GENIUS FORUMS

Your response says a great deal more than my question implied. For an author who claims to be enlightened to speak of respect for such a mundane fact of life means something. That is was motherhood is actually rather incidental.

An exhortation that a person be a good mother is not the same as expressing respect for motherhood. It seems you may have read more into it than was there.

Rebecca,

I'm seeing you contradict yourself here. First you say don't go for the fruit, then you say have at the fruit! When you say "live now" I hear "enjoy the dream." No, I refuse to enjoy the dream. Yours is the voice of the feminine, saying everything is already perfect. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you still "working on waking up"?

You are confusing me. The two quotes you posted had nothing to do with each other. One was about not aping the behaviors of an enlightened person. Like if you want to be a vampire, sleeping in a coffin ain't gonna make you one. You've got to get bitten by a vampire, and then you can have all the vampire behaviors.

As to the second quote, I am just frankly surprised. It's like you've read Jed very selectively. You didn't get where he so often talks about how wonderful life is, how often he feels gratitude? How it is all about taking responsibility and how the sleepwalkers aren't really present in their own lives?

How the hell is enjoying life imitating enlightenment? If the enjoyment is genuine and not put on, it isn't imitating anything. What are you imitating? The sincere seeker? Your posts are convincing me of one thing, that people should forget the enlightenment thing, and go for human adulthood, and then, from that platform, seek enlightenment if they want.

Mine is the voice of the feminine, saying everything is perfect? Well, if I were at home, I'd look for some quotes. I just read yesterday. Something about how even the concept of anything being wrong doesn't occur to him. What Jed have you read?

I never saw that Jed disrespected anyone. What do you think respect means - lying to people and pretending they're great? Is saying what you think disrespectful? I never said he respected her as in a role - I said he respected the idea of her being a good mother.

Then doesn't that make the concept of respect meaningless? If you believe all is one, then how does paying respect make any sense? Seems a waste of energy.

So are you saying that in order to respect some people, it is necessary that you disrespect some people? And this isn't duality?

Yes. People suppress a lot of hatred in general, which stems from fear. It's a survival mechanism, and when that mechanism becomes no longer necessary, the residue of many years of suppressed stuff seeps out. I don't mean people actually hate the universe. They hate what they've done to themselves. What they've done is conceal the truth, the natural state of things from their very own eyes. Being mad at yourself and at the universe is really the same thing.

Well, this is just bizarre. Why blame yourself? Would anyone else have done better? Aren't most all 6 billion of us in the same boat? Why hate anything? Why not go for human adulthood? Isn't all of this childish and excessively emotional? It seems like a waste of time to me, a collossal waste of time, a beside the point wallowing in fruitless whining. Is this really what people are getting out of reading his books?

Uhhhhh... WHAT? nefarious beings? Yes, the demons of your own mind! You suspect foul play... yet you're resigned to have a good time anyway. Sounds like learned helplessness.

You can believe whatever you want, but I do not rule out that there are other life forms, and that consciousnesses can inhabit other dimensions or live in the astral realms, and fuck with our heads. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying I suspect it.

May I ask why the founders of the forum are your sworn enemies?

Mostly because of their misogyny and antilife stance. Which they sometimes deny.

Dan,

But why would enlightened persons not respect the facts of life? Why would you exhort someone to be a good mother if you did not respect motherhood?

All this praise heaped on Jed caused me to pick up his first book. I would say that the praise is undeserved; McKenna is just play-acting the part of the contrarian Zen master. If you have any doubts about his philosophical depth look at the following passage.

Success in realizing ones nature is absolutely assured because, well, because it is one's true nature. The greatest wonder isn't that you'll make it back, it's that you made it away. Returning is the motion of the Tao. Struggling to achieve truth is, in its own way, as preposterous as struggling to achieve death. What's the point? Both will find you when it's time. Should we worry that if we fail to find death, death will fail to find us? Of course not, and neither death, nor taxes nor gravity, nor tomorrow's sunrise is as certain as the fact that everyone will end up fully "enlightened", regardless of the "path" they take to get there.

This is a reply to Iolaus.

How the hell is enjoying life imitating enlightenment?

What I mean is, sitting back and enjoying life, fully enjoying it, would require me to ignore the voice of the "little bastard" telling me that truth exists, and this ain't it. I'm not saying I don't enjoy life! But to go on and pretend that everything is okay, and nothing needs to be done, like all the enlightened people say, would be ignoring the work that needs to be done in my life. Of course I have read all the flowery wonderful stuff that Jed has to say, but I don't co-opt it for myself because I know he is saying it from a certain perspective. It's not my perspective yet. Sure, on one level, truth is everything and absolutely nothing is wrong, everyone is exactly where they should be. But on another level, I still see myself living a lie and I can't rest until those lies are destroyed.

Here's an example: do you think Jed was telling Lisa to go ahead and enjoy her life? He wasn't saying NOT to enjoy her life, but he was showing her that she wasn't free of her delusions. .00001% false is completely false, so therefore I won't "enjoy" until falsity is gone.

Your posts are convincing me of one thing, that people should forget the enlightenment thing, and go for human adulthood, and then, from that platform, seek enlightenment if they want.

Well, does that mean you think you are a human adult then? That's what I gathered from your posts to thekid. Why are you not going for enlightenment?

So are you saying that in order to respect some people, it is necessary that you disrespect some people? And this isn't duality?

That is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying the whole concept of respect is obsolete. You obviously respect all people, but don't respect those "nefarious beings". Isn't THAT duality?

Well, this is just bizarre. Why blame yourself? Would anyone else have done better? Aren't most all 6 billion of us in the same boat? Why hate anything? Why not go for human adulthood? Isn't all of this childish and excessively emotional? It seems like a waste of time to me, a collossal waste of time, a beside the point wallowing in fruitless whining. Is this really what people are getting out of reading his books?

Let me provide you with a quote:

"Everyone should be depressed as hell, and if they were, then something might actually happen. The reason we're not committing suicide by the millions is because we live in a constant state of protective denial that wraps us like an invisible membrane, the price of which is a life lived at the bare minimum level of consciousness. The necessities of life are food, water, shelter, clothing, denial and distraction. Once we have those, we can turn to the business of raising the next generation of walking dead."

That pretty much sums it up. He's not saying everyone SHOULD be depressed, as in they ought to be. He's saying if they were to really see clearly, what they would see would be really sad: we've been asleep, and it's no one's fault but our own. But that's not an end point, it's a beginning point. When you come out of denial, things look grim, but at least you know you're not in denial anymore.

All 6 billion in the same boat? Most of them, sure. But sounds like you don't want to take responsibility for your own life, Anna. Why do those nefarious beings haunt you? Why do you feel the need to defend the holiness of motherhood? I'd be willing to bet you're not enjoying life as much as you claim you are. Recognizing your delusions doesn't mean wallowing in despair about them, it means seeing them clearly.

Maestro wrote:
All this praise heaped on Jed caused me to pick up his first book. I would say that the praise is undeserved; McKenna is just play-acting the part of the contrarian Zen master. If you have any doubts about his philosophical depth look at the following passage.

Quote:
"Success in realizing ones nature is absolutely assured because, well, because it is one's true nature. The greatest wonder isn't that you'll make it back, it's that you made it away. Returning is the motion of the Tao. Struggling to achieve truth is, in its own way, as preposterous as struggling to achieve death. What's the point? Both will find you when it's time. Should we worry that if we fail to find death, death will fail to find us? Of course not, and neither death, nor taxes nor gravity, nor tomorrow's sunrise is as certain as the fact that everyone will end up fully "enlightened", regardless of the "path" they take to get there."

Yeah, that's pretty sappy. Are you sure he's not being satirical there? Can you post the page number?

P 233 2nd para

Maestro -

I'm going to post the preamble to that quote.

---
This conversation is more interesting to me than many because I'm clarifying it for myself as we go along. When the topic is enlightenment, I can speak with the perfect authority of a true master and my only real challenge is how to transmit thoughts and ideas more succinctly. But when the topic is the nature of delusion, the ego, false constructs, and human nature, I'm just a guy with a little experience, a lot of interest, and good seats. Yes, I've gone through the transformative process and yes, I remember a good deal from my own before and during periods, but whereas enlightenment is exactly the same for anyone, anytime, anyplace, the journey to it is as unique and varied as there are people to make it.

Of course, battling past the ego to get to the truth has been at the heart of countless spiritual teachings in countless countries for countless centuries. Ego-death as a means to no-self--abiding nondual awareness--is what this journey is all about. That's the reason behind the devotion, the prayer, the meditation, the teachings, the renunciation. Anyone headed for truth is going to get there over the ego's dead body or not at all. There's no shortcut or easy way, no going under or around. The only way past ego is through it, and the only way through it is with laser-like intent and a heart of stone. The caterpillar doesn't become a butterfly, it enters a death process that becomes the birth process of the butterfly. The appearance of transformation is an illusion. One thing doesn't become another thing. One thing ends and another begins.

And why do so few succeed in this greatest of all journeys? For the simple reason that success, within the context of the dream, is pointless, whereas failure, or at least, struggle, is very much to the point. Chasing enlightenment holds as many lessons for the unawakened soul as any other pursuit in the dreamscape of ego-bound reality--as any other ride in the park. The supposed mega-bliss of spiritual awakening is a carrot dangling from a stick no less than love or wealth or power. In other words, actual enlightenment is seldom the point of the quest for enlightenment. And why should it be? Success in realizing one's nature is absolutely assured because, well, because it is one's true nature. The greatest wonder isn't that you'll make it back, it's that you made it away. Returning is the motion of the Tao. Struggling to achieve truth is, in its own way, as preposterous as struggling to achieve death. What's the point? Both will find you when it's time. Should we worry that if we fail to find death, death will fail to find us? Of course not, and neither death, nor taxes nor gravity, nor tomorrow's sunrise is as certain as the fact that everyone will end up fully "enlightened", regardless of the "path" they take to get there.
---

I think he's saying that "success" is not the point. What the caterpillar views as enlightenment is not the point. When talking success/failure you have to be speaking from the perspective of the dreamer.

"success, within the context of the dream, is pointless" - it's like the gurus telling you you're already enlightened, you just don't know it.

Do you read this differently?

the fact that everyone will end up fully "enlightened", regardless of the "path" they take to get there.

So if I have to be interested in something, this seems like a good choice- watching the homeward migration of souls. And if I have to keep a job this seems like a good one. Standing on the distant shore keeping a beacon fire burning helping newcomers ashore offering a welcome and pointing out the sights.

It seems to me as if he were saying that eventually everyone will be enlightened. The universe is acting inexorably towards it.

The reason most spiritual books are nonsense is that they do not bother with definitions.

How do you define enlightenment? Unless definitions are precise one will be trapped in useless language games.

rebecca702,

Welcome to the board. Great to have you. Would you please address by name those to whom you reply, or attribute those you quote, so unenlightened persons such as myself can follow along? Thanks.

maestro wrote:The reason most spiritual books are nonsense is that they do not bother with definitions.

How do you define enlightenment? Unless definitions are precise one will be trapped in useless language games.

No definitions are precise. Language is a game.

divine focus wrote: No definitions are precise. Language is a game.

What is your definition (conception) of Enlightenment?

rebecca702 wrote:He wasn't saying NOT to enjoy her life, but he was showing her that she wasn't free of her delusions. .00001% false is completely false, so therefore I won't "enjoy" until falsity is gone.

There is no such thing. You create falsity by believing it to be. It's what separates you from the truth, where you want to be. You are there, in honesty.

What matters is knowing the reason, the purpose behind all of your actions. The purpose changes every moment, as with your actions. Holding that purpose in awareness is holding to truth.

maestro wrote: What is your definition (conception) of Enlightenment?

I have none. I don't use that term.

There is only growth in understanding.

I think in most seekers mind the conception of enlightenment is a psychological state free from suffering and a perennial state of bliss and understanding. Freedom from confusion and suffering. Perhaps most have experienced this state in fleeting moments. So Enlightenment is defined as this state 24x7, and this is what most struggle towards.

Now for example McKenna says that eventually all beings are moving towards enlightenment. From the above definition this hardly seems to be the case.

Of course McKenna does not define enlightenment as above, and says enlightenment is not the above, but then what it is he does not say thus turning it into a language game. Enlightenment is but a label and I can define it as above and McKenna's protests against it are just a language game.

A similar process is at work with a philosophical question such as "what is God". It is but a word and you can assign it to any arbitrary conception.

Yes, as all words. But there is a general meaning within a collective or social group that can be held to while being free of a single, strict definition.

Enlightenment is too confusing a term for my purposes, so I don't use it. True self is more my definition. You are always your true self, but you create barriers to your awareness of this. The experience of physical reality as absolute and one-and-only can only be had with those barriers in place. Within growth, your true self is realized while you are still physical, in which case reality becomes less absolute and definite and more ethereal or dreamlike (that is, of your making).

Carl G wrote:rebecca702,

Welcome to the board. Great to have you. Would you please address by name those to whom you reply, or attribute those you quote, so unenlightened persons such as myself can follow along? Thanks.

Thanks for the welcome. And sorry about that - after a little more fooling around, I finally figured out how to post the quotes with names. No genius here. Heh.

Rebecca,

I think Carl is projecting his own lack of attention. So far you've done an adequate job of attributing quotes, for a newby.

Anna wrote:

But why would enlightened persons not respect the facts of life? Why would you exhort someone to be a good mother if you did not respect motherhood?

What has "respect" got to do with anything? He's obviously just saying - if you can't do the enlightenment thing, be the best you can be at whatever you do. How could he "respect" that which he knows to be chock full of delusion and crap? In other words, what he's saying is be the least deluded mother you can be. If she were a teacher, he would have said that about teaching. It's got nothing to do with respect for motherhood.

Had he been expressing respect in an explicit way for motherhood, per se, I'd immediately write him off as a thinker. Motherhood is simply a social role. It means nothing of itself. Like all roles, it's what you bring to it that actually matters. To say you "respect" motherhood, per se, is to say nothing more meaningful than you respect cake decoration.

Rebecca,

I think Carl is projecting his own lack of attention. So far you've done an adequate job of attributing quotes, for a newby.

Dan, I think she went back and attributed a few of them after I mentioned it, which I do appreciate. But it's all good.

maestro wrote: The reason most spiritual books are nonsense is that they do not bother with definitions.

How do you define enlightenment? Unless definitions are precise one will be trapped in useless language games.

Interesting question. Right now, I'd define it as no longer living a lie, untruth-unrealization, and abiding nondual awareness (and yes I am parroting Jed). But it's hard to define something I'm not, and for that matter is it ever really possible to accurately define anything at all? I think this is why Jed recommends starting with the question "what is true?" and hacking your own way through the falseness.

I'll give you Jed's definition of enlightenment from his 3rd book so you can gnaw on it. By the way: I read his books out of order. I stumbled on the 2nd one, and then later read the 1st. If I would have picked up the 1st one first, I would have written him off as an arrogant a-hole after 20 pages and put it down, I think.

This is page 21 in Spiritual Warfare:
---
The first thing to understand about the term Spiritual Enlightenment is that it's a clunker. (The term, not the state, though the state has nothing to recommend it either.) No one actually in this state would ever have decided to call it Spiritual Enlightenment, yet no other state merits such a title.

Some would argue that certain non-ordinary states, such as Cosmic Consciousness and God Consciousness, are worthy of so illustrious a designation, and if they were any more abiding than Guffaw Consciousness I might agree. As it is, my former bond broker had more than thirty expriences of direct, timeless union with the God-mind, and now he's just another John Q. Schlubb pushing product and riding the train, so the way I see it, if it ain't abiding, it ain't shit--just another ride in the park.

Spiritual Enlightenment is the state in which the self is free of all delusion, including self itself. Truth-Realization is another useful term to describe this state. Untruth-Unrealization is more accurate, but less wieldy. Abiding Non-Dual Awareness has its good points too.

The process of becoming enlightened is a deliberate act of self-annihilation. It is the false self that does the killing and the false self that dies; a suicide in all but the physical sense. Because there is no true self to fill the vacancy created by the passing of the false self, no self remains. Hence it is rightly said that No-Self is True Self.

It is not possible to knowledgeably choose or want Spiritual Enlightenment. To desire it is to misunderstand it. Ego cannot desire egolessness. One does not undergo the process of awakening out of love for the true but out of hatred for the false; a hatred so intense that it burns everything and spares nothing.

Could all those who have read McKenna's books give a synopsis of this thing he refers to: "Human Adulthood"?

I get that he uses it as an alternative for those who can't quite do the full enlightenment thing, but I'm struggling to get what it actually means.

rebecca702 wrote:McKenna: It is not possible to knowledgeably choose or want Spiritual Enlightenment. To desire it is to misunderstand it. Ego cannot desire egolessness. One does not undergo the process of awakening out of love for the true but out of hatred for the false; a hatred so intense that it burns everything and spares nothing.

I don't think this is adequately expressed or even quite accurate. How can one have a sense of the false without a sense of the true? We can't know what is true till we know, but then, that's also the case with the false. One can go forward with a sense of love for the truth (as in the principle of it). Of course, this will almost certainly be driven by suffering arising from the false (or the lack of knowledge of what is either true or false) but nonetheless it's possible to be driven by love of truth.

Having said that, I see the merit in focusing on the false, because that focus will more likely allow the person to drop things they wish to remain attached to. If all your focus is on obtaining the true, it's easier to cling to beliefs that have a veneer of truth. Focus on the false makes that a lot harder.

Dan Rowden wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:McKenna: It is not possible to knowledgeably choose or want Spiritual Enlightenment. To desire it is to misunderstand it. Ego cannot desire egolessness. One does not undergo the process of awakening out of love for the true but out of hatred for the false; a hatred so intense that it burns everything and spares nothing.

I don't think this is adequately expressed or even quite accurate. How can one have a sense of the false without a sense of the true?

Yeah... that's what I think too, but the way Jed describes it (or the way I've perceived it) is that the true is simply what is left when all the false is gone: quite literally nothing. And I can't adequately know what it is until I'm there - I feel like this is a better stance to take because then I am not holding something up on a pedestal and forming attachments to it. Jed uses the analogy of Moby Dick, and Captain Ahab's singleminded quest to kill the whale. He can't entertain guesses in his mind of what comes after that - the whale (signifying the ego) is like a white wall. He must pierce through the wall, and come what may.

Do you think this is a good metaphor? Do you think this is a good way to focus the mind?

If not, what is an example of a "sense of the true"?

Maestro,

McKenna may be play-acting the part of the contrarian zen master, but you say he lacks depth because he believes that all will find truth eventually, which means consciousness surviving death. The instant belittling of such opinions, in my opinion, shows lack of depth, rigidity, and lack of imagination. It is just your opinion, as worthless as anyone else's.

Mckenna defines enlightenment as abiding nondual awareness. As for me, I define it as a change in perspective, so that what you identify with as self, is not longer in a narrow confine. That which you identify as self is not something vulnerable.

Well Rebecca, (How's that, Carl?)

I dunno. Like I said, my path seems different. I do not think you need to ignore the voice of the little bastard just because you're enjoying the ride. In my opinion, if the process of waking up isn't a pleasurable one, then what's the point? For me, at least, human adulthood was the point at which the process became a joy and life more magical.

There are many paradoxes in the spiritual life. Everything is OK, and yet there is work to be done. You must be able to contain the paradoxes!

How are the wonderful things going to become your perspective unless you hold them in your sights? Gain the positive, and the negative drops away of its own accord. It needn't be worked through, just forgotten.

.00001% false is completely false, so therefore I won't "enjoy" until falsity is gone.

Just remember that there is nowhere to go, and that truth is right here and always will be.

Well, does that mean you think you are a human adult then? That's what I gathered from your posts to thekid. Why are you not going for enlightenment?

Both this and your above statement tell me that you would really don't see the value of human adulthood. Yes, reading Jed's books I identified strongly with his discussions of human adulthood, and also with the first step, the break from a prior way of being. This is why I want to talk to him, in my ongoing efforts to figure out what happened.

I don't speak in terms of going for enlightenment. Enlightenment is something I am interested in, although it is hard to define, and it is something that I put a fair amount of thought and effort into. My own intuition tells me how to approach things. I listen to the inner voice of my guides. It is not necessary, at least for me, to be impatient or demanding about it. I consider that counterproductive. I put forth the right amount of request-pressure, and I am grateful for what comes. I am exceedingly grateful for what has come thus far. I know there is more but I have faith in the process and I await with gratitude, not impatience.

There is a line I have crossed, and I crossed it as a Christian and therefore called it the Holy Spirit, which was, just as Jesus said, a living water after which I have never thirsted again. Those who have drunk of this water can live in the bridal chamber, which means there is a sense of relationship, of connection, to the divine, and it brings pleasant surprises and one doesn't know what indignities to expect next! (Being a virgin and all)

In this context, let me remind you that I mentioned three different authors whose books are my bibles, and one of them has a map of consciousness that I find most useful. I will present the link:
http://www.globalvoicesradio.com/map.html

If you will note, near the top, at the level of 500 - this is what happened to me, and soon followed by 540. These are important breakthroughs, and what Jed would say about them, is that they are mystic, and still in the realm of the dream. But let me tell you, that for me at least who never stops seeking, they have provided a platform from which to have a much better ability to find truth, and I see the 600 and 700 ahead, which is nonduality and enlightenment, respectively. I'm not there. Yes, I am working on it.

Jed is probably at the level of 600, nonduality. I have always sensed from his writings, that he has an adventure ahead, will discover more, and ultimately integrate it, perhaps not in this lifetime.

Not to enjoy the process is like saying you're going to hate every moment in college until you get your degree.

That is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying the whole concept of respect is obsolete. You obviously respect all people, but don't respect those "nefarious beings". Isn't THAT duality?

It's not obsolete.
I have great respect and awe for the nefarious beings. The path of evil is a very difficult one; it is a tough path and I am grateful for their efforts. I couldn't handle it!

"Everyone should be depressed as hell, and if they were, then something might actually happen. The reason we're not committing suicide by the millions is because we live in a constant state of protective denial that wraps us like an invisible membrane, the price of which is a life lived at the bare minimum level of consciousness. The necessities of life are food, water, shelter, clothing, denial and distraction. Once we have those, we can turn to the business of raising the next generation of walking dead."

Damn, he's good!

But sounds like you don't want to take responsibility for your own life, Anna.

Oh, but true spiritual progress is all about taking responsibility. That's one of the things missing from Christianity.

Why do those nefarious beings haunt you?

They don't haunt me almost at all but they haunt the vulnerable. Rejecting it out of hand could be a form of denial.

Why do you feel the need to defend the holiness of motherhood?

No need for sarcasm. I didn't use the word holy, but a wise man once said,
"Every pine needle is holy and every step is a prayer."

Motherhood is a lovely thing and we need more good, awake ones. Adult ones would be fine.

Recognizing your delusions doesn't mean wallowing in despair about them, it means seeing them clearly.

When I see through a delusion, that brings me joy.

Do you read this differently?

Yes, he is saying that from the standpoint of the dreamstate, the seeker doesn't really want enlightenment, but he is also saying that they will find it eventually.

Dan Rowden wrote:Could all those who have read McKenna's books give a synopsis of this thing he refers to: "Human Adulthood"?

I get that he uses it as an alternative for those who can't quite do the full enlightenment thing, but I'm struggling to get what it actually means.

Hmm, I think it is a necessary phase that should be moved through. A lot of people reach it and stop and set up camp, and he says you have to keep going further.

The best explanation I have heard him use is the metaphor of the movie theater (modern version of Plato's cave): everybody's glued to their seats watching the movie. Then you suddenly look down and see that you're not in the movie, and you notice that everybody else is totally caught up in the movie, not realizing it's not real. Then you begin to look around and see a few people standing up talking, giving teachings to some others on the fact that the movie is not reality. But you're still in the movie theater. Leaving the theater is enlightenment, making a better dream for yourself in the theater is adulthood.

Human Adulthood is waking up WITHIN the dream, Enlightenment is waking up FROM the dream. That is what he says, but I don't totally get it either.

Adulthood is a necessary stage along the way to enlightenment - it's what, if we were a healthy species, we would undergo as kids.
---
"Human Childhood is the ego-bound state. It is, in human children, a healthy and natural state. In human adults, however, it's a hideous affliction. The only way such an affliction could go undetected and unremedied is if everyone were equally afflicted, which is exactly the case.
...
Most human beings cease to develop at around the age of ten or twelve. The average seventy year-old is often a ten year-old with sixty years time-in-grade. Our societies are of, by, and for Human Children, which explains the self-perpetuating nature of this ghoulish malady, as well as most of the silliness we see in the world.
...
For a person to transition into Human Adulthood at an appropriate developmental age would require an actual rite of passage, rather than a merely symbolic ceremony as is sometimes observed, but it would take much more than that. It would require a society of Human Adults in which to occur, so it won't. That's the bad news. For a person to transition into Human Adulthood at an inappropriate developmental age, however, can and does occur. That's the good news. The individual who wants to achieve change and growth in his own life, who wants to move beyond the state of developmental retardation imposed by a developmentally retarded society, can probably do so.
...
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.
...
The difference between Adulthood and Enlightenment is that the former is awakening within the dreamstate and the latter is awakening from it. Shallow, early-stage Adulthood is often mistaken for, and sold as, Spiritual Enlightenment, but it's not. It's just the first real glimpse of life, the death/rebirth transition from womb to world.

The most important distinction to be made between these two states is that Human Adulthood makes sense and Enlightenment doesn't. The main benefit most spiritually inclined people can derive from having a clear understanding of what it really means to be truth-realized is not so they can achieve it, but so they can dispense with it and reset their spiritual sights on something worthier than enlightenment, which is literally, the biggest nothing of all time.

Human Adulthood is what everyone really wants, not truth or enlightenment. This is where you find all the good stuff and a lot less of the bad. You have to grow into it, of course, continue to develop and mature, learn and expand, but that's where all the perks are; profound and abiding contentment, the ability to manifest desires and shape events, the ability to do less and accomplish more, find your true calling, connect with your higher self, never stub another toe, and so on.

And Human Adulthood is what everyone, spiritual or not, religious or not, atheist or not, should be setting their sights on. This is what I've come to understand in my years of teaching and writing. If I were to give advice, I would recommend Adulthood to everyone and Enlightenment to no one. Human Adulthood is life-positive, Enlightenment is life-negative. Human Adulthood is the real prize. Spiritual Enlightenment is pointless and meaningless, and should only be sought by those who have absolutely no choice in the matter."
---
Whew! Sorry, that was a lot, got on a roll there.

I have a weird set of reactions to this text: He seems to be doing a bit of a sneaky thing, goading us a little. Maybe insinuating that the majority of people aren't really strong enough to achieve enlightenment. Even turning away those who think enlightenment is some permanent state of bliss - saving them time.

Do you see what I mean by the fact that he paints "truth" as a giant nothing? I feel like I don't totally understand his motives for doing that - that there's more than meets the eye.

"Should only be sought by those who have absolutely no choice in the matter." Because anything that "you" do will just result in more self... because you can't stage your own suicide... because the truth is something you become, not something you get?

Uh, sorry Dan, I know that's not exactly the succinct definition you were looking for. But I'd like to know your thoughts on it!