|
|
Post by esponja on Mar 21, 2012 4:42:07 GMT -5
Am thinking of buying the first book; the Damnedest thing T1. What do you guys think or recommend? Am fairly new to his teachings.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 21, 2012 7:36:36 GMT -5
Am thinking of buying the first book; the darnedest thing T1. What do you guys think or recommend? Am fairly new to his teachings. It's an easy and fun to read book. The content is average, the 'spiritual teachings' aspect is weak because he is mostly merely saying what you already know, he debunks a couple of myths that beginners have, and other than that it's mostly just scary pep talk. But the stories are fun to read. It's obvious that most of his adventures are fiction. The main character is so imposing/cool that while reading the book I caught myself imitating him, Jed must have been aware of this danger, I wonder why he kept it that way, if he wasn't aware then he must have been very much in love with the character, which makes the book even more suspicious. Because everyone loved the trilogy so much I initially wanted to buy the whole package for a bit of a discount, but I'm glad that I only bought the first book, because having read it saved me from buying the other two. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Mar 21, 2012 7:41:27 GMT -5
Am thinking of buying the first book; the darnedest thing T1. What do you guys think or recommend? Am fairly new to his teachings. It's an easy and fun to read book. The content is average, the 'spiritual teachings' aspect is weak because he is mostly merely saying what you already know, he debunks a couple of myths that beginners have, and other than that it's mostly just scary pep talk. But the stories are fun to read. It's obvious that most of his adventures are fiction. The main character is so imposing/cool that while reading the book I caught myself imitating him, Jed must have been aware of this danger, I wonder why he kept it that way, if he wasn't aware then he must have been very much in love with the character, which makes the book even more suspicious. Because everyone loved the trilogy so much I initially wanted to buy the whole package for a bit of a discount, but I'm glad that I only bought the first book, because having read it saved me from buying the other two. Cheers for that (it's like having an Amazon book review). If I buy it I buy it, won't go out of my way then. I keep reading on ibooks and think I now need glasses! |
|
|
|
Post by dogribb on Mar 21, 2012 11:43:35 GMT -5
Ya... read the first and if interested I'd say read David Carse's" Perfect Brilliant Stillness" book as volume 2 .It resonates quite closely with Jed's and equally if not more informative .Both seem to be about guys finding the unfindable and now reside as the supremely indifferent
|
|
Jasun
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Jasun on Mar 23, 2012 19:41:36 GMT -5
I read the third and then ordered the rest. I can't agree with question at all; what I've read so far (the third and the bonus material, for which I foolishly bought the Notebook, not realizing that all the Bonus material is included in the later editions of the trilogy, be warned!) is searingly original stuff. However, that may relate to the fact that my reading of the past 25 years has been in the field of occultism and esoterica, and not spirituality per se (eg, I have read all Kenneth Grant, and none of Krishnamurti).
I would assume, however, that McKenna's descriptions are considerably more hard-edged than other "spiritual" type writings or transcripts, because McKenna is offering something that is a very far cry from New Age (user-friendly) spirituality. His books deliver a swift and brutal kick in the pants to the "seeker," in a way no other books that I have encountered do (or at least, they did to me).
I have no idea - and only an opinion - as to how fictional the books are (my feeling is not, and that they have the whiff of the real about them, but I tend to err on the side of credulity). Obviously that's an important question, but not one that anyone can answer, as far as I know.
However, and this may be better saved for a new topic - the one thing about the writings that has seriously created doubt and skepticism in me about JM is his avocation of LSD in the bonus material of Spiritual Warfare. I was totally flabbergasted by this. For someone who deconstructs just about every form of spiritual technique and philosophy he can put his scalpel to, to say that LSD had the potential for an authentic planetary awakening made no sense at all to me. I was left wondering if JM was pulling our legs or deliberately undermining his message by making such a dubious argument.
I've had dozens of experiences with hallucinogens and I am not awake because of it. Far from it. Nor do I know a single person who shows evidence of being awakened due to their use. On the other hand, I've seen stacks of evidence that hallucinogens cause ego inflation, psychological imbalance, and physical (or energetic) damage. Over all, I'd say the loss definitely outweighs the gains, my own case included. And I wasn't using them recreationally either, but "shamanically," or so I believed at the time.
I'd certainly like to call Mckenna to task on this one - if only I could find him!
|
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Mar 23, 2012 20:05:21 GMT -5
I liked it de-spiritualization of spirituality. I think he needs to listen to his own advice maybe that asie its good
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 24, 2012 4:09:49 GMT -5
I read the third and then ordered the rest. I can't agree with question at all; what I've read so far (the third and the bonus material, for which I foolishly bought the Notebook, not realizing that all the Bonus material is included in the later editions of the trilogy, be warned!) is searingly original stuff. However, that may relate to the fact that my reading of the past 25 years has been in the field of occultism and esoterica, and not spirituality per se (eg, I have read all Kenneth Grant, and none of Krishnamurti). I would assume, however, that McKenna's descriptions are considerably more hard-edged than other "spiritual" type writings or transcripts, because McKenna is offering something that is a very far cry from New Age (user-friendly) spirituality. His books deliver a swift and brutal kick in the pants to the "seeker," in a way no other books that I have encountered do (or at least, they did to me). Yes, like I said, the book (at least the first one, haven't read the others) is for beginners. That's why his harsh persona is so dominant, makes it easier for the beginner to reject the sweet talking woo woo gurus. |
|
Jasun
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Jasun on Apr 13, 2012 4:09:46 GMT -5
Some more thoughts about Jed, having now also read book 1 and half of book 2! The books do seem to be fiction of a sort - like Castaneda's except that "Jed McKenna" - the guru/don Juan - is the author, but perhaps as much an invention as "Carlos" the author? There is much contradiction in the books, though sometimes that seems as much a good thing as not... For example, how can a person who claims to have no preference for living over dying have a preference for NY over LA? Really?! Does that compute? One thing I think I have noticed hanging out with Dave Oshana, who recommended the books to me and who also claims to be enlightened, is that the personality seems to be intact but that the presiding awareness - of Dave - doesn't appear to be stuck inside or 100% identified with the personality. So most of the time I see Dave as just Dave, but some of the time I experience him as something else and at those times it occurs to me that this is the real Dave I am seeing, that it's always present and presiding, but most of the time either I am not open to it or it's simply not necessary for Dave to bring that deeper 'ego-less' being to the surface. Not putting it very well, but JM says something like that, when he says that he wears the JM ID like a skin or a costume, a role that he is less and less able to get into. So when JM says he hates LA, maybe that is him, the enlightened being, getting all the way into character as JM, the false self he has shed? The assumption we tend to have is that enlightenment means shedding all negative stuff - but maybe all personal qualities are equally "negative' to a no self self, because equally false. In which case, hating LA could be as valid a way for him to get in character as anything else. That's the argument for the defense anyway, but I'm not sure I believe it myself. Also, if JM didn't have some sort of ego-form-personality, there'd be no way to communicate. JM the character seems deliberately contrived to challenge New Age assumptions about how an enlightened being would act - he smokes cigars, eats meat, skydives, eskews meditation and compassion, and so on. There are two questions that overlap: is JM the author the same as JM the character, and is he enlightened; and is JM, and the descriptions of enlightenment, an accurate depiction of the enlightened state? Also - is it necessarily meant to be (assuming that's even possible), or is it meant as something else? Like Moby penis [wow crazy censoring program! WTF??] is an apparent account of a psychopath but really (acc to JM) a map for truth-realization, perhaps JM is couching all his descriptions in a context he deems appropriate for the unawakened reader? And so on. That said, I do have the desire to cry BS sometimes when I read the books - but that could be just an inevitable emotional resistance to some of what he's saying - not least that he is enlightened, and I'm not. Yes he's an arrogant toss-pot, some of the time - but if an enlightened being spoke to the ego-bound in their own language, maybe that would be one inevitable result? That said, Dave O rarely if ever comes off as arrogant, even when "pulling rank." There is much mystery about who JM is and if he exists as described in the books, etc. In the first book, he writes about having a large house in Iowa with a constant stream of seekers coming through, some of whom even get enlightened. If that were true, what's the likelihood that none of these seekers would have blown the whistle on the Net and said, "I know this guy!" Pretty much zero. So he's clearly making up some of the material. Unlike with CC, JM's accounts don't strike me as absolutely based in some sort of fact. They seem like they could have been entirely invented, albeit with details taken from reality, like his experiences of skydiving, etc. With Whitley Strieber and CC - ironically since their accounts are so much more improbable - there's a constant sense of, "No one could have made this stuff up!" (Though as we know, that doesn't mean they didn't "dream" it up.) I don't get that with JM. The books have a didactic quality to them - teachings that are framed within a storytelling narrative, to make them more palatable and entertaining. JM's "Ahab" message is about becoming monomaniacally one-pointed - focused only on getting to the truth and nothing else. He sees it as a destructive, even psychopathic, process, destroying all that is not true so that whatever remains must be truth. The primary emotional drive for Jed seems to be hatred for the false. That seems a bit extreme - maybe rebellious, adolescent sort of energy. Not that I can't relate. But it also seems a long arduous road to truth, as opposed to recognizing that only truth exists, anyway, so what needs to be destroyed? (How can you destroy what doesn't exist?) We are free to put down our ego-load at any given moment. The belief that we are not free, and must instead travel the world destroying every last vestige of delusion that imprisons us - I think it has something to do with a refusal to admit that we could have just stepped outside the prison of our egos any time we wanted. So we need to turn it into a heroic journey. That's why the Psychopath is the Hero's Shadow. Or maybe even, the Hero Unmasked? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 13, 2012 9:53:13 GMT -5
When I read the first JM book about....6 years ago maybe, I found it to be an enjoyable read, a little different from the other books I had read on the general subject, which were coming across to me at the time as intellectual fodder for the mind. JM's book was a bit different from the rest in its style, I liked the personal account, and I resonated with a lot of what was said about spiritual ego, attachment to states, attachment to ideas about what it meant to be 'enlightened' etc. I also resonated with his questioning style.
A few years on, and my attitude has changed a bit. I really see it as just more drama and cant imagine recommending it. Part of my reticence towards it these days is that I have met quite a lot of peeps in the last few years that have bought horrendously into JM's spiritual incorrectness to the degree that spiritual incorrectness has become kind of....correct! I find myself asking sometimes....'what happened to good old fashioned love, joy and compassion?' Many peeps these days that claim to be liberated seem to me to be closed hearted and closed minded, and I really dont think there has been a 'letting go', I just think there has been some kind of identification with the 'laser focus', 'no nonsense', 'no woo woo' kind of approach that Jed McKenna advocates. We hear people say that JM is for the 'serious seekers', but I see the seriousness as part of the problem these days. There is a pretentiousness to the seeking....a grandiosity that just doesnt appeal to me any more. You summed it up there I think when you said...'a heroic journey'.
Its just my opinion though obviously. And just to say Jasun, that from the little you have said about Dave Oshana, he sounds pretty cool to me.
|
|
Jasun
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Jasun on Apr 14, 2012 9:17:36 GMT -5
That's interesting. Gravitas can easily turn into self-importance. I'm definitely in two minds, maybe a good place to be? When someone praises JM too much, I feel skeptical. When someone criticizes to the degree you have - saying you can't imagine recommending them - then i feel the opposite way. I still think the books are as good as anything in the field. Just not as good as some people say they are. And not necessarily the product of an enlightened mind.
Are they really that popular? I saw the first book at Amazon rank around 70,000, and I found out it's been translated into Finnish, so presumably quite a few other languages. What's next? The McKenna movie? I'd like to hear from someone who has practiced 'spiritual autolysis."
As JM says in book 2, every book is about its reader, and since the only Jed is the one that exists in and through the books, JM’s veracity can be measured only by the effects of the books, individually, and to some degree collectively. There are specific claims in the books which I find questionable, such as the notion of a First Step, the two year period that followsbefore truth-realization can occur, the categorical refutation of the idea of overnight enlightenment (which Dave Oshana describes, quite convincingly, as happening to him), and the practice of spiritual autolysis about which, outside of the characters Jed (the author) presents, whole cloth, in his books, I have not heard any testimonies as to its effectiveness.
The basic principle seems beyond questioning however: that we can only verify for ourselves the truth of any proposition, and that to a large extent this can only come about through a process of elimination – which at a purely emotional level, must equal to a long and arduous period of disillusionment. Welcome to the nightmare of personal history.
I would question the most fundamental tenet of the ET, however, being that truth realization can only come about through our own efforts. McKenna’s "pure intent" seems to be an unattributed echo of Castaneda’s “unbending intent.” (I noticed that of all the American writers JM lauds in SIE, book 2, he neglects to mention Castaneda.) Yet Castaneda himself acknowledged (and his tragic end graphically illustrated) that, in the end, no amount of will can suffice, because only surrender allows for alignment.
The whole WILL YOUR WAY TO FREEDOM notion would account for the sort of excess seriousness which Andrew refers to. Ahab wasn't exactly a bundle of laughs. But the books are quite funny, though often in a way that undermines Jed's main claim (by making him seem ornery and petty).
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 14, 2012 14:21:09 GMT -5
Im not sure the two minds is a bad thing....it occurs to me that just as I cant imagine recommending his books these days, I do sometimes still quote them when talking on internet forums! So I think (as I said) that my reticence is less about the wisdom or intelligence of the writing, and more about a kind of...legacy that has trailed in its wake. Possibly this is somewhat inevitable with any writing of this sort though.
I find your thoughts interesting Jasun.
|
|
Jasun
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Jasun on Apr 22, 2012 6:31:33 GMT -5
On-going discussion here about the (IMO) fake Jed M and his fake forum. The overall quality of posting there would seem to confirm Andrew's skepticism. Not that it means Jed isn't enlightened, or anything. But this one certainly isn't! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 22, 2012 8:40:57 GMT -5
On-going discussion here about the (IMO) fake Jed M and his fake forum. The overall quality of posting there would seem to confirm Andrew's skepticism. Not that it means Jed isn't enlightened, or anything. But this one certainly isn't! I had a little look. Its not my cup of tea but in its favour the people there seem to be addressing each other quite directly and without much....grandiosity. Though to be fair, I only read one thread. |
|
|
|
Post by anandakosha on May 1, 2012 2:27:50 GMT -5
"The subtext of every question is, Am I making progress by asking questions and trying to understand the answers?"
A teacher doesnt want to give you answers but ways to discover yourself. All words of true teachers are pointers to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 4, 2015 14:09:12 GMT -5
|
|
