GENIUS FORUMS

Carl G wrote:deep and dry as the Dead Sea Scrolls, delivered through a timeless unmoving mask.

Jehu's mask reminds me of some horror movie. I forgot which one.

Dan Rowden wrote:

McKenna: 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.

This makes me think McKenna actually doesn't know what enlightenment is and has never attained it. No-one that has would characterise it as nothing.

It's his ego speaking. For some reason, he has allowed his ego to encase enlightenment and hold it up as some sort of distasteful exhibit.

It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

-

David Quinn wrote:It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

Yes David you're so superior.

Looking through some of these comments, I think that it is too hard to judge his books by these excerpts. I think his first book is great, as is the second one.

The one thing we can know is not that we know nothing, but that we exist. In one of the excerpts that Rebecca posted, he said that there is only one thing to know about consciousness, and that talking about it indicated that one doesn't know it. I wonder what he has in mind. Probably something related to our own consciousness being the only real bedrock of existence, but I'm not sure.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

Yes David you're so superior.

The Genius Forum "Best Heckler Award" for 2008 has already been decided, so you may as well quit and leave it for next year.

...

Dan Rowden wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

Yes David you're so superior.

The Genius Forum "Best Heckler Award" for 2008 has already been decided, so you may as well quit and leave it for next year.

That wasn't heckling, it was me providing a valuable service, if you're incapable of seeing anything but mere heckling in it - that's your problem.

If you're capable of seeing more than heckling in it, that's your problem.

Don't worry, being able to see more than others is a "problem" I've been living with all my life, I can handle it.

You're too attached to it to handle it.

xerox wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's his ego speaking. For some reason, he has allowed his ego to encase enlightenment and hold it up as some sort of distasteful exhibit.

It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

'My' deluded 'l' was starting to think that the deep iternalisation/acceptance that ALL is NO-THING... AND everything was THE essential TROOOTH.

It seems pretty clear that his "nothing" referred to something else.

-

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

Yes David you're so superior.

The competition, you must admit, is pretty poor.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:You're too attached to it to handle it.

If that was more than an empty retaliatory swipe, and if you think you've got some good advice for me regarding this, I'd like to hear it - in detail. But if it's just more generalized anti-attachments ideology, forget it.

David Quinn wrote:The competition, you must admit, is pretty poor.

Not if I'm part of the competition.

Dan Rowden wrote:His books are actually available as E-Books now, so it may be possible to Torrent them, if you're into that sort of thing...

'Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment' and 'The Damndest Thing' have torrent links on Demonoid as Audio Ebooks.

May as well give it a go.Something to listen to on a long drive.

Count me as one of skeptic turned admirers. I did not like his first book at all, but his second and third books mostly hit the right notes. While he does not say anything that has not been said before as pointed out by Carl, that does not dilute the importance of his work. It is like distilling the clearest essence from the spiritual misasma.

His enlightenment is a state, where the mind does not overlay reality with concepts and knowledge and allows the universe and experience to flow unhindered. For the mind to step out of the way it has to become absolutely convinced of its helplessness and pettiness, and the limited nature of knowledge.

What is particularly admirable is his relentless exposure of our society, built on as it is falsehoods all the way down, and the exposure of spirituality and doublespeak therein.

I know why I like him that much, it is as if all the ideas that I had deduced over the years were spelled out clearly by this guy.
Resonance!

David Quinn wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

McKenna: 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.

This makes me think McKenna actually doesn't know what enlightenment is and has never attained it. No-one that has would characterise it as nothing.

It's his ego speaking. For some reason, he has allowed his ego to encase enlightenment and hold it up as some sort of distasteful exhibit.

It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

-

This could be pure semantics... I think you WOULD have to read more of his writing to understand his motives. He's trying to weed out people who are only looking for lightness and bliss, I think, and that is why he continuously refers to it as nothing. He can be very confusing, and many times I believe on purpose, seemingly contradicting himself.

I think the phrase "reset their spiritual sights" gives it away. He's aiming this "nothing" definition at those who are striving after deluded dreams. Dreams of what it would be like to not live lies, instead of doing the work of tearing down their lies. Every time we think we know what it is, we build more hindrances for ourselves.

My apologies for posting little bits and pieces. I did get what I wanted though, and that was reactions to Brett. It may be useful to note that at the end of the book Jed tells us that Brett stopped having the meetings, because she realized she was wrong. Those people were never going to see the light. She thought she might be getting through to some of them, but never did. So she stopped. Not that it made her sad, no. As for Jed's so-called emotional responses, the guy has a serious overload of sarcasm. Most of the time it's enjoyable. He did not really mean he was "in love"... he seems to have no interest in sex whatsoever. "Human connection" is a delusion.

End rambling.

maestro wrote:Count me as one of skeptic turned admirers. I did not like his first book at all, but his second and third books mostly hit the right notes. While he does not say anything that has not been said before as pointed out by Carl, that does not dilute the importance of his work. It is like distilling the clearest essence from the spiritual misasma.

What do you now make of his observation that enlightenment is like death and that we just have to wait for its inevitible occurance? As I recall, you were highly critical of it, and rightly so.

His enlightenment is a state, where the mind does not overlay reality with concepts and knowledge and allows the universe and experience to flow unhindered. For the mind to step out of the way it has to become absolutely convinced of its helplessness and pettiness, and the limited nature of knowledge.

Is that enlightenment or simply living vacantly in the moment? Buddhahood or cowhood?

What is particularly admirable is his relentless exposure of our society, built on as it is falsehoods all the way down, and the exposure of spirituality and doublespeak therein.

I agree this is his best attribute, even if he slides into his own postmodernist doublespeak a bit too easily while doing so.

The criticism of generic spirituality from postmodernists and wise people are closely aligned, at least on certain levels. Because of this, a postmodernist can seem wise in some areas and not in others.

I think he's on the right track, but hasn't yet fully resolved the core matter in his own mind. Hence, the mixed messages he sends out.

-

rebecca702 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's his ego speaking. For some reason, he has allowed his ego to encase enlightenment and hold it up as some sort of distasteful exhibit.

It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

This could be pure semantics... I think you WOULD have to read more of his writing to understand his motives. He's trying to weed out people who are only looking for lightness and bliss, I think, and that is why he continuously refers to it as nothing. He can be very confusing, and many times I believe on purpose, seemingly contradicting himself.

I think the phrase "reset their spiritual sights" gives it away. He's aiming this "nothing" definition at those who are striving after deluded dreams. Dreams of what it would be like to not live lies, instead of doing the work of tearing down their lies. Every time we think we know what it is, we build more hindrances for ourselves.

He's a complex character, I agree, and it may be that I am misrepresenting him out of ignorance of his entire body of work. I've simply being been responding to the immediate impressions I receive when I read bits and pieces of his work.

One thing I have concluded is that there is far too much padding in his work. He rambles unnecessarily. I would like to see him distill the essence of his thinking into simple, straight-to-the-point prose, rather than hide behind a maze of fictitious stories all the time. Is there anywhere where he has done that?

I'm reminded of something Nietzsche said:

So many a clever one had I found, that veiled his face and muddied his waters, that none might look through them and down into them. But to him came the more clever unbelievers, the crackers of nuts: these fished out from him the best hidden fish!

But the bright ones, the brave, the transparent - these I hold the wisest of the silent: for their bottom is so deep that even the clearest water betrayeth it not!

-

David Quinn wrote:What do you now make of his observation that enlightenment is like death and that we just have to wait for its inevitible occurance? As I recall, you were highly critical of it, and rightly so.

It is in the first book, which I do not like much.

David Quinn wrote:

maestro wrote:His enlightenment is a state, where the mind does not overlay reality with concepts and knowledge and allows the universe and experience to flow unhindered. For the mind to step out of the way it has to become absolutely convinced of its helplessness and pettiness, and the limited nature of knowledge.

Is that enlightenment or simply living vacantly in the moment? Buddhahood or cowhood?

The mind has thoroughly explored the limits of knowledge and transcended them, thus it cannot be fooled any longer. Perhaps infants live in this state, but they can be potentially fooled into giving it up which the enlightened mind cannot be.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:What do you now make of his observation that enlightenment is like death and that we just have to wait for its inevitible occurance? As I recall, you were highly critical of it, and rightly so.

It is in the first book, which I do not like much.

It is still a part of his world-view, and a very critical one at that. It underpins everything he has to say on the issue.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

maestro wrote:His enlightenment is a state, where the mind does not overlay reality with concepts and knowledge and allows the universe and experience to flow unhindered. For the mind to step out of the way it has to become absolutely convinced of its helplessness and pettiness, and the limited nature of knowledge.

Is that enlightenment or simply living vacantly in the moment? Buddhahood or cowhood?

The mind has thoroughly explored the limits of knowledge and transcended them, thus it cannot be fooled any longer. Perhaps infants live in this state, but they can be potentially fooled into giving it up which the enlightened mind cannot be.

Which means that the enlightened person has access to a form of knowledge that the infant doesn't have and makes use of it to prevent him from slipping back.

That's why I don't like the catch-all phrase of "transcending the limits of knowledge". It is too simplistic, and quite erroneous when applied to real life. No one ever transcends knowledge altogether, not even sages.

It depends on what we mean by "transcend". For example, we can work out that it is impossible for us to gain knowledge of what precisely occurred trillions of years ago, in previous universes generated by previous big bangs (if indeed that's what happened). So we can transcend our attempts to find knowledge of those events by dismissing it as a waste of time and moving onto something else. Yet such a transcendence is still performed in the light of knowledge, just a different type of knowledge.

-

Ataraxia wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:His books are actually available as E-Books now, so it may be possible to Torrent them, if you're into that sort of thing...

'Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment' and 'The Damndest Thing' have torrent links on Demonoid as Audio Ebooks.

May as well give it a go.Something to listen to on a long drive.

Unfortunately you have to be a registered member to get the Torrents and registrations are closed unless you get an invite from a current member.

I'm a member Dan.PM me if you want an invite.

David Quinn wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

McKenna: 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.

This makes me think McKenna actually doesn't know what enlightenment is and has never attained it. No-one that has would characterise it as nothing.

It's his ego speaking. For some reason, he has allowed his ego to encase enlightenment and hold it up as some sort of distasteful exhibit.

It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.-

On this whole nothing business...

Here is a video someone sent me today of Stephen Mitchell reading the Diamond Sutra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bfzLXPk24

I don't like Stephen Mitchell that much BUT, the line from the Buddha supposedly goes, (1:53) "When I attained absolute perfect enlightenment, I attained absolutely nothing. That is why it is called absolute perfect enlightenment."

I think that was what Jed was trying to say by enlightenment being, "literally, the biggest nothing of all time."

That may well have been his intention, but it doesn't really come across that way, especially when he states it juxtaposed with observations about Adulthood. It comes across as "enlightenment gives you nothing and there's no real reason for it, but adulthood gives you heaps."

What the Buddha said has to be seen in the context of the emptiness of reality. That is why nothing is attained, but this is not the same as saying enlightenment is nothing.