04-28-2010, 12:00 AM
~
"Uh, let's see, is enlightenment a natural evolutionary step?"
"Oh, that's a good one. The answer is no. If anything, enlightenment is evolution derailed.
I mean, I take the question to mean evolution of a reincarnating individual or an evolving species, but the answer is the same either way.
Evolution is about change and enlightenment is about truth, which is unchanging.
Evolution takes place in a larger context than day-to-day existence, but it's still encased within a dualistic context. In other words, evolution, growth, development, change, whatever, are all parts of the dramatic event of dualistic being. Enlightenment isn't."
"But wait," injects Mark, "is enlightenment the end of the evolutionary line?"
"That's fine," I say. "It's an amusing question. Will I myself experience growth beyond truth-realization in this life? No. Will I reincarnate back into an ignorant state, which is to say, will unseen forces put me back to sleep? No. The question assumes the existence of a differentiated true self, like a separate entity, and uh, that wouldn't be an accurate assumption. Differentiated and true are mutually exclusive."
"Then who are we talking to?"
"You mean Jed McKenna? I have no idea. A character in a dream."
"You're enlightened and you don't know who you are?"
"Can't know, doesn't matter, don't care. You're talking about reconciling the dream-state with reality, like it all has to add up.
Everyone seems to get hooked on that, but you can't do it. Truth and non-truth are irreconcilable. Truth is, non-truth isn't. The false is purely an apparition; it exists only in the eye of the beholder.
True and false aren't opposites; they're not like the black and white of the yin-yang symbol. There is no true self and the false self is irrelevant. We can't insist on a truth that makes sense in light of what we know because we don't know anything.
Again, differentiated and true are mutually exclusive, not two halves of the whole."
Jed McKenna
Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment
"Uh, let's see, is enlightenment a natural evolutionary step?"
"Oh, that's a good one. The answer is no. If anything, enlightenment is evolution derailed.
I mean, I take the question to mean evolution of a reincarnating individual or an evolving species, but the answer is the same either way.
Evolution is about change and enlightenment is about truth, which is unchanging.
Evolution takes place in a larger context than day-to-day existence, but it's still encased within a dualistic context. In other words, evolution, growth, development, change, whatever, are all parts of the dramatic event of dualistic being. Enlightenment isn't."
"But wait," injects Mark, "is enlightenment the end of the evolutionary line?"
"That's fine," I say. "It's an amusing question. Will I myself experience growth beyond truth-realization in this life? No. Will I reincarnate back into an ignorant state, which is to say, will unseen forces put me back to sleep? No. The question assumes the existence of a differentiated true self, like a separate entity, and uh, that wouldn't be an accurate assumption. Differentiated and true are mutually exclusive."
"Then who are we talking to?"
"You mean Jed McKenna? I have no idea. A character in a dream."
"You're enlightened and you don't know who you are?"
"Can't know, doesn't matter, don't care. You're talking about reconciling the dream-state with reality, like it all has to add up.
Everyone seems to get hooked on that, but you can't do it. Truth and non-truth are irreconcilable. Truth is, non-truth isn't. The false is purely an apparition; it exists only in the eye of the beholder.
True and false aren't opposites; they're not like the black and white of the yin-yang symbol. There is no true self and the false self is irrelevant. We can't insist on a truth that makes sense in light of what we know because we don't know anything.
Again, differentiated and true are mutually exclusive, not two halves of the whole."
Jed McKenna
Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment