me there would be no fucking moment or let's say any knowledge of a moment (like sleep). So essentially by perceiving something, I am creating/the creator of it?? no? Well I guess it could be a yes or could be a no.

Or neither.

Thus meaning that this moment isn't even true (.00000001% of false is completely false?). Thus equalling the fact that I am only true. But then BOOM if my conciousness can't exist without everything else within this moment ie, body, space. (which through my experience can't unless I'm asleep) I am this moment, thus I am everything, blah blah, yada yada? ......Unless of course there is a way to break out of reality...and experience conciousness without reality?

Consciousness without reality? I can't make sense of that.

Or is Jed plain and simple a bullshit guy?

Can't say for sure without reading his actual books. What I've seen makes me think of him as passingly interesting at least. But, he doesn't really matter anyway. You know that, right?

[thekid]

Can't say for sure without reading his actual books. What I've seen makes me think of him as passingly interesting at least. But, he doesn't really matter anyway. You know that, right?

Just went through a quick-read through of all you had to say. Just skimmed through it. So I might have more later on for you.

I guess conceptually im aware that he doesn't matter, but perhaps theres some sort of deep seeded ego dependance. But anyways, that doesn't really bother me as of now. Maybe it should. I pretty much take into consideration any reason why I could be doing something. I mean I "believe" my search is pretty honest, but I realize it could all just be self-deceit.

But you (as well as everyone else) should read his books. Not because you need to learn something from them, but simply because they're hilarious. And I'm sure their hilarity would be more appreciated by someone who is standing in his shoes. I mean he basically insults me (ego) over and over again, but somehow I can't help but like the guy. It's worth the 75 bucks to order all three. The comical value of it will probably have you read it through plenty more times than once. Or maybe you won't like it at all.

[Dan Rowden]

I doubt I'll be spending the money. But if any of the books happen to end up online I'll read them.

[guest_of_logic]

I originally composed what follows intending to post it here, but I postponed that posting and instead PMed it to thekid. I wasn't sure that GF was the right place to be sharing these insights publicly - they're quite out of synch with the prevailing views. In the end I decided that it was worth the risk. Here follows my contribution to this thread...

I am not enlightened. I've seen a lot though, I have some of the answers, and I also have some speculations. I hope that this post clarifies a few things for other seekers. At the very least, I hope that you find it interesting.

One of the most important things to realise is that reality is not benign. It is a spiritual battleground. This is a difficult realisation to have, because there are forces that go to incredible lengths to prevent us from having it. One way to achieve it is through mind-altering drugs like marijuana and LSD, but this is a perilous dual-edged sword and I highly discourage their use.

It's essential to realise how high the stakes are. Maya is neither accidental nor random. We are being deliberately deceived, and the consequences of failure are unimaginable. We who inhabit forums such as this one, and who read authors such as Jed (I have not read more of him than the article on Buddhism that Dan posted a link to in a prior thread), we who are haunted by the questions "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?", are the few who have an inkling that we are being fooled, and that full realisation is absolutely imperative. It's therefore important that we share our insights with one another.

Some of you probably read my assertion that reality is a spiritual battleground and thought to yourselves, "Oh boy, this guy's gone off the deep end." Right? I understand that. Most people have difficulty realising that we are in the middle of a spiritual war. Up until a few years ago I wouldn't have believed it myself. But then I started noticing things. The start of the process of realisation was recognising the depths of the meaning behind our words. We're all familiar with devices such as puns, where a sentence has a double meaning, or satire, where the ostensible meaning of a narrative is actually a symbolic commentary on another issue. It's possible, though, to enter certain states of awareness where one perceives the deeper, more symbolic meanings of every sentence that is uttered. In this state it's frightening to realise the depths of the multiple meanings of everything that we say, and their interrelatedness. This is one way in which the war is waged. We think that we're saying one thing, but we're completely oblivious to the actual, deeper meanings and spiritual effects of our words. Words are weapons and instruments. They wound or they heal; they free us or they manipulate us deeper into the illusion; they gift us with energy or they steal energy from us.

I believe that enlightenment is real, but I also believe that most people are confused as to what it actually is. They think that it's some sort of paradox involving the realisation that the self doesn't actually exist. If you think about it, it's pretty obvious that this is complete nonsense. Consciousness itself implies, entails, requires and necessitates a self. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking clearly, much like the Christian who denies the fact that the problem of evil definitively proves that their conception of God is false. Enlightenment is not the (false) realisation that the self doesn't exist, it is (in part) the realisation of what the self actually is.

What I'm about to say can be interpreted in (at least) two ways: literally or as a metaphor. I favour a literal interpretation, but if it's easier for you, then please consider it metaphorical.

The archetypal image of a person with a devil whispering in one ear and an angel whispering in the other points to a serious truth. To the best of my understanding, the self is for the most part an instrument through which two opposing forces express themselves. The true extent of our will is far less than it seems. Primarily the task of our will is to choose which force we allow to express itself through us. With this understanding in mind, what then is enlightenment? In a nutshell, to be enlightened is to have fully chosen God: to be completely aligned with the divine, to have "surrendered" to God's will. A clue that this is the correct interpretation of the concept lies in the structure of the word, whose basis is "light": it is often said that God is light, and to be enlightened is to be fully filled with God's light. Now as I said, I'm not enlightened, so I don't know what this actually feels like. I have a few ideas about what it involves though. Before presenting those, though, I'd like to share an experience that might help to explain what I'm on about.

Early in this century, I was living in a share house in Sydney with some great guys. One of them in particular made a lot of effort to extend the hand of friendship to me, and I was deeply touched by his efforts. One day a room became available in the share house of a close friend from university, with whom I'd planned to share a house several years earlier, and I decided that I'd like to change houses. As I was saying goodbye to the flatmate who had extended the hand of friendship so graciously to me, I observed something very disturbing in myself. I was making to him what on the surface seemed to be the usual parting remarks, and I was intent on saying something positive, but I was at the same time privy through some working of my mind to the deeper meaning of my words, and I was horror-struck to find that I was actually insulting him with a cold rejection. The possibility that my decision to move house was in fact based on a decision to reject this warm soul occurred to me. Now I like to think of myself as a fundamentally caring and good person, but experiences like that convince me that the extent to which I control my own mind is actually very limited, and that there is a force working through me that is fundamentally opposed to my desire to be a loving person.

Of course a critic might argue: there's no need to posit external forces; it's all internal - we each have a subconscious with unplumbed depths that occasionally influences our behaviour in opposition to our conscious intent. And I can't definitively prove that this interpretation is wrong. All that I can tell you is that I have experienced things (which I don't want to share here) that convince me that it is wrong. I'm not saying that the subconscious is non-existent, what I am saying is that the subconscious is not the whole story. For those interested in exploring this idea, try playing with the question "What is (are) the source(s) of my thoughts, desires and motivations?"

To become enlightened, then, is to completely close the door to the malevolent directors, and to completely open the door to divinity. Those who are enlightened use words skillfully; they are aware of all of the deeper meanings of what they're saying and their words heal, energise and uplift on all levels, because in actuality it is not them speaking, but God. Their actions, too, are based around helping other people in general, and leading them to enlightenment in particular.

I'll repeat that I am not enlightened, so there are a few things about this state that remain a mystery to me. For example: is it possible to be enlightened and to not even realise it? In other words, are there some people who express God's will completely, but who don't ever even think about God? And: is it possible to "fall from grace"; to reopen the wrong doors?

The big mystery to me though is whether enlightenment involves realising the ultimate answers to the aforementioned questions: "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?" I loosely speculate that there are stages to enlightenment, and that perhaps the final stage occurs when one not only fully expresses God's will, but figuratively "returns" to God - in other words, one loses one's personal consciousness and merges with God-consciousness, literally becoming God, whereupon one necessarily knows the answer to these questions, except that one no longer exists as a separate entity: this is, of course, in a very real way, death, because the separate, personal self no longer exists. I suspect that this is why enlightenment is often said to be the death of the self: the consciousness-energy of the self still exists, but the self does not, because it joins the energy of God-consciousness, and no longer has a separate existence.

And what about the reverse? Are there those who do not choose God, but who definitively choose (or are overpowered by) His opposite? I believe that this is possible, and I suspect that it has occurred to a significant extent. These souls are not always easy to detect, because they are masters of the arts of deception and concealment. I suspect that one possible indicator of such a soul is a feeling of being drained around the person, a feeling that you are losing energy, and where the person exhibits an arrogant, smug, or victorious attitude, although I also believe that there can be other reasons for feeling drained around particular people - for example they might be drained themselves and needy for energy from other people, whilst not having fundamentally succumbed, and still struggling to realise themselves.

So how does one achieve enlightenment? I am not entirely sure, but I suspect that the best path is to meditate in complete stillness with a sincere intention to know God. I suspect that maya is primarily a deliberate attempt to distract us from this path; an attempt to lead us away from God. "Buy these products to make yourself happy; set out on a career to satisfy your need for success; travel for pleasure" - in other words, "Focus on your individual, separate ego and forget about the path to God".

I suspect that there will be those amongst you who are thinking "This just isn't the way that the world works - notions of good, evil, God, the Devil, and spiritual warfare are naive, simplistic and delusional".

And that's exactly what your enemy wants you to think.

[rebecca702]

My original question still remains but let me rephrase it. In one of Jed's poems, "I can destroy the universe with a thought." Have you elected not to answer for my benefit and the benefit of others? Or do you have no idea what the hell he is talking about? And in Incorrect he's talking about the breakout archetype and he explains why it's undiscovered; From the viewpoint of caterpillars the break-out archetype is interesting in theory but not plausible because you can't break out of reality. and then he says "Where would you go?" insinuating that you can break out and i guess implying that he himself has. and from that line in his poem i assume he can "leave" the universe (physical reality) with a thought?

Okay let me take a crack at this. :o) I read his books but I don't own the first 2. So maybe you could post the poem? I would be curious. I think what he is saying is that with a single thought you can destroy the truth (obfuscate, muddy the prism)... because truth is prior to thoughts, and the "self" is made up of them and nothing else. The fabric of the dreamscape is these deluded thoughts. So you destroy your chance of seeing clearly with your wrong-thinking. Perhaps he is using it in a different context, but that is my first reaction to that line.

When he is talking about the break-out archetype... "you can't break out of reality" is what the caterpillars think, yes. But that's what he would call "consensual reality" (the dreamscape), which of course is not reality at all! (Gotta love all the Jed lingo)... But here is where the Moby Dick metaphor comes in I think. The white whale is the wall that Ahab (the break-out archetype) can't see past, but he knows he's gotta pierce through it. He knows he's got his eyes shut, and in order to open them he's going to have to do this act of violence.

This is where those suicidal feelings come in, for me at least. You disgust yourself, you know you're false and all your ideas are wrong, and it's YOU that has to die. So what are you? Well, when you try to define yourself you only come up with the ego.

"Where would you go?" - I think the opposite of what you stated is true. There's nowhere to go, literally. When the false dies, the truth is left. I think he's using this question in the same way Ramana Maharshi used it when his disciples were bitching and moaning about how he was going to die: "They take this body for Bhagavan and attribute suffering to him. What a pity! They are despondent that Bhagavan is going to leave them and go away, but where would I go? I am here."

Maybe I'm too afraid to work my ass off and find out that I'm no good and that compared to other people I'm a no-good talent less bum? Truth sounded like a viable route out of heading down a path where success can be measured quantitatively. Is that what this search is? I mean Miss Rebecca can you tell me about your little search? I mean what else could possibly be your motive. I mean this sounds completely logical and plausible to me, but perhaps I'm not seeing the honor and courage in anything I'm doing. (maybe thats because it's not)

You know, Jed talks quite a bit about nourishing your discontent... and developing a healthy self-loathing. It's a tricky topic. He talked to Lisa about it in the 3rd book: he said she connected with her deep-seated un-ease about life, she broke out of her situation, and basically fired all her guns. Now she's broken through one layer of the delusion, but she's got further to go.

You asked what my motive is. I am constantly finding wrong motives - but then, all motives are wrong. How can there be success when there is nobody there to enjoy it? So I can only say that I'm doing this autolysis and this "work" because it's too uncomfortable to not do it. It's like Jed says, a clawing madness to stop living a lie. You have to be willing for the whole world to see you as crazy. So much better for them, if they are content to live the lie. But we are not content. So it's not like there's more honor in one route or the other. Honor or courage or success has nothing to do with it.

Please refute me if you think I'm wrong.

[Animus]

I found that I was my own worst enemy. It was never so much that others were laying down false or misleading paths, it was that I misinterpreted the paths and thus led myself a stray.

Whenever I exposed myself to Buddhism I gathered some of the methods, but when it came to meditation, reincarnation, rebirth, and the like I interpreted them to be supernatural. Whether or not the speaker/writer intended it to be interpreted as such.

The same happened with Jesus. Once I looked at it with a new light, I saw that the message was there all along, it was me who couldn't see it. Now granted probably most of those evangelical types haven't a clue about the truth.

Point was all along it was I who couldn't see because I imagined supernatural and unintelligible properties to the poetic allegory of the scripture. Thus I set myself up to reject it as utter nonsense and allow it no further thought.

Know they self.

[Dan Rowden]

This is worth listening to. Anyone attracting that sort of response is very likely saying something true:

Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment

[Iolaus]

Hey Kid,

Jed McKenna's first two books are great, he definitely understanads his topic. I suspect he's wrong about some of the things he says, very few really, but the fact that he cannot be found is disturbring to me, loses him some credibility. I can't decide if he is for real or not.

So many of the things he says in his books ring true for me, have occured to me, or happened to me. I've got his books all marked up and have read through them probably four times. No doubt about it, he has helped me tremendously. And I do think I understand him very well.

Your posts so far are lengthy and I don't know where to begin.

Oh, I'm not enlightened, no. I fear death.

I do think I have achieved, more or less, his human adulthood, and it is pretty wonderful. I do not feel antsy about enlightenment.

There's still a lot of things within the dreamstate that could amuse me... I think. It appears that enlightenment brings about a certain apprehension towards other people. As in you would prefer to be away from them than with them.

This is an area where I suspect he's bullshitting. He often says he mostly doesn't want to be around people, but then you notice in his books that he is around them a lot, socializes very normally, and often has nice women around, including one or two that are enlightened or nearly so, and yet he has no more desire to be around them than the sleepwalkers. I find it odd that he does not seem to want a sexual relationship, at least with a woman on his level.

The only way I can answer that what the hell is going on here question is. I'm a walking, talking, thinking, perceiving, concious entity. In a certain space. The conciousness that I have is always still and never moves. The only thing that moves are really the surroundings around me. My body transports my conciousness everywhere. But my conciousness is always in the center of the physical space that I can perceive. That's the only thing I can say about what's going on here. Pretty much, I don't fucking know.

But you have already begun to question, if only because of his books. Certainly at your age, I had no such question! It did not occur to me to wonder if anything was other than what it appeared. This is one of the things that occured to me a couple of years before reading his books, that I suddenly realized that no one has any idea, as I put it - where we are, what we are, who we are, or why we are. Where is this planet? What is a human being? What the hell kind of thing am I, and where are we? Having sunlight, seeing various objects, this gives us the illusion that there is something stationary, something real, a compass point, a north star. But that is an illusion. None of it really means anything. It's just a kaleidoscope in the middle of nowhere. If anything is going on, we have no idea what it is. You notice that Jed can't answer the question. He poses it as a question that we definitely need to see, to understand our bizarre situation, but he does not know the answer, and says we cannot know. I agree that in our present state, we cannot know. But I have hope that it needn't necessarily be like this. You don't have to answer the question, you just need to see the question, and to realize your state of ignorance.

Maybe I do this to keep myself from feeling like the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, the biggest piece of shit in the world? Maybe I'm saying hey assholes sure I aint in college, sure I ain't making a lot of money, but hahha motherfuckers I'm going for truth.

Is that how you tend to feel? If that is the case, you've got a long road ahead. Feeling like a piece of shit is a big waste of time, and its completely untrue, so a double waste of time. You are not different, no better or worse, than anyone else, nor is anyone. We are all the same. I picked up this great little book of zen quotes, and one of them said:

Overcoming your passions is not nirvana.
Considering them as no affair of yours, that is nirvana.

Let the bullshit go. Don't agonize over yourself, compare yourself, or judge others. (In this I disagree most strongly with many members of this board.) It's all irrelevant. Everyone's personal story is poignant to themselves, and its really interesting and fun that we are each unique and have a unique path to awakening, but we are looking for the true essence beneath all this, which is just endless stories. Are you a worthless piece of shit? Irrelevant! Of no importance!

Well, I love his books and it's nice to find someone who has read them.

But no, don't buy the third.

[thekid]

Hey Kid,

the fact that he cannot be found is disturbring to me, loses him some credibility. I can't decide if he is for real or not.

Doesn't really matter to me, I mean who gives a shit if he had a face with his name. Wouldn't change anything about what he knows or what he wrote. But that's just an egoic opinion. "Look at me, Look at my pretty opinion. I'll like yours if you like mine" hahahaha. But to each his own.

So many of the things he says in his books ring true for me, have occured to me, or happened to me. I've got his books all marked up and have read through them probably four times.

I do think I have achieved, more or less, his human adulthood, and it is pretty wonderful. I do not feel antsy about enlightenment.

Yeah?? What's it like?

But you are enlightened so you can explain the difference between you and I?

You need that explained?

Would be nice. Don't think it would hurt. I mean how do you operate differently than I or any other ego-clad being. I guess a question that you could better answer is. What is 24 hours in your life like (a purportedly enlightened guy)? What kind of thoughts come across your mind? Do you do anything? Watch a lot of TV? Blissed out? Read a book? Take a walk? What do you see, think, feel that ego guys don't? And if you can remember, what do they think, see, feel that you don't?

Maybe I'm saying hey assholes sure I aint in college, sure I ain't making a lot of money, but hahha motherfuckers I'm going for truth. Something so important that you assholes can't even begin to comprehend it. I mean sincerely. Why the hell would anyone else go for truth?

Funny, I never thought that way - comparing myself to others like that. I spent a considerable time in a conventional existence, only to find I just wasn't really cut out for it, that it couldn't bring my anything. Thinking and philosophy was just in my blood. I realised it was that or nothing at all. You might want to seriously consider if philosophy is really in your blood or if those other motives are what is driving you.

I'd say that's probably why there are so many guru types. So many false enlightened guys. Or why so many people pursue spirituality/spiritual enlightenment. Wouldn't that be the appeal (to an ego)? To be venerated and respected. And hey, especially since it appears that there's not much that's tangible about it, all you would really have to do is learn how to talk to the talk. And then after that it's just a matter of deceiving yourself, and actually starting to believe what you're selling.


To Becky. And any others wanting to hear his words of supreme wisdom. (His words not mine, made me laugh)

Pasupatastra!

I am He.
I am the Sage.
I am The Superior Man.
I am the Crown of Creation.

I am daft, clouded, obscure.
I eat when hungry, sleep when tired.
I move with; not across, not against.
I rub my chin at the appointed hour.

I see only patterns.
I have no eye for detail.
I don't go. Why go? Go where? It comes.
I don't try. I don't do. Nothing goes undone.
I don't take sides. I have no preferred outcome.
It's all me. It's all mine.
Otherless, what's to want?

I have amazing powers!
I get good tables in restaurants.
I haven't stubbed a toe in twelve years.
I can destroy the universe with a thought.

Jed McKenna

I set the controls to Lara aside and watch Chris as he continues to pull back the curtain and reveal the wizard, but instead of Chris and the steel-plated garment in which he is so inviolably wrapped, I see the goddes Maya, architect of this magnificent palace of delusion. She and I both sit listening to Chris. She smiles at me and I smile back in wonder and admiration. We watch Chris expounding on freedom even as his attachment to his ideas of freedom form the walls, floor, and ceiling of his cell.

A final quality shared by Ahab and the Break-Out Archetype is the one that keeps them undiscovered and unsuspected. By dwelling in the ourskirts of the paradigm, they are effectively shrouded in the blurred edges of the observer's perceptual range. This shroud allows Ahab to stand before his crew unseen for what he really is, and Moby Dick to lay open before readers unseen for what it really is. The observer, not knowning the finiteness of his own reality, must say that Ahab is a great character, but ultimately insane. He must say that Moby-Dick is a great book, but ultimately incomprehensible. He must say that the Break-Out Archetype is interesting in theory, but of no practica lvalue because you can't break out of reality. Where would you go?
Critics often point out the flaws in Ahab that lead to his downfall in order to support their theory that he is, in the Aristotelean sense, a tragic hero, but that;s ust the kind of error that must occur when we unknowingly translate from another paradigm into our own. That's why Moby Dick has defied all interpretations. It's about going somewhere that we don't even suspect the existence of.

copying down all that crap took some time.

[rebecca702]

Iolaus,

I enjoyed your response. I feel that Jed is holding out too - for the reasons you listed, personal relationships, etc.

He often says he mostly doesn't want to be around people, but then you notice in his books that he is around them a lot, socializes very normally, and often has nice women around, including one or two that are enlightened or nearly so, and yet he has no more desire to be around them than the sleepwalkers. I find it odd that he does not seem to want a sexual relationship, at least with a woman on his level.

I remember him saying more than once that you have to be willing to give up "human connection"... perhaps it was more for effect? So we'd give up hope? And false expectations with it?

I am very baffled by the way he treats sex/gender in the books. Why are so many of the main characters female? I asked him this (through the Facebook forum) and he said, "because male characters are harder to pull off." Now does that make any sense to you? I remember him saying (in the 3rd book, in his conversations with "Brett", the enlightened woman) that in his experience women are much more expressive, whereas guys tend to go off by themselves and just come back and say "done." I'm wondering if this is what he meant by that: women are easier to write as characters because their emotions are more transparent, what?

Why don't you recommend the 3rd book?

I thought the 3rd book was great, even though it was a totally different flavor from the 2nd. I felt like it was more up-close and personal, whereas the 2nd was more a literary masterpiece. I definitely benefited from the section where he redefines all the terms he uses, and the metaphors and such.

Just for kicks I'll share with you what Jed (if it is truly him, how will we ever know) posted on the "Power of Now" group on Facebook...

----------------
Could I be the first to declare the Now to be dead?

Think of it...
What the fuck is a now?

A 'Now' is just creating a line in the sand; there isn't a now. There isn't a person who can choose to be in a 'Now'.

All there is is this. Be aware that anyone selling guides to the Now are actually selling tickets for a labyrinth.

Anyone here actually declaring themselves 'enlightened'?
Anyone here feel 'totally done'?

...Thought not.

Fuck the Now. Turn your attention to the apparent divisions and realise they exist only conceptually. Tearing through those divisions may lead to freedom.
----------------

TheKid -

Thanks for copying down that stuff!! After reading the poem I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that "destroy the universe with a single thought" thing. But I have a hunch it's something along the lines of "as you think, so it is." Or like the Buddha said, "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world." So he is taking it very literally - to him, he does indeed destroy the universe with a single thought. But since the universe is an illusion, isn't he just saying he sees through the illusion at will?

I dunno.

The other part about breaking out of "reality"... Right, I see your point from earlier. He's getting at the fact that the caterpillars can't even conceive that there might be light outside the theater because they haven't even realized they are sitting in a theater because the picture show is so engrossing. "Where would you go", meaning what else is there besides my personal little ego-bubble that I call "reality." How could you exist outside the movie? So they don't even have an inkling that something is amiss, and this is why the Ahabs seem so freaking insane.

Rebecca