|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 21, 2019 15:20:32 GMT -5
Have you read what Jed said about solipsism in the first book yet? O.k., that's it! I'm on it!  I'm half-way thru the book now. Apparently Jed thinks solipsism isn't a theory or belief. To him what solipsism proposes is just the way it is, a basic fact of existence.  Now this is getting really interesting. Let's connect some dots here. So far, according to Jed: 1) enlightenment is a long arduous process, akin to a fight, which takes years 2) and this process is all about deconstructing beliefs until nothing remains that could be further deconstructed 3) a superior tool for this process is autolysis 4) when you are done deconstructing, it will be a rather uneventful moment, you will simply say: "I'm done." 5) and you will see that solipsism is the real deal So basically, it's all mentation from start to finish what Jed is talking about. At no point are there any references to anything prior to mind. Which means this has nothing to do with what we call enlightenment or SR. Instead, it's what we sometimes call 'mind enlightenment'. Jed's version of solipsism has very little baggage, and I can translate it, directly, into the advice that Niz is most remembered for. Not-knowing begins in the mind, yes, but it has a potential depth to it that is fathomless. Now, as I've opined before, Jed does seem to me to project his path story onto everyone else. So with (1), his "further", and this, he seems to me to be echoing Adyashanti as to how "enlightenment" has to be "embodied". I didn't agree with everything in the book when I read it, but there was quite a bit there that resonated. My recollection of his path model is that he distinguishes between "done" and "enlightened". Subtly, but, but as I recall, it's there: "enlightenment" is total "ego death", while "done" is .. well "done" .. with questioning and seeking. If I had to limit the expression of disagreements with the author to a single point, it would be his insistence that seeking has to necessarily result in what is essentially a "dark night of the soul" -- not a term I remember him using, but rather, a state of mind I recall him describing as essentially, inevitable. One topic Jed seemed to me quite clear about is acausality. For some of us, beliefs are (or were) central to our sense of identity, and when this is the case, it makes sense to talk about how the mind is a hindrance. If you want to call what can happen as the result of removing that hindrance "mind enlightenment", fine, but, to me, to be honest, it sounds like the sneer of someone who never walked that path. As far as spiritual autolysis is concerned, isn't the topic of this forum, at it's best, the existential truth? While you might not agree, I opine that any practice useful for becoming accident prone is also just as useful for the retracing of steps that can occur long after the accident already happened. I also seem to recall Jed prefacing his description of the practice of autolysis with a disclaimer that allowed for his personal perspective on it, but it's certainly an idea that the internet has brought the moment to. In terms of our writing about the existential truth on this forum, while I do agree with your judgment as to figgles' giraffe, I could easily make the case that there's been interesting shifts, over time, on several specific topics for more than a few of us, including you, on the one she was interested in. It's not only possible to write about what's true after the existential truth is known, it seems to be a popular pastime. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 21, 2019 22:59:38 GMT -5
Well, keep in mind when I wrote this I was only half way thru the book. I’m done with the book now and also read Shawn’s review again and I now agree with Shawn. But I would probably slightly modify what I’ve said in my previous post because Jed’s book isn’t really so much about enlightenment as it is about the first step. As I’ve already mentioned, there are certain things that seem consistently off thru-out the book. And as you know, the book is mostly dialog driven. Like Shawn, I have serious doubts that any of the persons and places in the book actually exist and the events or dialogs written down actually happened (except for the sky diving accident episode, maybe). That’s why I would suggest to treat it as spiritual fiction. And if we do that, then it shows Jed in a much more positive light. Because then the dialogs and events in the book are just tools used to present his main message in a more digestible way. So you actually could make the case that the TMT and ESA is just a comedic device or something like that. So let’s just focus on the main message and ignore the non-essentials and personal aspects. But the thing here is that Jed is very hard to nail down on any specific issue because what he says in one chapter he might contradict in the next or he will leave you guessing if what he’s saying is meant seriously or just in jest. Which I think is done on purpose. Now, you could argue that he has done that 1) because that’s his method of teaching, he wants to let the reader figure it out, or 2) because he doesn’t really have a clear understanding either. And I think either option is very hard to prove. It is essentially up to our personal opinion. And it seems, based on what you still remember about the book, you tend to choose option 1. I’ve just read the book, so I tend to choose option 2. I also strongly suggest to look at the book as a whole. Because it’s one thing to say all the right things about every single topic, but it’s quite another to combine it to a consistent organic whole. And that’s where I see the book falling short. Also, Jed seems to be a very well-read guy. He probably read every spiritual book he could get his hands on during his search. And it shows in the book. You can literally see where he got some of the ideas presented in the book. The book does a good job in cleaning up some very common myths about enlightenment or the path to enlightenment. What is a bit disappointing though is that it never leaves the realm of mentation. And I guess that’s because Jed is a metaphysical solipsist. That one thing he made very clear. To your comments: Jed's version of solipsism has very little baggage, and I can translate it, directly, into the advice that Niz is most remembered for. Not-knowing begins in the mind, yes, but it has a potential depth to it that is fathomless. Now, as I've opined before, Jed does seem to me to project his path story onto everyone else. So with (1), his "further", and this, he seems to me to be echoing Adyashanti as to how "enlightenment" has to be "embodied". I didn't agree with everything in the book when I read it, but there was quite a bit there that resonated. My recollection of his path model is that he distinguishes between "done" and "enlightened". Subtly, but, but as I recall, it's there: "enlightenment" is total "ego death", while "done" is .. well "done" .. with questioning and seeking. If I had to limit the expression of disagreements with the author to a single point, it would be his insistence that seeking has to necessarily result in what is essentially a "dark night of the soul" -- not a term I remember him using, but rather, a state of mind I recall him describing as essentially, inevitable. One topic Jed seemed to me quite clear about is acausality. For some of us, beliefs are (or were) central to our sense of identity, and when this is the case, it makes sense to talk about how the mind is a hindrance. If you want to call what can happen as the result of removing that hindrance "mind enlightenment", fine, but, to me, to be honest, it sounds like the sneer of someone who never walked that path. As far as spiritual autolysis is concerned, isn't the topic of this forum, at it's best, the existential truth? While you might not agree, I opine that any practice useful for becoming accident prone is also just as useful for the retracing of steps that can occur long after the accident already happened. I also seem to recall Jed prefacing his description of the practice of autolysis with a disclaimer that allowed for his personal perspective on it, but it's certainly an idea that the internet has brought the moment to. In terms of our writing about the existential truth on this forum, while I do agree with your judgment as to figgles' giraffe, I could easily make the case that there's been interesting shifts, over time, on several specific topics for more than a few of us, including you, on the one she was interested in. It's not only possible to write about what's true after the existential truth is known, it seems to be a popular pastime. I don’t really know what you mean by ‘little baggage’ in terms of his version of solipsism, it certainly isn’t Gopal solipsism, but it doesn’t go beyond Enigma/Figgles solipsism either. I’d say it’s identical with E/F-solipsism as it is presented here on the forum (they both like Jed). Yes, you are right, he mentions integration, which according to him can take a decade or longer. Right, on the one hand he says there are as many paths as there are seekers, but looking at the book as a whole, it’s quite clear that he considers spiritual autolysis to be the only way. Which explains why he sees the path as a fight to the death and why he likes all those gory metaphors. He talks about people ending up in hospitals or psych wards. This is one of the major red flags in the book, I agree. Not sneering, just putting it into proper perspective. The term mind enlightenment wasn’t meant to insult, even though when we use the term here it mostly is an insult. What he teaches is basically classical skepticism. I’ve got my exposure to this in philosophy classes and at the time, I liked skepticism a lot, because it really plays into the mindset of the typical intellectual. But you are right, I never did it the way Jed suggests you should do it (spiritual autolysis). What I did was contemplating Ramana’s question “Who am I, really?” and every time I did that, I ended up in silence rather quickly. So that’s how I know that Jed is wrong here. The caterpillars to butterflies analogy he relies on so heavily, to me shows a gross misunderstanding of what SR actually is as well.
Conclusion: Take what I said here about Jed as just my personal opinion. I don’t want to convince you of anything because it is almost impossible to prove given how the book is written. The entire book could just be a joke after all. Nevertheless, it contains some valuable information. As Shawn says in his review: "There is truth in McKenna’s books, yet it is wrapped in fantasy. I criticize McKenna, but praise his first book Spiritual Enlightenment: The darnedest Thing." And if we wouldn’t have this forum, I’d probably also recommend reading it. But since we have this forum, I’d say it's a waste of time. So what I am going to do now is moving on to the next name on my reading list: ET! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 22, 2019 15:38:53 GMT -5
So what I am going to do now is moving on to the next name on my reading list: ET! heh heh, well, I've got no dog in the Jed fight 'cause I was already the most colorful, fully enlightened and highest-flying butterfly that ever was even before I read the one book. But if you start doggin' on Tolle I'm gonna' have a meltdown.  I don’t really know what you mean by ‘little baggage’ in terms of his version of solipsism For one thing, he only needs two sentences: Dude, could've just as well been Niz, using a different vocabulary ("you exist" -> "I am", "existence" -> "being").  it’s quite clear that he considers spiritual autolysis to be the only way.
What I read was that this was the only technique he offered. What did you read that led you to conclude that he considered it the only way? He made his opinion about paths pretty clear, after all.
I get your point about how his work is superfluous given the internet these days. It is decades old, after all, but if this book wasn't written, something else would have likely filled the niche. The American cultural voice is known for bluntness and irony. Also, after all these years, if the events actually were true, someone would have found hard evidence of the farmhouse -- but that's what I think was the point: a collective message/messenger koan. I've always been amused by all the speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2019 20:16:11 GMT -5
heh heh, well, I've got no dog in the Jed fight 'cause I was already the most colorful, fully enlightened and highest-flying butterfly that ever was even before I read the one book. But if you start doggin' on Tolle I'm gonna' have a meltdown. Well, I'm not going to spend more time on Jed. I may post some interesting quotes though. Dude, could've just as well been Niz, using a different vocabulary ("you exist" -> "I am", "existence" -> "being"). Yeah, I get that. But he's NOT Niz. That's the whole point. That's why I said you have to look at the book as a whole, because it's one thing to say all the right things but it's quite another to combine it to a consistent organic whole. And in that sense, Niz and Jed are worlds apart, even though, if you'd get all literal and start a quote war, you'd have a fair chance of winning it with your perspective. Also, Jed's book is riddled with disclaimers and 'get out of jail free cards'. What I read was that this was the only technique he offered. What did you read that led you to conclude that he considered it the only way? He made his opinion about paths pretty clear, after all. To Jed waking up has to necessarily be a fight. Which is total nonsense. I get your point about how his work is superfluous given the internet these days. It is decades old, after all, but if this book wasn't written, something else would have likely filled the niche. The American cultural voice is known for bluntness and irony. Also, after all these years, if the events actually were true, someone would have found hard evidence of the farmhouse -- but that's what I think was the point: a collective message/messenger koan. I've always been amused by all the speculation. The mystery image is probably just a marketing ploy to keep the interest high. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2019 9:48:22 GMT -5
Adjustment Period
Jed: And then, one day, there it is. Nothing. No more enemies, no more battles. The sword that seems welded to your hand can now be dropped, once your fingers can be pried from it. There's nothing left to contend against and nothing left that must be done, and there will never be anything that must be done ever again.
Even then, it's very possible that you don't know what you are or where you are. It's just over, and nothing comes along to replace it. In novels you see freshly converted vampires wondering what their new status entails. "Am I a vampire or just nuts?" "What's the deal with garlic and crucifixes and sunlight and coffins?" "Am I immortal? How do I verify it?" "What's true and what's myth?" It can be like that.
I've heard that the Zen guys say it takes ten years to get the hang of it, and for them that means ten years in the most conducive imaginable environment—a Zen monastery where it's all enlightenment, 24/7/365. Imagine, on the other hand, spending that adjustment period in the midst of a society that devalues spirituality and in which even the spiritual experts are unwitting masters of disinformation. That can be a damned peculiar ten years.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 5
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 23, 2019 9:56:29 GMT -5
Adjustment Period
Jed: And then, one day, there it is. Nothing. No more enemies, no more battles. The sword that seems welded to your hand can now be dropped, once your fingers can be pried from it. There's nothing left to contend against and nothing left that must be done, and there will never be anything that must be done ever again. Even then, it's very possible that you don't know what you are or where you are. It's just over, and nothing comes along to replace it. In novels you see freshly converted vampires wondering what their new status entails. "Am I a vampire or just nuts?" "What's the deal with garlic and crucifixes and sunlight and coffins?" "Am I immortal? How do I verify it?" "What's true and what's myth?" It can be like that. I've heard that the Zen guys say it takes ten years to get the hang of it, and for them that means ten years in the most conducive imaginable environment—a Zen monastery where it's all enlightenment, 24/7/365. Imagine, on the other hand, spending that adjustment period in the midst of a society that devalues spirituality and in which even the spiritual experts are unwitting masters of disinformation. That can be a darned peculiar ten years. Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 5 Yep, to the excerpts. Thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2019 16:31:13 GMT -5
heh heh, well, I've got no dog in the Jed fight 'cause I was already the most colorful, fully enlightened and highest-flying butterfly that ever was even before I read the one book. But if you start doggin' on Tolle I'm gonna' have a meltdown. Well, I'm not going to spend more time on Jed. I may post some interesting quotes though. Dude, could've just as well been Niz, using a different vocabulary ("you exist" -> "I am", "existence" -> "being"). Yeah, I get that. But he's NOT Niz. That's the whole point. That's why I said you have to look at the book as a whole, because it's one thing to say all the right things but it's quite another to combine it to a consistent organic whole. And in that sense, Niz and Jed are worlds apart, even though, if you'd get all literal and start a quote war, you'd have a fair chance of winning it with your perspective. Also, Jed's book is riddled with disclaimers and 'get out of jail free cards'. What I read was that this was the only technique he offered. What did you read that led you to conclude that he considered it the only way? He made his opinion about paths pretty clear, after all. To Jed waking up has to necessarily be a fight. Which is total nonsense. I get your point about how his work is superfluous given the internet these days. It is decades old, after all, but if this book wasn't written, something else would have likely filled the niche. The American cultural voice is known for bluntness and irony. Also, after all these years, if the events actually were true, someone would have found hard evidence of the farmhouse -- but that's what I think was the point: a collective message/messenger koan. I've always been amused by all the speculation. The mystery image is probably just a marketing ploy to keep the interest high. Maybe his insistence on the pain-of-the-path means he's a fraud, or, it could just mean that's the only way he's seen it happen. Although I doubt the author saw it play out for as many times as he represents, I'm willing to stay open-minded as to the possibility of the latter. But ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. Similar to you and Shawn, I just like the material. Of all the sources I've read (including this forum, btw) the only one who was truly open-minded about paths -- including the state of the individual at the end of it -- was Niz, and to some extent, also, Albert Low. Notably absent from that two person list, for example, is Hakuin. Hakuin is quite detailed about how it should go, and there's like, no way I'm gonna' name Hakuin a fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2019 20:47:48 GMT -5
Maybe his insistence on the pain-of-the-path means he's a fraud, or, it could just mean that's the only way he's seen it happen. Although I doubt the author saw it play out for as many times as he represents, I'm willing to stay open-minded as to the possibility of the latter. But ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. Similar to you and Shawn, I just like the material. Of all the sources I've read (including this forum, btw) the only one who was truly open-minded about paths -- including the state of the individual at the end of it -- was Niz, and to some extent, also, Albert Low. Notably absent from that two person list, for example, is Hakuin. Hakuin is quite detailed about how it should go, and there's like, no way I'm gonna' name Hakuin a fraud. TBH, it's a bit hard to pin down what exactly makes him look like a false prophet. Because it's not that he makes outrageously false statements about SR. It's all rather subtle. It's just that a bunch of statements he makes, and sometimes repeatedly so, that are a little off here and there, usually no biggie and maybe open to interpretation. And if you'd just read one of those statements alone, he'd most certainly get away on grounds of plausible deniability. But it's adding up after a while. As you can see in my reports, my view changed considerably over the course of the book, exactly because of this accumulative effect. So this statement about the painfulness of the path alone isn't disqualifying. I've seen some rather messed up people on the path myself. But my own story is almost like the exact opposite of that. So I know first hand that the 'no pain no gain approach' has some flawful logic at its basis. But that's how his own awakening unfolded. And as you know from reading on the forum, we naturally tend to think that the way it unfolded for us it should somehow unfold for others as well. If I should give him the benefit of the doubt again, then I'd say let's compare his method of teaching to the method of teaching in Zen the way Watts described it (see Alan Watts quotes thread). They are very similar in the way that they don't leave the student a way out. In that way, they are both no-nonsense. The difference is that Jed's path relies 100% on the intellect and the Zen path totally discards the intellect. And I think it is this purely intellectual approach that made Jed think that he has discovered some kind of verifiable path, some kind of foolproof method as compared to all the other traditions. That's what his first step is about, you start the reduction process, the deconstruction of beliefs and everyone who does this thoroughly has to arrive at the same conclusion in the end. It's like a computer program running its course, the caterpillar to butterfly transformation program. But what he doesn't realize is that his method is only foolproof in the sense that it will make you realize the limits of the SVP perspective and conceptual knowledge. And in that sense I would agree, it's a good process. And that indeed can be a fight. But it doesn't take you beyond the SVP perspective, which is the whole point of spiritual enlightenment. It just takes you to the outer limits of the SVP perspective, which is the whole point of philosophical enlightenment. To go beyond, it takes a little grace. And until that happens, you're stuck with solipsism. If you are really good and get as far as metaphysical solipsism, you may even think you've conquered/annihilated ego. Now, compare that to the Zen method. There's no risk to get stuck in solipsism because there's no basis at all for that. It's a 100% non-intellectual approach. Jed's approach, however, even though it comes across as the ultimate no-nonsense approach, is almost a guaranteed path to ESA and therefore prone to perpetuating some serious nonsense. And it seems to me that Jed is somehow aware of that, why else all the disclaimers and get out of jail free cards? Do you see Niz or Ramana or Adya do that? I don't. Jed knows very well that his version of enlightenment is not the kind of enlightenment the traditions talk about. So it's only natural that he may get defensive of his version (which in his case usually means offensive, hehe). So while his criticism of blindly following a tradition is valid, he goes too far by declaring them all nonsense and deception just because it goes against his own perspective. This attitude is more indicative of a rigid mental position. Like our solipsists here on the forum, it seems inconceivable to him that he might actually be missing an important realization. Which is even more ironic when you know about his favorite mantra which says 'further'. But that's just the way it is with a purely intellectual, logic based approach. Logic tells you that you can't possibly be wrong. And in an environment that is logic based, like this forum, you will always have the best logical arguments and can't be proven wrong. And yet you are. Sages may talk like this about traditions in a specific instance to a seeker, but as an overall attitude, as it is the case with Jed, that's highly suspect. I mostly see sages do the exact opposite. And yes, I am aware that Jed somewhere says that its all good and such, but it seems these words are just that, words. Well, seems I have to put Niz on my reading list again. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2019 21:50:33 GMT -5
Well, seems I have to put Niz on my reading list again. Thanks!  yer welcome!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2019 23:38:29 GMT -5
Well, seems I have to put Niz on my reading list again. Thanks! yer welcome!! Let's see if I can find his definition for 'appearance'... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 24, 2019 19:42:17 GMT -5
Just jump
Jed: The fundamental conflict in the spiritual quest is that ego desires spiritual enlightenment, but ego can never achieve spiritual enlightenment. Self cannot achieve no-self.
Here's all you need to know to become enlightened: Sit down, shut up, and ask yourself what's true until you know. In other words, go jump off a cliff.
Don't go near the cliff and contemplate jumping off. Don't read a book about jumping off. Don't study the art and science of jumping off. Don't join a support group for jumping off. Don't write poems about jumping off. Don't suck up to someone else who jumped off.
Just jump.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 19
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 24, 2019 20:02:53 GMT -5
Instant Enlightenment
Jed: I might guess that there are never more than fifty truth-realized beings on earth at any moment, and I might suspect that most of them have the sense to keep their mouths shut about it, but what I know is that none of them became truth-realized except through a slow and agonizing process of self-annihilation.
When someone says that they became enlightened in an instant, they're probably talking about the transformation brought on by a transcendental experience—an experience of mystic union or some variation of it. It's powerful and can be massively transformative, but it's not enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't flashy and it doesn't just occur like an epiphany.
What about students of Zen? You always hear these stories? Yeah, the Bam! factor. There's no such thing as instant enlightenment any more than there's such a thing as an instant baby. Storks don't really deliver babies and there's no Enlightenment. Fairy hovering over Zen monasteries or anywhere else. It's easy to see how the idea would catch on, but there's only one way a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. No depth of insight into what it's like to be a vampire can ever make you a vampire.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 19
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2019 22:43:58 GMT -5
Instant Enlightenment
Jed: I might guess that there are never more than fifty truth-realized beings on earth at any moment, and I might suspect that most of them have the sense to keep their mouths shut about it, but what I know is that none of them became truth-realized except through a slow and agonizing process of self-annihilation. When someone says that they became enlightened in an instant, they're probably talking about the transformation brought on by a transcendental experience—an experience of mystic union or some variation of it. It's powerful and can be massively transformative, but it's not enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't flashy and it doesn't just occur like an epiphany. What about students of Zen? You always hear these stories? Yeah, the Bam! factor. There's no such thing as instant enlightenment any more than there's such a thing as an instant baby. Storks don't really deliver babies and there's no Enlightenment. Fairy hovering over Zen monasteries or anywhere else. It's easy to see how the idea would catch on, but there's only one way a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. No depth of insight into what it's like to be a vampire can ever make you a vampire. Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 19 See now, it depends on what he's talking about here: the path in the entirety, or the path after the first step (that he writes about as well), when, as you like to put it, the head is in the tiger's mouth. Now, unlike Jed, I don't think that period of the freefall ("tiger's mouth") is necessarily necessary, but that's what I can relate to directly. If he means that the slow process of annihilation applies to the entire life story, then it's almost sort of a tautology: every SRSuperPeep TM lived a life up until the point that Jed calls "done". But yeah, he's definitely projecting his experiences and expectations on how agonizing it all has to be, and obviously has no point of reference for kensho. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2019 22:49:34 GMT -5
Just jump
Jed: The fundamental conflict in the spiritual quest is that ego desires spiritual enlightenment, but ego can never achieve spiritual enlightenment. Self cannot achieve no-self. Here's all you need to know to become enlightened: Sit down, shut up, and ask yourself what's true until you know. In other words, go jump off a cliff. Don't go near the cliff and contemplate jumping off. Don't read a book about jumping off. Don't study the art and science of jumping off. Don't join a support group for jumping off. Don't write poems about jumping off. Don't suck up to someone else who jumped off. Just jump. Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 19 see now that's actually pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2019 0:46:19 GMT -5
Neti-Neti
Jed: The only thing to get a handle on is negation—the tearing-down process. I know you want to learn something, to embrace something, to understand. Humans are comprised of emotion and intellect, so it's only natural to want to follow one or both of these aspects of ourselves inward to the truth, but you can't. You could spend a thousand years with your nose in books or at the feet of masters and still be no closer to waking up from delusion. The fact is that no amount or combination of knowledge can bring about truth-realization.
No belief is true. No. Belief. Is. True. All beliefs. All concepts. All thoughts. Yes, they're all false—all bullsh!t. Of course they are. Not just religions and spiritual teachings, but all philosophies, all ideas, all opinions. If you're going for the truth, you're not taking any of them with you. Nothing that says two, not one, survives.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment, Chapter 22
|
|
yer welcome!! 