Jed McKenna

[roopepa]

I'd like to hear what you guys think of Jed McKenna. I've read the first book of the Enlightenment Trilogy, and the Theory of Everything.

He is without a doubt one of the most direct awakening teachers out there. There is this certain clarity and 'crispness' in his books that is really nowhere to be seen with most spiritual teachers.

He doesn't seem to talk about Love tho. Why do you think this is? Is he not awake to this 'side' of Absolute Truth, or is he consciously hiding it in case someone misunderstands the teaching? Or is this Love stuff just bullshit? ? He only seems to mention Oneness and Consciousness as absolutes. Somewhere he mentions intelligence too.

[TheAvatarState]

@roopepa as someone who read all 3 books of his enlightenment trilogy, I got what I needed from them and didn't hang on his worldview (or what I perceived to be lacking). The illusion that is Jed McKenna represented a perspective of awakening I needed to be reminded of, mainly, that there's absolutely no purpose or reason to it. He also clarified how horrible and difficult it is to the ego, and that it shouldn't be done unless you NEED to to keep on living. Enlightenment is not what it's cracked up to be. 

I recommend the 2nd and 3rd books, they were fun and illuminating.

[The0Self]

He may have realized love in such complete fashion that he doesn’t feel the need to reify it as some “thing.” It’s just a theory, but it seems clear to me it could be the case since he states many times that “wrong” is impossible— that’s basically unconditional love.

[roopepa]

1 hour ago, TheAvatarState said:

@roopepa I recommend the 2nd and 3rd books, they were fun and illuminating.

Got 'em right in front of me. This is going to be an interesting summer.

[Brivido]

I love Jed's books, they were my introduction to serious spiritual work. You have to read between the lines, he doesn't talk overtly about love, but it's there.

I think the reason he doesn't talk about it openly is because all his books are trying to make you aware of your ego tricks. People might have used the idea of love as just another ego layer.

That's what makes his books so beautiful, it just goes against everything that mainstream spirituality teaches. It calls on the bullshit of the spiritual ego. 

[tatsumaru]

If you are completely new to spirituality he might offer some beginner's insights. However he seems to be stuck at some neo-advaitan nihilism belief in no-self that he tries to extrapolate as an explanation of everything. The main takeaway from Jed's work is that beliefs obscure reality. This is huge. However his conclusions about the ultimate nature of reality aren't very useful. For some reason he didn't want to go further. Additionally I didn't like his spiritual method which starts with the assumption that there is something true and that true is what is and that you can use some reductionistic approach to figure out what's real as if absolute truth is somehow a logical conclusion. Real spirituality is grounded in direct experience not in concepts. For the sentient being spirituality starts in sentient dual reality. There's no indication that there's anything true in regards to relative so-called reality, why would you filter your direct experience through a believe that sentient reality is true?

Edited June 16, 2021 by tatsumaru

[Brivido]

2 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

Additionally I didn't like his spiritual method which starts with the assumption that there is something true and that true is what is and that you can use this as a basis for your inquiry. Real spirituality is grounded in direct experience not in concepts. There's no indication that there's anything true in regards to relative so-called reality, why would you filter your direct experience through a believe that sentient reality is true?

This comment clearly shows that you have misunderstood his teachings, you might have to reared his books.

In fact, your comment completely goes against what he actually says in the books.

[tatsumaru]

58 minutes ago, Brivido said:

This comment clearly shows that you have misunderstood his teachings, you might have to reared his books.

In fact, your comment completely goes against what he actually says in the books.

Instead of relying on ad hominem attacks simply state how I am wrong and why.

[TreyMoney]

The Enlightenment Triology and The Theory of Everything are absolutely must reads for anyone that wants a direct path to Truth Realization.

"If someone (like our dear friend tatsumaru above) says enlightenment doesnt mean truth realization, then its enlightenment they are diminishing, not truth. There is nothing more than truth and anything less than true is false, so to say that enlightenment means something other than truth realization necessarily means youre saying it's within delusion, which doesn't sound very enlightened.”

Jed McKenna's book were how I experienced the enlightenment of no-self realization. 

Your question about love will be answered in Book 3.

Books 1 and 2 are all about the awakening process, which is a total war of self vs truth and it is a damn bloody battle which love has nothing to do with really.

Book 2 is my absolute favorite....Call Me Ishmael.

Book 3 touches upon love, but in a very obscure way. Whatever is, is right. 

Keep reading my friend. Especially Book 2.

Cheers.

 

[tatsumaru]

15 minutes ago, TreyMoney said:

The Enlightenment Triology and The Theory of Everything are absolutely must reads for anyone that wants a direct path to Truth Realization.

"If someone (like our dear friend tatsumaru above) says enlightenment doesnt mean truth realization, then its enlightenment they are diminishing, not truth. There is nothing more than truth and anything less than true is false, so to say that enlightenment means something other than truth realization necessarily means youre saying it's within delusion, which doesn't sound very enlightened.”

Jed McKenna's book were how I experienced the enlightenment of no-self realization. 

Your question about love will be answered in Book 3.

Books 1 and 2 are all about the awakening process, which is a total war of self vs truth and it is a damn bloody battle which love has nothing to do with really.

Book 2 is my absolute favorite....Call Me Ishmael.

Book 3 touches upon love, but in a very obscure way. Whatever is, is right. 

Keep reading my friend. Especially Book 2.

Cheers.

 

I never even mentioned the term enlightenment in the post, let alone commented on how it relates to truth-realization. This comment is one big straw man from beginning to end. Guys, come on. Learn some basic logic.

[WelcometoReality]

@roopepa I really liked the books. One of my favorite teachers for sure.

 

@tatsumaru Yeah a Logical conclusion isn't enough you also need to align yourself to truth and that is removing the false. Which he also talks alot about in his books. 

[lmfao]

6 hours ago, roopepa said:

He doesn't seem to talk about Love tho. Why do you think this is? Is he not awake to this 'side' of Absolute Truth, or is he consciously hiding it in case someone misunderstands the teaching? Or is this Love stuff just bullshit? ? He only seems to mention Oneness and Consciousness as absolutes. Somewhere he mentions intelligence too.

I've found it best to not take him too seriously as the only authority. He's great and I love him, but he's also a bit of a fuckboi let's be honest

Obviously his core point stands. He also reccomends "spiritual autolysis". This is a cool journalling inquiry, but I found it a dead end after a point. I just end up trying to define truth, get lost in thought whilst having the thought "how can I know anything I think is true?", and just going around in circles like these. 

--

Why is Jed like this? God knows, the dude hides behind anonymity and wrote this piece of fiction. [Shout out to Peder Sweeney] 

If you're looking for an explanation, then maybe just say that the picture Jed paints of awakening is meant to alert you to how serious/real this gets. He describes to you how the  Dark Night Of The Soul has to be faced

Edited June 16, 2021 by lmfao

[lmfao]

I lied earlier, jed mckennas advice on truth is great. What I'm finding from asking that question is that I have no clue how to find out what's true, and I have almost no reason to believe my mind can know. Where the fuck can I go from here, its very odd. 

True is just another word. All I have are these words and these thoughts, like what the fuck can I do. What are the machinations of my mind if my mind is saying that the mind is false, like what. "Everything I say is false", contradiction. And I mean even calling it false seems unknowable, what does unknowable mean is unknowable, so what does any of this mean anymore?

 

Wtf even are words man. Why do there appear to be so many of them, and why does there seem to be an infinite freedom in the type of abstraction you can choose? How can so many abstract properties be defined and objects be labelled. I've said too much in that last sentence. 

--

"True". In math, and philosophy I imagine, that's a property assigned to "statements"...another way of saying "That is so". So versus not so.... Yeah I'm gonna need some time for all this. 

The more I do this, maybe the more I'll lose immersion and see through the mind. Its literally impossible to say or be able tell, since me trying to say or tell would be to do what I'm trying to see differently. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by lmfao

[tatsumaru]

10 hours ago, lmfao said:

I lied earlier, jed mckennas advice on truth is great. What I'm finding from asking that question is that I have no clue how to find out what's true, and I have almost no reason to believe my mind can know. Where the fuck can I go from here, its very odd. 

True is just another word. All I have are these words and these thoughts, like what the fuck can I do. What are the machinations of my mind if my mind is saying that the mind is false, like what. "Everything I say is false", contradiction. And I mean even calling it false seems unknowable, what does unknowable mean is unknowable, so what does any of this mean anymore?

 

Wtf even are words man. Why do there appear to be so many of them, and why does there seem to be an infinite freedom in the type of abstraction you can choose? How can so many abstract properties be defined and objects be labelled. I've said too much in that last sentence. 

--

"True". In math, and philosophy I imagine, that's a property assigned to "statements"...another way of saying "That is so". So versus not so.... Yeah I'm gonna need some time for all this. 

The more I do this, maybe the more I'll lose immersion and see through the mind. Its literally impossible to say or be able tell, since me trying to say or tell would be to do what I'm trying to see differently. 

This is precisely why Jed's advice on basing everything on the idea of truth is shit. You made up this word now you are trying to prove it. What's more insane than this? Realize that words are just noises you are making and if something is not in your experience then this word doesn't point to anything other than some belief or literally to confusion when there's neither belief nor experience. Drop the fucking words and realize that the conceptual world is a parallel reality of your own making there's nothing to be found there. We only create words to describe and communicate our experiences. If your logic is grounded in assumptions you will only arrive at assumptions. Drop the ideas and start re-building from direct experience. Then there's certainty. Don't ask "How do I know this isn't a simulation". Realize that you made the whole stuff about Math in order to try to explain your direct experience and then you used math to generate a more elaborate complexity and called it a simulation. There's no wisdom there you are only weaving a spider's web by creating new fantasies and trying to make sure reality matches them. It's the other way around! Make sure the words match reality !

[IAmReallyImportant]

One more guru.

[TreyMoney]

Any question can be used as a loose thread to begin pulling on and begin the process of unraveling.

Even the question "How do I know this isn't a simulation" is perfect. This question presupposes and assumes the existence of "I", which then leads to the more fundamental questions "What is this thing called I? Does this thing called I exist?"

Eventually you conclude Existence exists or Reality exists or Truth exists or Experience exists or Consciousness exists or Perception exists, all of which really mean the same thing.

Then come the dualities: subject/object duality, perceiver/perceived duality, self/other duality.

[lmfao]

 

On 18/06/2021 at 7:25 PM, tatsumaru said:

Drop the fucking words and realize that the conceptual world is a parallel reality of your own making there's nothing to be found there. We only create words to describe and communicate our experiences. If your logic is grounded in assumptions you will only arrive at assumptions. Drop the ideas and start re-building from direct experience. Then there's certainty. 

In the wilderness of experience when the words fail. 

Shebe 

[Leo Gura]

On 6/18/2021 at 1:13 AM, lmfao said:

I have no clue how to find out what's true

Why you gotta make things so difficult?

https://www.actualized.org/articles/how-to-discover-whats-true

https://www.actualized.org/articles/what-is-truth

[roopepa]

On 16.6.2021 at 7:10 PM, roopepa said:

He doesn't seem to talk about Love tho. Why do you think this is? Is he not awake to this 'side' of Absolute Truth, or is he consciously hiding it in case someone misunderstands the teaching? Or is this Love stuff just bullshit?

Hahahahaha... I just realized. Love is literally all Jed is offering. You just gotta read between the lines. 

The Truth shall set you free.

Edited July 2, 2021 by roopepa

[GeoLura]

@roopepa It's all bullshit.