Spiritual Autolysis As Active Thinking Process

It is not ‘spiritual’, and it is only ‘self digestion’ if a person is concurrently consumed by a great deal of emotion, which seems to be the case for many seekers. Much confusion exists as to what the hell ‘autolysis’ means and what the hell one does with the ‘autolysis’. Keep in mind that ‘Jed’s’ books were written to sell, and a good deal of emotional charge is absolutely necessary for this kind of literature in order to generate good sales. There are two things that always work in sales: appeal to human sexuality and appeal to human emotionality, two great hooks to keep the human attention engaged.

Well… simplify. If one removes fancy words out of the equation, the clean and clear MEANINGFUL version is what I expressed in this short email below.




the process of considering or reasoning about something.

Notice the active component of thinking: considering, reasoning, in other words – pondering or contemplating something. Allowing thoughts on various topics to wander aimlessly in one’s head does NOT constitute ACTIVE thinking.

 When Kenneth urges his audiences to drop thinking – he is talking in opposition to Jed McKenna’s call to sit down and start contemplating. Which simply means: ask oneself questions and look for answers to those questions, just like the Buddha did under the tree after utterly having failed at all other ‘spiritual’ endeavours.

 Every question has an answer, that ‘perfect knowledge’ McKenna was talking about. I would correct him in saying ‘the perfect knowing’, as a distinction between obtaining information directly from self rather than learning from external sources.”

This is it. This simple notion is behind the famous metaphor ‘The Third Eye’. One does not grow some magical third eye. The MIND is your third eye and allows you to see things with clarity.

Those who speak about the ‘heart’ route to truth, or the ‘devotion’ route to truth – have no clear vision and are not quite ‘there’, even if, in a paradoxical manner, ‘there’ does not exist. It is always ‘here’, comes to you. Those folks are still mired in ideas: the idea of love, the idea of peace, the idea of compassion, the idea of brotherhood etc. etc. I doubt very much that dogs have ideas as such. However, they are perfectly capable of demonstrating any of the above. All those are naturally manifesting inclinations of one’s internal makeup. If one’s nature is that of being a considerate being – it will manifest after, regardless. If one’s nature is that of a psychopathic megalomaniac – that, too, will translate in what you see around; many of those are in positions of power and lord over the masses due to the internal lack of decency. Jed McKenna referred to this as ‘If you are still inclined to go and help others after..’ in his tirade about taking care of your own path first, before jumping on the bandwagon of universal ‘love’.

To stop seeing the illusion and to start seeing Reality – one has to utilise this unique to humans tool – own Mind.

Blue Header


28 thoughts on “Spiritual Autolysis As Active Thinking Process

  1. Yes, but…

    I have no more questions, like my mind gets smaller and smaller. Less thouths. Don’t know the meaning, don’t know why. “small head” “small mind” I have those words in mind recently to define myself. Like “I” am shrinking…

    (I’m writing that down here, don’t know why either)

      1. ha ha ! that idea of “progress” seems so ridiculous to me, all the spiritual world/bullshit is based on that idea.

        I don’t buy that idea, even if/when it’s free. 😉

        People talking about “progressing/regressing” are fooling themselves and others. You are fooling yourself, Tano… but you won’t fool me. 😉

        1. It is not an ‘idea’, Cedric. If your mind is the same now as it was when you were ten or even twenty – you have learned nothing.

          Life taught you nothing.

          You are absolutely ‘in your head’, yet cannot use your mind in any meaningful way. No substance, only shallow surface.

          1. Everything is evolving of course. “my mind”, the way I think, etc. etc.

            But there is no “better” or “worse”, “progressing” or “regressing”, all of that bullshit is created by the mind, “better/worse” is just a story. All stories are bullshit (and fun also of course ;-), it’s part of human life).

            Life has nothing to “teach” me, Tano. I am Life. Life can’t teach life.

            It’s as ridiculous as if you say to me “you don’t breathe, you can’t breathe, you never learned to breathe”, while I’ve breathed all my life…

            There is nothing to teach, Tano, nothing.

          2. Words will never be real, dear Tano. Words are only entertainment and stories. What I am is real, and I will never be able to share it with words…

      1. Beliefs that are based on hearsay, not on my own experience of life.

        For instance, I just remembered this one:
        All human expression comes from either fear or love.

        Picked that one up somewhere because it probably sounded true to me at the time. But really I don’t know at all if that is true, it seems like a very simplistic view on things.

        Also, I’m quick to dismiss compliments from people, or accomplishments because there is the belief that I am inherently faulty. I actually feel anger when I get a compliment.

        What I mean by: ‘just can’t see it at the moment’ as per my previous post, is that those beliefs seem like facts.

        1. OK, let’ see.

          Human expression is an act of letting one’s thoughts known. A human being lets the thoughts known in millions of situations, whether buying a train ticket at the station or writing a novel.

          I don’t feel either love or fear when buying a ticket. In this situation the expression ‘all human expression comes either from love or fear’ is completely meaningless. That is not to say there are no situations when the expression will be dictated by fear or (ahem) human love.

          It is a catchy slogan, but as all slogans – its application is limited and its true reality is to catch attention. Sounds clever.

          You inherently know this, because you called it ‘simplistic’. That’s because it is.

          Regarding your perception of yourself as ‘faulty’ and the subsequent rejection of compliments… Firstly, as a human being you have no discernible purpose in the same way a screwdriver has, hence, faulty compared to what? To the ‘perfect working model’ of a human being? Is there such a model, designed to deliver perfection in the way they exist in this world? I don’t know of any.

          Secondly, compliments can be sincere (rare and without wanting anything from you) or fake (with an aim of extraction in mind). It is up to you to determine if a compliment is real. If it is – why the hell not accept it with grace; it accurately reflects the reality of you.

  2. As you say in the first sentence, autolysis means “self-digestion”. As I understand it, from the books, autolysis is a process by which the reader questions all his or her own thoughts. This questioning “eats” or “digests” the thought system, out of which the self is constructed, until the self has nothing left to stand on. Hence, “self-digestion”. Eventually one arrives at “that which cannot be more simple.” What do you think, Tano? Is it correct for you?

    1. No.

      One asks questions about the actual things, the real life phenomena. NOT about the thoughts that point to that phenomena.

      For instance:

      Thought: “I am afraid of death”
      Question: “What is death actually? What happens in reality?”…………… then go dig wherever: the internet, the cemeteries, the dead relatives, the human history etc etc. Dig and get the REAL answer.

      This applies to all questions that you might have. Go dig, get the real true answer. Answers exist. In this attempt to answer YOURSELF – your mind will gain much understanding, and inner insights will begin to happen. The PROCESS of self inquiry itself is what makes one’s mind grow and eventually open up.

      I followed this naturally because I am intuitive (listen to inner prompts) and self reliant. No path (guru devotional or silly mantra mind numbing repetition or sitting in stupor in meditation or however else humans attempt to ‘get there’)… no path is complete until the mind opens up.

      Self inquiry has nothing to do with destroying ‘self’. Look around. Don’t you see much self in Jed McKenna? In me? It is destroyed at physical death ONLY, with the rest of you. There is plenty of self in all of us until we kick the bucket.

      Get real.

      Jed was the product of Californian ‘spiritual’ thought and consumed some mental poison too. Inevitable when surrounded by much bullshit, and when one’s mind is still young as his was. Hence, his senseless projections of life with ‘no self’. Bullshit.

      Here is the catch…. One arrives nowhere, as in ‘”What da fuk was all that about?”, starts laughing like mad and says ‘”OK. I was an idiot”. In the process of ‘search’ you will see there was nothing to search for. What you see is what you get – this world. Nothing else. But the process will irrevocably shift your perspective on life, death, humanity, good, evil, relativity, technology, language, human communication and a billion other things.

      IRREVOCABLY. Abiding. Once seen – cannot be unseen. That’s ALL you will get – a changed perspective.

      Doesn’t stop the idiots from trying.

      1. To add… ‘self-digestion’ refers to an emotional upheaval a person will experience when they begin to see things as they truly are. It won’t be pretty. It does not refer to destruction of self, as Jed McKenna made himself to believe.

        His self is still with us and thriving.

      2. “Here is the catch…. One arrives nowhere, as in ‘”What da fuk was all that about?”, starts laughing like mad and says ‘”OK. I was an idiot”. In the process of ‘search’ you will see there was nothing to search for. ”

        Sorry to hear this was your experience. Mine was quite the opposite. I continue to make progress in this ever expanding journey called life. Deeper understanding about presence, attention and states of being. As for searching, I don’t expect to get anything which effectivly ended the “search.” I understand from where I’ve arrived that it’s about what I bring into it. I cultivate states inwardly, direct attention deliberately and focus attention in whatever way I see fit rather than taking things second hand. Far from “arriving nowhere” like an “idiot.” Life is full of beauty, amazement and humor. Much more so that sad facts of life and death. But of course that’s only if one knows what to look for.

        1. “Sorry to hear this was your experience. Mine was quite the opposite.”

          Do you know why Mr McKenna says there are very few? Because there are.

          You are not one of them, J. You’ve replaced one dream with another dream, more ’empowering’ for you as a human, more pleasant, more enticing… but still an imaginary tale.

          You like it? Enjoy. As I said way back… go and live it, come back in ten years. Why the hell do you keep hanging around? There is nothing for you to find here.

          1. “go and live it”

            Lol that’s exactly what I’m doing. In this state there is a whole lot less resistance to the world and people in it. It is… liberating. Not “Mr, Mckenna’s.” You should try it out some time. Ah well take care

          2. I’ve done all you are about to do, J. This is why our perceptions are different. You’ve still got to experience much that hasn’t been part of life for you. Hence, my invitation to speak in ten years.

            It will change for you, but you don’t know this… yet.

      3. Hey,

        Thought: “I am afraid of death”
        Question: “What is death actually? What happens in reality?”…………… then go dig wherever: the internet, the cemeteries, the dead relatives, the human history etc etc. Dig and get the REAL answer.

        So do you mean i shouldn´t only ask myself to get the answers, but also look in the world. So it would be a combination of own thinking and the world? This sounds to me like my own thinking isn´t really trustworthy?

        1. The facts are IN the world, but it is up to your mind to examine them carefully and come to your own understanding of what the facts represent/mean.

          So yes, it is a combination of looking at the real facts followed by own evaluation of those. I mean… you cannot trust your own way of thinking about combustion engines, for instance, if you know nothing about combustion engines to begin with.. And from what I have observed, many people shout about things they have no knowledge or understanding of, yet have big, tightly held opinions about.

          One starts with big questions (‘who am I? What is the meaning of life? Where do we come from?) and quickly realises that big questions about life do not yield any meaningful answers.

          What then? People start going round in circles. But as they ask in the army “How to eat an elephant?”…. by reducing it to small chunks, that’s how. Very often then, as a result of examining what really is in front of you, those facts – one suddenly has an insight. That insight is the mind’s shift towards understanding and truth, the direct mind experience. It is not intellectual in any way, but it is owned by you, because YOU came to see by yourself, YOU own the insight and the vision that resulted from it.

  3. ‘Where does one go after death?’
    So that is a question about a thought that points to a phenomena?

    ‘What is death?’
    That can actually be answered by looking at the phenoma in the real world. So that is a question about a phenomena, right?

  4. Questions about a thought that points to a phenomena have no definitive answers.

    For example: Where does one go after death?
    That is unknowable from the perspective of a living human being.
    I can’t have a direct experience of that while alive.

    Is that the reason you made that distinction between question that point and questions about a phenomena?

    1. Jimmy, you are making this more complicated than it really is.

      Both questions are valid, they are about reality.

      The ‘where does one go after death’ is not formed in the best way though. It assumes beforehand that one goes some place, without questioning this assumption.

      The answer is knowable. You are not correct in supposing that the direct experience is limited to senses only. There is a direct experience of the body: seeing, listening, smelling, touching tasting, yes. It can be deceiving. For instance, the earth looks very flat to our senses, but we know from other means of obtaining knowledge that the earth is not flat (bar the Flat Earth Society members).

      There is also a direct experience for the mind, in the same way as there is a direct experience for the senses. What do you think that is? What would constitute a direct experience for your mind?

      The question about your thoughts would be something like ‘Why do I always feel upset when my relatives scold me? (or fill the blanks here with any other situation that upsets you)’ There is a better question to ask for this.

      1. My interpretation was kind of a stretch, so I’m glad to see it was just me making things more complicated than necesarry.

        That being said, I have a really hard time understanding what you’re saying.
        I don’t even know what questions to ask, if any.

        I can see that what you’re saying is really simple, it’s not rocket science.
        But still, I don’t get it at all.

        Please don’t see this as criticism, because I do appreciate all the writing you do.

        1. This is exactly why ‘teaching’ anyone simply doesn’t work. Everyone I know who got it – did so by themselves, without any teachers.

          Ask those questions which bother you the most.

          Ask YOURSELF those questions, not me.

          Keep going until the answers are yours for the taking.

          Nothing more to it, Jimmy.

Comments are closed.