|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 2, 2019 12:34:52 GMT -5
Hey tano!  Hope you are well. Thanks.  Can't complain. We have a saying around here (geographically speaking): "noone who can do anything about it is listening anyway". Haven't gotten up to the lake as many times as I would've liked this year, and of course, that's creating gobs of suffering. It's been pretty quiet, existentially speaking. Sue doesn't strike up dharma talks as often, but when it happens these days they tend to get to the point and fade way quickly, at least relative to the past, and the Universe has blessedly left my environs otherwise free of the curious. Been busy spending time on something that I hope will eventually yield coin. How's it been for you? Still overseas? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 17:25:21 GMT -5
Similarly, uniquely to the enlightenment book industry, instead of a bunch of educational chapters about enlightenment, what we had was a lot of character development (and dialogue). We had quite random scenes about skydiving, campfires, being in a park....and I think in the second one, there was a dinner party towards the beginning (I got bored and stopped reading the second). And although 'enlightenment' was the overall theme, 'Jed' became the talking point after. Ironic really. I would go so far as to say a 'cult of Jed' was created, complete with imitation overly macho personalities dropping 'Truth bombs' everywhere... 'Truth at all cost', 'Burn it all down', 'The brutal and uncompromising Truth'. Here's what Shawn writes about the second book: I agree with Shawn, the (self-?)adulation is off the charts. On one hand he teaches to think for yourself and trust no one, but on the other hand he proudly presents himself surrounded with sycophants. Even one of his book covers was a nuclear bomb on it if I recall Yeah! Now there's a view from outer space, with a dog picture (probably his dog 'Maya'). If taken as purely fictional, you don't see sort of a 'tongue in cheek' thing goin on there? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 17:28:15 GMT -5
What all seekers really want
Jed: Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment isn’t one kind of enlightenment; it’s the only kind. There’s no enlightenment in the dream and breaking out of the dream is a muddy, bloody business. That’s the bad news. The good news is that enlightenment isn’t what anyone really wants anyway. Take a close look at Captain Ahab, the Break-Out Archetype. Are you ready to play that role? It doesn’t matter how you answer because it’s not a role we choose. Ahab didn’t choose the role. Julie didn’t choose it. I didn’t. Who would? Who could? It’s idiotic, but what’s more than that, it’s silly.
What I’ve called Human Adulthood in these pages, however, is something we can choose. Human Adulthood is what all seekers really want, and it’s not silly.
Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Epilogue I see this as one of his more important points. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 5:28:48 GMT -5
Hey Tano! I just read Shawn's review of Jed's books again, he writes: So let's assume we've got the house. What about the people? There were no students. Friends and acquaintances visited the house, chatted about spiritual stuff, nothing heavy.
There are people who met the man, both before the books (obviously, duh..) and after. He doesn't seem to teach (hallelujah! and thanks to thousands of fake Indian gods for that). Most details pertaining to the specifically spiritual activities - are invented, taken from other people's stories or exaggerated x10. A creative license so to speak. The settings and the rough timelines - are real. The books have kept 'Jed' in good stead for twenty years, and not a day's work of slavery in the office all that time. He doesn't complain.
Ha! Figures. That's the kind of stuff I expected. Thanks for you input. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 5:52:58 GMT -5
If taken as purely fictional, you don't see sort of a 'tongue in cheek' thing goin on there? If I had read the first book only, maybe. I've discussed this with Laughter already. But having just finished the other two books, that theory seems to be the least reasonable and least likely now. Tano's version seems a lot more reasonable and likely. I see the dialogs as fictional in the sense that they didn't happen that way because it comes across as a bit too contrived and the dialogs and stories always follow the same old pattern, it's actually predictable after a while. But I do consider them as genuine in the sense that he had discussed these topics with others, maybe even in a similar way. In spirituality, it's the same questions and therefore the same dialogs all the time anyway. Just look at this forum. I don't think it's all that difficult to write a book like Jed's, just using the dialogs posted here as a basis. Maybe he even got most of it from online discussion forums, who knows? I know you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 8:10:41 GMT -5
Destroying ego
Jed: The process of spiritual autolysis has three basic parts: Seeing what needs to be killed, killing it, and cleaning up the mess. Seeing is really the first stage of killing, but the third part is just as important as the first two; you have to clean up after yourself. You must process the loss. The process of awakening looks like it’s about destroying ego, but that’s not really accurate. You never completely rid yourself of ego— the false self—as long as you’re alive, and it’s not important that you do. What matters is the emotional tethers that anchor us to the dream state; that hold us in place and make us feel that we’re a part of something real. We send out energetic tendrils from the nexus of ego like roots to attach ourselves to the dream state, and to detach from it we must sever them. The energy of an emotion is our life force, and the amount of life force determines the power of the emotion. Withdraw energy from an emotion and what’s left? A sterile thought. A husk. In this sense, freeing ourselves from attachment is indeed the process of awakening, but such attachments aren’t what we have, they’re what we are. Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Chapter 24 an eyebrow raiser, but not much different from other things he wrote in the first book that did the same. Ultimately, for me, a live dialog is necessary to take away the benefit of any doubt from acknowledging the insight that is there. What's your particular issue with that statement? Seems kinda common sense. When reading Jed what you always have to keep in mind is that Jed is a big fan of the 'channeled guys' like A-H and Seth. So some stuff probably just makes sense in that context. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 8:13:18 GMT -5
Cogito (1)
Jed: Whadda ya know? Really. What, with absolute certainty, do you know? Put aside all opinions, beliefs and theories for a moment and address this one simple question: What do you know for sure? In other words, let’s cut the crap and figure out what we know for sure. The cogito does exactly that, and it's very simple. The question is: What do you know? The answer is: I Am.
All other so-called facts are really non-facts and belong in the category of consensual reality and relative truth, i.e., unreal reality and untrue truth. Cogito ergo sum is the equation that proves the fact. But first, before we go on, let s ask what else we know. What else can be said for certain? Nothing. We don’t know anything else. And that’s the real point of the cogito. The importance of I Am isn’t that it’s a fact, but that it’s the only fact.
I Am is the only thing anyone has ever known or will ever know. Everything else, all religion and philosophy and science, can never be more than dream interpretation. There is no other fact than I Am.
The cogito is the seed of the thought that destroys the universe. Beyond the cogito, nothing is known. Beyond the cogito, nothing can be known. Except I Am, no one knows anything. No man or god can claim to know more. No god or array of gods can exist or be imagined that know more than this one thing: I Am.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 3
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 8:28:00 GMT -5
That's an eyebrow raiser, but not much different from other things he wrote in the first book that did the same. Ultimately, for me, a live dialog is necessary to take away the benefit of any doubt from acknowledging the insight that is there. What's your particular issue with that statement? Seems kinda common sense. When reading Jed what you always have to keep in mind is that Jed is a big fan of the 'channeled guys' like A-H and Seth. So some stuff probably just makes sense in that context. On one hand it's true that the individuation continues, and with that, the projection of something that a people-peep can reasonably claim is ego. But on the other hand, that conclusion is based on their projection, not on what's happening internally for the SRSuperpeep TM. On one hand, it's only ego that would ever think of destroying ego, and mind and thought obviously continue despite whatever someone has ever realized. But on the other hand, something ceases. A pattern of thought and emotion that is the cause of suffering, ends. To claim the "false self" continues is ambiguous, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 10:15:44 GMT -5
xxx Been busy spending time on something that I hope will eventually yield coin. How's it been for you? Still overseas? I hope not on producing another 'enlightenment' opus for the masses.  as I'm sure is much to the relief of anyone who reads here, no. I am still overseas, yes. Not for long now.
Will it be a homecoming for you then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 10:19:27 GMT -5
If taken as purely fictional, you don't see sort of a 'tongue in cheek' thing goin on there? If I had read the first book only, maybe. I've discussed this with Laughter already. But having just finished the other two books, that theory seems to be the least reasonable and least likely now. Tano's version seems a lot more reasonable and likely. I see the dialogs as fictional in the sense that they didn't happen that way because it comes across as a bit too contrived and the dialogs and stories always follow the same old pattern, it's actually predictable after a while. But I do consider them as genuine in the sense that he had discussed these topics with others, maybe even in a similar way. In spirituality, it's the same questions and therefore the same dialogs all the time anyway. Just look at this forum. I don't think it's all that difficult to write a book like Jed's, just using the dialogs posted here as a basis. Maybe he even got most of it from online discussion forums, who knows? I know you do.
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.'
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 11:03:56 GMT -5
Me, me, me (2)Question: So when they say you can’t be enlightened… Jed: Me personally? It has nothing to do with me. Anyone who tries to drag me into it is just trying to distract themselves away from the real message, the grown up message, which is one of self-determination. Very scary stuff. If they say they don’t believe I’m enlightened, they’re right and they’re wrong. They’re right because no one is enlightened. I said so in 'Dạmnedest'; there is no such thing as an enlightened person; it’s an immutable contradiction. They’re wrong because when you talk about enlightenment, what I am is what you’re talking about, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not. They’re basing their statements on other things. They might feel that enlightenment is a subjective thing, an in-dreams thing, or perhaps they think that I, as an author, am seeking their approval or their verification; that my authenticity is for readers to decide. The spiritual marketplace seems to foster this buyer-seller dynamic rather than the most rigorous scientific-type inquiry, which would be much more appropriate for something so important. Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Chapter 8 Enlightenment Myth, yes. Seeing that clearly is the last step, a hard one admittedly, because what of all that search? Of all that reading, releasing, satsanging, talking to countless other believers in enlightenment, taking years trying to 'get there' etc. etc.? All for... what?
Complete nothing. Jed, despite his numerous mishaps in the books - got the last bit, that hardly anyone sees. Then he went and made some coin. It just seemed more constructive to the nature of being - an order to survive in the most pleasant, non-taxing way and doing what one likes doing and what one is good at.
That's all there is to it.
The ambiguity here is that people peeps can understand the logic in this and conclude that what they imagine as "enlightenment" are sour grapes. Which is, of course, one possible motivation for finding the author to clear that up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 11:18:51 GMT -5
Cogito (1)
Jed: Whadda ya know? Really. What, with absolute certainty, do you know? Put aside all opinions, beliefs and theories for a moment and address this one simple question: What do you know for sure? In other words, let’s cut the crap and figure out what we know for sure. The cogito does exactly that, and it's very simple. The question is: What do you know? The answer is: I Am. All other so-called facts are really non-facts and belong in the category of consensual reality and relative truth, i.e., unreal reality and untrue truth. Cogito ergo sum is the equation that proves the fact. But first, before we go on, let s ask what else we know. What else can be said for certain? Nothing. We don’t know anything else. And that’s the real point of the cogito. The importance of I Am isn’t that it’s a fact, but that it’s the only fact. I Am is the only thing anyone has ever known or will ever know. Everything else, all religion and philosophy and science, can never be more than dream interpretation. There is no other fact than I Am. The cogito is the seed of the thought that destroys the universe. Beyond the cogito, nothing is known. Beyond the cogito, nothing can be known. Except I Am, no one knows anything. No man or god can claim to know more. No god or array of gods can exist or be imagined that know more than this one thing: I Am. Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 3 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 13:22:04 GMT -5
Will it be a homecoming for you then? Realistically and factually I have no home base as of now, so not sure.
Clean slate then. Nice! The lightness of potentiality, the freedom of the absence of attachment .. hopefully without the melancholy of loneliness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 13:23:59 GMT -5
The ambiguity here is that people peeps can understand the logic in this and conclude that what they imagine as "enlightenment" are sour grapes. Which is, of course, one possible motivation for finding the author to clear that up. I don't know what you mean here, it is unclear. Someone seeking can understand this idea that what they think is enlightenment is a myth, but that doesn't mean that they actually found what's not a myth. There is, most definitely, "something to find". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 14:15:39 GMT -5
Someone seeking can understand this idea that what they think is enlightenment is a myth, but that doesn't mean that they actually found what's not a myth. There is, most definitely, "something to find". deleted at tano's request Well, to be clear I wasn't suggesting that this was the case for you, personally. Nope. Rocket science, it ain't. |
|
Can't complain. We have a saying around here (geographically speaking): "noone who can do anything about it is listening anyway". Haven't gotten up to the lake as many times as I would've liked this year, and of course, that's creating gobs of suffering. It's been pretty quiet, existentially speaking. Sue doesn't strike up dharma talks as often, but when it happens these days they tend to get to the point and fade way quickly, at least relative to the past, and the Universe has blessedly left my environs otherwise free of the curious. Been busy spending time on something that I hope will eventually yield coin.
as I'm sure is much to the relief of anyone who reads here, no.