Jan Odvarko

Meditation And Jed Mckenna's Books And Staying Sane

60 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, Pinocchio said:

@Leo Gura @mkieblesz @Emerald Wilkins

"It's a somewhat disconcerting aspect of the journey that you catch up to, and go beyond, some of your own mentors -- move beyond people you've held in the highest possible regard. I was acutely aware of this occuring on several occasions and I can tell you that it's a strange and daunting experience, all the more so because it's quite specific and unmistakable when it happens. These are the giants in the field, so to speak, and the simple though peculiar-sounding fact is that I became very close to these people and in a very real sense, when I came to where they had stopped off, I stopped with them and paid my deepest respects and moved beyond them with a heavy heart. I have no idea how that sounds to someone who hasn't experienced it, but it was a wrenching part of the whole thing and it feels good to tell someone about it." -- Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing

Again I know how this sounds, but like I said there's no conveying this, and you probably won't be able to appreciate the difference while you're still taking the dreamstate paradigm at face value yourself.

Which in practice you mostly still are, and you haven't really hit on much of the ramifications yet of the fact that there is only absolute infinity and you are it, except maybe in your memory of whatever glimpses you may have had which are now already claimed by the ego.

You're still very much into maintaining all the interpretations and projections that make up the dreamstate paradigm, and you're still approaching this from the perspective of the personal identity and finite mind, and you're still trying to evaluate enlightenment in terms of what it means for the robot and for your dream future. And by the way so does Shinzen.

You're not clear on the difference between adulthood and enlightenment and you're fixated on experiences. That's why you talk about degrees and flavors of enlightenment, and how common and wantable it is and how everyone should get it and how it would improve the world and the human race, and how microscopically a good meditator can observe dreamstuff, and all this shit that has nothing to do with anything. You don't think you're one of those blind guys groping at elephants.

i've tried to make my point, but I can't convince you of anything and I don't really care to. You don't have to buy my bullshit. If you want to keep an open mind and you want truth for what it really is, as you say you do, then just take this with you and don't be so sure that you already know what it's all about. Don't ever stop questioning, especially this stuff.

The only thing I know for certain is that I don't know. I was just curious as to how a person could tell if someone was enlightened or not. From where I am, I cannot.


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woooooohohoho it's getting so serious here! Go have a drink or bang someone!!!!!!! Ha ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pinocchio said:

@Leo Gura @Emerald Wilkins @mkieblesz

For what it's worth, came across the following today. Dialogue between student (italics) and Ramesh Balsekar (regular), excerpted from "Consciousness Speaks", p303:

---

I have a question that has been bothering me for a very long time. I used to be a Zen monk. For ten years I would sit every day and just disappear. I would hear a bell and become the sound of the bell. I would look at a tree and the distance between me and the tree would disappear. I would become the tree. There was immediate presence. Identity was everywhere but there were no specific objects. But I would always come back from that as the same person. This happened over and over again, for ten years, and I wondered, what is the value of this since it did not change me in ordinary consciousness?

What is that state I was going through and how does it relate to the personality and to what you are saying?

 

What it relates to is that the mind makes an effort. This did not come naturally, did it?

 

No. It was very hard.

 

It is very, very hard. Sonme "one" made very hard effort. And those efforts resulted in a certain state of mind.

 

Absolutely.

 

Make any physical experiment or a chemical experiment. It is very clear, and this is the same in yoga. Do step one, step two, step three, step four, step five. Ultimately, if all the earlier steps are done, a specific final result must come. But it is all still in phenomenality.

That is why Maharaj used to say, you may go into samadhi for ten minutes, you may go into samadhi for ten days, you may go into samadhi for ten years, you may go into samadhi for one hundred years, but you must come back where you left. Therefore it has no value.

 

I agree. (laughter)

 

You agree from experience, not from an intellectual level.

 

Absolutely. And I then had to struggle to become an ordinary person again, letting go the samadhi and the specialness of that.

 

Quite so. But when this kind of state happens by itself, when there is no "me" making hard effort, then that kind of state arises only from one thing. As Maharaj repeatedly said, "Understanding is all."

Understanding at the beginning has to be at the intellectual level, necessarily so. That is why both Ramana Maharshi and Maharaj used to say, "To be a jnana yogi, to seek knowledge, you have to have a very keen intellect, an intellect keen enough and honest enough to come to the conclusion that what it is really seeking is beyond its comprehension."

This seeking is not a matter of comprehension, it is a matter of intuitive apprehension. But it has to be arrived at through the intellect.

Thank you. I will think on this. My first impression is that the way the monk was identifying with other things, and so it was a part of the dream. Metaphorically speaking, he was just exploring another facet of the dream, but not waking up. Also, it seems that the last part refers to having a keen enough intellect to see through the illusions. So, even though enlightenment has little to do with intellectual thinking, the intellect is like a tool for getting there if someone understands these things intellectually. So, having a keen intellect is like having a sharper than average knife to use for cutting away at the illusion. But I will reread it a couple times and contemplate on it more. It reminds me of the parable of the raft. 


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pinocchio said:

@Leo Gura @Emerald Wilkins @mkieblesz

This should really be a wake up call for meditators and what they're trying to accomplish and how they're trying to accomplish it. This is the reason Jed McKenna stresses the difference between mysticism and enlightenment. Shinzen has a lot in common with that Zen monk from the above excerpt. Both of them are mystics, playing with phenomenality. Neither of them enlightenened.

The non-inherence of personal identity (what Shinzen calls "No self as thing") is also still within phenomenality, i.e. the realm of perception. It's the fluid self that the Zen monk describes. Like you said, it's exploring another facet of the dream, the light of the projector in Jed's cinematic version of Plato's Cave.

But that's not "no-self" as Jed uses the term. Self is the sphere of perception, no-self is the absolute ground of being, the sunlight outside of the cave/cinema, the infinite source of all phenomenality, the void.

And as per another Jed quote in another thread: "Enlightenment isn't when you go there, it's when there comes here. It's not a place you visit and then remember wistfully and try to return to. It's not a visit to the truth, it's the awakening of truth within you. It's not a fleeting state of consciousness, it's permanent truth-realization -- abiding non-dual awareness. It's not a place you visit from here, this is a place you visit from there."

Master meditators like Shinzen have a fluid identity and are, at best, visitors to the void (caution paradox - self cannot visit no-self). But their default residence is still within phenomenality. The enlightened abide as the source of phenomenality, and that is not something that can be practiced or cultivated.

Is it being existence? Like "I" am the space where all phenomena in existence happens. Like, I'm not a small person in an infinite universe. But all of existence is consciousness that resides in the field of awareness I call "me" or "my perceptions." So exploring phenomena is more akin to the former idea about the universe, but true being is closer to the concept that all of existence is couched within the awareness that "I" am experiencing; but ultimately true being is beyond that as that is just a concept layed over the experience of being. Any thoughts?


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pinocchio said:

Not sure I follow your meaning. Could you rephrase and simplify?

So, exploring phenomenon is still part of the illusion that "I" am a small person in an infinitely large universe. This is what you said Shinzen is doing. But getting a real experience of enlightenment or "being," is more akin to the idea that all of existence is couched within the field of awareness that a person thinks of as "their" perception. "You" are the space that all perception occurs in. But it isn't an idea, as it is in solipsism or as I say in this message. It is the experience of that state of being prior to all conceptual add-ons. So, exploring those perceptions is still getting caught up in thinking of them as non-illusory. 


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pinocchio said:

Sounds about right. Basically all of phenomenal reality is mind (individuated consciousness). Absolute consciousness is the attibuteless source of mind/phenomenality.

And the only thing that can be affected by cultivation/practice is mind. All change and growth happens within the mind realm. Fluid identity is mind realm. Sensory clarity, concentration and equanimity is mind realm. Mindfulness is... yeah you guessed it.

That individuated consciousness is still self, in fact it's capital-S Self, the higher Self, the Atman, the universe, infinite mind, the thing you (as small self) integrate with to reach the Integrated State (a.k.a. Human Adulthood). It is the dream itself, and also does not truly exist.

The emptiness of self (i.e. non-inherent existence of self) does not touch this, because emptiness is exclusively about phenomena, not truth. In fact the emptiness philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of absolute truth at all.

It's one thing to realize that the dream is empty. It's another thing to wake up.

I think I've been making some better progress over the past few days, than I have in years. I was trying to experience my perceptions as all of existence when I was at the gas station yesterday. I would get caught up in ideas of solipsism and different judgements about particular circumstances, but I was able to detach more from thoughts and recognize them as such. They were just more content in the field of awareness. But my understanding is still primarily conceptual. How do I get this truth to percolate through my system, so to speak. How can I live from this state without getting caught up in ideas and notions of it? 


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Pinocchio said:

@Emerald Wilkins If you want you can check out Jed's forum and ask him about his "Navigator Series" (only if you're serious about this, forum is free but Nav will cost you). I haven't done the Nav but from what I understand he has developed a pretty unique process over the past 14 years for undoing "importances". That's basically "attachments", which are the emotional/energetic investments in the dream knowledge (i.e. delusions, the stuff that the false identity is made of) which keep you anchored to the dream.

http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/

 

Thank you. I registered for the forum. It would make sense that emotions are keeping me attached to outcomes of the dream. I have a lot of urges and wants that come up. Social anxiety effects me because "I" want the emotional payout of being liked and to avoid the emotional hurt of being disliked. So, even though my mind realizes the truth of my awareness and I can perceive it objectively, I'm still not really living it emotionally and am thus controlled by this attachment. It will probably take practice to detach from the emotions as monkey chatter in the mind and corresponding sensations in the body. But this sort of contradicts the idea of a breakthrough enlightenment as this is much more gradual. That is, unless it comes like a big insight that completely flips my perspective. But these are just conjectures.


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pinocchio said:

Basically by unlearning all that's false. Which is everything that seems true.

 

Need some more links to teachings? ;)

 

I just saw your above messages. I'd love some more links. I've recently been adopting the idea that the only thing that is true is what I'm perceiving in the present moment. So, I don't know if my memories even correspond to a past reality. They could just be thought implants for all I know. So, they are the content of thoughts. My fantasies and future projections are the stuff of thoughts too, of course. So that leaves me with my perception of the present moment. I see shapes imbued with colors on a flat screen which my mind interprets as a computer screen the bedroom that I'm in. I hear the sound of cars outside and little noises in the environment. I feel the sensations in my body. Thoughts are springing up and I'm involved with them by typing.  Subtle tastes and smells that I'm so used to that they barely register. That is all I know. But there must be many unconscious things that I haven't debunked yet. I may have to actually go through every single assumption and belief to deconstruct them. But I'm not sure.


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this sort of contradicts the idea of a breakthrough enlightenment as this is much more gradual. That is, unless it comes like a big insight that completely flips my perspective. But these are just conjectures.

What I found is that there is both. There may be some events where you contemplate and have a huge awakening and it completely revolutionizes your perspective... but then your good ol' self-agenda comes back, usually in full force. Sure, you may be able to "flip" between self-mode and observer-mode, but it doesn't mean much if it isn't abiding. That's why seeing through your own illusions (or 'destroying the self' as Jed says in his books, a bit dramatic) is really the only way to make efficient 'progress' (really a regression) on this journey. Another phrase Jed uses for enlightenment is untruth-unrealization, and I've recently found that to be very fitting.

This also explains why all those meditators stagnate. They may have had some non-abiding enlightenment experiences, but their whole self structure is still intact. It's like trying to chop the regenerating heads off of a hydra when instead you should be plunging your sword into its heart: your heart.


“Feeling is the antithesis of pain."

—Arthur Janov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I may have to actually go through every single assumption and belief to deconstruct them. But I'm not sure.

I don't know if you've gotten to the part in Ralston's book where he talks about bottom-line contemplations? This is exactly what he suggests.

Jed also suggests this by using Spiritual Autolysis. 

I've found both techniques to be helpful.


“Feeling is the antithesis of pain."

—Arthur Janov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pinocchio said:

“It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream – a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought – a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities.” – The Mysterious Stranger, Mark Twain


Jed McKenna, Spiritual Warfare:

———
“Cast Away”, I say after a few moments.

“Really? Tom Hanks? On the island? I don’t get it.” She pauses. “This isn’t going to make me sad, is it?”

“Maybe, I don’t know.”

“I’m feeling a bit raw today, I guess. You’re saying the Tom Hanks character became enlightened through his experiences on the island?”

“No, he just found himself thrust into the unadorned paradigm of the awakened being. Being alone on a desert island is a good metaphor for the awakened state. By getting stranded on that island, he has effectively died to his life, but without physically dying. Prior to the crash, the Tom Hanks character, Chuck Noland, had everything we think of as a life — friends, career, family, fiance — as well as the countless other big and little things we take for granted until they’re gone. It’s all about context. Chuck Noland, at the beginning of the movie, has a full, rich context. He fits in his world, he has a robust belief-set, he is part of things and things are a part of him. And then, bam!, his plane crashes and it’s all gone. Suddenly, simple survival is his only context. What does that leave? A man without a context. A man who is in all respects, except physically, dead. A man with twenty-four hours a day with nothing to do but slee, eat and stare at the waves. The differences between him and the man he buries and eulogizes with such Zen-like succinctness are negligible.”

“And that’s what it’s like to be enlightened?”

“That’s what the truth-realized state is; the absence of context. There’s no artificial framework in which to say one thing is better or worse than another.”

“He had his friend,” she says, “Wilson, the volleyball. I guess he had to go a little soft in the head to make that relationship work.”

Actually that’s a relationship I can understand. Yes, he had to go a little soft in the head to make it work. He had to bend or else he’d break. He had to play a life-or-death game of make-believe. He had to believe the untrue and disbelieve the true. He had to perform an act of Orwellian doublethink: “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Chuck Noland knows Wilson is just a volleyball, but he must believe Wilson is a fellow being because he cannot not have a fellow being in his life. Wilson provides the context Chuck can’t live without. Without Wilson, Chuck will snap, but with Wilson, Chuck can bend. Before the plane crash, Chuck’s context was reflected back to him by virtually everyone and everything in his very meaning-rich and clock-oriented environment. After the plane crash, all that’s gone and there’s just one thing left to reflect it; a volleyball with a bloody handprint that kind of looks like a face. It’s not much, but it’s all he needs to pretend he’s not completely alone on an island in the middle of nowhere. That’s what context is and that’s what it does; it tells us that we’re not completely alone on an island in the middle of nowhere. It provides the illusion of a populated environment in which meaning and values can be perceived and applied; where it matters what we do and what choices we make. All context is artificial. There is no true context.

Cast Away, reduced to its allegorical structure and stripped of everything after Chuck’s rescue, provides us with a powerful vehicle of philosophical inquiry. Chuck Noland had his attachments severed, but he never wanted that. He’s been forcibly liberated from a prison where he was perfectly content. Someone slipped the red pill into his drink, and he woke up outside a matrix he never knew he was in. All he wants is to get back in, but he can’t. He’s locked out of his own life, not really dead and not really alive.

Who wants to be cast permanently adrift on a shoreless sea? Who wants to spend the rest of their life tumbling through infinite space? No one, of course. What’s the point of pointlessness? How can you want nothing? Words ascribed to the Buddha are often fraudulent, but there’s one very clear exception and it’s the quotation at the beginning of this book: “Truly, I have attained nothing from total enlightenment.” That statement is like an optical illusion; it can be viewed two ways, the less obvious one the more correct. It’s not so much that he didn’t gain anything as that he did gain nothing.

“I see”, says Lisa after we’ve discussed it for awhile, but she doesn’t. She doesn’t see that what Chuck does to survive is what everyone does to survive. She doesn’t see that she herself is alone on an island in the middle of nowhere, that’s she’s gone a little soft in the head and that her mind has reshaped itself to fit her needs, that her life is given shape and form and meaning only by her capacity for doublethink. She doesn’t see that Chuck Noland’s soft-in-the-head relationship with a volleyball wasn’t unique; that it’s the same tactic employed by all people all the time in order to maintain the state of denial necessary to continue a meaningless existence in a fictional universe.

But Lisa is feeling a bit raw today, so I don’t bother her with all that.
———


Jed McKenna, Theory of Everything:

"No one could actually transition into C-Rex except by transitioning out of U-Rex."

"You don't arrive in C-Rex by convincing yourself that you're already there, but by destroying every shred of the illusion that you're not."

 

Great stuff. :) 


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

I don't know if you've gotten to the part in Ralston's book where he talks about bottom-line contemplations? This is exactly what he suggests.

Jed also suggests this by using Spiritual Autolysis. 

I've found both techniques to be helpful.

I'm not to that part yet. I'm just a little bit past half-way through. Someone mentioned Spiritual Autolysis the other day on the forum. I think I'll try that soon. It seems like it would be a really effective means of contemplation because it's more solid and you don't have to worry as much about being lost in thought.

Edited by Emerald Wilkins

If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emerald Wilkins said:

I'm not to that part yet. I'm just a little bit past half-way through. Someone mentioned Spiritual Autolysis the other day on the forum. I think I'll try that soon. It seems like it would be a really effective means of contemplation because it's more solid and you don't have to worry as much about being lost in thought.

You sound like an analytical person just by the way you write, and by the fact that you're reading Ralston. Spiritual Autolysis would probably work really well for you. 

If you decide to take it up and need help with the general direction, here's a post that'll help you get started:

 

 


“Feeling is the antithesis of pain."

—Arthur Janov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

What I found is that there is both. There may be some events where you contemplate and have a huge awakening and it completely revolutionizes your perspective... but then your good ol' self-agenda comes back, usually in full force. Sure, you may be able to "flip" between self-mode and observer-mode, but it doesn't mean much if it isn't abiding. That's why seeing through your own illusions (or 'destroying the self' as Jed says in his books, a bit dramatic) is really the only way to make efficient 'progress' (really a regression) on this journey. Another phrase Jed uses for enlightenment is untruth-unrealization, and I've recently found that to be very fitting.

This also explains why all those meditators stagnate. They may have had some non-abiding enlightenment experiences, but their whole self structure is still intact. It's like trying to chop the regenerating heads off of a hydra when instead you should be plunging your sword into its heart: your heart.

Untruth-Unrealization sounds like an accurate descriptor. It would make sense that someone who had an enlightenment "experience" might have this issue with attachments to illusion coming back. With my experiences, they were intensely blissful so there were probably a lot of things that I missed as I was primarily focused on the bliss. It was primarily an emotional experience, so there was little exploration of there being "no me" it was more of a feeling of "no me." It was like dying and going to heaven, without actually dying. So, there were many illusory beliefs that bubbled up to the surface because they were no longer needed to build up and protect my ego, but the belief of there being a separate self didn't directly brandish itself. This lost in bliss phenomenon was probably compounded by the fact that my experience was catalyzed by Ayahuasca, so the body high and hallucinations were probably major distractions too. Maybe it was sort of like waking up from the dream but still having ties to the illusion from the waking state.


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pinocchio said:

@Emerald Wilkins

 

The retreat from falseness is a gradual process, or more accurately an incremental process, i.e. it happens in discrete steps big and small. And that's all you can do. But the "final thing" is all-or-nothing and completely outside of your control. Another Bart Marshall quote (see link below): "One can be very wise in spiritual ways, and very ripe for it to happen, but until the trap door opens and you free fall into the Absolute, you’ve got nothing.  As I mentioned earlier, Rose had a great quote in this regard:  “You don’t know anything until you know Everything.”"

 

Thank you. All this is very helpful. I'll definitely check out the resources, and I'll also check out "The Work." I've heard great things about it.


If you’re interested in developing Emotional Mastery and feeling more comfortable in your own skin, click the link below to register for my FREE Emotional Mastery Webinar…

Emotionalmastery.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that you put yours attention at is not it. It is just distraction cool story or cool jewel nothing else. Thats why enlightment is pathless and selfless. You have to be and there is no proof. Truth is allways bigger than proof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see how differently Leo viewed meditation and “other enlightened beings” then when compared to now. 

Jed McKenna helped me see the nonsense in Buddhism and meditation. No amount of meditation helps with the problem of self-deception. Spiritual Autolysis is I think the best method to overcoming self-deception and reaching high levels of understanding. I am so glad I started with Jed’s books.

Edited by r0ckyreed

Meditation is a lifestyle of developing a calm state of mind WHILE engaging in one’s ambitions!

Counting your breaths, chanting a mantra, and the rest of it is all ratshit and a complete waste of time. What is stopping you from meditating WHILE working on your life purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

You can see how differently Leo viewed meditation and “other enlightened beings” then when compared to now. 

Jed McKenna helped me see the nonsense in Buddhism and meditation. No amount of meditation helps with the problem of self-deception. Spiritual Autolysis is I think the best method to overcoming self-deception and reaching high levels of understanding. I am so glad I started with Jed’s books.

Exactly...I was reading his comments and was confused....then I noticed the date and I was like OHHH that was young Leo. 


The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Your ACTIONS REVEAL how you REALLY FEEL. Want TRUTH? Observe and ADMIT, do the OPPOSITE of what you usually do which is observe and DENY. - Razard86

Think about it.....Leo gave the best definition of the truth I ever heard...."The truth is what is..." so if that is the truth.... YOUR ACTIONS IN THE PRESENT ARE THE TRUTH!! It's what's happening....do you like what you see? Can you accept it? You are just a SENTIENT MIRROR, OBSERVING ITS REFLECTION..... can you accept what appears? -Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Jed's books but people take them way too seriously. The books are fictional. Jed McKenna is just a character. The other characters come across as vehicles for him to make a point rather than actual people. He's more interested in creating catchy terms such as Dreamstate and Human Adulthood than in making any serious arguments for his worldviews. Spiritual autolysis doesn't lead to enlightenment. It was probably just an invention to have Julie's letters in the second book.

Fantastic writer, nevertheless. The books are very entertaining and make many good points. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.2.2016 at 6:22 AM, Leo Gura said:

@aurum Be careful with drinking the Jed Kool-aid. Oldest spiritual trap in the book: make your spirituality superior and exclusive of all others.

Isn't this the exact trap he himself is falling into now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now