Jed McKenna On Selecting Teachers

[Thunder_Gooch]

"How long has your guru been teaching?"

 

"Well, uh, over thirty years."

 

"And how many of his students have achieved enlightenment?"

 

"Well, uh..."

 

"That you know of personally?"

 

"Well, uh, I never..."

 

"That you've heard of?"

 

"It's not"

 

"That there were rumors of?"

 

"I don't think..."

 

"What is it they're doing, Martin? The recipe for enlightenment they're promoting - what is it?"

 

"Uh, well, meditation and knowledge, basically."

 

"And in thirty years they've never held someone up and said, 'Look at this guy! He's enlightened and we got him there!' In thirty years, they don't have one? Don't you think they should have, like, an entire army of enlightened guys to show off by now?"

 

"Well, it's not..."

 

"After thirty years they should have a few dozen generations of enlightened people. Even with only a quarter of them becoming teachers, they should have flooded the world by now, mathematically speaking, don't you think? I'm not asking all this as a teacher myself, mind you. I'm just asking as a consumer, or a consumer's advocate. Don't you think it's reasonable to ask to know a teacher's success rate? The proof is in the pudding, right? Didn't you ask them about the fruit of their teachings when you started with them?"

 

"Well, that's not..."

 

"Don't you think it's reasonable to ask? They're in the enlightenment business, aren't they? Or did I misunderstand you? Do they have something else going?"

 

"Nooo, but they..."

 

"If Consumer Reports magazine did a report on which spiritual organizations delivered as promised, don't you suppose that the first statistic listed under each organization would be success rating? Like, here are a hundred randomly selected people who started with the organization five years ago and here's where they are today. For instance, thirty-one have moved up in the organization, twenty-seven have moved on, thirty-nine are still with it but not deeply committed and three have entered abiding non-dual awareness. Okay, three percent - that's a number you can compare. But this organization of yours would have big fat goose egg, wouldn't they? And not just out of a hundred, but out of hundreds of thousands - millions, probably. Am I wrong?

 

- Jed McKenna - 'Spiritual Enlightenment:The Damnedest Thing'

[Wells]

Many people simply want to believe and get lulled...and go nowhere for that.

Actually, they even encourage Gurus to lie to them with their blind believer attitude

and their willingness to fool themselves!

[Sloppy Zhang]

Haha, that was funny, thanks for posting that pie guy

 

Though, you might want to ask... what would happen if someone DID claim that people got enlightened? There are a few higher level Kunlun students that I've heard have achieved the Golden Dragon Body. But there are plenty of people out to discredit Kunlun.

 

Then again, not everyone can come to a consensus as to what enlightenment actually IS. Realization of your true Buddha nature? Finding emptiness? Being connected with everything at once? Levitating away in a ball of light?

 

If you don't claim to be enlightened, you're a fraud.

 

If you do claim to be enlightened, you're ALSO a fraud.

 

Edited April 20, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[宁]

You?

Selecting?

What do you know to select?

Who are you to select?

Do you think this is high school?

 

 

It's the other way around...

[Ladros]

After thirty years they should have a few dozen generations of enlightened people.

 

I must admit that I am a bit sceptic towards such statement, or then you are just looking at different levels of enlightenment. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that thirty years would produce such a great amount of enlightened people, with good practise and groundwork - maybe few. It always varies with people and with people on that path.

 

It is true that from the fruit, you shall know the teacher, but it kinda works on both ways..

 

..And the scale even grows bigger when thinking that there are teachers on different levels as there are students and I think that not always the 'highest' one is the best one.

 

-Ladros

[Mokona]

Jed also doesn't agree that spiritual attainment or abilties have anything to do with enlightenment, so all yall wanting abilties ahd better not be looking at him for answers.

 

I'm sorta annoyed that ya'll would bring him up like you've read his works, especially with the content that's been posted lately.

[goldisheavy]

"How long has your guru been teaching?"

 

"Well, uh, over thirty years."

 

"And how many of his students have achieved enlightenment?"

 

"Well, uh..."

 

"That you know of personally?"

 

"Well, uh, I never..."

 

"That you've heard of?"

 

"It's not"

 

"That there were rumors of?"

 

"I don't think..."

...

...

...

 

Good shit. Seriously good shit. Buddha was surrounded by an army of Arhats. Not one or two or three. But the number was in the hundreds or more.

 

Most of the "systems" in practice today don't even aim at enlightenment. They talk about it. They joke about it. But if you ever reach enlightenment, you're thrown out of school! If you reach enlightenment, you break the whole game. The game is to talk about enlightenment and to strive for it, in perpetuity, without ever reaching it. That's where the money's at.

[xabir2005]

Good shit. Seriously good shit. Buddha was surrounded by an army of Arhats. Not one or two or three. But the number was in the hundreds or more.

Many of the scriptures talk about 1250 Arhats just attending Buddha's discourse alone. (there were probably many others not present)

 

So the number was in the thousands.

Most of the "systems" in practice today don't even aim at enlightenment.

Indeed and that's sad.. Edited April 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[bindo]

Quoting Jed McKenna as some sort of spiritual authority? C'mon man...you can do better than that.

[Seth Ananda]

Nice point about Buddha and his students Gold, thanks.

Another point is what about Jed? how many of His?

He should read Halfway up the Mountain.

Then again he would probably say "That's what I have been saying" without applying it to himself...

Angry Intellectuals on a Spiritual Authority trip are Hilarious...

[TheWhiteRabbit]

I believe enlightenment is clairity of focus when it comes to awareness.

 

How do you know what it is if you dont know? Ill tell ya

 

[Philip]

Nice point about Buddha and his students Gold, thanks.

Another point is what about Jed? how many of His?

He should read Halfway up the Mountain.

Then again he would probably say "That's what I have been saying" without applying it to himself...

Angry Intellectuals on a Spiritual Authority trip are Hilarious...

 

I'm of the opinion Jed McKenna's nothing more than a clever literary device. The books are quite satirical, in addition to having more than a few kernels of genuine wisdom. If he is indeed more than just a fictional character, my impression is he really doesn't take himself all that seriously. I've not laughed harder while reading a book about enlightenment than when I read the book quoted atop this thread.

 

Well, maybe while reading Jitterbug Perfume ... Love Tom Robbins!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Philip

[goldisheavy]

It doesn't matter who Jed McKenna is. Why is everyone taking apart that guy? Maybe he's a nobody who hasn't had a single student, and never mind a student Arhat. Who cares? Is the point valid or not? It seems the point he's making is valid and stands on its own. The point Jed is making does not depend on Jed's character or on his beard's size.

[bindo]

But it's not a valid point, and...he's a goof.

[Aetherous]

I think it's a valid point. Teachers of enlightenment traditions should produce enlightened students. It's a great point.

[forestofsouls]

Well, there are many assumptions here:

 

1) enlightened individuals advertise.

 

2) there is no reason, i.e. an systematic taboo, against openly expressing enlightenment.

 

3) enlightenment should happen quickly, etc.

 

4) You need a fully enlightened teacher.

 

etc.

 

1. Regarding the first one: why does everyone think that enlightened people would advertise?

 

2. Admitting, discussing, and openly expressing personal views that one is enlightened is a systematic taboo in most systems. Also, different people have different definitions of enlightenment. Check out the works of Daniel Ingram for more on this.

 

3. Five years? Yeah, right. Most people don't have the discipline to meditate twice a day for 30 minutes. You really think folks are going to get it after five years?

 

4. Gurdjieff used to say that a man who isn't worth a farthing demands no less than Jesus Christ as his teacher. A fully enlightened teacher may be so far beyond you that he or she can't teach you at all.

 

It's a classic case of assuming things should be the way we want, and if they aren't, writing it off.

[Sloppy Zhang]

But it's not a valid point, and...he's a goof.

 

 

I think it's a valid point. Teachers of enlightenment traditions should produce enlightened students. It's a great point.

 

And I'm in between

 

I see how this may be a valid point... but then again, "enlightenment" isn't like any other commodity out there. You can look at a business college and see how many business executives it produces, you can look at a football training program and see how many top football athletes came from the program, etc.... but with enlightenment... I mean, where do you even begin?

 

"Hi, our four year program produces over 300 enlightened beings, with an extra 200 going on to enlightenment after two years of supplemental training."

 

I mean, it sounds like some people think enlightenment is some quantifiable commodity just like any other. I mean.... are we going to start quantifying the Buddha and Jesus? It all seems like a very "modern" and business/materialistic way of quantifying things.

 

But if we are to go by this dude's point, I daresay Kunlun becomes one of the most legitimate out there, as you hear of a couple students getting Golden Dragon Body, but then we run into the age old issue of whether GDB is the same as enlightenment, so what is enlightenment, and back to the quantifying problem then we have all the saints from Christianity, so screw qigong and meditation, and let's all go to Church!

Edited April 22, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[goldisheavy]

I don't even know if enlightenment is real the way people think about it. In particular, Buddha time and time again made a judgment of people as if he lived in their skin, but when people made similar judgments of him, he dismissed them as preposterous, since, those people are not him and not enlightened (and he's the one who will determine who is enlightened or not, which is convenient). Basically Buddha was an asshole. If Buddha appeared today, like if he showed up on TaoBums and behaved the way he had 2500 years ago, you all would assassinate his character in no time, and perhaps rightly so. You'd then also miss half of the good points he had to make together with his characters, because many of you, once you decide someone's character is not so good, you ignore that person completely, which is not wise. You also have to keep in mind that many morons have excellent character. And some ne'er do wells have excellent wisdom too.

 

What happened was that Buddha would pronounce someone an Arhat, and that was that. It was never quantified in any way. An Arhat is someone who has destroyed the 3 fetters of attachment, aversion and ignorance and who has reached total unbinding. However there is no test, nor a way to concretely demonstrate any such thing. It always came down to Buddha making a personal judgment. The Suttas are very interesting. If you read them, there is a lot of dirty laundry there, if you just keep your attention to detail sharp and keep your mind in a contemplative mood (as opposed to adoring or worshiping).

[mjjbecker]

..

Edited August 26, 2009 by mjjbecker

[Sloppy Zhang]

I don't even know if enlightenment is real the way people think about it. In particular, Buddha time and time again made a judgment of people as if he lived in their skin, but when people made similar judgments of him, he dismissed them as preposterous, since, those people are not him and not enlightened (and he's the one who will determine who is enlightened or not, which is convenient). Basically Buddha was an asshole. If Buddha appeared today, like if he showed up on TaoBums and behaved the way he had 2500 years ago, you all would assassinate his character in no time, and perhaps rightly so. You'd then also miss half of the good points he had to make together with his characters, because many of you, once you decide someone's character is not so good, you ignore that person completely, which is not wise. You also have to keep in mind that many morons have excellent character. And some ne'er do wells have excellent wisdom too.

 

What happened was that Buddha would pronounce someone an Arhat, and that was that. It was never quantified in any way. An Arhat is someone who has destroyed the 3 fetters of attachment, aversion and ignorance and who has reached total unbinding. However there is no test, nor a way to concretely demonstrate any such thing. It always came down to Buddha making a personal judgment. The Suttas are very interesting. If you read them, there is a lot of dirty laundry there, if you just keep your attention to detail sharp and keep your mind in a contemplative mood (as opposed to adoring or worshiping).

 

Nice post.

 

The measure of a system therefore is not how many enlightened students it creates, but how many students it brings to THEIR highest possible level of attainment. This is no different to any other teaching method.

 

I think that was very well said.

[goldisheavy]

This is not a factory method of manufacturing. This is ability, talent, drive, aptitude, fate (or 'luck'). The idea that teachers can 'manufacture' 'enlightened' students is a nonsense. First, the ability must be there. Next, the drive and willingness to do the work. Last, the method and teacher. Ability and willingness can sometimes be enough, but a great method will not create a great student out of a poor one.

 

I buy that, but you cannot ignore the documented in the Pali Canon historical fact that Buddha was surrounded by over a thousand Arhats (I originally made the number smaller not to seem ridiculous and to be more conservative). Clearly there is a huge gulf of a difference there between 1k + and none or 2. I mean roughly 3 orders of magnitude of difference. I daresay that if Buddha's success with "producing" Arhats was legitimate, then based on how many capable students modern teachers have, they have to be deemed failures or fakes. You can't just make it "blame the student" game 100%. Buddha was surrounded my morons too and yet he still managed to get 1k+ people enlightened according to the writings.

 

There is also a distinct possibility that Buddha himself was fraud.

 

The measure of a system therefore is not how many enlightened students it creates, but how many students it brings to THEIR highest possible level of attainment. This is no different to any other teaching method.

 

This is a good point, except one thing. No one knows what the highest potential is. Therefore there is always ineliminable doubt whether or not someone was brought to the max potential or to only 10% of their max. As soon as we find a way to measure and quantify max potential, we'll have this problem resolved.

Edited April 22, 2009 by goldisheavy

[mjjbecker]

..

Edited August 26, 2009 by mjjbecker

[Pietro]

Those are the times where I miss Father Paul:

 

its really very simple

you cannot experience enlightenment

because it is not an experience

 

forgive me but,

one doesn't fall in and out of a state of enlightenment

[Thunder_Gooch]

I'd say Jed's point still rings true even if teachers are not enlightenment factories.

 

If you want to become an accomplished architect after college you would become an apprentice to an accomplished architect, study from him and learn all his subtleties and nuances. You might even apprentice under others if your so inclined. Learn from the best in the field. Or at least that's what I would do, seems logical.

 

 

The problem in today's information age is there is too much DISinformation. Sure there are 10,000,000,000 different schools of neigong/qigong/energy arts/ meditation styles and schools, from Taoist to Buddhist to Hindu to Egyptian to Wiccan to Newage to ijustmadethisshituptosellbookstowiccanemogothfags

 

Too much of this information is just garbage, there is far too much for an individual to test and try every methodology himself.

 

So I would say Jed's logic stands. If you have a goal and want to accomplish it first seek a master, school or system that has already accomplished that goal, and or produced students that have also.

Edited April 24, 2009 by More_Pie_Guy