My ego is depressed after reading Jed McKenna

[Monkey-man]

You can skip all but tell me, is Jed McKenna’s description of enlightenment is how enlightenment actually is????? Is that as dark as he describes? And how would you describe it in a literal way?

I really like Jed’s writing and I’m not exposing or rejecting him by any means, on the contrary I do believe in what he says coz he sounds very reliable and he really removes some fairy tales, but I don’t know what to think about it, probably I’m not getting something but I feel like Jed’s description of enlightenment is somehow different from others’ including Leo’s. And I get that enlightenment is not all nice but a bittersweet pill where bittersweetness is not a problem. But in Jed’s description of Truth, Truth is sorta very ‘dark’ and doesn’t look like something natural. As I understood ‘enlightenment’, before reading Jed, was something like ‘feeling of borderlessness and oneness with everything beyond your body’, and ‘feeling as if you are child who knows nothing again’, and peace and staff like that.  But Jed doesn’t seem to talk about that at all, and please correct me if I’m wrong but these are how he seems to perceive the world:

1. There is no feeling of connection and oneness but rather total isolation in infinite cosmos.

2. He feels that people are not real or alive, but rather not more alive than a stone. 

But shouldn’t everything start to feel more lively instead ???

3. Overall he doesn’t seem to feel bliss and peace etc.. but rather emptiness. 

4. Total nihilism. This nihilism as I see it should turn into something like seeing beauty in everything without need for meaning, but Jed seem to miss all this meaning since he does emphasise  meaningless life so much. Yes life’s meaningless but if you can’t shut up about it, it seems like you want some meaning? And Jed seems to want some meaning. Maybe I’m wrong

5. In the end of the day, he suggests against pursuing enlightenment but rather to be sensible adult and enjoy positive aspects of life coz after enlightenment you cannot enjoy ‘positive’ things of this world anymore because no more good and bad dichotomy. Jed talks how watching movies has no emotional triggers anymore, so does people in real life who looks like soap opera characters.  But how can one enjoy beauty in life or in arts while for example watching movies where whole point to connect to story and ‘be involved’ in this story for 90mins? Isn’t that the whole point of art, connection and aesthetics? How to feel this life to the fullest if ‘your existence’ become observer-like and not participator-like?

6. He doesn’t seem to think that enlightenment is your natural state of being. And I always thought that enlightenment is a state in which any living body SHOULD live naturally and only because of unnatural bug in ego we do not live in it. This question really bothers me, if kids and animals are really enlightened, it then has to be natural for us, but some gurus seem to say that it is not something that everyone need or should have in their life. ?

7. Also he says that enlightenment always require conscious intention, it cannot happen spontaneously. But how about Tolle, Sadhguru and many others who didnt pursue it, but it just happened to them without intention?

8. Has to do with personality? Coz some enlightened people (like Rupert Spira, Sadhguru and Tolle) constantly talk about joy and peace and staff like that, while Jed sort of emphasises harsh reality. So might it be that enlightenment will lead to different ‘mood outcomes’ for different personalities? Jed seemed to describe himself as pessimistic anti-social type guy prior, and did enlightenment just increase these characteristics in him? I don’t get it tbh.

9. I like his straightforwardness and description of non-duality though, but he made me to doubt if I really want to pursue this. I already feel constantly disconnected and empty, its hard for me to find  meaning in anything and to have passion or purpose, and everyone already seems unreal and fake, and there’s not much joy in me anyway   And If I got McKenna right, all of that will just skyrocket towards infinity for enlightened person but it’s no longer problem, except that it’s not because of nice peace but rather coz of some nice emptiness. I mean all of that is not what I felt in ‘unconsciously enlightened childhood’, childhood was nice happy-magical times, definitely unconscious ‘oneness’, and I thought enlightenment is something like early childhood. I’m sure I’m not getting something. But if so, how would you describe your own state of enlightenment, not in a poetic way but as literal as possible?

Edited December 2, 2017 by Monkey-man

[Guest username]

If you're curious, find out for yourself. Based on my path, there will be nothing more rewarding.

You don't know what Jed McKenna's level of realization is. For all you know, he might not actually even be enlightened. It would be a shame to be discouraged by one person's point of view.

No need to even discuss the specifics of his claims. If it's calling to you and you think it's worth it, you can just find out for yourself and not have to come up with hypotheticals and never-ending "what-ifs".

Edited December 2, 2017 by username

[Richard Alpert]

I read his books long time ago.

I found them boring at the time. There was nothing intresting about Mckenna´s personality.

Maybe i read them again some day. It was like 7 years ago, so i would probably have different perspective.

[Blissout]

Google Jed Mckenna, there are many suspicious claims about him.

[aurum]

@Monkey-man

I really wanted to answer this because I had a similar reaction to Jed's books when I first read them. The only other spiritual teacher I really knew was Eckhart Tolle, so it was a pretty big switch.

That was a couple years ago and my perspective has grown a lot.

From a practical teaching perspective, Jed's greatest strength is also his weakness.

He shocks you and gets you taking this whole "enlightenment" thing a lot more serious. He forces you to look at areas of your life you'd never look at. And maybe more important, he gets people who don't resonate with the "unconditional love & peace" crowd.

But the essence of his teachings are the same.

There is nothing Jed is saying that Tolle or Ralston or Leo or Spira or Mooji or whoever isn't saying. They all just have a unique personality and teaching style they use.

The fact that you're depressed though means McKenna cracked a hole in the story your ego has been spinning. Which is exactly what was supposed to happen, so congratulations.

Now you keep going. This is a beginning, not an end.

[Telepresent]

@Monkey-man I'm a fan of McKenna's writing, and of spiritual autolysis, but I fully understand where these concerns are coming from. I wonder whether, if someone's only exposure to enlightenment theory was through McKenna, would they be in massive trouble. As it stands I find him to be a valuable point on one end of a spectrum, with (for example) someone like Matt Khan at the other. 

I think the important thing to remember is that any teacher can only talk about enlightenment from their own limited human perspective. And it seems like McKenna - if he is enlightened - had a very rocky journey to get there and this informs his human perspective. 

However, I also think a lot of his writing is in fact very subtle, and it can be easy to misunderstand him. He has a particular sense of humour and mode of communication that can make things seem darker than (I think at least) they are. And I think he does this on purpose. Why? Hmm, let's look at your questions:

1) Read again but pay attention to his descriptions of 'the universe'. Remember he writes from a human perspective; when he does take time to talk about the universe, he alludes to a profound connectedness, gratitude, and trust. The isolation is from the ego perspective, and this is what he comes back to again and again: when he says "you don't want this", he is talking to the ego, the fictional character. Not the truth. 

2) Maybe I'm forgetting something, but his most direct description of other people is "like children", or "half-awake, half-asleep". Which again is all about people being run by ego. But I'll be cute with your point and say you can reverse it and say that a stone is as alive as a person. That's a very Jed thing to do.

3) Hmm, maybe. Maybe not. Consider that he's trying to cut through the 'bliss' narrative because he sees that as more delusional food for the ego. Go back and read the first chapter of Damndest, at the feeling he describes reading the Gita. Look at his discussion of 'agape' (don't know if I mis-spelled that) during the interview with Julie. In Incorrect he tells Curtis his living reality is one of contentment. There's more going on that he's only willing to allude to, not directly state - I suspect because he sees 'bliss' as crack for the ego and really wants to break past that concept.

4) Interesting thought. In terms of meaning, certainly he talks about the human having certain 'rights and wrongs' hardwired into it. Maybe his 'ego-costume' still seeks meaning? However, regarding beauty, look at some of Julie's later writings in Incorrect, and remember there IS no Julie: this is Jed describing to us his own process and shifting perspective. Pay attention to when she talks about the beauty of things she used to hate. Remember when he says that Ahab is missing a key characteristic: intense joy. 

5) He does say to pursue adulthood unless you 'absolutely have to' pursue enlightenment. It reminds me of Steve Norquist saying "you don't want this". In both cases they are talking to the ego, and making the point that the desires and goals of the ego may not be compatible with enlightenment. And if you lose any belief in right and wrong, good and bad, suddenly the dream might not look so bad, right? Why not stay in it and enjoy it while you can? The question of audience is very important here, and is addressed in Incorrect (both in the 'review' at the front, and when he talks to Curtis about criticism). He is making a very clear distinction here that, if you are looking to enlightenment because you think it's going to enhance the life you are already living  (i.e. if EGO is pursuing enlightenment to help EGO's ends), maybe the end of ego is not, in fact, what you are looking for. I think this is actually a very important point to contemplate for a while, and yes it can be a painful one: WHY are you doing this, and HOW MUCH are you willing to allow to change in your life if that is what is really required? If you're looking to enhance the life you have, is killing yourself really the way to do that? 

Also I'll point out he clearly loves poetry, and in some of the bonus material spends some time describing how he loves delving into art and music. 

6) This entirely depends upon which 'you' we are talking about. But remember the simple razor he uses: whatever is, is right. He describes humanity in belittling terms at times, like children, so certainly doesn't seem to see ego bound reality as 'best' or anything. I don't think it's so much that he sees enlightenment as not the 'natural' state - but certainly not the natural state for the character/ego/human, which is so often who he is addressing. 

7) I think he's either wrong here, or knows he isn't (he does say "what isn't possible in a dream?") but is trying to push people into action rather than waiting or relying on the zen "bam" factor. Hard to tell - perhaps he's overly reliant on his own process. But I suspect it's a call to action.

8) I think it's a combination of personality and intent. He doesn't seem willing to indulge people's ego-fantasies about enlightenment. He wants to cut straight to the core and not allow a moment's breath to stop and look at anything that the ego might grab and go "ooh, I like that".  And I think it leads to books that are rather hyperbolic at times; which can only allude to deeper truths - but the hints are there. The thing about these books is they don't leave you anything to believe, really, except the falseness of the ego and ego world, which of course comes over as depressing and nihilistic to the ego. They're not books you can read once and believe and think "that's nice". They need intense scrutiny and an extremely discerning eye, they need to be pulled apart to be understood, and they need to be compared with other perspectives. I find it very interesting to compare what McKenna says against what Adyashanti says. They're actually not all that different. 

9) Contemplate, and choose what you feel is right! I've had moments like you describe and I've always been drawn back, and whenever I have I've realised that what dissuaded me was an idea I had generated, nothing more. Have a look at what you've been imagining enlightenment to be, and look at what the consensus is between those who purport to be enlightened, and go from there! 

I hope some of that helped! 

 

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Monkey-man said:

Is that as dark as he describes?

Dark? Hehehe...

You misread him.

He describes an utter perfection.

You can feel nondual love oozing from his work.

You have to take into account the maddening humility of Nothingness.

He wants it to take your breath away.

[jjer94]

@Monkey-man

Jed's writing is dramatic at times, but as Leo points out, they are indeed a work of love. I've talked with him personally, and he does have a compassionate air about him. I'm so glad I read his books before any other nonduality books, because they really cut the crap and get to the chase. 

However, don't take the drama too seriously, or else you risk zen devilry, which was the trap I fell into afterwards. I gave up meditation for awhile after reading his books, a mistake on my part. I became dogmatically anti-dogmatic, closing my mind down to all "New Age BS," which is precisely what I needed at the time. 

So, do take his work seriously, but maintain a holistic open mind. Enlightenment is a mastery process, not a neo-advaitan "there's nothing to do" farce.

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by jjer94

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

dogmatically anti-dogmatic

Brilliant!

P.S. If there's nothing to do, there's everything to do

[Monkey-man]

thank you guys, whole picture seem bit clearer now

ya he's talking to ego! thanks, thats right, i didn't quite realise that

also true that he doesn't resonate with 'unconditional love' crowd, very accurate point, and i guess that's precisely why his style seem repulsive, coz while reading i was like - c'mon man where is your unconditionaaaal lovvvvve, send me some loaavvvee vibes maaaaaaaaan, isn't enlightenment all looooovee mann, can't you be john lennon a bit??

and he's like 'nah, all good, just killing time until time kills me... nothing to do nowhere to go.... don't want anything..... haha these chimps are sleeping naive chimps.... ehhh can't wait this body to die...don't care for you imma just write my book...ah leave me alone...'

sounded more like chilling marijuana user

so defo such impression makes to question whether u want to become like that

but i see your points, makes lots of sense

[Faceless]

Lol 

[Leo Gura]

@Monkey-man I understand that depressed feeling though. When I first read his first book, I was depressed for about a week.