|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 21:31:12 GMT -5
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. His wife was, not so much him. That just echoed in the books. "Jed' had swallowed a lot of toxic spiritual poison in his time, despite being a supremely rational sort. When I look at his writings now, they present a medley of real hard core truths and the nonsensical Western spiritual tripe of various denominations. Including the 'channeled' rubbish.
No one is immune to BS, especially when young, and he WAS young then.
Yes, it's in all the books, and what he calls the integrated state is basically the A-H alignment thingy. In the third book he dedicated entire chapters to how to manifest more easily, and some passage read as if they had been copied verbatim from an A-H workshop/book. It's basically LOA 101, although he doesn't go very deep into it and doesn't call it LOA, of course. But it's classic A-H. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 21:55:57 GMT -5
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.
I got the impression that Jed is more the reclusive kind of guy, probably due to his issues in dealing with 'ordinary' people or people in general. That's actually one of the major red flags for me, his relationships (or his view on relationships if we take the stories in the books to be fictitious) and this general feeling of alienation from the rest of humanity that he keeps emphasizing at every opportunity. That tells me, apart from the solipsism, that his 'abiding non-dual awareness' is all just a head trip. Also funny how Jed keeps railing against the spiritual circus and the spiritual market place with a series of books that consist of 99% filler and that is obviously designed to just do one thing: selling books.  I don't mind him making a lot of money from the books. Good for him. But given the message of his books, he's got another obvious credibility gap to deal with in that regard. Anyway, my general attitude is that, in the big scheme of things, even the most bogus and misleading voice/teachers can be of value, including Jed. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 22:05:01 GMT -5
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.'
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 22:11:39 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.
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 22:46:43 GMT -5
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. I think the problem in talking about ego/self/mind is that everyone has slightly different definitions of these terms, some have more broader definitions, some more narrow ones. The way I see it, the aspect of self that makes up the basic personality remains, but the aspect of self that was associated with existential questions disappears. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 22:56:22 GMT -5
Ego games
Jed: This may sound a little weird, but your ego is smarter than you, way smarter, and if you don’t recognize that and respect it, you stand very little chance against it. I’ve seen many very insightful books by very brainy men and women who were experts on the subject of ego transcendence but who, I could easily tell, had not transcended their own egos. The spiritual/religious marketplace, which should be dedicated entirely to ministering to this all-important developmental advent is, in fact, arrayed almost entirely against it.
Ego doesn’t need to be killed because it was never really alive. You don't have to destroy your false self because it’s not real, which is really the whole point. It’s just a character we play, and what needs to be killed is that part of us that identifies with the character. Once that’s done—really done, and it can take years—then you can wear the costume and play the character as it suits you to do so, now in the character but not of the character.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 4
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 3, 2019 23:08:23 GMT -5
Human affairs
Jed: The fact is that I cannot participate in human affairs. I’m sorry, I know how stupid that sounds, but that’s really how it is... I have no framework, or even the memory of a framework, within which to conduct any but the most mundane interpersonal dialogue. I don’t even know the words anymore, or why one thing might be better than another.
If I had to live one day from Lisa’s old life, I would think myself accursed. Just getting together with buddies on Sunday afternoon to drink beer and watch a ballgame would be a hellish torment. The highpoint of Dennis and Lisa’s year, the vacation, seems to me an unbearable hardship. If I had to spend five minutes on a cruise ship or in Las Vegas or any place with people in mouse costumes, I’d seek escape as from a burning house. That people subject themselves to such ordeals willingly, for pleasure and at considerable expense, is completely outside my comprehension.
As always, it’s important to remember that it's not me personally we re talking about. These same things would be equally true for anyone in even a modestly developed state of Adulthood.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 11
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2019 23:52:53 GMT -5
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. I think the problem in talking about ego/self/mind is that everyone has slightly different definitions of these terms, some have more broader definitions, some more narrow ones. The way I see it, the aspect of self that makes up the basic personality remains, but the aspect of self that was associated with existential questions disappears. Those definitional issues become clear if you follow someone deep enough in a live dialog. There's no way the fear of death can persist either. That's a certain commonality. But from what I've learned about the past culture and other minds from these dialogs, there's an interest in what happens even beyond this. Jed is essentially on one extreme end of that. I ain't got time to go out and meet people to make up my own mind about it and even if I did, the sample space would still be waaay too small to draw any abstract conclusions about the possibility of sainthood. I wouldn't draw any existential conclusion from Jed's apparent misanthropy. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 1:10:21 GMT -5
I think the problem in talking about ego/self/mind is that everyone has slightly different definitions of these terms, some have more broader definitions, some more narrow ones. The way I see it, the aspect of self that makes up the basic personality remains, but the aspect of self that was associated with existential questions disappears. Those definitional issues become clear if you follow someone deep enough in a live dialog. There's no way the fear of death can persist either. That's a certain commonality. But from what I've learned about the past culture and other minds from these dialogs, there's an interest in what happens even beyond this. Jed is essentially on one extreme end of that. I ain't got time to go out and meet people to make up my own mind about it and even if I did, the sample space would still be waaay too small to draw any abstract conclusions about the possibility of sainthood. I wouldn't draw any existential conclusion from Jed's apparent misanthropy. Well, I'd agree that it's difficult and maybe not all that useful to make a list of appropriate behavior patters that would describe sainthood. Nevertheless, certain attitudes go hand in hand with certain perspectives. And some of Jed's attitudes are typical attitudes of a perspective rooted in separation, not oneness. From my perspective, it would take a considerable amount of mental contortions to make it look the other way. The alienation thing is just the most obvious one in a practical context and the solipsism is another one in a theoretical context. I'd probably could come up with a lot more, but I don't want to over-analyze the books because 1) they are not all that good and 2) I look at the books as a whole anyway. And the overall impression is that what he describes there as the enlightened state or perspective is not actually the enlightened perspective. And as I've already said, we should distinguish between the first book and the later books. Most of my recent criticism is based on the later books. And since you haven't read those books, it doesn't make much sense belaboring this point with you. Because the Jed you are talking about is not the Jed I am talking about. We are a bit talking past each other. So my suggesting to you would be to either read the other books (and also the first book again) in case you have to prove a point, or just drop it in case you have nothing to prove. I'd give the same advice to Figgles, who seems to have read all three books, but it's probably been a few years since so memory may not be so fresh anymore. I'm fine with either decision, I have no dog in this fight and always willing to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 4, 2019 1:15:07 GMT -5
Human affairs
Jed: The fact is that I cannot participate in human affairs. I’m sorry, I know how stupid that sounds, but that’s really how it is... I have no framework, or even the memory of a framework, within which to conduct any but the most mundane interpersonal dialogue. I don’t even know the words anymore, or why one thing might be better than another. If I had to live one day from Lisa’s old life, I would think myself accursed. Just getting together with buddies on Sunday afternoon to drink beer and watch a ballgame would be a hellish torment. The highpoint of Dennis and Lisa’s year, the vacation, seems to me an unbearable hardship. If I had to spend five minutes on a cruise ship or in Las Vegas or any place with people in mouse costumes, I’d seek escape as from a burning house. That people subject themselves to such ordeals willingly, for pleasure and at considerable expense, is completely outside my comprehension. As always, it’s important to remember that it's not me personally we re talking about. These same things would be equally true for anyone in even a modestly developed state of Adulthood. Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 11 This is where Jed betrays himself. The inability and aversion to interact with the world. And if it's not him personally he is talking about then who is it is he talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:04:32 GMT -5
The Matrix
Q: Is it possible that your memory of what it’s like to be a normal person is no longer very clear?
Jed: Thou presumest rightly, but I’m still not sure this is as big a deal as you’re making out. Let’s use the movie The Matrix to map this out. My outside-the-matrix character is telling your inside-the-matrix character what the deal is; that you’re living a fictional life as a fictional being in a fictional universe. I'm not saying you should break out of the matrix, just that you can have an unimaginably better experience of your existence within it if you understand the wholly fictitious nature of it. Most people, of course, have no idea, or have only a conceptual grasp. The movie The Matrix is solipsism, the cogito, Plato’s cave, brain-in-a-vat theory and a great popcorn flick all rolled into one. It’s the death knell of philosophy and science and religion. Nothing is what you think it is, nor is it not. That’s the dreamstate.
Q: But if I’m not a human being on planet Earth, what am I?
Jed: Well, to me, you’re a minor character in my dramatic dreamscape. A semi-coherent energetic pattern making a brief appearance on the stage of my awareness. A bit player whose timely appearance meshes precisely with current themes.
Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare, Chapter 15
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:09:25 GMT -5
This is where Jed betrays himself. The inability and aversion to interact with the world. And if it's not him personally he is talking about then who is it is he talking about? He thinks he can speak for all enlightened beings collectively. But this one here is even better: Classic! |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 4, 2019 4:19:13 GMT -5
This is where Jed betrays himself. The inability and aversion to interact with the world. And if it's not him personally he is talking about then who is it is he talking about? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:21:54 GMT -5
FFS, Reefs... you are providing a free platform for 'Jed' so that he could continue to strip humans of their rightful earnings. And besides that, these quotes are completely useless, a mental scratch of the mental itch.
Hehe, trust me, I had that thought too that Jed would be grateful for all that free publicity here. However, the perspective Jed personifies is a very common one in non-duality circles. There are a lot of mini-Jeds inhabiting these spiritual forums, some know of Jed's books, some don't. To you, it's probably about Jed personally. To me, it's more about the 'archetype' and 'mental position' Jed represents, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2019 4:28:13 GMT -5
Well, I can absolutely identify with misanthropy. 'Jed' was that way since his early adolescence, as he was highly intelligent and observant. And most highly intelligent philosophers were/are misanthropes. Not what people want to hear, but. Of course, 'Jed' managed to package his misanthropy in a very sell-able format.
When I read what Jed wrote in the third book about his plans of retreating into the wilderness with his dog, far away from civilization, it reminded me of Schopenhauer and his poodle! |
|
