What do you think?
Rate this book
Enlightenment Trilogy #1
Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing
From a spiritual master unlike any,
a spiritual masterpiece like no other.
AUTHOR, TEACHER AND SPIRITUAL MASTER Jed McKenna tells it like it's never been told before. A true American original, Jed succeeds where countless others have failed by reducing this highest of attainments — Spiritual Enlightenment — to the simplest of terms.
Effectively demystifying the mystical, Jed astonishes the reader not by adding to the world's collected spiritual wisdom, but by taking the spirituality out of spiritual enlightenment. Never before has this elusive topic been treated in so engaging and accessible a manner.
A masterpiece of illuminative writing, Spiritual Enlightenment is mandatory reading for anyone following a spiritual path. Part exposé and part how-to manual, this is the first book to explain why failure seems to be the rule in the search for enlightenment — and how the rule can be broken.
a spiritual masterpiece like no other.
AUTHOR, TEACHER AND SPIRITUAL MASTER Jed McKenna tells it like it's never been told before. A true American original, Jed succeeds where countless others have failed by reducing this highest of attainments — Spiritual Enlightenment — to the simplest of terms.
Effectively demystifying the mystical, Jed astonishes the reader not by adding to the world's collected spiritual wisdom, but by taking the spirituality out of spiritual enlightenment. Never before has this elusive topic been treated in so engaging and accessible a manner.
A masterpiece of illuminative writing, Spiritual Enlightenment is mandatory reading for anyone following a spiritual path. Part exposé and part how-to manual, this is the first book to explain why failure seems to be the rule in the search for enlightenment — and how the rule can be broken.
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 221 reviews
April 26, 2012
This book talks endlessly about spiritual enlightenment, but I just kept hearing the line from the movie The Princess Bride: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The author is elitist and arrogant--more than once he says, "the difference between you and I is that I am enlightened and you are not."
What he calls enlightenment sounds more like apathy. By trying to show that we're all just wrapped up in some elaborate movie, he tries to demonstrate what someone is like who has realized this, and got up and left the theater: clearly bored with the whole show. He alternates between pity and disgust toward those poor unenlightened souls. And yet, he obviously loves to hear himself talk. If that's what enlightenment is like, no thanks.
But he did make me think, he's obviously very well-read, and he did make many good points. Like, with all these spiritual practices, churches, gurus, books, and prayer beads, you'd think we'd be surrounded by enlightened people. So where are they? And what exactly is enlightenment, anyway? Without a definition, and some way to measure it, the word is pretty meaningless. Anyone can claim to be enlightened, and anyone can sell it.
This could very well be a work of fiction. I mean, some spiritual guru, in an adhoc ashram in Iowa, of all places. With no effort on his part, followers flock to him. Of course, all are moved and transformed by him. None doubt or question him, whereas I just kept screaming, "you are SO full of shit!" And who is this great Jed McKenna anyway? It's a total mystery. There's no information about him anywhere on the internet. The book is self-published. I doubt the author's real name is Jed McKenna. I doubt any of this is real.
And that may very well be the whole point of the book: enlightenment is a crock. Anyone who claims they're enlightened is full of shit. It could very well be that the whole book is a demonstration of this, and Jed McKenna, rather than being some arrogant, enlightened guy, is in fact a fictional character created for the sole purpose of demonstrating how totally B.S. this whole enlightenment business is in the first place. In which case, I'd have to say this book is actually quite brilliant.
What he calls enlightenment sounds more like apathy. By trying to show that we're all just wrapped up in some elaborate movie, he tries to demonstrate what someone is like who has realized this, and got up and left the theater: clearly bored with the whole show. He alternates between pity and disgust toward those poor unenlightened souls. And yet, he obviously loves to hear himself talk. If that's what enlightenment is like, no thanks.
But he did make me think, he's obviously very well-read, and he did make many good points. Like, with all these spiritual practices, churches, gurus, books, and prayer beads, you'd think we'd be surrounded by enlightened people. So where are they? And what exactly is enlightenment, anyway? Without a definition, and some way to measure it, the word is pretty meaningless. Anyone can claim to be enlightened, and anyone can sell it.
This could very well be a work of fiction. I mean, some spiritual guru, in an adhoc ashram in Iowa, of all places. With no effort on his part, followers flock to him. Of course, all are moved and transformed by him. None doubt or question him, whereas I just kept screaming, "you are SO full of shit!" And who is this great Jed McKenna anyway? It's a total mystery. There's no information about him anywhere on the internet. The book is self-published. I doubt the author's real name is Jed McKenna. I doubt any of this is real.
And that may very well be the whole point of the book: enlightenment is a crock. Anyone who claims they're enlightened is full of shit. It could very well be that the whole book is a demonstration of this, and Jed McKenna, rather than being some arrogant, enlightened guy, is in fact a fictional character created for the sole purpose of demonstrating how totally B.S. this whole enlightenment business is in the first place. In which case, I'd have to say this book is actually quite brilliant.
February 16, 2014
This book is not for the casual seeker. Be warned. It is a spiritual neutron bomb and it can be a shattering experience. This is for people who have spent their lives looking to understand why they were different and why they were compelled to seek the mythical state of "enlightenment" while their friends and family seemed so much more at home in the world. I spent much of my life on the seeker's path and this book was the final trigger for me. It is not to be approached lightly. Also the author is not what you would expect from a spiritual teacher and that is a good thing. He cuts like a hot knife through the bs and wishful thinking of the new age community and pretty much everything else. Do not let him get in the way of the message. He is but a mouthpiece for the divine. Focusing on the author is yet another distraction in reaching your goal. Enjoy. Just watch out for the first step to enlightenment, it's a doozy.
September 25, 2013
After reading lots of Eckhart Tolle and Neale Donald Walsch, this is a good wake up call from all the spiritual and enlightenment business.
July 26, 2007
This book about one man’s experience of enlightenment and his life teaching others about it at a small Iowa ashram is a fantastic exercise in critical thinking. Well-written and entertaining to read, it offers a valuable perspective on the difference between the kind of yummy, mystical unity experience that most people assume is enlightenment, and what McKenna refers to as actual truth realization, the rather less comfortable process of losing complete identification with your sense of self.
The book is so enjoyable to read, it took me a while to notice the numerous contradictions within it. The author spends a lot of time making absolute statements based in the authority of his self-proclaimed enlightenment, while at the same time warning readers to be wary of listening to people like him. In addition, I couldn’t quite shake questions about whether or not the book is the true memoir it presents itself to be, or if it is instead the creative product of some Iowa Writer’s Workshop student who got waylaid in Fairfield for a time. While many of his insights feel spot on, I could find no other information on this teacher or his supposed Iowa ashram anywhere. I find it hard to believe that a teacher so skilled could remain completely under the radar if, he is, in fact a real person. Some may feel that the information within it is so valuable that it doesn’t matter, but I find the idea that a book that claims to be about essential truth might in fact be based on a fundamental falsehood more than a little ironic.
The book is so enjoyable to read, it took me a while to notice the numerous contradictions within it. The author spends a lot of time making absolute statements based in the authority of his self-proclaimed enlightenment, while at the same time warning readers to be wary of listening to people like him. In addition, I couldn’t quite shake questions about whether or not the book is the true memoir it presents itself to be, or if it is instead the creative product of some Iowa Writer’s Workshop student who got waylaid in Fairfield for a time. While many of his insights feel spot on, I could find no other information on this teacher or his supposed Iowa ashram anywhere. I find it hard to believe that a teacher so skilled could remain completely under the radar if, he is, in fact a real person. Some may feel that the information within it is so valuable that it doesn’t matter, but I find the idea that a book that claims to be about essential truth might in fact be based on a fundamental falsehood more than a little ironic.
September 16, 2017
This is the best book ever written. I realize that's a tall claim and I'm going to have to back it up. I'll do my best. But let's start with a few things.
1. The characters, the story, the ashram in the corn field, it's all made up. It did not happen, at least not in the way Jed writes about it. The best way to think about it is in comparison with the Fountainhead. It's a story that's only real purpose is to convey a message and philosophy.
2. In order to get the benefit of this book, you have to actually do spiritual autolysis. There is no other way. You can read it a hundred time but if you don't do SA, you'll gain nothing.
3. Some people say that Jed is too arrogant to be enlightened, a point he addresses in his second book: Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment. To combat this, take Jed out of the equation. He doesn't matter, think of him as a fictional character if you want. Analyze what he's saying, make your decisions based on his arguments and views, not opinion of the author.
So how is this the best book in the world? Well, it's helpful to analyze books based on how much truth they contain. Crummy fiction tend to be unbelievable. The dialogue is off, the story line is fantastic and maybe it lacks enough tragedy so it seems unbelievable. Into the trash can.
In good fiction we have more truth. In great fiction, something like For Whom the Bell Tolls or Blood Meridian, there is great truth. The dialogue is honest and the plot is sufficiently tragic to make it real. You can get something from a book like that.
You get even more from nonfiction. When you read a book like Grit, Radical Honesty or Antifragile, the whole thing is ostensibly about truth and how to live better. This is good, these books help to refine your life. They're a step up from fiction which is a step up from crummy fiction. But they still only go so far. Jed's book takes us all the way.
In Damndest there is more truth, more earth shattering, life destroying impact than in every other book I've ever read combined. There is the scary truth that life is meaningless and our cherished lives our a lie. Everything that you think is you, is not really you. We're living in a dream and we're too terrified to wake up. This is easy to mention in passing but it's a damn train wreck when you experience it first hand. Crying, dry heaving and radical mood swings may result. Good, that means you're taking healthy steps towards realizing what is. The deeper you go, the more truth you uncover, the more you see how prescient Jed is.
This is the best book ever written because it is truth incarnate. It is a guide to waking up and taking a step towards a higher level of existence. This is the only game in town, nothing is more important. Not making money, getting abs or dating a supermodel. Wake up first, then you can do the other things if you still want to. If you go into this with an open mind, are prepared to challenge your views and do spiritual autolysis, I think you'll be surprised by the results.
1. The characters, the story, the ashram in the corn field, it's all made up. It did not happen, at least not in the way Jed writes about it. The best way to think about it is in comparison with the Fountainhead. It's a story that's only real purpose is to convey a message and philosophy.
2. In order to get the benefit of this book, you have to actually do spiritual autolysis. There is no other way. You can read it a hundred time but if you don't do SA, you'll gain nothing.
3. Some people say that Jed is too arrogant to be enlightened, a point he addresses in his second book: Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment. To combat this, take Jed out of the equation. He doesn't matter, think of him as a fictional character if you want. Analyze what he's saying, make your decisions based on his arguments and views, not opinion of the author.
So how is this the best book in the world? Well, it's helpful to analyze books based on how much truth they contain. Crummy fiction tend to be unbelievable. The dialogue is off, the story line is fantastic and maybe it lacks enough tragedy so it seems unbelievable. Into the trash can.
In good fiction we have more truth. In great fiction, something like For Whom the Bell Tolls or Blood Meridian, there is great truth. The dialogue is honest and the plot is sufficiently tragic to make it real. You can get something from a book like that.
You get even more from nonfiction. When you read a book like Grit, Radical Honesty or Antifragile, the whole thing is ostensibly about truth and how to live better. This is good, these books help to refine your life. They're a step up from fiction which is a step up from crummy fiction. But they still only go so far. Jed's book takes us all the way.
In Damndest there is more truth, more earth shattering, life destroying impact than in every other book I've ever read combined. There is the scary truth that life is meaningless and our cherished lives our a lie. Everything that you think is you, is not really you. We're living in a dream and we're too terrified to wake up. This is easy to mention in passing but it's a damn train wreck when you experience it first hand. Crying, dry heaving and radical mood swings may result. Good, that means you're taking healthy steps towards realizing what is. The deeper you go, the more truth you uncover, the more you see how prescient Jed is.
This is the best book ever written because it is truth incarnate. It is a guide to waking up and taking a step towards a higher level of existence. This is the only game in town, nothing is more important. Not making money, getting abs or dating a supermodel. Wake up first, then you can do the other things if you still want to. If you go into this with an open mind, are prepared to challenge your views and do spiritual autolysis, I think you'll be surprised by the results.
September 7, 2011
Great, but not fun at all.
November 11, 2010
Well this book seems to have mostly positive reviews here, well I would like to add my observations to the mix:
Some facts about the book:
1 It's a work of fiction- the author does not exists, there's no ashram, no Jed
2 Just like the actual guru, U.G. Krishnamurti the author repeatedly states that you don't want enlightenment, but in contrast to that acknowladged "anti-guru" Jed does an inadequate job of proving that he's enlightened. (Ok here an opinion slipped into the mix)
3 He gives one process in the book, which he describes as a path "without heart". Which basically "trying to write something true untill you do" During the practice you're advised to have an extreme philosophical skepticism. (Like " How do I know if 2+2= 4 is true, I mean does the number 2 exist, How do I know that?)
To be honest the internet is a BIG thing so if someone, anyone, would be enlightened by this process (which Jed, claims works, in contrast to "all the other practices") there would be someone on the internet to, you know, prove it.
Plus his advice might be damaging to people with low mental health (true he pretty much makes it obvious but you know, people do not always read between the lines). He advices a type of epistemological and ontological paranoia, in which the base of our mental life is challanged. In his second book he actually shows how it can be psychologically destructive. (And remember there's no money back if it doesn't work for you, and you can't sue someone who doesn't exist:) )
Some facts about the book:
1 It's a work of fiction- the author does not exists, there's no ashram, no Jed
2 Just like the actual guru, U.G. Krishnamurti the author repeatedly states that you don't want enlightenment, but in contrast to that acknowladged "anti-guru" Jed does an inadequate job of proving that he's enlightened. (Ok here an opinion slipped into the mix)
3 He gives one process in the book, which he describes as a path "without heart". Which basically "trying to write something true untill you do" During the practice you're advised to have an extreme philosophical skepticism. (Like " How do I know if 2+2= 4 is true, I mean does the number 2 exist, How do I know that?)
To be honest the internet is a BIG thing so if someone, anyone, would be enlightened by this process (which Jed, claims works, in contrast to "all the other practices") there would be someone on the internet to, you know, prove it.
Plus his advice might be damaging to people with low mental health (true he pretty much makes it obvious but you know, people do not always read between the lines). He advices a type of epistemological and ontological paranoia, in which the base of our mental life is challanged. In his second book he actually shows how it can be psychologically destructive. (And remember there's no money back if it doesn't work for you, and you can't sue someone who doesn't exist:) )
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 22, 2014
LOVE! LOVE! LOVE! I love everything about this book. AND I think I know who the real Jed McKenna is, but I’ll never tell. I totally get why the author would remain "anonymous". Both my husband and I devoured this book – so well written and entertaining. I can’t wait to read the rest of the trilogy as well as the 4th book by Jed.
May 14, 2010
This book was introduced to me through the Author of "Busting Loose from the Money Game," Robert Sheinfeld.
I have to say that it has turned my world upside down. I can't explain where I am exactly, but I find myself questioning everything. That's always good, because change is a constant.
Where do I go from here? I don't know. Everything I believe is up for review.
I have to say that it has turned my world upside down. I can't explain where I am exactly, but I find myself questioning everything. That's always good, because change is a constant.
Where do I go from here? I don't know. Everything I believe is up for review.
March 29, 2012
In essence a non-dual approach to spirituality, exposing all the ego-constructs that pose as spirituality for what they really are
June 19, 2012
The last series of books you will ever need to read.
July 28, 2012
Only two disappointing things:
1) I wish it was longer, deeper, meatier. Because the sequels, as Mr. McKenna slips away from what most people consider to be reality, become less...engaging? Complete? Fulfilling, I guess.
2) I was hoping for light bulbs and gut punches. Instead, I found my deep, dark inklings confirmed much more eloquently than I could have mustered--which is great, but not so helpful if you're into the acute psychosis brought on by truth being beaten violently into your skull.
1) I wish it was longer, deeper, meatier. Because the sequels, as Mr. McKenna slips away from what most people consider to be reality, become less...engaging? Complete? Fulfilling, I guess.
2) I was hoping for light bulbs and gut punches. Instead, I found my deep, dark inklings confirmed much more eloquently than I could have mustered--which is great, but not so helpful if you're into the acute psychosis brought on by truth being beaten violently into your skull.
May 17, 2012
superba carte
distruge o gramada de mituri despre 'iluminare' si despre 'sine'
nu-i niciun fel de 'iluminare' pentru ca nu exista niciun fel de 'sine' care sa fie iluminat
exista numai vedere clara
si singura cale catre asta - spune tipul - e sa taci si sa te intrebi, ani in sir, daca exista ceva adevarat. si sa chestionezi toate presupozitiile. si sa tai in carne vie daca gasesti lucruri false.
si tot ceea ce credem noi e fals, spune el.
si tare fain scrisa.
tare fain.
distruge o gramada de mituri despre 'iluminare' si despre 'sine'
nu-i niciun fel de 'iluminare' pentru ca nu exista niciun fel de 'sine' care sa fie iluminat
exista numai vedere clara
si singura cale catre asta - spune tipul - e sa taci si sa te intrebi, ani in sir, daca exista ceva adevarat. si sa chestionezi toate presupozitiile. si sa tai in carne vie daca gasesti lucruri false.
si tot ceea ce credem noi e fals, spune el.
si tare fain scrisa.
tare fain.
May 8, 2017
Jed says he doesn't socialize because he doesn't have anything in common with others. I think he's wrong about this, but that's just coming from my ego (as will most everything else I say in this review.)
I have a lot in common with him. For one, like him, I am enlightened. For two, I did it on my own without a formal teacher. For three, I like reading books on the subject because it gives me good ways to explain it. It's why I read his book. (For four, I'm fond of Emerson's essays. For five, I use a pseudonym. Did you think I was named "St. Fu"?)
My favorite part was his example of depression. Like him, I always thought depression was a form of truth but never thought of formulating it exactly as he did. Much of the rest was pretty obvious to me, and as he said, when you're enlightened, it all seems simple like that.
None the less, he's mistaken about some things. You can be enlightened and mistaken about some things. He would likely add that if you're not enlightened, you're mistaken about everything. It's a good line but like all lines, especially the good ones, easy to misunderstand.
His technique, spiritual autolysis, is the CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) of spiritual teachings and has both the strengths and weaknesses of that kind of approach. He wants you to reject your false thoughts and your fear of no-self just gets in the way. If you're a skydiver, someone who sees fear but just "does a swan dive," this might seem the fastest, most to the point, "path" but we're not all skydivers. For someone who asserts he has nothing in common with others, he teaches as if others will all respond as he did and if they don't, they're just not willing to face the truth, not that there's anything wrong with that.
In the rationalist culture in which we live, this technique looks a lot like common sense. Indeed, much of what Jed says is common sense and it doesn't require enlightenment for one to agree. For example, the futility of striving and achievement, or feeling there's anything to accomplish. But he enjoys a nice video game, and I can see how someone might think the game of achievement and accomplishment is a nice way to pass the time.
He rejects other spiritual teachings as not evidence-based: where are their successes, he asks? He himself claims one or two a year. This is CBT's argument which gets it the backing of "science."
But rationality is ultimately about duality and has to be thrown out with the ego. Only, and here's where I differ with Jed, it doesn't. Nor does the ego need to be killed and desire extinguished. What does need to happen is they need to be treated as dream phenomena. Jed says he uses his discarded ego as a vehicle for traveling around the dream world and he uses rationality too, presenting arguments. When he says things are they way they're supposed to be, it's a dualistic statement for it presumes there's such a thing as things not being the way they're supposed to be with which he is making a distinction. (I'm not saying he doesn't know this. I doubt he'd have much problem with any of my criticisms.)
I find a lot to like in other spiritual teachings. Though, like Jed, I steer toward the zen and the advaita, different people need to hear different things and even if some people get lost in that stuff and never find their way out, who's to say waking up would be a better fate for them?
If enlightened people have can eat your eyeballs and don't need to be compassionate, why aren't there more eyeball eaters in the spiritual literature? You can argue that it's because most of it is written by the unenlightened, but even the possibly tiny percentage written by the enlightened lacks serious eyeball eating. I don't believe it's because they just weren't hungry.
Yes, Jed makes a much needed point that copying the ways of masters is no way to wake up. The rules of morality are a dualistic phenomenon and the enlightened are not bound to follow them, but once you are enlightened, there's not much reason to violate them any more than to obey them and they usually make a kind of sense. There is a great zen story in which a master kills a cat (because no one could say a true word) but causing harm is primarily done for some dualistic "advantage." Without a self, I feel mainly compassion for those trapped in ignorance. I'd been there not that long ago. And yes, they are like characters in a play. (The plot of Journey to Ixtlan consists of Carlos trying to find another being but only encountering zombies. I liked that part better than the "path with heart.")
Waking someone up is not doing them any favors so I mostly don't teach. I hope Julie is doing OK (not because I need to be a good person; there are no rules.) One last criticism: Jed says that once you're awake, there's no going back. This was not my experience. I had to awaken several times before it "took." I just couldn't believe what I had discovered--it was the damnedest thing!
I have a lot in common with him. For one, like him, I am enlightened. For two, I did it on my own without a formal teacher. For three, I like reading books on the subject because it gives me good ways to explain it. It's why I read his book. (For four, I'm fond of Emerson's essays. For five, I use a pseudonym. Did you think I was named "St. Fu"?)
My favorite part was his example of depression. Like him, I always thought depression was a form of truth but never thought of formulating it exactly as he did. Much of the rest was pretty obvious to me, and as he said, when you're enlightened, it all seems simple like that.
None the less, he's mistaken about some things. You can be enlightened and mistaken about some things. He would likely add that if you're not enlightened, you're mistaken about everything. It's a good line but like all lines, especially the good ones, easy to misunderstand.
His technique, spiritual autolysis, is the CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) of spiritual teachings and has both the strengths and weaknesses of that kind of approach. He wants you to reject your false thoughts and your fear of no-self just gets in the way. If you're a skydiver, someone who sees fear but just "does a swan dive," this might seem the fastest, most to the point, "path" but we're not all skydivers. For someone who asserts he has nothing in common with others, he teaches as if others will all respond as he did and if they don't, they're just not willing to face the truth, not that there's anything wrong with that.
In the rationalist culture in which we live, this technique looks a lot like common sense. Indeed, much of what Jed says is common sense and it doesn't require enlightenment for one to agree. For example, the futility of striving and achievement, or feeling there's anything to accomplish. But he enjoys a nice video game, and I can see how someone might think the game of achievement and accomplishment is a nice way to pass the time.
He rejects other spiritual teachings as not evidence-based: where are their successes, he asks? He himself claims one or two a year. This is CBT's argument which gets it the backing of "science."
But rationality is ultimately about duality and has to be thrown out with the ego. Only, and here's where I differ with Jed, it doesn't. Nor does the ego need to be killed and desire extinguished. What does need to happen is they need to be treated as dream phenomena. Jed says he uses his discarded ego as a vehicle for traveling around the dream world and he uses rationality too, presenting arguments. When he says things are they way they're supposed to be, it's a dualistic statement for it presumes there's such a thing as things not being the way they're supposed to be with which he is making a distinction. (I'm not saying he doesn't know this. I doubt he'd have much problem with any of my criticisms.)
I find a lot to like in other spiritual teachings. Though, like Jed, I steer toward the zen and the advaita, different people need to hear different things and even if some people get lost in that stuff and never find their way out, who's to say waking up would be a better fate for them?
If enlightened people have can eat your eyeballs and don't need to be compassionate, why aren't there more eyeball eaters in the spiritual literature? You can argue that it's because most of it is written by the unenlightened, but even the possibly tiny percentage written by the enlightened lacks serious eyeball eating. I don't believe it's because they just weren't hungry.
Yes, Jed makes a much needed point that copying the ways of masters is no way to wake up. The rules of morality are a dualistic phenomenon and the enlightened are not bound to follow them, but once you are enlightened, there's not much reason to violate them any more than to obey them and they usually make a kind of sense. There is a great zen story in which a master kills a cat (because no one could say a true word) but causing harm is primarily done for some dualistic "advantage." Without a self, I feel mainly compassion for those trapped in ignorance. I'd been there not that long ago. And yes, they are like characters in a play. (The plot of Journey to Ixtlan consists of Carlos trying to find another being but only encountering zombies. I liked that part better than the "path with heart.")
Waking someone up is not doing them any favors so I mostly don't teach. I hope Julie is doing OK (not because I need to be a good person; there are no rules.) One last criticism: Jed says that once you're awake, there's no going back. This was not my experience. I had to awaken several times before it "took." I just couldn't believe what I had discovered--it was the damnedest thing!
May 25, 2021
This is a story of an enlightened master in an ashram, although said ashram is in Iowa and the master is not exactly a master: there are a couple dozen people living in his house, trying to advance on their spiritual path, but he's not very interested in being their guru. He's definitely enlightened, though.
This was an interesting book. I'm not sure how to categorize it: the whole story about an ashram in Iowa is obviously fiction, but the main point of the book is not the story, but the descriptions of the path to enlightenment.
I don't know if McKenna is really enlightened or not, but he definitely has at minimum seen some glimpses of non-dualism. He doesn't believe that mystical experiences are useful on the path to enlightenment; on the contrary, those just keep you satisfied and block your path. The same with bliss or other nice-sounding experiences: all just ways to fall even deeper into sleep.
McKenna deliberately tries to make enlightenment seem very underwhelming and unwelcoming. You don't get more moral or more happy; on the contrary, it's hard to keep invested in the ordinary world and you probably lose interest in the things that were extremely important to you, like status, family or friends. You get nothing, really, you just lose stuff, most pertinently your self and your illusions. That's it. There's no big prize waiting. You should (and can) only get enlightened if that's something you desperately want, somethinging you feel like it's worth losing everything for, worth throwing everything you believe in into the trashcan, just so you can reach the truth.
I got some good insights from this book. I liked McKenna's approach a lot. He has beef with almost every purveyor of spiritualism, who are peddling mysticism to people and calling it enlightenment. But mystical unions and suchlike have nothing to do with awakening, McKenna states again and again. They are just rides in an amusement park; enlightenment is when you leave the park.
This was an interesting book. I'm not sure how to categorize it: the whole story about an ashram in Iowa is obviously fiction, but the main point of the book is not the story, but the descriptions of the path to enlightenment.
I don't know if McKenna is really enlightened or not, but he definitely has at minimum seen some glimpses of non-dualism. He doesn't believe that mystical experiences are useful on the path to enlightenment; on the contrary, those just keep you satisfied and block your path. The same with bliss or other nice-sounding experiences: all just ways to fall even deeper into sleep.
McKenna deliberately tries to make enlightenment seem very underwhelming and unwelcoming. You don't get more moral or more happy; on the contrary, it's hard to keep invested in the ordinary world and you probably lose interest in the things that were extremely important to you, like status, family or friends. You get nothing, really, you just lose stuff, most pertinently your self and your illusions. That's it. There's no big prize waiting. You should (and can) only get enlightened if that's something you desperately want, somethinging you feel like it's worth losing everything for, worth throwing everything you believe in into the trashcan, just so you can reach the truth.
I got some good insights from this book. I liked McKenna's approach a lot. He has beef with almost every purveyor of spiritualism, who are peddling mysticism to people and calling it enlightenment. But mystical unions and suchlike have nothing to do with awakening, McKenna states again and again. They are just rides in an amusement park; enlightenment is when you leave the park.
December 7, 2014
This book is a must-read for any person who considers him/herself to be on a serious spiritual path to enlightenment. But be warned--McKenna is not here to congratulate you on your progress. In fact, he systematically tears apart many of the beliefs spiritual practitioners hold most sacred, and he ruthlessly explains why common spiritual practices are probably holding you back from your professed goal of enlightenment.
A brutally honest wake-up call and a much needed kick in the ass, this book is not for the faint of heart. But if you're willing to face the Truth with a capital T, this book, more than any other book or practice I've encountered, will point you in the right direction.
A brutally honest wake-up call and a much needed kick in the ass, this book is not for the faint of heart. But if you're willing to face the Truth with a capital T, this book, more than any other book or practice I've encountered, will point you in the right direction.
March 30, 2015
I don't share this book with most people, like Jack Nicholson said "You can't handle the truth!" and so it is with 99% of humanity. If you think yourself to be in the one percentile then maybe you should read this book, any poor review you read about it is just written by someone who shouldn't have picked it up, "One does not just walk into Mordor" and one does not lightly pick up Damnedest and start perusing it like a bit of light reading.
September 12, 2017
Let me immediately spoil it for you, do you get enlightened by reading it? No, you don't.
Is book worth reading it? Yes, it is. Should you read it? I’ll come to that at end of review.
Well, I stumbled upon a book by friend’s recommendation. He said he wouldn’t recommend it to the others because it can make you quite self-destructive, but that he thinks it will go fine with me. So, little bit tempted by that I’ve added it to to-read list and wait it for, I don’t know, maybe half a year before starting it. Little bit surprised, I found out it is not about enlightening at all, and even more, that main character processes the world pretty much same way I do, which made me wonder, does that mean my friend wouldn’t recommend me to the other people.
Book is written in very easy, understandable leisure style. Characters in it are means of expressing author’s views on reality through dialogue with protagonist (himself) and it is done quite smoothly. Both flow easily without obstructing other, so I give him regards for that. Also, I liked how he interrupts story in middle by starting new chapter, inserting poem or two, small digression-non-digression allegory and then continues story.
Now, the spiritual enlightenment part. I am pretty much wary about reading spiritual books. He even uses nice analogy which I also heard somewhere else. If you gave ‘’keyboards to sufficiently big number of monkey which will splat, hit, chew on them, one of those monkeys will eventually produce Shakespeare’s work, but I am not willing to read all of their gibber’’. So, neither am I, especially since I figured it all out for myself. Also, surprisingly, author and I have pretty much similar view on reality. It is all about steaming for truth; discarding all sets of beliefs, values, lies and achieving state of egolessness, of which all are imposed either by ourselves, society, culture, religion etc. We mainly differ in his once or twice flirt with afterlife talk, process which is self-mutilating and enlightenment itself. I probably didn’t achieve that enlightenment because I wasn’t meditating enough or did not take enough LSD. Oh no, some of my siblings could read this… Of course I’m joking, I do not meditate, that’s silly.
So, to resummarize. Is it worth reading? Yes, it is, by all means. But should you do it? No, I don’t really think so. Not because you’ll self-mutilate yourself in process, actually my process of searching truth wasn’t mutilating at all, it was mixture of mild anxiety and relief, and yes, it did completely change me throughout last five years or so, but no mutilating wounds. I think you should not read it because most probably you either won’t pay enough attention and most of you are not even willing to discard your beliefs, hopes, ego just to have truth. And I don’t blame you, why would you want it? Illusions on which our societies are built are meant to make it more comfortable, and truth, it bears perks of different kind. Choosing either of it is fine. Something(, but not completely) like blue pill – red pill Matrix choice. Either is fine, do as you will. So, I think it will just be waste of time, and although his writing does have nice aesthetic value, certainly there are much more aesthetically beautiful books than this one. On the other hand, if you are on path of spiritual enlightenment (which is not quite correct name for it, and he also said same in interview at the end of it – truth seeking is better), both, him and me, consider that no books or teachers are needed, only yourself and purity of intent.
P.S. I don’t know what the heck he means by non-duality and union(blabla) which he mentions several times throughout the book. I am not that well versed in spiritual literature terms.
P.P.S. His humor is smart one, and he does pretty nice job and good points while shitting on loopholes of spiritual leaders, religions and beliefs, and that was pretty fun to read.
P.P.P.S. Maybe one day I’ll to get enlightened as he is, but I don’t really think or hope so. Frankly, I don’t think there is enlightenment to be made at all, maybe just veryyyy good truth realization. To share you a secret, I do not think he is enlightened either. I think he got pretty far in seeing the truth of human perception of reality and himself/ourselves. Which is pretty cool stuff by itself.
P.P.P.P.S. And also, I like him. I will read his next book(s).
Is book worth reading it? Yes, it is. Should you read it? I’ll come to that at end of review.
Well, I stumbled upon a book by friend’s recommendation. He said he wouldn’t recommend it to the others because it can make you quite self-destructive, but that he thinks it will go fine with me. So, little bit tempted by that I’ve added it to to-read list and wait it for, I don’t know, maybe half a year before starting it. Little bit surprised, I found out it is not about enlightening at all, and even more, that main character processes the world pretty much same way I do, which made me wonder, does that mean my friend wouldn’t recommend me to the other people.
Book is written in very easy, understandable leisure style. Characters in it are means of expressing author’s views on reality through dialogue with protagonist (himself) and it is done quite smoothly. Both flow easily without obstructing other, so I give him regards for that. Also, I liked how he interrupts story in middle by starting new chapter, inserting poem or two, small digression-non-digression allegory and then continues story.
Now, the spiritual enlightenment part. I am pretty much wary about reading spiritual books. He even uses nice analogy which I also heard somewhere else. If you gave ‘’keyboards to sufficiently big number of monkey which will splat, hit, chew on them, one of those monkeys will eventually produce Shakespeare’s work, but I am not willing to read all of their gibber’’. So, neither am I, especially since I figured it all out for myself. Also, surprisingly, author and I have pretty much similar view on reality. It is all about steaming for truth; discarding all sets of beliefs, values, lies and achieving state of egolessness, of which all are imposed either by ourselves, society, culture, religion etc. We mainly differ in his once or twice flirt with afterlife talk, process which is self-mutilating and enlightenment itself. I probably didn’t achieve that enlightenment because I wasn’t meditating enough or did not take enough LSD. Oh no, some of my siblings could read this… Of course I’m joking, I do not meditate, that’s silly.
So, to resummarize. Is it worth reading? Yes, it is, by all means. But should you do it? No, I don’t really think so. Not because you’ll self-mutilate yourself in process, actually my process of searching truth wasn’t mutilating at all, it was mixture of mild anxiety and relief, and yes, it did completely change me throughout last five years or so, but no mutilating wounds. I think you should not read it because most probably you either won’t pay enough attention and most of you are not even willing to discard your beliefs, hopes, ego just to have truth. And I don’t blame you, why would you want it? Illusions on which our societies are built are meant to make it more comfortable, and truth, it bears perks of different kind. Choosing either of it is fine. Something(, but not completely) like blue pill – red pill Matrix choice. Either is fine, do as you will. So, I think it will just be waste of time, and although his writing does have nice aesthetic value, certainly there are much more aesthetically beautiful books than this one. On the other hand, if you are on path of spiritual enlightenment (which is not quite correct name for it, and he also said same in interview at the end of it – truth seeking is better), both, him and me, consider that no books or teachers are needed, only yourself and purity of intent.
P.S. I don’t know what the heck he means by non-duality and union(blabla) which he mentions several times throughout the book. I am not that well versed in spiritual literature terms.
P.P.S. His humor is smart one, and he does pretty nice job and good points while shitting on loopholes of spiritual leaders, religions and beliefs, and that was pretty fun to read.
P.P.P.S. Maybe one day I’ll to get enlightened as he is, but I don’t really think or hope so. Frankly, I don’t think there is enlightenment to be made at all, maybe just veryyyy good truth realization. To share you a secret, I do not think he is enlightened either. I think he got pretty far in seeing the truth of human perception of reality and himself/ourselves. Which is pretty cool stuff by itself.
P.P.P.P.S. And also, I like him. I will read his next book(s).
Read
May 6, 2015Allegiance to any spiritual teaching or teacher--any outside authority--is the most treacherous beast in the jungle. The first thing we want to do when we begin our journey is find thee companionship and validity that comes with an established group, and in so doing we effectively end the journey before it begins....Anyone familiar with the process of deprogramming someone who has been brainwashed by a cult will be able to appreciate what's really involved in breaking free of this kind of allegiance, but there's really only one real cult--the Cult of False-Self--and everyone is a fanatically devoted member. Awakening is the process of deprogramming. Enlightenment is the unprogrammed state. (p25)
No two humans could have less in common than any human and me. I am a member of no community. Because I live in a different paradigm, I am effectively set apart from humanity....To be enlightened--just to take the First Step on the actual journey toward enlightenment--is to be henceforce and forever excluded from the whole human thing. I knew when I started on my own journey that it meant leaving behind human connectedness, and that was perfectly acceptable to me. (p48)
The fundamental conflict in the spiritual quest is that ego *desires* spiritual enlightenment, but ego can never achieve spiritual enlightenment. Self cannot achieve no-self. That's why anyone who wants to sell enlightenment must first reduce it to more manageable proportions; to something ego *can* achieve. (p134)
We erect ego to compensate for the lack of direct self-knowledge. Lack of perception of true-self is translated by the individual as non-existence of true-self. In other words, because true-self is unseen, it's assumed not to exist....There is no true self to perceive; there's only false self and no-self. One looks for true self and finds nothing....and it's the dread of that nothingness that keeps one's attention outwardly fixed. (p241)
The underlying cause of all shame is the deep and unshakable suspicion that I am an imposter. I sense the absence of true-self in myself, but not in others, so I naturally assume others to be real people and myself to be false. Seeing the outer shells everyone else has so convincingly erected and not knowing them to be hallow, I necessarily feel singularly fraudulent and, of course, shameful. (p242)
No two humans could have less in common than any human and me. I am a member of no community. Because I live in a different paradigm, I am effectively set apart from humanity....To be enlightened--just to take the First Step on the actual journey toward enlightenment--is to be henceforce and forever excluded from the whole human thing. I knew when I started on my own journey that it meant leaving behind human connectedness, and that was perfectly acceptable to me. (p48)
The fundamental conflict in the spiritual quest is that ego *desires* spiritual enlightenment, but ego can never achieve spiritual enlightenment. Self cannot achieve no-self. That's why anyone who wants to sell enlightenment must first reduce it to more manageable proportions; to something ego *can* achieve. (p134)
We erect ego to compensate for the lack of direct self-knowledge. Lack of perception of true-self is translated by the individual as non-existence of true-self. In other words, because true-self is unseen, it's assumed not to exist....There is no true self to perceive; there's only false self and no-self. One looks for true self and finds nothing....and it's the dread of that nothingness that keeps one's attention outwardly fixed. (p241)
The underlying cause of all shame is the deep and unshakable suspicion that I am an imposter. I sense the absence of true-self in myself, but not in others, so I naturally assume others to be real people and myself to be false. Seeing the outer shells everyone else has so convincingly erected and not knowing them to be hallow, I necessarily feel singularly fraudulent and, of course, shameful. (p242)
July 7, 2018
Very good perspective on "ego dissolution" as a permanent state. The author, writing under a pseudonym, shares what it's like to be awakened. The book underscores that "enlightenment" or a stable state of "non-perceptual awareness" does not solve problems. It's not magic, and it does not empower a person with super powers. However, in the author's case, things in life seem to flow without undue effort. People gather around his house and it becomes a drop-in retreat center. Plans are made based on a subtle internal nudge. Joy and appreciation arise spontaneously.
The book is somewhat frustrating in that it doesn't flesh out an overarching framework for spiritual awakening, such as stages in the process (as described in The Finders by Jeff Martin). Nor does it give due credit to the role of interpersonal or "we-space" practices--mutuality that occurs when two or more unite within a space of awareness that is not bound by narratives and ideas. The author seems to have gone on basically a solo journey, peeling away his own layers. He is lonely, or at least his ability to see Truth and see people woodenly acting out in roles in many ways separates him from the world. The author also mocks and criticizes experts and lauded pundits who go on about spiritual life but who are deluded. However, he does not name many whom he respects.
I understand the idea of writing under a false name--he doesn't want people seeking him out as some kind of expert. Ken Wilber is someone who avoids the trappings of "guru," instead claiming the role of someone who explains, elucidates, and synthesizes information. Jed "hide behind a curtain and laugh about it" McKenna could have taken this route. But, perhaps we have enough people yammering about the ineffable.
I liked this book, and in the end reading about "enlightenment" is silly. It does nothing other than point to, and normalize, a possibility open to us all if we have the courage. Most will read this book, nod approvingly, and go on their merry way, wedded to their patterns and programming with no clue as to how to find liberation. Others, like me, will continue meditating and doing 'the work' and still wonder if, and when, an unmistakable awakening will occur.
The book is somewhat frustrating in that it doesn't flesh out an overarching framework for spiritual awakening, such as stages in the process (as described in The Finders by Jeff Martin). Nor does it give due credit to the role of interpersonal or "we-space" practices--mutuality that occurs when two or more unite within a space of awareness that is not bound by narratives and ideas. The author seems to have gone on basically a solo journey, peeling away his own layers. He is lonely, or at least his ability to see Truth and see people woodenly acting out in roles in many ways separates him from the world. The author also mocks and criticizes experts and lauded pundits who go on about spiritual life but who are deluded. However, he does not name many whom he respects.
I understand the idea of writing under a false name--he doesn't want people seeking him out as some kind of expert. Ken Wilber is someone who avoids the trappings of "guru," instead claiming the role of someone who explains, elucidates, and synthesizes information. Jed "hide behind a curtain and laugh about it" McKenna could have taken this route. But, perhaps we have enough people yammering about the ineffable.
I liked this book, and in the end reading about "enlightenment" is silly. It does nothing other than point to, and normalize, a possibility open to us all if we have the courage. Most will read this book, nod approvingly, and go on their merry way, wedded to their patterns and programming with no clue as to how to find liberation. Others, like me, will continue meditating and doing 'the work' and still wonder if, and when, an unmistakable awakening will occur.
January 22, 2014
My head hurts, I'm not sure who I am anymore or if I even exist, but I guess that's the point. If there is a point in anything at all. Not sure about that either.
Can't really say much else than read it yourself and find out. It's a journey. But maybe you shouldn't take it if you're not interested in truth.
This book is full of stories about seekers. I used to be a seeker, too. Gladly it's harder to continue being one after reading this. What's the point of seeking something that's been under your nose all along?
Whether the stories are true or fiction doesn't matter. Whether Jed McKenna exists or not doesn't matter. I found this book to be more true than most non-fiction I've read.
Can't really say much else than read it yourself and find out. It's a journey. But maybe you shouldn't take it if you're not interested in truth.
This book is full of stories about seekers. I used to be a seeker, too. Gladly it's harder to continue being one after reading this. What's the point of seeking something that's been under your nose all along?
Whether the stories are true or fiction doesn't matter. Whether Jed McKenna exists or not doesn't matter. I found this book to be more true than most non-fiction I've read.
April 26, 2019
“Students, quite naturally, think that it’s important to understand. They think that it’s vital that their information be correct and precise. They think that this is like school where you have to understand one thing before you can understand the next thing. But all that is about knowing and this is about unknowing.”
//
“If you want to become a priest or a lama or a rabbi or a theologian, then there’s a lot to learn; enough to fill a lifetime and more. But if you want to figure out what’s true, then it’s a whole different process and the last thing you need is more knowledge.”
//
“‘Fuck bliss,’ I tell them. Silence. ‘Bliss is for children,’ I say. ‘Bliss is for tourists, for rubes. Do you really think that spiritual enlightenment is going to be like an endless orgasm?’ This provokes a few muffled titters. ‘A permanent high? Heaven on earth? No more problems, no more worries, just sitting around being happy all the time? Doesn’t that sound a little, I don’t know, sleazy? Like all we’re really doing here is trying to cop a great buzz?’”
//
“If you want to become a priest or a lama or a rabbi or a theologian, then there’s a lot to learn; enough to fill a lifetime and more. But if you want to figure out what’s true, then it’s a whole different process and the last thing you need is more knowledge.”
//
“‘Fuck bliss,’ I tell them. Silence. ‘Bliss is for children,’ I say. ‘Bliss is for tourists, for rubes. Do you really think that spiritual enlightenment is going to be like an endless orgasm?’ This provokes a few muffled titters. ‘A permanent high? Heaven on earth? No more problems, no more worries, just sitting around being happy all the time? Doesn’t that sound a little, I don’t know, sleazy? Like all we’re really doing here is trying to cop a great buzz?’”
December 1, 2024
Jed really got a good thing going with his temporary students doing all his housework. I admire him.
March 29, 2016
I don't know whether Jed McKenna actually exists, much less whether or not he's an enlightened being. I do know how deeply this resonated with me. As an unenlightened being, myself, I was stirred more by the descriptions of the unenlightened students (and pre-enlightened Jed) than by the descriptions of what enlightenment is like. Jed nails the feelings that come from having nagging questions that won't go away, of perceiving that vast dark cloud and knowing the only way out is through, and the sense of alienation that comes with that blind struggle toward the sunlight.
I recommend this for any truth-seekers or spiritually-inclined readers who are open-minded or comfortable enough not to feel threatened when their favorite theology gets skewered by Jed's candor and irreverent humor. Gurus get no love from Jed.
I recommend this for any truth-seekers or spiritually-inclined readers who are open-minded or comfortable enough not to feel threatened when their favorite theology gets skewered by Jed's candor and irreverent humor. Gurus get no love from Jed.
November 7, 2012
Another one of those books that makes me want to write my own book in defiance of these books. I like the author's style, tone, and voice, but he's just another self-proclaimed enlightened guy, who in my opinion isn't very enlightened at all. There is no end Jed. If you think you've arrived, you haven't. To simply unplug is not living. It's called Autism. The author would say there is no wrong, that it doesn't exist. You could not be more wrong. UPDATE: I forgot. I am with you on the one prevailing through line, and that is that all these other so called enlightened folks and gurus are far from it as well. We are in complete agreement there.
P.S. Teeth need to be flossed! (if you want to keep them) You don't have to wipe your butt either, but you should. ;)
P.S. Teeth need to be flossed! (if you want to keep them) You don't have to wipe your butt either, but you should. ;)
August 4, 2014
I can't remember exactly what led me to this book except a "list your favorite book ever" thread someplace. I could tell from the title and description that I would likely hate it. I tried to get through it as a Humbert Humbert-esque deconstruction of the narrator, but it's no good. Two hundred plus pages of an egotist saying how he has no ego. DNF at like 80%. After I put it down, a weight was lifted; I'm going to credit myself for this one. When I Googled a little to find some more info, I almost immediately found a blog calling Jed McKenna "The Howard Roark of spirituality" or something like that, so take from it what you will.
March 9, 2021
The author claims that he is enlightened and attempts to explain what it means and how to get there. IMO he doesn't manage either. He talks a lot about what enlightenment isn't and how there is a million impostors pretending to teach it, which is true, but not new or interesting. His take on the idea of enlightenment sounds more like skepticism plus a lot of apathy than anything else.
I don't understand why this book has such a high rating.
I don't understand why this book has such a high rating.
June 25, 2015
Not sure how to say this...this is an amazing and dangerous book. I highly recommend you read the entire serious. But be warned...you will not come out the other side the same ;)
December 20, 2020
Jed is obviously a Jedi who let go of the "i".
March 22, 2021
Gave me my first real existential crisis à la Jean-Paul Sartre in his book la nausée. Don't know where ill go from here, but I hope I can approach it with more curiosity than fear
Displaying 1 - 30 of 221 reviews