|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:30:28 GMT -5
He thinks he can speak for all enlightened beings collectively. But this one here is even better: Classic!  Translated in simple English: "I couldn't give a nuts about your existence". Unless you provide a useful service to Jed, such as selling him a house or groceries in a supermarket in which case his awareness will fix upon you temporarily  Is there a real life equivalent for this Sonaya person in the first book? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:37:41 GMT -5
He thinks he can speak for all enlightened beings collectively. But this one here is even better: Classic! There is something both inspiring and sad about Jed. It's like he's caught in between two worlds. Yeah, that's why I call it the twilight zone. It's not enlightenment and it's also not the consensus trance anymore. I've spent years in that state. Jed does a really good job at describing that state. Unfortunately, he thinks it's the enlightened state. It's not. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 4, 2019 4:44:58 GMT -5
There is something both inspiring and sad about Jed. It's like he's caught in between two worlds. Yeah, that's why I call it the twilight zone. It's not enlightenment and it's also not the consensus trance anymore. I've spent years in that state. Jed does a really good job at describing that state. Unfortunately, he thinks it's the enlightened state. It's not. Why are you giving him all this screen space? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:59:19 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I call it the twilight zone. It's not enlightenment and it's also not the consensus trance anymore. I've spent years in that state. Jed does a really good job at describing that state. Unfortunately, he thinks it's the enlightened state. It's not. Why are you giving him all this screen space? I don't think of it in terms of screen space, I think of it in terms of ideas worth discussing. And I also think this forum is called Spiritual Teachers forum for a reason, i.e. a forum about spiritual teachers, not a forum for spiritual teachers (as some here may erroneously assume, hehe). |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 4, 2019 5:04:58 GMT -5
There is something both inspiring and sad about Jed. It's like he's caught in between two worlds. Jed is not 'caught in between two worlds'. The world (the one we are in right now, as we type this and whatever else we will do later on) is both beautiful and ugly. To acknowledge one side and to ignore the other - is to lie. He acknowledges both. This is what existence is: Life/Death, Beautiful/Ugly, Painful/Pleasurable.
The world is dual. Understanding this simple fact - is not.
'Jed' doesn't lie about the ways in which he perceives Reality. He lies in other ways, but then.. he is not the first one.
I wasn't referring to 2 dualistic "worlds". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 10:44:23 GMT -5
You know I do...what? I don't know that seeing the 'tongue in cheek' aspect of that particular part you were talking bout, necessarily constitutes an entire theory regarding "Jed."
My point is just that there is a fair degree of humor, mostly of the sarcastic, sardonic variety, inherent in the way the character expresses and interacts, and in that the use of hyperbole/exaggeration is rampant, which means in a sense, the author has given himself quite a bit of lee-way, or if you like, a sort of blanket 'get outta jail free card.'
If I recall correctly, you mentioned at times that you use the dialogs here on the forum as material for your articles, blog or books etc., right? As I said, if tongue in cheek is his basic message, then IMO he succeeded in the first book but failed in the other books. He's very careful not to get nailed down to a certain position in the first book. He doesn't do that in the later books. Hencethereforthly, the tongue in cheek theory doesn't seem reasonable, there's a much simpler theory, that he actually means what he says there and that the perspective of the Jed character in the book is in essence also the author's perspective. Ah, yes, the dialogues from here; Gotcha.
The 'tongue in cheek' bit I was really only attributing to the specific bit you quoted. I didn't mean that the entire body of his writings are all tongue in cheek in a blanket sense.
I'm sure he does mean what he says, but doesn't his seeing/saying that all that can be known is existence pretty much put any of the opinion based stuff or even ideas 'about' experience, ideas that are not related to the seeing of Oneness/singular existence, in their place?
As I recall, he does mention "It's all lies" rather frequently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 10:45:49 GMT -5
The fact that he clearly sees this/acknowledges this, renders anything else he says beyond it, pretty much a non-issue, doesn't it? That there above, 'trumps' all else.
Beyond seeing that 'existence is' and all appearance arises inseparably, within/to that, there is nothing more 'to get.' That encompasses it all; 'No separation, abidance of Being, no SVP, the ephemeral nature and transiency of all that arises in experience'.
All talk beyond that is essentially 'gilding the lily,'.....but regardless, some of us apparently find that gilding enjoyable.
Yeah, I figured you'd love that one. It's one of those quotes that gave me this 'pure Enfigma' feeling I mentioned earlier.  Just to be clear: the goal of this thread is to present Jed's perspective as accurately as possible. Which means don't assume just because I posted something that I necessarily agree with what's been said there. I may or may not agree with the quotes I post here. I agree with a lot of the quotes I've already posted, but I also disagree with a lot of them, and then there are other quotes that I just find interesting but have no actual opinion about. So keep that in mind while reading along. Yes, that how I've been taking your sharings on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 12:09:29 GMT -5
Well, since I see all as a subjective representation of objective Reality, to me it is always 'personally'. While archetypes certainly exist, it is personalities that affect the world in millions of ways. Therefore, to understand Jed's position one has to understand his life history and the kind of man he is. But of course that will only marginally contribute to the understanding of existence. Those people who got it that I mentioned earlier... one followed a teaching and finally grokked the fact there are no teachings, parted ways with every possible spiritual community and doesn't think much of spirituality now. The rest had no teachers and hardly read any books.
They just asked real questions.
Yes. That's why your input is so valuable. I guess I have to look into your blog for more details, but so far the story you are telling makes the most sense to me. Is there a real life equivalent for this Sonaya person in the first book? Yes. His wife. Oh. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 12:27:31 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, you mentioned at times that you use the dialogs here on the forum as material for your articles, blog or books etc., right? As I said, if tongue in cheek is his basic message, then IMO he succeeded in the first book but failed in the other books. He's very careful not to get nailed down to a certain position in the first book. He doesn't do that in the later books. Hencethereforthly, the tongue in cheek theory doesn't seem reasonable, there's a much simpler theory, that he actually means what he says there and that the perspective of the Jed character in the book is in essence also the author's perspective. Ah, yes, the dialogues from here; Gotcha.
The 'tongue in cheek' bit I was really only attributing to the specific bit you quoted. I didn't mean that the entire body of his writings are all tongue in cheek in a blanket sense.
I'm sure he does mean what he says, but doesn't his seeing/saying that all that can be known is existence pretty much put any of the opinion based stuff or even ideas 'about' experience, ideas that are not related to the seeing of Oneness/singular existence, in their place?
As I recall, he does mention "It's all lies" rather frequently.
Then it seems I misunderstood your position. I was under the impression that you agree with Laffy who seems to consider the entire book(s) as some kind of elaborate joke (at least that's how I understood his position). Like I said, he's fluent in non-dualese. He says the right things (mostly). But, as you well know, that doesn't have to mean anything. And it is my impression that, after having read the infamous trilogy and now looking at his work as a whole, in Jed's case it really doesn't mean anything. It's just words, mental kungfu. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 12:32:26 GMT -5
Waking up
Jed: Waking up from the dreamstate is a very straightforward business. It doesn’t take decades. It doesn’t look like tranquility or like a calm, peaceful mind. It doesn’t look like saving others or saving the world or even saving yourself. It doesn’t look like a thriving marketplace where merit is determined by popular appeal or commercial success. Waking up looks like a massive mental and emotional breakdown because that’s exactly what it is, the granddaddy of all breakdowns. That’s the only way it works. I know there are thousands of books out there that say otherwise, and I can tell you that they were all written by Maya. Once you understand what Maya really is, once you see her for yourself, that becomes perfectly obvious. You’d see it like you see the sky.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 19
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 12:41:08 GMT -5
The fact that he clearly sees this/acknowledges this, renders anything else he says beyond it, pretty much a non-issue, doesn't it? That there above, 'trumps' all else.
Beyond seeing that 'existence is' and all appearance arises inseparably, within/to that, there is nothing more 'to get.' That encompasses it all; 'No separation, abidance of Being, no SVP, the ephemeral nature and transiency of all that arises in experience'.
All talk beyond that is essentially 'gilding the lily,'.....but regardless, some of us apparently find that gilding enjoyable.
Just to be clear: the goal of this thread is to present Jed's perspective as accurately as possible. Which means don't assume just because I posted something that I necessarily agree with what's been said there. I may or may not agree with the quotes I post here. I agree with a lot of the quotes I've already posted, but I also disagree with a lot of them, and then there are other quotes that I just find interesting but have no actual opinion about. So keep that in mind while reading along. Do you take issue with that quote and if so, why? You used to be quite insistent yourself that all that can be known is "I exist". I can pull up a quote if you like...? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 12:46:10 GMT -5
The Ministry of Awakening
Jed: The book 1984 takes place in the country of Oceania where the motto is "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Oceania is governed by four ministries, the names of which “exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts." The Ministry of Love is where all the torture and brainwashing are done. The Ministry of Peace wages a never-ending war. The Ministry of Plenty is in charge of restricting the supply of food and goods. The Ministry of Truth is in charge of lies and propaganda. In keeping with that impudent naming practice, we can look to our own Ministry of Awakening, the spiritual marketplace, where we find all the sages and teachers and philosophers and scholars hard at work doing exactly what our own Big Brother, Maya, wants them to be doing: Making sure everyone stays sound asleep.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 19
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 12:53:52 GMT -5
Ramana Maharshi & The Outward Only Club (1)
Jed: Any spiritual teacher who allows students to ask questions and gives them answers is a member of the Outward Only club; an unwitting—and thereby all the more insidious—agent of ignorance. The world is full of respected and beloved spiritual and religious teachers. People ask them questions and they provide answers; question and answer, question and answer, on and on, talk and more talk, more like spiritual therapy than spiritual warfare…
A shining example of this is the much-beloved Ramana Maharshi. His core teaching, if you ask any of Ramana’s many fans, is, “Ask yourself, Who am I?" So what’s the problems with that? There is none. In fact, it’s perfect; a complete spiritual teaching in five words. So perfect, in fact, that anyone who actually does it will actually awaken. Ask yourself. Who am I? If you do it, you will become enlightened. There is no possible alternative. The only way self-inquiry can fail to work is if you fail to do it. That’s a pretty important point so I’ll say it again: The only way self-inquiry—Ask yourself. Who am I?—can fail to result in enlightenment is if you fail to do it.
Why aren’t Ramana’s many thousands of adoring students and devotees awake? Ramana’s failure to produce awakened beings was nearly total. They're not doing the self-inquiry practice. If we stated the situation correctly—self-inquiry leads to awakening and Ramanas followers don’t awaken—then that’s the only conclusion we can come to. So then, if that’s his teaching, then why don’t his students practice it?
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 19
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 12:55:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I figured you'd love that one. It's one of those quotes that gave me this 'pure Enfigma' feeling I mentioned earlier. Just to be clear: the goal of this thread is to present Jed's perspective as accurately as possible. Which means don't assume just because I posted something that I necessarily agree with what's been said there. I may or may not agree with the quotes I post here. I agree with a lot of the quotes I've already posted, but I also disagree with a lot of them, and then there are other quotes that I just find interesting but have no actual opinion about. So keep that in mind while reading along. Do you take issue with that quote and if so, why? You used to be quite insistent yourself that all that can be known is "I exist". I can pull up a quote if you like...? Not interested in rehashing this again. That horse is long dead. Let's leave it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 13:25:55 GMT -5
Is there a real life equivalent for this Sonaya person in the first book? Yes. His wife. And what about this Brett character from the third book? She talks and walks like Jed, so my best guess is she's a fictional character. Or is there more to it? |
|
