GENIUS FORUMS

The Bhagwan Rajneesh was a pretty hypocritical gimp,but this isn't a bad essay by him on the ego.

http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm

kid,

I am not enlightened.

You asked master Dan:

What is 24 hours in your life like (a purportedly enlightened guy)? What kind of thoughts come across your mind? Do you do anything?

Chop wood, carry water. Before and after enlightenment.

Rebecca and the Kid,

Doesn't really matter to me, I mean who gives a shit if he had a face with his name. Wouldn't change anything about what he knows or what he wrote.

Yes, but we don't know how much he writes is true and how much is made up. Some of the made up stuff is fine since the point is the lesson he is teaching, but he presents it as a nonfiction book. I was so excited reading the first book, that I had a list of questions - having STRONGLY identified with much of what he said - and he spoke in the second book of getting emails from readers. But this was all apparently false as I found out when I tried to find out where to write to him. I have written to several authors, generally by email, and all have responded quite readily.

Yeah?? What's it like?

Well, I don't know if I can answer quickly since it is mingled with one of my points of contention with him, which is what he has to say about mysticism. Because for me, that thing which he calls the First Step, and which he goes on about in greater detail in the 2nd book, is an experience I've had that fit his description, and which brought me to human adulthood, and yet I have always considered it a mystical experience, and me a mystic. It is absolutely the reason that I resonated with and understood so many of his points, and even had come to the very same thoughts myself.

Perhaps it is a matter of definition, and he would not call it mystical. But I would.

Where is the stuff about it in Damndest?

For me it involved the sensation having awakened whereas before I was asleep and the difference is both subtle and profound. At first it made little difference in my personal life, but slowly the ship has turned around. The spiritual longing I once felt I no longer do. Not that I am "done" but that the journey has become a pleasure and I have faith in it. I feel connected and not alone. I have very little need to judge other people and can let them have their flaws. Therefore I don't get entangled in emotional negativity and don't bother acknowledging or reacting to the flaws. I see beneath the flaws and have insight - but much of my insight I would call mystical. I see the purity in every person and perhaps it is the higher self that I see. Normally, when you operate at the level of lower self, that is all you can see in self and others, but when you can see the higher self, you all but fail to notice the petty reactions of the lower self, because everyone appears pure and loving, and the other stuff diminishes in how much it can grab your attention. It's there but not compelling.

Here is one place I agree with Jed that you need to get this first and then let the morality take care of itself. Once you operate like this, it is easy to forgive people because it just happens fairly naturally.

I am constantly flooded with gratitude.
But I am still vulnerable to fear and worry, yet most of the time my life goes well.
I'm working on letting go of the tiller.

I remember him saying more than once that you have to be willing to give up "human connection"... perhaps it was more for effect? So we'd give up hope? And false expectations with it?

I found all the vampire stuff believable and of course very funny. I can see where you would be alone in the world, and fail to really relate to people. After all, they believe a lot of nonsense, think their ego personalities are real and important, and don't see what you see. I know the feeling of looking around and seeing sleep walkers. Although I was so happy I didn't care.

The part I didn't find believable is that even when he finds others like himself, there is little desire to hang out. We are a social species, and of course there is the sexual drive which arises from a healthy body. He does not deny his body fun in any other way. He enjoys animals, why not awake people? I can certainly see not wanting sex with women who are of significantly lesser awareness, but that was not always the case.

I also became suspicious of his excess female characters. I had the same problem with Carlos Castaneda. You and the Kid may be young'uns, but I grew up on him. After several years hiatus I found he had written more books and they were even better, but now all of a sudden there were woman filling new roles, and even getting more praise than the men. Whereas back in the 70's women hardly existed. Also, suddenly the drugs were just an unimportant prop that he had long since quit needing to use. Yeah, right.
He turned into a 90's kind of guy, or he saw where his paying clientele were. Perhaps its all true, but I am suspicious.

Do you believe the guy on facebook is him?

Women could be easier to write as characters, I don't know. They would tend to be more transparent in their process that is true. Women process their emotions as they go, talking all the while with their confidants, whereas men process what they can themselves, and only open up to talk when they need help or have a grand insight to share. This is basic venus and mars stuff.

Some people thought the first book was way better than the second (going by Amazon feedback) but I thought both were great, and very different. The third book was almost boring, had no new material, and just seemed like a lie from start to finish. If you can tell me which pages had the redefinitions, perhaps I'll look at them before I take the book to the outhouse. (Kidding!)

I have the Power of Now and I really loved the book at the time, yet strangely have not wanted to reopen it. I am not a rereader of books, but there are a a few exceptions. Those are the Jed books, David Hawkins books, and Hua Hu Ching. These are my bibles.

I'm not too impressed with Jed's criticism of it, but it is a difficult question. I see it from both sides. The awareness of time is a gift, and a curse.

But despite the criticisms, like I said, I've got his books all marked up and never tire of them.

If you can tell me which pages had the redefinitions, perhaps I'll look at them before I take the book to the outhouse. (Kidding!)

It's chapter 4, A Brief Review, starting on page 21. I think one of Jed's chief goals is to provide new vocabulary where there wasn't any before (the opposite of doublespeak)...

I personally found the chapter on "Spiritual Dissonance" (Ch 18, p 130) particularly interesting. Have you read the bonus material? I found the bonus material almost more engaging than the book (72 pages of it)... on the ebook version, I think you can torrent it.

Rebecca,

OK, I have opened to both those chapters and they do like like they're worth rereading. I suppose, though, that he didn't really say anything new, but he is a good writer so he's entertaining.
I'm mad, though, about the bonus material. I paid good money for the book and why should I have to buy the ebook to get the bonus material? Any book length material worth reading I would never want to read online. As it is, the computer hurts my eyes and back. Any good book belongs on my bookshelf, not in a virtual chamber somewhere. All my best books are marked up all to hell.
What is torrenting?

So what do you think, is the Jed guy on facebook for real?

This has nothing to do with previous posts on this little thread, but I guess I just want to clarify some of my own thoughts here. I guess its kind of lame that I'm doing it on this board instead of in some sort of Word file, but it makes it seem more relevant if I'm doing it where other people can read it. Although writing it as a means for responses makes it seem like I'm insecure about my own thoughts. Which I guess I am, so fuck it.

Like I said before I'm wondering what truth-realization is really about. I still have this suspicion that it means breaking free from physical reality. As in being able to be aware of absolutely nothing. For example right now, I'm aware of this room, this computer, and my body. I have this feeling that enlightenment is having the luxury to be free of awareness of all things and space. Spaceless space, timeless time? I mean what other sort of freedom could there be, but freedom from this world? But it appears that I'm mistaken, if the administrators on this board are actually enlightened. But to me breaking out of this universe doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. I mean to "destroy the universe" or to experience nothingness would be nothing more than being aware of nothing. No thoughts, no perceptions, no emotions? Similar to sleeping. But not exactly the same.

But what else could enlightenment be about? Freedom from other peoples' expectations? Freedom from my own expectations? Does being awake mean enjoying being awake? And does being asleep mean enjoying sleeping more than being awake? Because truly, sleep is a wonderful thing because it really is freedom from everything.

I've read around these boards a little bit. Some of the stuff that the administrators on this board thought we're relevant stuff to know in order to awaken. But a lot of the stuff just doesn't seem to really matter. I dunno who it is. David Quinn, Kevin Solway. I don't know but one of them placed a lot of fucking importance on "Cause and effect". Predetermination. Something like that. But I mean it seems like a very moot point to me. It doesn't really change any fucking thing. When I was about 16 or 17 I had the same realization that everything that happens can be predicted before things actually happen if you could know exactly what was going on. For example if somebody offered me soup or salad after my dinner. It would seem like I have the choice, but my personality and the circumstances and my preferences would already have chosen for me because they would be the things that would be thinking about what to choose and then coming up with the solution. If we were to take this cause and effect thing to a bigger level say something like attaining truth or staying deluded. If I were to say I have no choice in the matter and that all that stuff is predetermined and theres no point in thinking about it because that path is already set out for me. That would be wrong. Because I'd be taking this knowledge of cause and effect and then changing the present (which is the past of the future), and thus changing the effect (future) because the past is different. (In this particular example, I have to add a disclaimer here and say that me deciding that there was no point was already set to happen the moment I attained knowledge of this cause and effect thing because of my personality, the circumstances, and my preferences). But what I'm trying to get at here is that Cause and Effect is a moot point, because the choices you make, regardless of whether they're predetermined or not, will effect the present and then ultimately effect the future. I mean on a personal level it means absolutely squat, and I don't see how any knowledge of that would lead to enlightenment. I mean how does it lead to enlightenment? I don't see why it's a cornerstone and an important part of truth realization. Big fucking deal. I mean the human deal is that if we effect the present then we're going to effect the future (I think everybody understands that). "If I work hard now, I'll be CEO later". But if that same person were to say the path is already laid out, I don't have to work hard at all. Then the future will change. If he stops working hard, the powers above will never notice him, and he'll never make it to CEO. (Once again disclaimer, him stopping was already determined from before). So pretty much this only would matter if you didn't really give a shit about the effect. If you didn't care about becoming CEO, if you were ok with staying at your current position, then fine Giving up and not working hard is an excellent course to take. But first thing is first. Any person who could benefit from this whole "I have no free-will" mentality would have to give up all expectations first. Which I guess wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

At the end of the day it doesn't really seem to fucking matter. If you want to become a CEO, no ones just going to expect it to fall in their laps. They expect that they'll have to do a good job first before they get recognized. So at the end of the day, even knowing about predetermination or whatever, if they want to become CEO they have to try. I mean the point of cause and effect or whatever is based on the fact that the past effects the present, the present effects the future. I think everybody understands that, but the deal as an individual is(if you have a future in mind) what you do with your present better reflect the means to your future. Free-will, predetermination. Who the fuck gives a rats ass? The deal remains the same.

Am I missing something here? I just can't help but feel that it doesn't mean anything. I don't understand why the admins of this board seem to think it's some sort of amazing concept that really matters. Unless of course their bottomline is "enlightenment means to give up all your expectations". Which might in fact be sound advice. But one that does require a leap of faith.

But my only question is, "What does being awake really mean?". What's the difference? What does knowing truth do for you? What does delusion do for me? What does it mean to live with truth? What does it mean to be a lie? What does it mean to see what is and to not see what's not? What does it mean to see what's not?

Isn't the first step to fixing your errors seeing where your errors are?

check your messages thekid

The Kid,

Understanding cause and effect in its deepest sense has nothing to do with focusing on predetermination, or predicting the future, or any of the other things you mentioned. Rather, its main function is to open the mind to the nature of all reality, which includes every aspect of one's life.

It exposes free will to be an illusion, for example - which in turn throws light on the nature of self. It exposes the underlying "sameness" behind all processes, which in turn throws light on the nature of eternity. It helps break down the conceptual barriers that prevent the mind from enjoying its natural freedom and insightfulness.

I really can't stress its importance enough.

Being "awake" means being fully conscious of the nature of reality and no longer being fooled by one's own thoughts. It means no longer chasing phantoms, or being afraid of them. It means enjoying the absence of all restrictions (which are always conceptually constructed), and as such it is the one genuine freedom available to us.

It has nothing to do with becoming unconscious, or breaking free of the physical universe. The physical universe is just as much a part of nirvana as any other part of reality. In essence, it is already free. As is consciousness. Trying to break free of these things is just another false restriction, just another unnecessary conceptual construct, that needs to be dismantled.

-

Iolaus,

I could not agree with you more about the bonus material!! Annoying. If I could somehow cut it from the pdf file and email it to you... I would. Torrent is where people (illegally I think, but not sure) post books and you can download them using the "torrent" tool at no cost... I have only done it once, to get this bonus material, and then someone on the facebook group posted saying it was no longer available. Unfortunately I am not computer savvy enough to know if there is another way to get it. I don't like reading much on the computer screen either.

If you know how to cut a pdf file, let me know - because then it would be less than 10MB and I could email it to you.

Hello Rebecca

I went to sign up at your forum today, and that's when I found out that he was deleted. I wrote to the administrator asking why, whether the admin (Hooper) did it or if Jed did it. I haven't got an answer. Too bad.

I could ask my husband about the pdf thing. I sure as hell don't know how. I am struggling to keep my old head above water with the new technologies. At the facebook forum, they offered a way to not have to answer those stupid validation questions all the time - so I clicked on it - turns out they are sending a number via text message to your cell phone!! Like I have any clue how to text message or keep my cell phone on hand! I hardly know how to make a phone call with it, and I have no interest in text messaging. Geez.

They asked for my phone and I gave them my landline. What? Does no one on facebook have a landline? I tell you what, I don't belong on facebook and this Jed character is the only reason I signed up.

I was hoping for some good discussion of Jed's books...not sure if I'll find it there.

You can just cut and paste pdf text into new .doc (Word) files. Not sure how that will work for a Mac, user. Mac must have the equivalent?

Iolaus wrote:I was hoping for some good discussion of Jed's books...not sure if I'll find it there.

I'm not sure you'll find it there either, but more to the point, what does Jed say that QRS doesn't?

I'm not sure you'll find it there either, but more to the point, what does Jed say that QRS doesn't?

Dan, are you jealous?

Perhaps a better question is, what does Jed not say that the QRS does?

It is easy to talk about things that are pleasing to people. Gurus do that all the time. It's much harder to challenge people's egos to the point where they are ready to turn against you.

-

Shahrazad wrote:

I'm not sure you'll find it there either, but more to the point, what does Jed say that QRS doesn't?

Dan, are you jealous?

I hope that was intended to be a joke. It's a very serious question. What does McKenna speak about that hasn't been covered here? What I'm saying is the issues are somewhat generic, really.

David Quinn wrote:Perhaps a better question is, what does Jed not say that the QRS does?

It is easy to talk about things that are pleasing to people. Gurus do that all the time. It's much harder to challenge people's egos to the point where they are ready to turn against you.

-

I think McKenna, from the little I've been able to see, actually does have this effect on people to some extent. But I think he pulls up short on certain things. Mind you, without reading an entire book it's hard to say. Though, the link I gave earlier in the thread is interesting:

Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment

guest_of_logic wrote:I originally composed what follows intending to post it here, but I postponed that posting and instead PMed it to thekid. I wasn't sure that GF was the right place to be sharing these insights publicly - they're quite out of synch with the prevailing views. In the end I decided that it was worth the risk. Here follows my contribution to this thread...

An interesting post.

One of the most important things to realise is that reality is not benign. It is a spiritual battleground. This is a difficult realisation to have, because there are forces that go to incredible lengths to prevent us from having it. One way to achieve it is through mind-altering drugs like marijuana and LSD, but this is a perilous dual-edged sword and I highly discourage their use.

It's essential to realise how high the stakes are. Maya is neither accidental nor random. We are being deliberately deceived, and the consequences of failure are unimaginable. We who inhabit forums such as this one, and who read authors such as Jed (I have not read more of him than the article on Buddhism that Dan posted a link to in a prior thread), we who are haunted by the questions "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?", are the few who have an inkling that we are being fooled, and that full realisation is absolutely imperative. It's therefore important that we share our insights with one another.

Some of you probably read my assertion that reality is a spiritual battleground and thought to yourselves, "Oh boy, this guy's gone off the deep end." Right? I understand that. Most people have difficulty realising that we are in the middle of a spiritual war.

I am familiar with the experience you describe here. However, it does boil down to being a mental projection. It is a mental experience generated not only out of one's subconscious and its various unresolved issues, but also out of larger cultural forces that one has unwittingly aborbed.

Keep in mind that good and evil are relative entities only. What seems "good" from one perspective can seem "evil" from another perspective, and vice versa. Enlightenment involves going beyond good and evil.

Up until a few years ago I wouldn't have believed it myself. But then I started noticing things. The start of the process of realisation was recognising the depths of the meaning behind our words. We're all familiar with devices such as puns, where a sentence has a double meaning, or satire, where the ostensible meaning of a narrative is actually a symbolic commentary on another issue. It's possible, though, to enter certain states of awareness where one perceives the deeper, more symbolic meanings of every sentence that is uttered. In this state it's frightening to realise the depths of the multiple meanings of everything that we say, and their interrelatedness. This is one way in which the war is waged. We think that we're saying one thing, but we're completely oblivious to the actual, deeper meanings and spiritual effects of our words. Words are weapons and instruments. They wound or they heal; they free us or they manipulate us deeper into the illusion; they gift us with energy or they steal energy from us.

What you're describing here is simple ignorance, a lack of self-awareness, a lack of clear insight into the workings of one's mind. I'm not sure how it relates to your theory of a larger external spiritual war.

I believe that enlightenment is real, but I also believe that most people are confused as to what it actually is. They think that it's some sort of paradox involving the realisation that the self doesn't actually exist. If you think about it, it's pretty obvious that this is complete nonsense. Consciousness itself implies, entails, requires and necessitates a self.

It requires a focal point, an observer framework, but that doesn't mean there is really a self. The self is a useful paradigm, a convenient construct, which enables the brain to process numerous streams of data efficiently and coherently in the face of a challenging world. That's all that consciousness requires. A kind of subroutine for organizational purposes.

Our ignorance as a species lies in believing the self to be more than that.

Enlightenment is not the (false) realisation that the self doesn't exist, it is (in part) the realisation of what the self actually is.

Our true nature, yes.

The archetypal image of a person with a devil whispering in one ear and an angel whispering in the other points to a serious truth. To the best of my understanding, the self is for the most part an instrument through which two opposing forces express themselves. The true extent of our will is far less than it seems. Primarily the task of our will is to choose which force we allow to express itself through us. With this understanding in mind, what then is enlightenment? In a nutshell, to be enlightened is to have fully chosen God: to be completely aligned with the divine, to have "surrendered" to God's will. A clue that this is the correct interpretation of the concept lies in the structure of the word, whose basis is "light": it is often said that God is light, and to be enlightened is to be fully filled with God's light. Now as I said, I'm not enlightened, so I don't know what this actually feels like.

What you're describing here isn't enlightenment, but a form of mysticism. Enlightenment involves rejecting God and the Devil altogether. The enlightened person is filled with truth, which is neither light nor dark.

Early in this century, I was living in a share house in Sydney with some great guys. One of them in particular made a lot of effort to extend the hand of friendship to me, and I was deeply touched by his efforts. One day a room became available in the share house of a close friend from university, with whom I'd planned to share a house several years earlier, and I decided that I'd like to change houses. As I was saying goodbye to the flatmate who had extended the hand of friendship so graciously to me, I observed something very disturbing in myself. I was making to him what on the surface seemed to be the usual parting remarks, and I was intent on saying something positive, but I was at the same time privy through some working of my mind to the deeper meaning of my words, and I was horror-struck to find that I was actually insulting him with a cold rejection. The possibility that my decision to move house was in fact based on a decision to reject this warm soul occurred to me. Now I like to think of myself as a fundamentally caring and good person, but experiences like that convince me that the extent to which I control my own mind is actually very limited, and that there is a force working through me that is fundamentally opposed to my desire to be a loving person.

Of course a critic might argue: there's no need to posit external forces; it's all internal - we each have a subconscious with unplumbed depths that occasionally influences our behaviour in opposition to our conscious intent. And I can't definitively prove that this interpretation is wrong. All that I can tell you is that I have experienced things (which I don't want to share here) that convince me that it is wrong. I'm not saying that the subconscious is non-existent, what I am saying is that the subconscious is not the whole story.

It is a combination of unresolved issues in your subconscious + cultural elements that you have aborbed but not yet consciously processed + excitable neural activity in the brain + ignorance of the nature of reality.

In your story above, it sounds as though you were simply ignorant of your deeper motives in regards to your new-found friend. Nothing more to it than that.

I'll repeat that I am not enlightened, so there are a few things about this state that remain a mystery to me. For example: is it possible to be enlightened and to not even realise it?

No. Enlightenment is a result of consciously exposing and weeding out all parts of the ego. Without this conscious activity, the ego, in particular its deeper aspects, remains untouched and the mind remains deluded.

And: is it possible to "fall from grace"; to reopen the wrong doors?

Very much so. People can gain a taste of enlightenment and turn away from it out of fear and loathing. Flawed gurus, such as Osho, are a classic example of this. Out of their fear, they fashion a mild, diluted, distorted view of enlightenment tailored to bring them lots of egotistical benefits in the form of fame, worship, hedonistic pleasure, etc, and shield them from further contact with enlightenment.

The big mystery to me though is whether enlightenment involves realising the ultimate answers to the aforementioned questions: "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?"

There is only one way to find out.

I loosely speculate that there are stages to enlightenment, and that perhaps the final stage occurs when one not only fully expresses God's will, but figuratively "returns" to God - in other words, one loses one's personal consciousness and merges with God-consciousness, literally becoming God, whereupon one necessarily knows the answer to these questions, except that one no longer exists as a separate entity: this is, of course, in a very real way, death, because the separate, personal self no longer exists. I suspect that this is why enlightenment is often said to be the death of the self: the consciousness-energy of the self still exists, but the self does not, because it joins the energy of God-consciousness, and no longer has a separate existence.

That's your mysticism surfacing again. The idea of merging the self with a greater consciousness, such that the self disappears, is based on the false idea that the self is something more than a useful brain construct. It is a form of egotism which still holds to the idea that the self is special and important in a larger cosmic sense.

People who are semi-advanced along the spiritual path can easily get sucked into trying to obliterate their self in this way. They are aware enough that there is something wrong with being obsessed with the self, and that all their fears and worries emanate from such an obsession, but because they still misunderstand the self's nature they continue to create misguided cures. They are still looking for a form of escapism.

The enlightened person still has a self. His consciousness still makes use of the self-construct. The difference is, he is no longer fooled by it.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Perhaps a better question is, what does Jed not say that the QRS does?

It is easy to talk about things that are pleasing to people. Gurus do that all the time. It's much harder to challenge people's egos to the point where they are ready to turn against you.

I think McKenna, from the little I've been able to see, actually does have this effect on people to some extent. But I think he pulls up short on certain things. Mind you, without reading an entire book it's hard to say. Though, the link I gave earlier in the thread is interesting:

Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment

That is pretty funny. Sounds like numerous responses you and I have had over the years. Interesting that he prefers to remain anonymous.

-

Yeah, McKenna's seeming desire to remain an enigma of sorts is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it, really. I'd have to see his reasons to make a judgement. Maybe someone else has seen them.

David Quinn wrote:
1)

Enlightenment is not the (false) realisation that the self doesn't exist, it is (in part) the realisation of what the self actually is.

Our true nature, yes.

2)

The big mystery to me though is whether enlightenment involves realising the ultimate answers to the aforementioned questions: "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?"

There is only one way to find out.

3) The enlightened person still has a self. His consciousness still makes use of the self-construct. The difference is, he is no longer fooled by it.

4) The enlightened person is filled with truth, which is neither light nor dark.

5) Enlightenment is a result of consciously exposing and weeding out all parts of the ego. Without this conscious activity, the ego, in particular its deeper aspects, remains untouched and the mind remains deluded.



-

1) How do you go beyond self to discover your true nature? How do you know which part of you is ego and which part of you is true? This I guess is the tough part where things get lost in translation.

2) Is there even an answer to the question "Who am I?" I mean the answer to me obviously seems to be conciousness. What else could I possibly be?? But I assume from reading other peoples crap, my conciousness is filtered through all sorts of egoic bullshit right? How do you get past the bullshit? How do you know which parts are bullshit?

3) How is a normal person deceived by self? And how is an enlightened person not fooled by it? What is there to fool, and what is fooled? If you could provide examples, that would help.

4) Filled with truth? So truth is a feeling? Truth is something that can be physically felt? Physically experienced?

5) How do you weed it out? Let's say for example a love of a girl? How do you weed something like that out? And also what sort of things NEED to be weeded out. I'm sure that's different for every person, but I'm sure there are things that would be common for most.


Someone said the only thing required to attain enlightenmen is Honesty. HONESTY ABOUT WHAT? Honesty about your emotions? Not denying how you truly feel? Not denying what you truly want?? But i thought emotions were egoic? Some clarity would be nice.

I know you guys aren't Jed people, but he talks about the dreamstate. As in all of reality being pretty much being undistinguishable from a dream. He says Human Adulthood is awakening within the dreamstate. and that Enlightenment is awakening from the dreamstate? Any of you enlightened guys shed light or clarification on that? What does he mean by dreamstate?

I considered physical reality to be the dream, so I thought enlightenment was breaking out of it, but apparently I'm mistaken. So what the hell is the dream??

thekid wrote:1) How do you go beyond self to discover your true nature? How do you know which part of you is ego and which part of you is true? This I guess is the tough part where things get lost in translation.

What sort of qualities do you think your true nature should have?

If you can answer this, you will take a big step towards solving the problem.

2) Is there even an answer to the question "Who am I?" I mean the answer to me obviously seems to be conciousness. What else could I possibly be?? But I assume from reading other peoples crap, my conciousness is filtered through all sorts of egoic bullshit right? How do you get past the bullshit? How do you know which parts are bullshit?

By using reason to uncover what is ultimately true.

"Bullshit" is anything which is inherently contradictory, or contradictory with what is already known to be true.

3) How is a normal person deceived by self? And how is an enlightened person not fooled by it? What is there to fool, and what is fooled? If you could provide examples, that would help.

If a person becomes emotional over what is happening to him, it is a sign that he is being taken in by the illusion of self. If he feels pride in achieving something, or despair over having failed in something, he is being taken in by the illusion of self. If he fears death, or if he even believes that he was once born and one day will die, he is being taken in by the illusion of self. If he cannot fully perceive the nature of reality, he is being taken in by the illusion of self.

4) Filled with truth? So truth is a feeling? Truth is something that can be physically felt? Physically experienced?

He is filled with truth in the sense that his mind is no longer deceiving itself and he never commits a false action. His entire being is so transparent that it reflects reality perfectly.

5) How do you weed it out? Let's say for example a love of a girl? How do you weed something like that out? And also what sort of things NEED to be weeded out. I'm sure that's different for every person, but I'm sure there are things that would be common for most.

If you're already in love with a girl, then it's tough to free yourself from it. Such an emotional attachment is very strong. The trick is to undermine the conditions of such an attachment arising in the first place, and you do that by understanding the egotism which underlies love and by forming a relentless, overpowering attachment to truth. It's a case of growing away from such possibilities before they can occur.

Someone said the only thing required to attain enlightenmen is Honesty. HONESTY ABOUT WHAT? Honesty about your emotions? Not denying how you truly feel? Not denying what you truly want?? But i thought emotions were egoic? Some clarity would be nice.

Honesty is obviously important, but in general when people talk about honesty they are talking about a low-level form of honesty - such as being honest in one's feelings or honest in admitting one's weaknesses and failings. They don't mean the kind of honesty which strives for infinite understanding and to be perfectly truthful in every thought and action. They are talking about a woman's conception of honesty - which isn't really honesty at all, but rather self-indulgence with an eye for manipulation.

I know you guys aren't Jed people, but he talks about the dreamstate. As in all of reality being pretty much being undistinguishable from a dream. He says Human Adulthood is awakening within the dreamstate. and that Enlightenment is awakening from the dreamstate? Any of you enlightened guys shed light or clarification on that? What does he mean by dreamstate?

Not having read his work, I'm not quite sure what he means by it. However, it is useful to talk about physical reality as being like a dream. It is like a dream in the sense that every experience is fleeting, ungraspable and intangible. As soon as it occurs, it is already a memory. There is ultimately nothing substantial about it.

-

thekid wrote:
I know you guys aren't Jed people, but he talks about the dreamstate. As in all of reality being pretty much being undistinguishable from a dream. He says Human Adulthood is awakening within the dreamstate. and that Enlightenment is awakening from the dreamstate? Any of you enlightened guys shed light or clarification on that? What does he mean by dreamstate?

I considered physical reality to be the dream, so I thought enlightenment was breaking out of it, but apparently I'm mistaken. So what the hell is the dream??

Kid,

I enjoy your openness. I was about to say "honesty" but as David pointed out, sharing your feelings is not true honesty. :oP

The way I see it, Jed's trying to say that a lot of people see truth and then use it to make their lives, or their "selves" better. That's what he means by Human Adulthood: it's the thing that should happen in adolescence (but never happens to many) - you see you are not separate from the universe, you are integrated and you know how the laws of attraction work, etc. You know how to work the dreamstate to create a better dream for yourself. He uses the analogy of the prism as ego: you clean the muck off the prism, and the light can shine through and make pretty colors. Yay. Waking up IN the dream.

But enlightenment is taking the prism away completely. You see through the universe and as David said are not "fooled" by it. That is what Jed means by "waking up FROM the dream." You aren't trying to make your life better, because you see the self for what it is. Your motives are gone.

This is just the sense that I get. I don't know why I am actually writing it on here, because I am still struggling to see through my motives, myself.

The only thread where the Facebook group actually has meaningful discussion, really, is this one entitled Human Adulthood - Maybe Jed's Biggest Contribution to Spiritual Dialogue: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6 ... topic=4773

Although Jed would cringe at it being called "Spiritual" dialogue, ha.


I can't copy and paste the extra material because the Preview program doesn't even let me highlight text. Curses!

Dan Rowden, would you read Jed already, so we can talk about it??!? Just kidding... in response to your question about what Jed talks about that QRS doesn't, I'm not sure if it's in what he actually says or in the way he presents it. He is like a terrorist. Um... the part about female characters still bugs me... I was reading one of the threads on this site and heard people talking about how you guys have already hashed out this whole masculine/feminine thing. Can you direct me to some threads that talk about this specifically? I am still not quite halfway through Poison so I'm sure there will be more in that as well. Thanks.

You should invite him over here, Rebecca. Facebook is such a poor format for discussion, and he might find us interesting.

Here is a past thread you might like: Masculine and Feminine Psychology

-

rebecca702 wrote:I can't copy and paste the extra material because the Preview program doesn't even let me highlight text. Curses!

Your pdf viewer doesn't have a "select" option in the menu?

Dan Rowden, would you read Jed already, so we can talk about it??!? Just kidding...

I'd like to see some more just to know how much he really is worth talking about. I'll see if the local library can order them in. I ain't paying good money for them :)

in response to your question about what Jed talks about that QRS doesn't, I'm not sure if it's in what he actually says or in the way he presents it. He is like a terrorist.

Sure, but that's the part that I find echoes the approach we take. Not many people will emphasise that the path to truth is a path of the destruction of what is false, or that the path can at times be terrifying, horrifying, self immolating . Most like to couch it in more positive terms, as a search for something. But it isn't that at all. Truth is merely what's left over when the false is gone. It isn't a specific something you find.

Um... the part about female characters still bugs me... I was reading one of the threads on this site and heard people talking about how you guys have already hashed out this whole masculine/feminine thing. Can you direct me to some threads that talk about this specifically? I am still not quite halfway through Poison so I'm sure there will be more in that as well. Thanks.

My suggestion would be, when you find time, to go to Genius News and if the java menu works for you, seek out the dialogues on that subject matter. Or, look over Dave's essay on the the feminine/masculine issue: WOMAN -An Exposition for the Advanced Mind

Whilst doing so, try to keep in mind that the issue is the feminine and masculine dimensions of mind, not women and men, as such. The latter are merely tools to facilitate the real issue.

[edit: I should have noted that "Genius News" is a 24 edition newsletter we brought out that contained some of the best material and dialogues from the forums over the years.]

David,

Thanks for the link to that thread - I will check that out.


Dan,

Your pdf viewer doesn't have a "select" option in the menu?

Nope. It can "grab" stuff by making a selection box, basically a screen-shot. Can't do more than one page at a time. Maybe I will see if I can open it with some other program...

Sure, but that's the part that I find echoes the approach we take. Not many people will emphasise that the path to truth is a path of the destruction of what is false, or that the path can at times be terrifying, horrifying, self immolating . Most like to couch it in more positive terms, as a search for something. But it isn't that at all. Truth is merely what's left over when the false is gone. It isn't a specific something you find.

That's EXACTLY what Jed talks about. In fact, Jed could have said that. Once again, scarily similar, you two - but I have to remind myself that these are universal things we're talking about here. That's why Jed made so much sense to me when I came across him. It was exactly the opposite of all these other people touting their paths to the Holy Grail. It's unpopular! Truth doesn't sell very well (hence that pissed off lady on the recording you posted).

I was just reading this in Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner: "We've been taught implicitly since birth that our 'self' is something fundamental and important and real. But our self-image is nothing other than the sum total of those particular things about universal human nature we've chosen to emphasize in our own lives. Some teachings like to differentiate between 'self' spelled with a little s and 'Self' with a big S, but this just obscures the problem with unnecessary complications. No matter how you spell it, self is an illusion."

I've always been confused by that "Self" thing, with Ramana Maharshi. I think that kind of teaching fuels the New-Age sort of thought: that your real Self is something so goddamned wonderful and full of love and lightness - and you haven't discovered it yet because you just haven't silenced your mind enough or purified your chakras or raised your vibration...

It's so painfully clear: we make up all these stories to distract from the real fact that nothing exists except energy, which can never be created or destroyed. So all our creations will crumble.