|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2017 1:47:05 GMT -5
Are you claiming that this is what Jed meant or is this what it means to you? I answered the question. This is my recollection of what he meant. Because I ceased saying: Jed means so-n-so doesn't mean I ceased meaning Jed, in every instance. There are people who have been human adults without any necessary inclination for the "spiritual". You act in a way to benefit the Whole, the many, the One, and not necessarily the few, or the one. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. You have tempted me to go back and look for proof. O.k. well, I've only read the first book yet. Based only on my recollection of that I'd say that your version of his is different from what my perception of what his is. If I get around to reading another one I'll review the first and invite us to compare notes back here.  Please don't think this is my using Jed as some sort of authority. Just because you might have different ideas about what the term refers to doesn't mean that his are better. And even if I did come to the conclusion that I preferred his, we can certainly choose to be adults in the way we compare these perceptions.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 17, 2017 12:40:50 GMT -5
I answered the question. This is my recollection of what he meant. Because I ceased saying: Jed means so-n-so doesn't mean I ceased meaning Jed, in every instance. There are people who have been human adults without any necessary inclination for the "spiritual". You act in a way to benefit the Whole, the many, the One, and not necessarily the few, or the one. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. You have tempted me to go back and look for proof. O.k. well, I've only read the first book yet. Based only on my recollection of that I'd say that your version of his is different from what my perception of what his is. If I get around to reading another one I'll review the first and invite us to compare notes back here. Please don't think this is my using Jed as some sort of authority. Just because you might have different ideas about what the term refers to doesn't mean that his are better. And even if I did come to the conclusion that I preferred his, we can certainly choose to be adults in the way we compare these perceptions. Well, I think it's way down the road before he even talks about human adulthood (much anyway). Maybe the end of the third book or maybe even The Theory of Everything. I seem to recall it's kind of an, Oh...by the way, enlightenment and human adulthood are two different things and one doesn't lead to the other. When I have time I'll try to investigate this.... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2017 15:37:53 GMT -5
O.k. well, I've only read the first book yet. Based only on my recollection of that I'd say that your version of his is different from what my perception of what his is. If I get around to reading another one I'll review the first and invite us to compare notes back here. Please don't think this is my using Jed as some sort of authority. Just because you might have different ideas about what the term refers to doesn't mean that his are better. And even if I did come to the conclusion that I preferred his, we can certainly choose to be adults in the way we compare these perceptions. Well, I think it's way down the road before he even talks about human adulthood (much anyway). Maybe the end of the third book or maybe even The Theory of Everything. I seem to recall it's kind of an, Oh...by the way, enlightenment and human adulthood are two different things and one doesn't lead to the other. When I have time I'll try to investigate this.... My recollection is that he lays the groundwork in the first book. He writes that enlightenment is not what most people who are interested in it think that it is, and that it's not really what they want. He goes on to write that his advice to most people seeking it is not to seek it because of the cost involved with that. Seems to me he said something else about what he'd recommend to them in the alternative to seeking enlightenment, but I haven't been able to find my copy. The cost he was referring to was only indirectly related to the time and expenditure of seeking, and directly related to what people have to give up, in the process of seeking, in terms of their conditioned world views and habits that help them cope with life. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 17, 2017 18:58:59 GMT -5
Well, I think it's way down the road before he even talks about human adulthood (much anyway). Maybe the end of the third book or maybe even The Theory of Everything. I seem to recall it's kind of an, Oh...by the way, enlightenment and human adulthood are two different things and one doesn't lead to the other. When I have time I'll try to investigate this.... My recollection is that he lays the groundwork in the first book. He writes that enlightenment is not what most people who are interested in it think that it is, and that it's not really what they want. He goes on to write that his advice to most people seeking it is not to seek it because of the cost involved with that. Seems to me he said something else about what he'd recommend to them in the alternative to seeking enlightenment, but I haven't been able to find my copy. The cost he was referring to was only indirectly related to the time and expenditure of seeking, and directly related to what people have to give up, in the process of seeking, in terms of their conditioned world views and habits that help them cope with life. Actually, he might have said what people are really after is human adulthood, not enlightenment. (I will try to check later, not presently at home). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2017 10:10:10 GMT -5
My recollection is that he lays the groundwork in the first book. He writes that enlightenment is not what most people who are interested in it think that it is, and that it's not really what they want. He goes on to write that his advice to most people seeking it is not to seek it because of the cost involved with that. Seems to me he said something else about what he'd recommend to them in the alternative to seeking enlightenment, but I haven't been able to find my copy. The cost he was referring to was only indirectly related to the time and expenditure of seeking, and directly related to what people have to give up, in the process of seeking, in terms of their conditioned world views and habits that help them cope with life. Actually, he might have said what people are really after is human adulthood, not enlightenment. (I will try to check later, not presently at home). Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Jed offers his readers a two-sided coin. If the claims of peeps who say they are enlightened bother you, that's ok, you can improve your lot in life by way of human adulthood. I think that if the members of this forum that engage in the most ad-hominem content would get a grip on that, they'd generate less of it. .. But the thing is, there is a pull from the existential truth that simple sanity alone can never balance. So Jed spends most of his words writing about that truth.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2017 21:45:19 GMT -5
As I've mentioned, my perspective is that it means becoming conscious, and it's my opinion that self realization is extremely unlikely from a state of unconsciousness, and so that's basically all I jabber about here. 'Finding Truth' is essentially a misconception, and what that actually means is not something anybody can do anyhoo. However, illusions/delusions are formed in mind, and so they can be revealed and dissolved in mind, not volitionally, but given that the conditions are right. What I focus on is those conditions. When I talk about thought patterns or projection or denial or question conclusions or explore intellectual concepts with folks, I'm not entertaining myself or arguing or trying to be right, I'm just pointing out what looks like unconsciousness in the mind. 99% of it is futile because there isn't the willingness to notice, but I do love that 1%. Are you denying that you are not trying to be right in discussions? That mockery, double binds and one-upmanship aren't games to make you right and an other wrong? Are you seriously denying that? Yeah, I'm seriously denying that. You may be catching a glimpse of your own interest there. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2017 21:46:51 GMT -5
Let me guess, he still didn't give you the keys to the club house? In fact we changed the locks when we noticed him lurking around outside. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2017 21:52:00 GMT -5
I don't understand what Jed McKenna meant by Human Adulthood. Can anyone explain that to me? How is it related to Enlightenment? Jed means being a responsible adult, a mature adult. Jed means trying to see the truth. Jed means no bull s**t. Jed means taking care of business. Jed means calling a spade a spade. Jed means being emotionally mature. Jed doesn't necessarily mean putting others first, but treating others fairly, respectfully. He means don't be whiney. He means if you make a promise, try to keep it, IOW, keep your word. ATST he means don't promise more than you can deliver. He means don't slack off, if you work eight hours for someone, work eight hours, don't "clock out early", don't get someone else to clock you out, if you get a ten minute break, don't take eleven minutes. Don't yell and scream, don't mistreat others. Treat family with respect even if you don't like them. Don't be a baby. Don't backbite, don't back stab. Don't try to impose your will upon others. I guess mostly, have integrity. Expect karmic retaliation, IOW, do what's right. In certain cases, act without regard to self and without reward. Be kind, even when others are not kind to you. He means, be an adult. All that means to "externally consider always, internally never". He means every stick has two ends, so in time you will necessarily get both ends of the stick. Being a human adult means to most always, when possible, pick the sh*t*y-thorny end of the stick, now, so as to get the "roses" later. If need be, under extraordinary circumstances, throw all of the above out the window, IOW, sometimes you have to be a conscious as$ ho*e. No, Jed doesn't mean that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2017 21:55:23 GMT -5
Are you claiming that this is what Jed meant or is this what it means to you? I answered the question. This is my recollection of what he meant. Because I ceased saying: Jed means so-n-so doesn't mean I ceased meaning Jed, in every instance. There are people who have been human adults without any necessary inclination for the "spiritual". You act in a way to benefit the Whole, the many, the One, and not necessarily the few, or the one. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. You have tempted me to go back and look for proof. While you're at it, perhaps you should re-read the whole book.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 2:51:40 GMT -5
Jed means being a responsible adult, a mature adult. Jed means trying to see the truth. Jed means no bull s**t. Jed means taking care of business. Jed means calling a spade a spade. Jed means being emotionally mature. Jed doesn't necessarily mean putting others first, but treating others fairly, respectfully. He means don't be whiney. He means if you make a promise, try to keep it, IOW, keep your word. ATST he means don't promise more than you can deliver. He means don't slack off, if you work eight hours for someone, work eight hours, don't "clock out early", don't get someone else to clock you out, if you get a ten minute break, don't take eleven minutes. Don't yell and scream, don't mistreat others. Treat family with respect even if you don't like them. Don't be a baby. Don't backbite, don't back stab. Don't try to impose your will upon others. I guess mostly, have integrity. Expect karmic retaliation, IOW, do what's right. In certain cases, act without regard to self and without reward. Be kind, even when others are not kind to you. He means, be an adult. All that means to "externally consider always, internally never". He means every stick has two ends, so in time you will necessarily get both ends of the stick. Being a human adult means to most always, when possible, pick the sh*t*y-thorny end of the stick, now, so as to get the "roses" later. If need be, under extraordinary circumstances, throw all of the above out the window, IOW, sometimes you have to be a conscious as$ ho*e. You got it wrong, SDP. Or - the idealist in you got it wrong. Jed lives in the absolute. The absolute knows not about human ideals. Boundless Emptiness is very very... empty. Ha ha. You cannot live in the absolute. You cannot remove the Jiva, personal aspect. You think Maya is a problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 3:40:54 GMT -5
Ha ha. You cannot live in the absolute. You cannot remove the Jiva, personal aspect. You think Maya is a problem? There is no Maya in the absolute. The absolute is empty, EMPTY. There is no love, hate, emotion, fear, hope, anger, happiness, delight, virtue, sin there. Nothing. The personal aspect of Jed is what we have discussed on another thread. However... he lives in the absolute in the way he treats life. There is no human aspect in relation to others, only to Self. He takes care of himself first and foremost, the One and Only. No one else is important (exists) for him. I said it before, I don't know why it is so difficult for people to digest. There is nothing mystical in the absolute/the human balance. Satch, if I told you that there is no Truth, but there is.. that all is a lie, but it isn't.. there is no Maya, but it fools a human every moment of their life.... that no one is enlightened, but all are.... you would think I talk b.s. But Paradox is the nature of creation. I don't know why you cannot see that, years after your universal consciousness experience. It makes me think you took it for 'it' and stopped. I may be wrong, and it may be that you simply find it difficult to express things. You say there is no enlightenment​, no truth, no maya yet you speak of the absolute. This is laughable. It is some deluded imagination you call a paradox. When you know what you are there is no paradox. The question doesn't even arise. You say there is nothing precisely because you understand nothing! You are in a spiritual trap and I'm sure it didn't help being a Jed groupie. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 4:08:47 GMT -5
Try to understand this. To be self realized is to be a jivanmukta which means freedom or liberation while living in a body. There isn't a little town somewhere called Absoluteville where you go and play at being empty. Of course maya is part of the absolute. If the absolute is inclusive of everything then it also includes the relative. The world does not disappear for the realized. You are making the mistake that many non dualists make which is to confuse non attachment with non involvement. They are not the same thing. Remember what Shankara said.
Brahman (consciousness) alone is real
The world is an illusion
Brahman is the world.
Maya is not a problem. It has two aspects. Maya is the projecting power of Brahman and the veling power of Brahman. Vedanta does not reject the world. It is the veiling power which we must overcome so that we may know Brahman which is another way of saying I am unbounded awareness. To know that is to know the absolute and the relative. Shiva and shakti. Both together seemingly separate but really only one thing without separation, the living reality as diversity within unity and unity within diversity. That is realization. You are sat chit ananda as both manifest and unmanifest in the ever present eternal moment. Stop weaving ideas about it, just wake up to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 4:11:24 GMT -5
You say there is no enlightenment​, no truth, no maya yet you speak of the absolute. This is laughable. It is some deluded imagination you call a paradox. When you know what you are there is no paradox. The question doesn't even arise. You say there is nothing precisely because you understand nothing! You are in a spiritual trap and I'm sure it didn't help being a Jed groupie. Jed would be the first one to tell you I was never his groupie. I was his mirror. I refelcted to him what he is at Nature. There is one way to see the Absolute. It is via Death. I have died, both physically, psychologically, emotionally. All that speads before me is Emptiness. Now.. when one sees this... like an infinite field running in front of you, with no beginning and no end... one can just stare at this field, the Absolute.. or one can get out the lego blocks of life and start constructing something. Just because. Because there is nothing left to do, but be. The Paradox of Creation is that that it is all inclusive. All mutually exclusive paradigms co-exist within. This is where Jed is. Being. In. Paradox. You are familiar with Atman/Brahman, right? You are Life. Life is You, if we take out the terminology of the East, to make it more palatable to Western thought. The way it manifests through him - is different to me or others, because his Self, like everyone else's - is unique to him. The way it manifest through you - is also unique. Okay that's​ making more sense except that there is only one Self in existence. There is no my Self or your Self. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 4:27:42 GMT -5
I am making a stir fry. Would you like some? How could I resist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 4:33:07 GMT -5
Try to understand this. To be self realized is to be a jivanmukta which means freedom or liberation while living in a body. There isn't a little town somewhere called Absoluteville where you go and play at being empty. Of course maya is part of the absolute. If the absolute is inclusive of everything then it also includes the relative. The world does not disappear for the realized. You are making the mistake that many non dualists make which is to confuse non attachment with non involvement. They are not the same thing. Remember what Shankara said. Brahman (consciousness) alone is real The world is an illusion Brahman is the world. Maya is not a problem. It has two aspects. Maya is the projecting power of Brahman and the veling power of Brahman. Vedanta does not reject the world. It is the veiling power which we must overcome so that we may know Brahman which is another way of saying I am unbounded awareness. To know that is to know the absolute and the relative. Shiva and shakti. Both together seemingly separate but really only one thing without separation, the living reality as diversity within unity and unity within diversity. That is realization. You are sat chit ananda as both manifest and unmanifest in the ever present eternal moment. Stop weaving ideas about it, just wake up to it. I am involved. One cannot be NOT invovled if one is still breathing. But it doesn't cancel the fact that non importance of everything is my prevailing state. This is was Ramana saw in his finest moment of dying at 16. I got it at 8. Maya is not a problem, no. All is Lie, but in modern terms.. no one is getting out of the Matrix. What to do? Jed's idea is - entertain Self. But he knows the Boundless Emptiness. Why? Because it happened to him too. Yet, he is more alive than ever. So am I. The rest is just.. talking heads. Like you and I are doing right now. P.S. You are not 'unbound awareness'. What to do? There is nothing to do because there is no doer. BTW, Ramana didn't actually die. He was inexplicably overcome with the fear of death and that caused him to make the only and ultimate inquiry which resulted in release. Turning back to find out what death meant when he was still conscious was the moment of realization. |
|
Please don't think this is my using Jed as some sort of authority. Just because you might have different ideas about what the term refers to doesn't mean that his are better. And even if I did come to the conclusion that I preferred his, we can certainly choose to be adults in the way we compare these perceptions. 
