Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything: The Enlightened Perspective

by Jed McKenna

We are programmed from birth to believe that our existence is an unsolvable riddle, but if we make an honest effort, we discover that mystery itself is the riddle. Not just what is the big mystery, but why is there any mystery at all? And what if there isn’t? What if the Mysterium Tremendum is just an internal belief without any external counterpart? What if the answers to life’s biggest questions were all hidden in plain sight? “If man will strike, strike through the mask!
How can the prisoner reach outside except
by thrusting through the wall?”
-Herman Melville Those interested in striking through the mask will welcome a theory of everything that makes sense, doesn’t rely on religious or scientific chicanery, and can be easily understood. And those familiar with Jed McKenna and the Enlightenment Trilogy will know that it’s not just a theory. _________________________________ Comments about Jed McKenna's Enlightenment Trilogy. “Jed McKenna is an American original.” -Lama Surya Das “Absolutely marvelous, splendid, perfect books!” -Shri Acharya “These books have profoundly changed my life.” -C. Jensen “These three books are precious gifts to humanity.” -E. De Vries “Thank you for the books. I’ve been waiting all my life for them.” -C. Vankeith “I can think of no other author I’d recommend more highly.” -M.R. Fleming "I say an eternal thank you for the Trilogy. The books continue to challenge my mind and life. I ordered my 4th complete set. Nothing compares to this writing." -J.H. "If you are ready, step into Jed's world. It is intelligent and powerful." -J. Katz Visit Wisefool Press to learn more about Jed McKenna's Enlightenment Trilogy and Dreamstate Trilogy. _________________________________

Genres: Philosophy, Spirituality, Nonfiction, Science, Self Help, Personal Development

192 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Thibault Jacquot-Paratte · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was such pompous non-sens pseudo-philosophical spiritual cr*** written by someone who comes off as an absolute narcissist / ego-maniac. I read this as a "challenge" and suffered greatly. To anyone with a brain, stay away. Though to be fair, the first chapter where he has a "dialogue" with a "character" who is obviously "not" himself agreeing with everything he say, is a good warning in itself.

[Denis Vasilev · Rating 5 out of 5]

Шикарная философская книга, необходимая для желающего как следует расширить сознания. Гипотеза C-Rex, Правда и Я сознания, чудесный свежий взгляд на мир

[Markus · Rating 5 out of 5]

A simple but radical idea, impossible to ignore after it has been seriously considered.

[Giorgi Bazerashvili · Rating 5 out of 5]

After his trilogy, Jed has written a shorter and more insightful book about what he calls the Theory of Everything in which he tries to convey his enlightened perspective on life and tries to answer some of the most frequently asked questions by humans.

One of the most important things that reader can understand after reading this book is that there seems to be a whole different paradigm out there, and people who seem to be inhabiting this paradigm. Jed is one of them, who tries to explain an awakened perspective, which sounds impossible from my point of view. But we must understand that our close-mindedness can only take us so far.

Jed's Theory of Everything is based on an experience, not on a belief. Nobody is required to believe anything. Besides, believing this stuff might backfire, because investigation must happen from scratch.

Most importantly, as Jed says, BYOFT - Be Your Own Fucking Teacher. Kill the Buddha. Take ownership of your life and don't be depended on anyone, especially when it comes to finding out what's true.

[Antti Poikolainen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

I can't say I understood it completely but then again this is not McKenna's intention.
It's only meant for you to find the loose thread, upon which entire universe is hanging.

And for you to start to consider tugging on it.

I wish it would'be contained more of the criticism this theory would face.
He even stated that he considered having it, but left it to the whims of the reader.

I would've gone the other way.

That being said, the book is fantastic.
Maybe a bit repetitive.
But still most definitely worth the read if you are hungry for perspectives into the nature of consciousness.

[Del · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jed, Ya had me until the "I Am".

[Jonas Svensson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read all of his book but I think this is by far the best one. The enlightenment series is great the rest of his work is not so good. It almost feel like it is a different person writing those. I could be wrong but that's my take on it. The series alone is not enough and can be a dangerous books for unenlightened people. I can't stress is enough. DO NOT READ THIS BOOK IF YOU ARE'NT READT TO CHANGE YOUR WHOLE WORLDWIEV. Read this book if you are ready to change it. If you really want to find H\A (human adulthood) and go to T\R (Truth realization) and further I suggest you sign up on his forum. The invisible guru.

[Arvind Balasubramaniam · Rating 1 out of 5]

So narcissistic and the content is laborious to read and a copy paste of vedantic ideas rewrapped in his own terms without giving any credit to it. If you're going to steal, atleast build upon existing works, don't just steal it as if you created it. To be honest I couldn't get past half of the book so if there's something profound in the end, I might have missed it. But I didn't learn anything new I wasn't familiar with already. Even the interesting points were like finding a few sentences amidst chapters of boring personal and fictitious conversations.

[El Gato · Rating 1 out of 5]

Based on other reviews, I suspected that this book was about establishing a solipsist view of reality. I wanted to take a look, but I couldn't get past the first chapter, which is riddled with fallacies, inconsistencies, and plain ignorance.
The first chapter is a dialogue that ostensibly follows the maieutic method, but it's really just the narrator saying something and the partner agreeing. Such dialogue is intended to demonstrate that the principle of reality is simple.
The goal is to construct a syllogism. The first premise is built on the first line of thought. The second premise is then built using a different line of thought. Finally, it arranges those premises as a syllogism in order to reach a conclusion.
The first line of thought starts by "convincing" the partner that, by definition, truth must exists.
From this, it follows that non-truth does not exists.
Then, truth cannot change.
Then, that truth is a whole.
Then, that truth is infinite.
Then, that nothing can exist outside of truth.
From this, it extracts the first premise of the syllogism: truth is all.

Now it starts with the second line of the argument.
The first proposition is that I exist.
Then, consciousness exists.
That's the second premise.

So here's the sillogism:
Premise 1: Truth is all
Premise 2: Consciousness exists.
Conclusion: Consciousness is all.

Yes, I'm not stretching his concept. Here's a quote from McKenna:

If Truth is All
and Consciousness Exists
then Consciouness is All

Now, let me break it down.
The first premise is basically what Parmenides said with the slogan "whatever is is, and what is not cannot be", except that McKenna equates 'being' with 'truth'. This identification is fortuitous, to say the least.
The second premise is the basic idea of Descartes' cogito. Aimed to doubt the existence of everything, Descartes found out that he could not doubt his own existence. Given that I think, I have to exist. As a result, the one thing that I cannot deny existence is my consciouness. Hence, consciousness exists.
Now for the syllogism: it's clearly incorrect! This is not how syllogisms work. Before analyzing the logic, let's say it's not a syllogism at all. There must be at least one term that is repeated in both premises. In All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal, the term "man" (called the middle term) is in both premises, and it's what allows the link between them.
Some laymen fall into the "Fallacy of the undistributed middle", in which the middle term is not correctly distributed among the premises. McKenna isn't even there, as there is no middle term at all.
Let's try to reword it:
Premise 1: Truth is all
Premise 2: Consciousness is true.

Closer, but not there yet, as 'true' is not the same as 'truth'. Actually, as 'true' is part of the 'truth' we can say:

Premise 1: Truth is all
Premise 2: Consciousness is part of the truth.
Conclusion: Consciousness is part of all.

Ouch, we get to a different conclusion.

Okay, so McKenna is not very profficient in formal logic, and maybe he was trying to state his theory in a simple way, came up with the idea of a syllogism and, alas, it didn't work out. Let's try to understand his idea without that failed pedagogic attempt.
I browsed through the rest of the cook, read the C-Rex and U-Rex parts, and I think I got the idea.
He seems to say that we can question the existence of everything except consciousness. Consciousness definitely exists. And because it's the only one thing the we can't deny, it might be THE truth. Consciousness is all. There is no universe, no physical laws, no objects. Only consciousness. Your consciousness, for that matters. Everything is just in your mind.
So yes, solipsism.
We all thought about it in our teenage years, right? What if all is just in our minds? McKenna does not really go much deeper than that.
I will not argue against the solipsism view. Bertrand Rusell already did, much better that what I can attempt:
"As against solipsism, it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician, this surprised me. The fact that I cannot believe something does not prove that it is false, but it does prove that I am insincere and frivolous if I pretend to believe it".

[An Nguyen · Rating 5 out of 5]

In *Jed McKenna’s Theory of Everything*, McKenna continues his unique brand of radical spiritual writing. Known for his no-nonsense, irreverent approach to enlightenment, McKenna offers a sweeping and often unsettling view of reality that blends existential philosophy, non-duality, and biting commentary on the spiritual and material worlds. This book challenges the reader not to feel better, but to *see clearly*—even if that vision dismantles everything they thought they knew.

---

### **Key Themes:**

#### **1. Enlightenment Is Not What You Think**
McKenna argues that enlightenment is not about bliss, peace, or transcendence—it’s about **truth at any cost**. His version is stark: it’s about destroying illusions and embracing the *void* of pure consciousness.

#### **2. Human Adulthood and the Spiritual Autolysis Process**
He introduces the idea of “Human Adulthood,” a state beyond childish belief systems and societal programming. The path toward it is through **spiritual autolysis**, a method of writing out everything you think is true until what remains cannot be untrue.

#### **3. The Dreamstate and Maya**
Most people, McKenna claims, live in “Dreamstate” or Maya—a shared illusion of reality. His writing invites (or demands) the reader to **wake up** from this mass hypnosis and recognize their constructed self as fiction.

#### **4. Metaphysical Deconstruction**
Rather than offering a “theory of everything” in a scientific or spiritual sense, McKenna deconstructs all theories, frameworks, and belief systems. The “Theory of Everything,” in his framing, is that **there is no theory**—just the raw truth of existence as it is.

---

### **Writing Style:**
- Casual, sarcastic, often funny
- Laced with pop culture references, literary allusions, and ironic detachment
- More like a philosophical monologue than a spiritual guidebook

---

### **Final Thoughts:**
This book isn’t comforting—it’s disruptive. But for readers who are tired of spiritual fluff and ready to confront what McKenna calls *Truth-Realization*, it can be profound. If you’re looking for meaning, he might disappoint you. If you’re looking for **clarity**, he might just deliver it.

It’s not a guide—it’s a provocation.

[Joseph Knecht · Rating 4 out of 5]

More like the Theory of Nothing.

Before this book, I only knew about a T-Rex, but after this book, I know something about C-Rex and U-Rex.

According to Jed, T-Rex exists within a U-Rex and U-Rex exists only in C-Rex.

Ultimately, T-Rex does not exist, U-Rex is not real and C-Rex is the only Truth.

Thank you for Nothing, Mr. Jed.


Everything is inside consciousness and nothing is outside. There is no universe, there is only consciousness. I’d like to repeat that last bit. There is only consciousness. Whatever exists is merely appearance within consciousness. There is no universe out there, there is no out there at all, there is only the universe in here. There is only consciousness. Anything that tells you otherwise is a belief, and no belief is true.

Philosophers may or may not agree with Plato’s definition of knowledge as justified true belief, but no belief is true and there is no justification for believing otherwise. Nothing can be known or discovered or figured out beyond I Am.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

When we look at Western philosophy, we see little more than armchair academics whose guiding light is not truth, but reputation and career. They have nothing to contribute, so they are effectively confined to clucking at each other and denying their irrelevance.

There’s no reality except the one contained within us. That’s why so many people live an unreal life. They take images outside them for reality and never allow the world within them to assert itself. Hermann Hesse

What else would I do, walk around as no-self? Not an option. There is no such thing as an enlightened person in the dreamstate because you can’t be true in a false context, or unlimited in a limited context. Conversely, truth is uninhabitable. No one lives where the mountain isn’t a mountain, no one resides outside of the dreamstate. You’re either in Maya’s Palace of Delusion, or you’re nowhere.

[Bryan Oliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

“If we say that truth does not exist, then we are saying it is true that truth does not exist; a self-nullifying statement like saying there are no absolutes."

The entire book is written in fairly provocative aphorisms such as this, but he ain't wrong.
Basically the only truth in the world is consciousness and the fact that it 'is'. Real truth is revealed via a stripping down of false realities.

As strange as the author is in his thoughts, writing style, and analogies, he spits out very simple truth and makes you giggle a lot. I think that's a key component to any truly enlightened being.

People live in two paradigms, 99.9999% live and believe in the Universe, but the universe is just a theory that can't be proven, because what came before it? Any structure must have a foundation, so the universe is either infinite... self supporting which is circular reasoning fallacy (every chicken came from an egg and every egg came from a chicken..) or magic, where we just say fuck it and call it god, or the big bang, or a giant turtle holding everything up (hinduism). The other paradigm for enlightened beings is consciousness, which is absolute truth.

Monotheistic religions can’t survive on their own merit so their time-tested strategy is to abandon common sense and be so über-nutso that they can’t be held to any reasonable standard of reason. If you live in such a fantasy alone, you’re mentally ill, if you live there with a small group, you’re a brainwashed cultmember, and if you live there with a large group, you’re respectably religious.

All forward motion depends on release, not gain. Only that knowledge which destroys knowledge facilitates progress. Don’t seek external validation, be your own guru.

Had this marked as 4 stars, but reading through my highlights of the book and it's quite obviously all the stars

[Laureena Mardini · Rating 5 out of 5]

The same, yet different...

McKenna delves into the intricate paradoxes and contradictions of the human experience, presenting them in a way that is both thought-provoking and darkly humorous. As always, he challenges conventional wisdom and invites readers to embark on a transformative journey.

McKenna's unique ability to embrace and elucidate the paradoxes of life is on full display in this book. He masterfully navigates the complexities and contradictions inherent in human existence, offering readers a glimpse into the profound truths that lie beneath the surface of everyday life. Those who truly engage with his teachings will begin to understand the seeming madness that McKenna speaks of, finding clarity in its chaos.

The structure of this work mirrors the gradual deepening of his philosophical presentation. "Dreamstate," his ultimate piece in my opinion, represents the pinnacle of his thought, encapsulating the essence of his teachings. McKenna's progression from one book to the next reflects his evolving engagement with readers, drawing them deeper into his vision of enlightenment.

For those ready to explore the depths of human potential and the stark reality of adulthood, McKenna is an invaluable guide. His straightforward approach, coupled with his willingness to deconstruct himself and his role as a teacher, offers a refreshing and liberating perspective. Ultimately, McKenna reminds us that the ultimate truth we seek is often the simplest, hidden beneath layers of our own making. His work is a testament to the power of stripping away these layers to uncover the fundamental essence of our being.

[St Fu · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is taken from Stephen Hawking, famous physicist and perhaps womanizer, but this book is its opposite. The universe, that Dr. Hawking is modeling is declared a fake, a dream, Maya. Instead, consciousness is asserted as the only thing we can actually know exists. It is who we are (if there IS a "we").

I wish to defend Hawking for a moment. I'm with McKenna on c-rex but I'm with Hawking on model-dependent realism.. c-rex is a model as is anything you can express in words, and a fine one too, but McKenna never says this. He's a smart guy so I know he'd agree, but he'd hedge.

He admits that, having nowhere else to go, he slipped back into consensus reality--in it, but not of it. I agree that there's nowhere to go outside of consciousness but there are other places to go than where he seems to have ended up. Enlightenment really is the booby prize for him but perhaps it needn't be.

Still, it's fun (if you're like me) to read as McKenna knows how to turn a phrase.

[Felix Delong · Rating 3 out of 5]

100% condesned truth.

EDIT:
After some consideration I have to sadly subtract two stars.
1) even though Jed sh*ts all over science, he is using scientific method and nothing else, so that makes him a bit of a hypocrite. Not only that, but moder science basically arrives at the same conclusion as him . the observer is primary, the observer and observed cannot be separated and reality exists only as long as it is observed - all are long know results of modern physics, which shows that he either didn't study the topic enough or is purposefuly lying.
2) Even though Jed says that he spent "A long time" searching if somebody else didn't come up with the same ideas before, he comes from a long tradition of thinkers and even whole systems of thinking that are as old as language - Schrodinger, Liebnits, Advaida Vedanta or Upanadishads. All of these say the same thing. His claim to "no one did it before me" is plainly false.

[#DÏ4B7Ø Chinnamasta-Bhairav]

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~
~}-------:}|{:-:}|{:- * LINKS * -:}|{:-:}|{:-----------{~
~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

* -:}|{:- * A * -:}|{:- *

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

* -:}|{}|{: INCOMPLETE :}|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{ + POSITIVE +/ - NEGATIVE - }|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{:- * SUMMARY * -:}|{}|{:- *


~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

* -:}|{:- * A * -:}|{:- *

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

* -:}|{}|{:- * KEY * ~ TIMESTAMPS & NOTES -:}|{}|{:- *

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

-:}|{}|{:- ? :}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{: ? -:}|{}|{:-

* -:}|{:- *

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit of a headspinner, but some calm and focus along with previous time down this rabbit hole reveals a funny, provocative worthwhile read. Some other reviewers were put off by the authors arrogance but I see a good humored and good natured guy having some fun trying to explain what's damn difficult if not impossible to explain.

Perhaps because this is my first reading of the authors books, it took a bit of time to get into the swing but not too far in, it hit the target (C-Rex, not U-Rex) and in an easy going style made its point and then broadened it out in several different ways.

I could give it 5 stars but it did meander too much in some spots.

[Marco · Rating 4 out of 5]

All JM books are very similar. In this one he elaborates a bit more on the difference between absolute reality and relative reality, which he calls C-Rex vs. U-Rex.

JM's books are interesting, but two things make them much worse than they could be: one is the constant enlightened guy posturing, which gets old very fast and relies solely on his claims, and the other is his unaware constant mixing of relative reality logic with ultimate reality logic, i.e., "you don't have to learn anything, because there is no you to learn". He even claims to have created the term dreamstate because there is nothing like it in the literature, while dreamstate is literally relative reality.

[Haris Odobasic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting point but a lot of bullshit.

He lost me when he started the argument about what comes first the chicken or the egg to proof a point that in time space everything has a beginning but then he tries to say there is no clear answer to this.

Honestly, if he would had read more about zoology and evolution theory then he would know that the egg came before the chicken. Reptiles 100mil + years were laying eggs. At that time there were no chicken. The egg it self evolved through trial and error.

[Giel · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you present your Theory of Everything, the least you can do is to present some convincing arguments. Jed McKenna tries his hands on some formal logic in the first chapter but it becomes clear that he doesn’t understand how syllogisms work. In the rest of the book the argument seems to be that consciousness is all there is because consciousness is all we ever experience. But that’s the same as covering your eyes during a game of hide-and-seek and thinking that the other kids can’t see you. After all, if darkness is all you experience, it must be everything there is. Like most religious and spiritual beliefs, seems like McKenna clings to them because he really wants them to be true instead of them being the result of a serious objective analysis of what reality is about.

[Dwight Cheuk-a-lam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This wasnt a bad book. I had to get past the ego he presented and his way of presenting his argument. The people around him were all pretty hysterical but the point he made was interesting. I liked how he used logic to approach it. And his point of mysticism versus enlightenment was nothing short of the truth. So all in all a decent book. Cant say I loved it, but it was entertaining enough to make me like it. And had enough truth in it to make me say it made sense.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most essential author I've ever read. There are those who have read Jed and those who have not.

My sense is that it's crucial to counterbalance Jed with the likes of David Hawkins, Eckhart Tolle, or Mooji. Jed's world is not the end-all-be-all, but it's a test, a crucible, a paradigm-shifting gauntlet. And once you pass through it, you will never be the same.

[D Brand · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first time I read this book I wasn't as charmed by it as I was about his trillogy.
The second time I read this book I had a full blown satori experience that has permanently changed something in me.

[Tavo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Same writing style like the original trilogy, a bit more straightforward when referring to his ideas. However, not many new metaphors or interesting dialogs. Not a bad book, just not as good as the first one in the trilogy.

[John Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book for breaking down beliefs and getting to what's true. Has the potential to be world shattering. Proceed with caution. It is very much a red pill, blue pill proposition.

[Sam Klemens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very fine.

[Deiter Roche · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honest, concise, penetrative and brusque.

Warning: For the sincere only.

[Alexa Markby · Rating 1 out of 5]

If J got stoned before he wrote ACIM. Just read Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard.

[Stephanie Church · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting concepts but I couldn’t get through it

[Tasin Hoque · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't like it much.