Hi Kirtanman,
So recently started reading Jed McKenna’s book on your recommendation, it is definitely well written and an entertaining read, so thank you for that.
Although I haven’t finished the first one yet, I am quickly getting the impression from Jed’s writing of his own experience, of someone who perceives “nothingness”, doesn’t have an abiding perspective of unity 24/7 and has planted his flag in the ground and proclaimed “this (I am none of it or i am abiding nothingness) is the definition of enlightenment” and more importantly “I am enlightened” not so ironically two things he rails against often in his book. He also anoints others who he has taught as having “achieved” a similar perspective as having made it to “enlightenment” as well. Not to mention another classic case of someone saying practices aren’t necessary, well for many they are at least until they aren’t.
I bring it up here because from my perspective it is important for people who are actively engaged in practices or searching for the truth to not choose a label for enlightenment or settle on a definition of it. We are seekers until we aren’t. Planting the flag in the ground and proclaiming “I have made it” is a sure sign of identification of the “I” thought.
The word “enlightenment” is a simply a label or a definition and for what exactly? That which can never be labeled or defined? My question is at what point or after what experience is someone going to point and say, “ah yes, this particular experience, this is enlightenment”? It is undefinable and more importantly, “I” (simply a thought with a sense of self importance unto itself) can never own it any more than “I” can be anything.
Jed also talks frequently of his experience of frustration, anger, hate, irritation etc. all examples of unbalanced perspective. Meaning those emotions point to an exclusively or predominantly negative perception or thought about a given object or experience etc. When thoughts that give rise to emotional reactions like those above are inquired into, it can be shown that those thoughts are not absolutely true and show that the mind was fixated on only one side of the equation of duality, hence unbalanced in this regard. Every experience has two sides and when only one is seen, we suffer.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of valuable insights in his books and great pointers and the book and Jed’s teachings do cut to the heart of the matter in many instances. I think it is important to keep an open mind at all times, about our own condition and that of others. To think or proclaim that you have made it is a sure sign you haven’t. There is nowhere to make it to and being aware of that is joy unto itself.
A perspective for whatever it is worth.
Hi Anthem,
Cool, you’re welcome; glad you’re enjoying the book.
Well, as they felt the need to emphasize as far back as the Rig Veda, and the Tao Te Ching:
“Ekam sad viprah bahudha vadanti”.
Truth is one, sages call it variously.
~Rig Veda I-164-46
“The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao.”
~Tao Te Ching
I see Jed as basically being a modern American version of Nisargadatta, or maybe Adyashanti’s less-polite brother.
A lot of people have taken exception to the same exact kinds of statements by Nisargadatta and Adyashanti, that you’re taking exception to, from Jed McKenna, here.
This is up to you, of course, but maybe take the book as a whole, as much as you can (i.e. the same guy who made the statements you’re taking exception to, also said each of the things quoted at the start of this thread; he also says lots of other things, that in my experience, only an enlightened person {quote-unquote, of course, since “persons” can’t get enlightened} can say (write), in situations so diverse that it’s not exactly possibly to fake (in my estimation).
Agreed; labels and definitions are always barriers.
I took Jed’s expressions regarding enlightenment more as an attempt to express what can’t be expressed, than as a definition.
Are you sure of this?
The reason I ask is:
Many enlightened teachers do exactly that, while also explaining that there is no “I” to get enlightened. However, inserting the qualifier “But, of course, there’s no one to be enlightened” every single time the topic comes up, would get a bit unwieldy.
And so, some teachers can and do use the statement “I’m enlightened” (or “… a Jnani”, or “… the Self”, or whatever), while also making clear in other statements, that the dissolution of the the fictitious limited idea-of-self is exactly what precipitates enlightenment.
In the quotes that started this thread, Jed says:
“There is no true self. Truth and self are mutually exclusive.”
That tells me that when he says, “I’m enlightened”, the “I’m” part of that rather short sentence is more conversational convenience, than anything; the “enlightened” part is simply accurate (I would say).
Yes, exactly - a point Jed makes throughout the books, quite a few times, in one way or another, which is why I take him to be describing enlightenment, and the distinctions between enlightened/awake and “not”, rather than saying “here’s the single definition of enlightenment”.
Enlightenment has nothing to do with experience, ultimately. Enlightenment is usually a term used to indicate the actual shift from sense-of-self being comprised of the ever-shifting conditioned amalgam of thoughts, feelings, memories and ideas, to knowing self (aka non-self ) as “abiding non-dual awareness” (Jed’s term; one I like a lot). This shift is inherently permanent.
Growth, change and becoming of course continue, and even accelerate (with all that energy that used to go into maintaining unenlightenment freed up) on the levels of manifestation and day-to-day life (Jed joins quite a few other teachers in saying this integration tends to take five to ten years – which is where I would say “but that time-frame can’t be defined that concretely”. )
That’s just usually where the general line is drawn (time-frame wise, and enlightenment-wise).
An analogy that just came to me:
We’re talking about whether we can ever really place a road sign indicating the way to New York in enough of a proper relationship/direction to the actual city of New York to be of use.
It sounds like you’re saying we can’t, for a variety of reasons, and I’m saying we can, acknowledging that the road sign and the city are not at all the same thing.
I don’t know if that helps; it just “showed up”, so I’m including it.
Well, of course … but if you’ve ever been around people who therefore try to go with only speaking in sentences like “there was then going to the store; after that, eating dinner happened”, etc. (and please know: I’m not dissing anyone; I kinda-sorta did this myself a bit, for a minute or two … I see it as understandable; it’s a way of trying to get what life with no separate self is like; a reality that language doesn’t support a-tall, and so … 
—>) … this manner of expression gets very awkward, within a very brief period of time, as I’m pretty sure most of us would agree.
What would you have Jed do? Say “enlightenment is here” or “truth has been realized and is now emanating via the appearance of this body-mind” … every single time “I’m enlightened” also fits?
Does anyone (enlightened or not) do that?
(I sure hope not!! )
I don’t recall “hate”, but I recall him mentioning the rest of those … much as at least Nisargadatta and Adyashanti have both done, for their entire teaching careers.
What’s the problem with expressing actual experience?
Anger doesn’t dissolve in enlightenment, as (again) Nisargadatta and Adyashanti, among quite a few other enlightened teachers, have emphasized. A lot. Jed is just one of “that kind” rather than the “never admit or mention anger” kind; that’s all.
I would say that they point more to something pissing one off for a minute or two.
Heck, Nisargadatta talks of being irritated at his lunch being served late in I Am That; Adyashanti talks about getting extremely frustrated with his computer, and that “even enlightenment doesn’t fix that!”
Which, yes, is a joke … a joke with a point: normal humanity doesn’t dissolve in enlightenment; it’s just restored to its natural place, allowing for life to be enjoyed in actual, natural liberation, rather than as a slave to ideas of any kind … including ideas about what is or isn’t experienced in enlightenment.
Jed well knows that no thought is true; I’m pretty sure he says this repeatedly in the book … or, he at least demonstrates that he knows it, well.
Well, then – again, I guess if that means Jed hasn’t, then Nisargadatta or Adyashanti haven’t either (and I’m sure some people may hold those opinions).
Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean negating reality in the name of spiritual correctness, I would say (there’s probably a reason Jed’s second book is called “Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment!” )
If one is living in-as abiding non-dual awareness, most people who are converse with enlightenment would agree that that’s (<- “abiding in non-dual awareness”) at least reasonably termed enlightenment; it’s real; nothing else is.
If, on the other hand, someone is lived by the aggregate of conditioned evaluations, that’s usually called unenlightenment.
Ultimately, realizing the difference between these two conditions (reality and dreaming) is important, regardless of what either one of those conditions is called, specifically.
How important?
It’s pretty much the only thing that really is important. It’s what allows waking up from the dream to actually happen.
And so, I’d respectfully suggest: maybe don’t be quite so hard on someone who expresses this ultimately important truth simply and directly.
I’d say that the true, accurate and clear expression of what enlightenment is (regardless of whatever, exactly, it may be called) is only infinitely more important than not offending someone’s sensibilities (about enlightenment, or about anything else).
As Adyashanti says, “I’m not one of those spiritual comfy guys; I’m a spiritual alarm clock.”
For Jed McKenna, multiply that attitude by at least ten … and you might be able to get how an enlightened guy can sound like he sounds, and still be fully enlightened (See: Nisargadatta Maharaj )
If you don’t like certain facets of Jed’s expression, that’s fine … but you might not want to declare him unenlightened, just yet.
Or you might.
Beautifully put, and a reality Jed attests to throughout all three books, simply in different words.
However, just as you point out the need for practices (as Jed does, too, he just focuses on a single, inquiry-oriented practice, exactly as Nisargadatta and Ramana did), I would say:
For most of us, the truth of the statement above is hard to realize in experience when we’re being run by all the thoughts, feelings, memories and ideas collectively thought of as “me”; a moment of utter peace, clarity, freedom and acceptance is a rare, exceptional and beautiful occurrence.
If we don’t both recognize that it’s all these crazy ideas which emanate from a mistaken understanding of self that comprise the problem, living the truth of “There is nowhere to make it to and being aware of that is joy unto itself.”, as the norm, in every moment, or nearly so, is impossible.
Enlightenment (by any name), is the condition where the disturbance-memories thought of as “me”, no longer have the power to block the light of abiding non-dual awareness, and thus life is restored to its original natural condition, living unbound, consciously knowing that "“There is nowhere to make it to and being aware of that is joy unto itself.”
And so, I would say that anyone who can help people understand the difference between the dream-state and reality, and who is doing so in ways that can help people make that transition, is performing a true service of near-infinite value, whether or not they utter the words “I’m enlightened”.
And in connection with that, I would say that making the statement “I’m enlightened” doesn’t mean that one is referring to the limited “I”, especially when they’ve said many, many things (please see the Jed McKenna quotes at the beginning of this thread) ), which indicate that they well understand they are not the limited “I”.
And a good one (I like dialog like this, where someone reading, who may or may not start the thread with interest in Jed McKenna, can read some alternate opinions, and thereby get a more broad set of information from a given thread).
Thanks for your comments. I’ll be curious if you still feel the same way by the end of the first book, or by the end of the second or third, if you read beyond the first.
I think it’s fair to say that Jed McKenna is not for everyone, by a long shot.
However, some of us resonate with him, big time … and I see him as one of the most usefully clear and direct enlightened teachers - ever (for whatever that may be worth, for anyone reading).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- I’m not sure if maybe Jed’s holding back a little, here ( ) … but the following summary of his overall perspective might help to clarify his feelings on some of the items mentioned in this thread:
“Truth is one, is non-dual, is infinite, is one without other. Truth is dis-illusion, no-self, unity. There’s nothing to say about it; nothing to feel about it, nothing to know about it. You are true, or you are a lie, as in ego-bound, as in dual. As in asleep.”
~Jed McKenna
(I just heard it again while watch-listening to the first YouTube video, linked above.)
Hi Kirtanman,
We can speculate on other teachers inner condition until the cows come home but never actually know. Only they can know. Yes Adyashanti said he was enlightened, I heard him pronounce it sometimes in his earlier years of teaching, haven’t heard him say it about himself in recent times or in his recent book, you have more intimate knowledge of him, maybe you have heard otherwise.
I don’t know enough about Nisargadatta to comment. I have read “I Am That” enjoyed it, seen some videos, great stuff.
The short of it is, my perception of enlightenment is a continuum as described in the AYP lessons as follows:
<--------------|---------------------------|------------------------|------------>
Duality------Continual Perception------Increasing------------------24/7 unity
Full-time----of nothingness-----------unity perspective------------sensory perception
24-7-------24-7 abiding witness------increasing bliss/love---------24/7 a love/bliss
----------------------------------not yet a 24/7 experience------perceptual experience
- Traveling this way —> leads to more perception of unity and the mind spends less time in dual thinking. There are still many instances of duality in-between shortening in duration yielding longer moments of unity experience.
By his own description, Jed has only had the occasional experiences of unity, it is not an abiding condition of his. A lot of people and especially self-proclaimed enlightened teachers seem to fall into the trap of mistaking “their own truth” for “the truth” and then telling everyone else they are wrong if it doesn’t match up with their own perception of the truth. Truth is a very relative term, from the absolute that nothing is actually true, to something that is a lie for one person is true for another depending on the perspective. My lie yesterday is my truth today and visa-versa.
It seems to be the case for Jed, as he communicates often in his book that he is merely content and that unity experience or “mysticism”, as he seems to refer to it, is not a condition of enlightenment, he spends a fair amount of time in dual emotional states as he describes repeatedly. Nothing wrong with this of course, but he is quite clearly describing his own condition, from my perspective, nearer the first vertical mark from the left above.
The reason I wrote the my first post above was because I objected to Jed’s claim of being enlightened as potentially misleading for his readers and students and his presentation of his definition of enlightenment as the absolute truth on the subject, potentially derailing for people. Upon reflection though, each teacher (each human being for that matter) will have something of value to communicate, so in one way or another the student can benefit if they are true in their intentions, it is a lesson either way.
From my perspective, there is a distinction to me of a teacher saying to someone, “yes that is how jnani sees the world”, “yes, I am jnani,” to expedite understanding in the student or “the perspective of unity here is such and such…” again to help in understanding v. “yes I am enlightened, I am the real deal etc.” and go on about it unasked without context to questioning repeatedly etc. Again my perspective. There is a sense of contraction felt in the latter and a sense of expansion in the former, it all depends on the context.
I agree with your points about conversational convenience.
I think it can also be said that it has everything to do with experience. Non-duality or unity is the frontier where language breaks down and no longer serves well for description.
Until all the objects/ experiences of duality have been joined/ balanced in a perspective of unity, in other words seeing both sides of everything (can this ever happen? It is an infinite universe so who knows) there will be many instances of time spent in a dual perspective. As you mentioned it can be a couple minutes or it can be a couple decades, but an emotional reaction of anger, hate, irritation etc. are all pointers to a perspective from a state of duality, in other words temporarily (however long) of seeing an object or experience as negative for the perceiver in some way or another.
This can work the other way too, perceiving something as exclusively positive, pain will be felt when this perception is challenged. To the mind that has a habit of letting-go or accepting with ease, as you point out it won’t last long.
From my perspective there is a big distinction between having an emotional reaction of some kind and speaking/ reacting from it and using or acting (pretending) one out in order to get the point across.
You mention repeatedly that I say Jed is not enlightened, just to be clear I said that proclaiming that “I am enlightened” is a sure sign of identification of “I”. It is not an absolute sign, just a sure sign, the AYP lessons point this out on numerous occasions including the current one just written. His condition as he describes it at least falls under the AYP Enlightenment Milestones, just more near the beginning.
Yes I see it this way too.
Hi Anthem,
All I’m saying is that teachers such as Nisargadatta, Adyashanti and Jed McKenna articulate the realities of enlightenment in ways that are essentially too comprehensive and authentic to be faked.
From that actuality (the accuracy of their words in pointing to enlightenment; the “finger pointing at the moon”, as it were), I’m comfortable inferring the enlightenment of those teachers (meaning, per extensive discussion in this and other threads “enlightenment emanates via those body-minds and their expression”), as well as others, who I’ve mentioned over time.
Not everyone may be as comfortable as I am drawing that conclusion, and I of course respect this, if so.
And I agree, too: it’s not about “who’s enlightened”, and yet it’s also not about (in my opinion) never daring to comment on someone’s apparent enlightenment level.
There’s a huge variance in quality of teaching out there, and all I’m saying is: Jed McKenna is one of a very small handful who comes across to me as utterly enlightened, or at the very least, his teachings and his words come across to me as utterly enlightened, as thus I recommend his teachings as highly as I can, and as highly as I do anyone’s.
Fair enough?
The value of enlightenment teachings, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how nice, blissful or loving someone seems, and everything to do with how well they articulate truth.
Yes, good point; Unity from one side, non-duality from the other (of the frontier, as you call it).
What I meant by that statement, I described above.
Enlightenment has nothing to do with any specific experience.
On the other hand, enlightenment can only be known directly … which may or may not qualify as “experience” … but no word, teacher, teaching, technique or anything else, can enlighten any of us; only releasing the false completely does that.
I don’t know. I wouldn’t say that unity is “seeing both sides of everything”, though. I would say it’s where subject, object and perception/means of knowing become one thing.
Must that precede enlightenment? I would guess it usually does, but I don’t know that it’s essential; it’s a means, and I don’t know that any means is essential.
The only thing that’s truly essential to enlightenment is non-creation of the concept that is the false-self … including eradicating this tendency enough from the body-mind (which is where practices come in, and where they are essential), that such an ongoing awareness (abiding non-dual awareness) is possible, via a given body-mind.
In enlightenment? Not so, or at least, not necessarily so. As in: possible and probable are not the sane thing. Yes, there may be moments of having some sense of attention experiencing some of the vacillations in the body-mind … irritation at lunch being served late, etc. … but there is no confusion concerning who is experiencing it. And yes, identification with untrue thoughts is theoretically possible, but becomes less and less probable as conscious enlightenment deepens in manifested experiencing.
That’s (the relationship between non-duality and duality, which is: the former includes the latter) why we have the symbolism of Hanuman, who is both monkey and man/god, or Jesus Christ, who is both man and god; Consciousness has both form and formlessness.
In enlightenment, we know that the experiencing subject is always, ever, unbound formless awareness.
If the body-mind’s conditioning kicks up some irritation, so what?
Body-minds do stuff like that.
Per above, I (as always, respectfully) disagree.
It can seem that way to an observer (as I Am That covers in some detail, as well as dialogs with Adyashanti), but it is not the case within.
It’s very likely that a lot less time will be spent with the body-mind expressing irritation or whatever, but as Adyashanti has said so poignantly: “Enlightenment isn’t freedom from being fully human; enlightenment is freedom to be fully human.”
I might say it is more a sure sign of talking like a normal person.
Enthusiastically (and 100% respectfully) disagreed.
Jed’s abiding non-dual awareness is actually beyond the spectrum described in the AYP Enlightenment series. In fact, I’m pretty sure Yogani has said, fairly recently, that those milestones are just that: milestones; markers for those of us who are fairly early on the path. When those three milestones were first composed, I don’t know that any of us here were beyond them, except maybe Yogani.
If you seriously read everything Jed says, and not just the couple of statements you seem to take such exception to, I can’t see how you could maintain that conclusion (that Jed is near the beginning of that spectrum).
Maybe this will clear it up:
Living from non-dual awareness is liberation; there’s utter independence from attachment to the states of the body-mind, and therefore, all states are okay. Jed (and any genuinely enlightened person) is free to behave in whatever ways manifest, and they are not unduly concerned with specific statements or behavior, because there’s no longer the fictitious self-idea to be concerned.
And so, if the only way irritation could be expressed is if the separate “I” re-manifested, I would agree with you, but this is not the case.
It’s more that the activities of the body-mind are finally left alone to run naturally, just as unenlightened humans leave things like digestion and respiration alone, for the most part.
Awesome!!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hi Kirtanman,
Just in case it comes across differently in the posts above, just to clarify, none of my comments are meant to be taken to be about Jed himself, I’m just using him to express certain a perspective on the evolution of human consciousness in general.
If you want to endorse him by all means go for it, as I hope I made it clear earlier on, everyone has a unique perspective which can add to the totality of awareness and Jed certainly has some great pointers.
I think the difference in our perspectives can be boiled down to that (and please correct me if I am misrepresenting your words) that you see a definable point where “enlightenment” occurs and a person can hence forth be called “enlightened” and I see it rather as a continuum of human consciousness evolution. With less and less identification occurring to the point of unperceivable amounts as a person moves more deeply into unity (non-dual) perspective 99.9% of the time. The person will continue to evolve all the while it is a collection of thoughts inside abiding awareness that knows itself as That.
So from my perspective, a person can realize their true nature, that they are abiding awareness, be in a state of non-duality and see it as such 90% of the time and have complete knowing that they are not the “I” but still have concepts (and thoughts) where the mind is still subtlety identified. Emotional reactions, especially strong ones are good pointers to identified areas.
All humans have moments of enlightenment, but for most they are brief breaks in the clouds between very extended periods of identification. For those with a predominantly non-dual perspective, it can be the opposite, extended periods of “enlightenment”, with brief periods of identification all the while knowing they are That. The brief periods of identification will continue to occur less and less over time unless there is an expressed desire to hold on to certain concepts and beliefs.
I see it this way too.
Sounds good, if you want to define enlightenment this way go for it.
I see it this way too.
Agreed, no problem, but still points to some subtle identification with a concept, in other words seeing just one side of an object’s nature rather than both sides. Agreed, there is no problem with this or in expressing this either.
Personally, I don’t go around thinking about what enlightenment is or isn’t very often, I stopped chasing that word and find it to be a limited label that is often pre-maturely claimed by many and often misleading in general to people. I don’t see enlightenment as you are or you aren’t, if that is the definition you are working with, I can see how you do and it is all good, we can have different perspectives here.
Hey K-man,
I know I’m a bird-brain 
, but how exactly is abiding non-duality different from abiding Unity? And how exactly is it beyond the states described in AYP?
My understanding of Unity was that is was the merging of subject and object into the realization/experience of all as Self/Awareness; and in this state of knowing/experiencing self as Pure Awareness there is no attachment to body-mind/objects of perception/etc…how is non-dual awareness different?
I’m not necessarily schooled on the details, so I know I might be missing something…
Peace
Hi Anthem,
Thanks for the additional comments; helpful as always!
Ah; okay. That’s exactly how I was taking your comments, actually. Thanks for clarifying.
(It would be fine if they were about Jed, too; I’m cool, either way – but per my previous responses, I was taking your comments to be about Jed, specifically, at least for the most part).
No worries; I do, and I am (endorsing Jed McKenna, with unreserved enthusiasm). I think we all do that, in one way or another (recommend, or at least reference, the resources we feel can be beneficial) … I just tend to do so a bit more enthusiastically than most.
I think I may understand where the apparent difference in definitions stems from: I’m referring to enlightenment from the standpoint of the self (or not-self, if you prefer; the wholeness of awareness has no parts, and so, can be called pretty much anything, I suppose). From that standpoint, self is either known, or self is not known; self is experienced in-as actuality, or sense-of-self is still lost in delusion. There aren’t any levels or gradations to it. However, this only applies at the level of awareness itself; it does not apply to any levels with manifestation or form, even extremely subtle form.
And so, I don’t even know that we disagree.
I do agree, per your further clarification below, that from the standpoint of the body-mind, there is further opening, expansion, growth, etc., even after enlightenment.
However, the most fundamental shift which occurs, ever, is the shift from identifying with delusion, even to a very minor degree, and knowing ourselves as our true nature of unbound awareness.
I have zero attachment to the term enlightenment, per se; it’s just that most people have some sense of what that term means, at least as a general indicator.
For instance, I’m comfortable saying that Nisargadatta, Adyashanti, Jed McKenna and a few others are enlightened, in the sense that I’m saying “if it’s enlightenment you’re interested in, “aka” knowing your true nature, well, these teachers impress me as being among a small handful who express enlightenment clearly, directly, authentically, and from the standpoint of living from that place of knowing their own true nature, and therefore, they can help you know yours.”
Now, if someone else wants to say that enlightenment can’t be defined, or it’s not a final point, etc. etc. … in terms of manifestation and form, I absolutely agree; both Adyashanti and Jed McKenna refer to the few years of integration which occurs on the levels of form after enlightenment. At the level of formless awareness, though, truth has been realized: reality is One, and Self is known to be That, is living from and as That.
It’s like an on-off switch; dead-or-alive, awake or asleep.
On the levels of form, yes – there are essentially infinite levels.
I’m thinking maybe we agree then, but I’m not 100% sure (maybe only 99.9% … ). Please let me know if you can tell (Anthem).
For instance, I’m not completely clear on your use of the term “person”. In general, I agree that something like a person continues and evolves, but after enlightenment it’s a far different type of thing. As I’ve said often lately: “mind is a sense and not a self.” Person-hood is the same way. And so, yes, I agree the forms within awareness, which might be called the personality, or whatever, evolve … but if one really feels like one is a person, enlightenment hasn’t happened; another “definition” of enlightenment could be “the dissolution of the idea of being a person.”
… yet “normal person-ness” seems to persist, too; from the outside, it may not seem much different at all; from the inside … only infinitely.
“I am large; I contain multitudes”
~Walt Whitman
“One moment I was a dark, fearful narrowness; the next, I was not contained by the Universe.”
~Rumi
“Truth hath no confines.”
~Herman Melville, Moby Dick
“The body is the perceptible.”
~Shiva Sutras
I agree with this; I think all of us who have come to, or passed, this phase know the reality of it. Again, I agree fully: on the levels of manifestation, enlightenment very much “phases” in.
And, I understand people define, and/or won’t define certain terms, such as enlightenment, to the point of making them nearly meaningless.
To be clear: it’s not the terminology I’m concerned with; it’s communication of the actuality.
In the context of this thread, I’m saying: Jed McKenna is a guy who obviously knows his true nature all the way (he couldn’t write as he does, if he didn’t, in my estimation), and so, I highly recommend what he has to say about it.
If you’re not comfortable calling that condition (knowing our true nature) “enlightenment”, that’s fine by me.
You just seemed to be saying that Jed appears to be at the lower, or early, end of the AYP enlightenment milestones spectrum, and I just wanted to be clear that I strongly (and respectfully, as I emphasized, last post) disagree, and that I would say that his enlightenment, and all actual enlightenment, is beyond any spectrum from the side of absolute awareness.
If you’re speaking of the spectrum from a manifested standpoint, I’d still say that Jed certainly seems to be off the far end (higher end) of the spectrum as well. He may not seems blissful all the time, but as he points out in the books “nothing transcends my transcendence.”
Emotion is quite different when experienced from non-dual awareness; it’s like flavor; not good or bad … just varied.
And it’s not like Jed rants and raves all that much … in fact, he doesn’t really rant or rave ever. He uses a little profanity at times, and writes like a regular person, but also seems to maintain equanimity essential always, and says, as I have in the past, of a randomly-selected normal moment “all I can say is ‘thank you, thank you, thank you!’” … and describes his ongoing state of being as a “mixture of love-gratitude-awe best described by the term agape”.
And which are thus, not usually recognized as enlightenment.
If “I experience awareness” … that’s not enlightenment.
If “awareness experiences” … that’s enlightenment.
(Per my definition, etc. etc. … )
But you see the key difference … “all the while knowing they are That.”
The difference that unmakes all the difference!
In (what I’m calling unenlightenment) … true nature isn’t known even when it’s experienced.
In (what I’m calling enlightenment) true nature isn’t lost even when there’s temporary constriction of even a large part of attention around form.
Once true nature is known, it’s pretty much impossible to hang onto concepts or beliefs at all, I’d say. The fictitious entity who held them is gone.
And so, (per this entire dialog) … all cool; again: I’m not caught up in the definition; the condition I’m referring to can even be called something different than enlightenment, if you, or whoever, wants.
I’m simply trying to communicate that authors/teachers who are writing/teaching from the standpoint of knowing their own true nature are still relatively rare, and thus, highly valuable.
I see it this way too.
I’m still not quite getting this “both sides” thing … can you maybe clarify what you mean, a bit?
I’ve just literally never heard of it, prior to this discussion.
Basically, the union of opposites occurs, in my experience, when it’s experienced that perceiver, perceiving and perceived are all one/one activity … the movement of one awareness.
Awareness doesn’t have preferences; body-minds do; hence irritation manifesting.
Awareness is free; free enough to experience irritation if irritation arises.
Now if there’s truly a limited-I experiencing the irritation, that’s different; but it’s the limited-I that’s the issue, not the irritation, in my view.
I would say that irritation results from the conditioning of the body-mind, and is part of the tapestry of manifestation. If there’s identification, it’s on the part of the body-mind, not the awareness we are. That’s how the fully enlightened can be irritated, and still be fully enlightened.
I’ve never heard of anyone who lived through a body-mind that was free from all conditioning (genetic, biological, physical, psychological, cultural, religious, familial, etc.) … and I’m not sure what such a condition would be about, anyway.
If liberation happened at the level of form, no one would be liberated. Ever.
Awareness is inherently free; the unenlightened are just not conscious that they are the underlying awareness.
None of us is the tiniest iota different from one another; the only apparent difference is the amount of the range of our awareness-consciousness that we are consciously living from-as.
As Jed McKenna says:
“The difference between us isn’t that I’m enlightened and you’re not; it’s that I know it, and you don’t.”
And
“I don’t have something you don’t; you believe something I don’t.”
I actually agree with this, and it’s the same for me. For me, it (enlightenment, and discussion thereof) tends to come up here at the forum; nowhere else. I guess that’s because people’s sense of what the term (enlightenment) means, and points to, varies so much.
I agree it can be problematic (the term enlightenment).
I’m talking about simple truth-realization, by any name.
I’m fine with that; as I’ve said: my whole purpose in mentioning it here, was to emphasize my view that Jed McKenna is one of a small handful of truth-realized authors, and whom I highly recommend per his truth-realization (which I’m comfortable calling “enlightened”), and both his clarity, and his modern-culture-friendly manner of expression.
I’m good with that.
As you indicated, there’s a point where true nature is known, and where it’s not lost, even when there’s some flux in emotional or energetic states.
Authors and teachers who are stable enough in that condition, whatever we might call it, are relatively rare, and thus, highly valuable, in my estimation.
I’m just saying “Jed McKenna is one of those, and a very clear, direct instance of teaching from that condition … and so, if you read him with an open mind, you may find it very, very beneficial.”
Of course, everyone’s mileage may vary; I’m simply making the recommendation.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hi Parallax,
Good question, and the confusion may be due to my premise, not anyone else’s.
I’ll try to clear it up.
Certain traditions, including the Yoga Sutras, making the distinction between union of form, and dissolution of the distinctions of form.
And so, when subject, object and perception unite, that’s what I’ve been referring to as Unity.
When the distinctions dissolve, that’s what I’ve been calling Non-Duality.
Basically, if there’s enough distinction to be able to say “subject, object and perception” have united … I’ve been calling that Unity.
If there’s no distinction, I’d call that Non-Duality.
Looked at a slightly different way:
If the two aspects of the Yin Yang symbol unite, I’d call that Unity.
The Yin Yang symbol itself, I’d call Non-Duality.
Basically, I’ve been referring to Non-Duality as the One in which all else is contained; that which is beyond all.
Unity is All, Non-Duality is Beyond All.
(Per the way I’ve been using the terms).
In recent lessons, I seem to recall (I’d have to review them to be sure) that Yogani has described the Self/enlightened condition/process as abiding non-dual awareness, or similar terms.
I was referring to the original Enlightenment Milestones model created by Yogani long back, which is what I took Anthem to be referring to.
My point was simply:
If there’s a spectrum … any spectrum … enlightenment (as I’m using the term), aka abiding non-dual awareness … is beyond that spectrum, because all spectrums arise within it.
And so, I was referring to how abiding non-dual awareness relates to the experience of a spectrum, which inherently occurs within duality.
And again, I do feel Yogani has described the fullness of abiding non-dual awareness quite clearly; I was simply responding to Anthem’s specific mention of a spectrum, and what I understood to be the original Enlightenment Milestones spectrum (which, as I think I said, I’m pretty sure Yogani has expanded on, in recent times, too).
Basically, what I’m calling enlightenment is identical for all; I’m not saying that Jed McKenna is beyond “AYP Enlightenment”, or anything like that; enlightenment is enlightenment in my estimation, and Yogani knows it and articulates it as well as anyone.
I hope that clears things up; if not, please let me know, and I’ll try some more.
Apologies if I was confusing!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Thanks Kirtanman, I appreciate your help
As is frequently the case, I think my confusion was semantics based…with a little bird-brained-ness thrown in…
The way I had been viewing it was that once subject, object and perception unite there is no distinction anymore…hence essentially the same as Non-Duality…I guess that’s the way I had interpreted how the term was used in AYP (Unity = abiding non-dual awareness); ie, if the Yin and Yang were to unite that would process would be “unification”, but once united are the Yin Yang symbol, no longer separate…
Unity is All, Non-Duality is Beyond All…I was thinking of Unity as the “one” uniting with what is Beyond All and in doing so becoming All…the distinction between subject/object, the one/the All/the Beyond All cease to exist…“That” is “That”, but “I am That” “You am That”, “Everything Am That”…“That” is all there is?
I’m not trying to be a pain, or nitpick on semantics, I guess I had always thought of Unity and Abiding Non-Duality interchangeably, so your distinction kind of threw me off a little…since I haven’t experienced it yet either way, guess it doesn’t much matter…just trying to understand the roadmap a little better.
Thanks for taking the time K-Man,
Much Love
Ouch! That rings true. What about those of us who experience the repeated ‘irritation’ of “oh shoot, forgot again”? IOW, repeated forgetting and remembering - or perhaps better, awakening and going back to sleep? From reading a fair amount of Adyashanti and Nisargadatta recently, I’m wondering is there a continuum of this process? What I’m trying to get at is whether there is always one, ‘blinding’ moment where the illusion of the individual self is seen through, or can this be a gradual process. Nisargadatta seems to indicate in his case it was an ongoing thing - Adyashanti (and others) seem to indicate that there is a single, overwhelming experience (albeit with varied or no prior awakenings). I’d be really interested to hear what you think about this. And I appreciate that there is still work to do even after the dissolution of the personal self.
On another point - Wayne Wirs’ recent blog post about the dry and dusty non-dual teachers made me think of this thread - because a couple of years ago, that’s exactly how I felt about Jed McKenna - although as mentioned previously, the response is different now.
Hey Parallax,
No worries at all!
It occurred to me, that logically, Unity and Non-Duality are effectively synonymous; I’ve just spent a lot of time immersed in systems (including my own, Living Unbound) which make the distinction between the two terms (Unity and Non-Duality) in very specific ways.
Basically, Unity (as I’ve been using the term, per the systems mentioned above) is the “most real” end of the reality spectrum, which has perceived disunity and complete partiality on one end, and universal unity on the other, and which comprises all levels of manifestation, from grossly-physical to unimaginably subtle.
However, Non-Duality, being absolute, and only One, contains all … Unity, Disunity, everything in between, “the whole shebang”.
In experience (again, per the definitions above), Unity is when everything feels unified when all distinctions are dissolved … relative to when things don’t feel that way.
In Non-Duality (again, per those definitions), there’s just the natural state, where there’s non-arising of distinctions and relativity in the first place, and thus, everything and all experiences are equally “it” … which is why states like irritation are not at all problematic; they’re as much “it” as ecstatic-love-bliss.
Mind can’t “get” this, because mind “tops out” at Unity.
Awareness/Wholeness just is it, however “it” displays at this moment (“I am what is happening right now”, to quote Wayne Wirs yet again. ).
However, again, just in terms of simple logic and semantics, I “get” why Unity and Non-Duality seem synonymous; in terms of logic and definition, they do to me, too.
I’ve just been so immersed in the “technical terms” of various philosophical systems for so long, that it’s likely me who’s got the bird-brain thing goin’ on!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- Those definitions may seem kind of convoluted, but they’re literally structured to help us understand the nuances of extremely subtle, unified and non-dual experiencing, when we experience them … and what might not make sense to the mind while reading, will likely make a lot more sense as kind of a “vibe” (aka bhav, aka feel) thing, in experience. It did for me, anyway.
Hi Amoux,
[quote=“amoux”]
Yes.
There may or may not be such a blinding moment, but it’s never in isolation from years of sadhana before it, and years of integration after, if it happens at all.
“There’s no such thing as instant enlightenment any more than there’s such a thing as an instant baby.”
~Jed McKenna
Nisargadatta and Adyashanti actually have somewhat similar stories … with Adya’s sadhana actually being the longer one. If one reads Emptiness Dancing, his “enlightenment story” at the beginning of the book could lead one to think in terms of a single experience, but in the interview (with Tami Simon, of SoundsTrue) at the back of that same book, Adya very much puts that illusion (that he had a single “enlightenment experience”) to rest, by recounting years’ worth of his sadhana process in great detail … which included at least two major awakening experiences, which were several years apart.
More like integration that happens than work that is done, but yes … change continues on the levels of change. It’s just that the changeless is finally known as Self, creating the “peace which passes all understanding”, as the Bible says.
That phrase is meant very literally: it’s the peace that is specifically beyond the realm of understanding, where only relative peace is possible.
Yes, Wayne and I have a bit of a comment-dialog going, per that post, and per Jed McKenna (see the comments for that post of Wayne’s, for details).
And yes, Jed is a LOT less arid than a surface review of his quotes (even in those well-made quote videos, linked in this thread) … per the following quote, from his first book (spoken to a gathering of his students, outdoors, at night … and so, he’s presumably referencing what is happening in that same moment he’s making the statement):
“I see perfection and beauty and absolute delight everywhere and in everything. The touch of the slightest breeze, the sight of a single star through cloud-swept skies, the howls of coyote pups in the distance, and the sheer glory and beauty of it all is enough to tear me to shreds, and all I can say is thank you, thank you, thank you!”
~Jed McKenna
“Me, too!”
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Thanks, Kirtanman. I read “The End of Your World” a few weeks back, and then ordered Emptiness Dancing and True Meditation (as often, reading bass-ackwards!)
There’s a nice synchronicity going on here - last night I was reading Emptiness Dancing (I’m about half way through) - and read this:
“It can come about suddenly, all at once, and it can also come about gradually, much like butter melting. Now if we want to call butter melting a progression, I suppose we could, but I think saying that butter melts is something other than a progression. You’re not getting anywhere. You’re actually getting nowhere fast. So it can happen either way. It can happen in a gradual or a sudden way.”
Then read in Nisargadatta “With some, realization comes imperceptibly, but somehow they need convincing. They have changed, but they do not notice it. Such non-spectacular cases are often the most reliable”.
And this morning read your post
Interesting what you write:
“There may or may not be such a blinding moment, but it’s never in isolation from years of sadhana before it, and years of integration after, if it happens at all.”
In Byron Katie’s case, then presumably the sadhana beforehand was the years of suffering she went through? Incidentally, “Losing the Moon”, if you can get it, is a fascinating read - written very much from the Advaita Vedanta perspective.
Hi Amoux,
Er … more like: I utterly forgot about cases like Katie’s, when I wrote what I wrote.
Which, fortunately, simply engenders a slight modification:
“There may or may not be such a blinding moment, which can occur at the beginning, middle or end of the sadhana process, but it’s never in isolation from at least a small handful of years of overall sadhana and integration, it seems, if it happens at all.”
“Per that”, I would say that Tolle, Katie and Ramana all had a “blinding moment” realization-type experience at the very start of their sadhana process.
The point of my comment wasn’t so much to make any black-and-white statements, but rather to make the point that it’s never about single experiences, no matter how dramatic they may be, nor when they occur.
Saying that someone “instantly realized enlightenment” is kind of like saying that someone “instantly realized being in great physical shape” … it just doesn’t happen that way (per Jed McKenna’s awesome and oh-so-pertinent “instant baby” quote, in my last post, and the first post in this thread).
Ultimately, it’s all about “unbecoming false” as Jed McKenna says; everything else is just support for, or detraction from, that process.
Hence my enthusiasm for Jed McKenna’s books; he makes this point clearly, repeatedly, and irrefutably.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- Thanks very much for the book recommendation! I’ll order it, if I can find it, for sure.
My two cents: I don’t know what sadhana means, but I suspect that the three above had a collapse of their false identities (the personal self ( http://waynewirs.com/category/enlightenment/personal-self/ )) for the exact reason that they WERE NOT spiritual seekers. In other words, Realization came as such a shock to their system that their egos collapsed (or more likely, were repressed (buried) by the conscious mind).
If you’ve been studying nonduality, enlightenment, whatever, then you kind of know what to expect. Indeed, you’ve been preparing your mind for it, so the realization of enlightenment won’t have the SHOCKING power that it had for the above three.
Most probably don’t want to hear it, but I would think that a gradual integration of the unity state (after the personal self drops away) is a much more healthy path (though far less dramatic and won’t sell as many books) than the OMG-what-just-happened-to-me variety.
So on this point, I have to disagree with Jed M’s “instant baby not happening” (or whatever he said). It does happen to some people (Tolle, etc.) but it probably won’t happen to you since if you are reading this (a “student” of enlightenment), you’ve already prepped your mind–you see your little brother hiding behind the curtain getting ready to jump out and shout “Boo!” It won’t startle you enough to drop/repress the egoic conditioning.
Again, just my opinion.
aum
divine kirtanman,
thank you for sharing jed mckenna’s wisdom!
jed mckenna’s writings is similar to the siddhar sages, most of whom were not ‘educated’. with an enlightened consciousness, they wrote the awakening truth in its heart’s expression of simplicity and directness. the words of wisdom you shared are alighting!
gratitude!
aum
Beautiful; thank you Nandhi, and yes … gratitude!!
AUM
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
My two cents: I don’t know what sadhana means, but I suspect that the three above had a collapse of their false identities (the personal self ( http://waynewirs.com/category/enlightenment/personal-self/ )) for the exact reason that they WERE NOT spiritual seekers. In other words, Realization came as such a shock to their system that their egos collapsed (or more likely, were repressed (buried) by the conscious mind).
If you’ve been studying nonduality, enlightenment, whatever, then you kind of know what to expect. Indeed, you’ve been preparing your mind for it, so the realization of enlightenment won’t have the SHOCKING power that it had for the above three.
Most probably don’t want to hear it, but I would think that a gradual integration of the unity state (after the personal self drops away) is a much more healthy path (though far less dramatic and won’t sell as many books) than the OMG-what-just-happened-to-me variety.
So on this point, I have to disagree with Jed M’s “instant baby not happening” (or whatever he said). It does happen to some people (Tolle, etc.) but it probably won’t happen to you since if you are reading this (a “student” of enlightenment), you’ve already prepped your mind–you see your little brother hiding behind the curtain getting ready to jump out and shout “Boo!” It won’t startle you enough to drop/repress the egoic conditioning.
Again, just my opinion.
Hi Wayne, A good and pertinent two cents; thanks. By the way: "sadhana" is just the overall spiritual or yogic path or process that someone follows from "zero to enlightenment". And I think we're all pretty much on the same page, here. The context of Jed's statement "there's no such thing as instant enlightenment, any more than there's such a thing as an instant baby", was in reference to those who teach that "instant enlightenment" is available, and/or indicate that they realized "instant enlightenment" themselves. I'd be very surprised if it's possible, per the dynamics of releasing one's personal story, and how thoroughly that personal story is integrated, at every level of consciousness. And so, I certainly agree with the "shock" aspect of Katie's and Tolle's experience, and that their single experiences were consummately powerful, but there were also years of contributing circumstances before-hand, and years of integration, after, for both of them. Complete release of one's personal story, including fully living from the resulting freedom and in the resulting reality, seems to involve a process for all. The context for discussing it here the way we are, was Amoux's question to me, vis a vis Nisargadatta's few years of sadhana, and Adya's seeming "insta-lightenment" (which was cleared up per our discussion here, and Amoux's further reading in Emptiness Dancing). You've stated on your blog, Wayne (and I believe here, as well; I've quoted you here, I know) that one of your reasons for discussing your enlightenment, is to help people understand that it's available. My comments about "instant enlightenment" were offered in that same spirit. If someone is looking for "the experience" .... they can have an amazing, ego-nuking experience, and think (literally) "I'm enlightened!! Woo-HOO!!" I know that this can happen, because I did this. But only ten times or so. At least. :grin: (Seriously, though.) Subsequent involuntary re-immersion into believing in concepts invariably led to the "Ah crap, that wasn't it after all!!" dynamic that some of us know all too well. There finally came a point, though, where sense-of-self as personal story just couldn't be believed in, any longer; as Adyashanti says "there's nothing for it to stick to". For me (quote-unquote :slight_smile: ) this just kind of happened; I didn't even really notice it, at first; I was in the "I am what is happening right now" flowing for at least a week or two, before there was even a noticing that something very fundamental had shifted. Since that time, there have been some minor constrictions of attention, but they're not like they were in the past, at all. Since that shift, it's more like: if you notice you're squinting a bit, or that you're not breathing in a natural relaxed manner, you relax your eyes, or relax your breathing. It feels like that; "mind" and/or "me" (aka "sense-of-self"), if it seems to be around at all, is worn very loosely, and has nothing to do with the unbound awareness I actually am, any more than a momentary itch defines anyone. For quite some time, I couldn't completely release the "me story"; now, there's not enough ability to believe in it, to bring it back. I'm good with that. :slight_smile: Like Adyashanti, I had a few major experiences, that were big shifts, but it was the release of personal story over time, and the integration of living free from personal story (which continues, of course) that I would consider essential to enlightenment. Whereas the "big experiences" felt big when they happened, in retrospect, they don't feel essential. Though, apparently, they were for me, or they wouldn't have happened. However, there are quite a few enlightened people who never had "big deal" experiences, and are living unbound from personal story, aka "enlightened", too. :slight_smile: And so, a clearer way to say what I said about enlightenment never being instant, might be: Probably best not to look for enlightenment in a single experience, since that's very likely not to be the complete "story". Enlightenment (aka releasing the concept of "me", and all its concept-effects) seems to involve a process over time, in one way or another, for all of us. Yogani emphasizes that it's practices, inquiry and the process of time overall, that facilitate living from enlightenment ... and I'd agree with that, as well as, in that context, Jed's "instant baby" quote. Wholeheartedly, Kirtanman :slight_smile:
Hi Wayne - thanks for this:
This makes good sense.
Sometimes I wonder whether all the reading I do (and enjoy) is simply a way of ‘putting off’ dropping the personal self
One thing which is the current refrain of this character I’m playing is “it has GOT to be simpler than it seems”. Of course, this could be utter frustration on my part
BTW - I enjoy your blog, and the mp3s are very effective.
Hey Amoux and All
I have been going through this for quite some time now…wrote about it a bit here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6208&SearchTerms=maps
Personally I had been reading dozens and dozens of spiritual books a year and I eventually got to a point where I could reiterate everything that was said in these books, but I had no experiential knowing of it in my heart. I eventually decided it was time to “discard the maps” and start living the territory myself. I probably have made many mistakes since this decision that could have been prevented by reading about the territory I was in in someone’s book, but I regret none of these mistakes. Each one has helped to solidify and strengthened my practice through experience and has helped me to Live my own Truth. I found (others experience may and will likely be different) that I was so busy trying to match my experience to what others said was to happen on this journey to Self that I wasn’t living my own Life. And I was suffering over it too. So eventually I got to a point where I said to myself “enough reading about life, time to start living it”…and I am still here…haven’t picked up a book in a long time. I’m sure that at some point I will go back to reading again, but for now, I am plenty happy just Being Life itself instead of reading about others Being Life and trying to emulate their experiences.
Love!
