Daniel Johnson:
At the heart of it, I have trouble remembering why I'm doing any of this. Right now, I think it is mostly motivated by this:
1. Life is some kind of precious and unique opportunity
2. If this is true, then it follows that the best course of action would be to make best use of such a precious opportunity.
3. What is the best way to make use of this opportunity of being alive right now as a human being?
This is a question which I don't have an answer to. (I'm also somewhat uncertain about the question itself.)
I have been suffering a lot lately.
I like that way of thinking about it. Personally, I think the answer to #3 is to enjoy being alive as much as humanly possible. To that end, I've found that actualism delivers the goods far better than meditation ever did. I am certainly enjoying myself a lot more now than I was 6 months ago, which is when I managed to drop the whole meditation thing. So, I'll recommend the same to you, and I'll see if I can say anything that might help you with regards to that goal. Obviously it is your choice either way.
Daniel Johnson:
And then there is Actualism. I remember having great results with this practice when I was really practicing it, but now it seems mostly like a memory. Richard's commentary about Tarin's claim (and retracted claim) to actual freedom, and Tarin's subsequent disappearance from this board have left me somewhat confused, and perhaps also doubting.
Indeed, the goings on on the DhO and on the AF yahoo group and Richard's announcement filled me with tremendous doubt, as well. Somehow Tarin's posts were not satisfactory. I sought to resolve my doubts by visiting Richard in person, and I am certainly glad I did. My advice to you is to no longer look to Tarin or Trent or Nikolai or Jill for advice on how to become actually free, but rather, focus on the AFT site, or on the yahoo groups as it seems there might be a few actualists around there.
Daniel Johnson:
In some way, it seems like even a larger undertaking, and perhaps even more nebulous in the nature, direction, and length of the path (after all, it is wide and wondrous).
Ah but it's quite the opposite. The meditative path is quite nebulous (just observe how repeatedly participants will say that it is very difficult to put into words what they are experiencing), the direction is nebulous (how much have the goalposts changed? First it was clear-cut MCTB lays out stream entry, all the sutta paths, 4th path is full enlightenment; then there was this aff business; Nikolai is going further it seems; KFD has another system entirely; etc), and the length is questionable (how many people say they are finally done with nothing left to do and they now enjoy themselves fully without meditating whatsoever?).
Whereas the actualist path is clear (Richard, for example, readily describes it), the direction is clear once you figure out and experience pure intent (just follow that pure intent), and the length... well, true, not many people have done it, but the ones that are done are done (Richard says he experiences himself much the same now as 17 years ago, and he no longer practices or meditates or 'life has become meditation' or anything like that).
Daniel Johnson:
Most practitioners seem to claim that it is compatible with a householder's lifestyle.
I agree.
Daniel Johnson:
I don't know if this practice is compatible with any of the three trainings, or perhaps even all of them.
Here's the most difficult part about undertaking actualism - letting go of spirituality. Indeed, the practice is totally incompatible with any of the three trainings - complete opposites.
Morality is about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Another explanation would be Sin and what happens when you Sin thanks to the divine law of Karma. Check out
this sutta which explains what happens if you are immoral and don't treat the enlightened ones properly (hint: you go to several painful hells). This very notion of 'right' and 'wrong' is dispelled in numerous pages on the AFT site.
Concentration is essentially garnering psychic power with which to enter altered states of consciousness, either temporarily (e.g. jhanas) or permanently (e.g. MCTB paths). As the actualist path is about avoiding altered states of consciousness, concentration is directly antithetical to actualism.
Finally, Insight/Wisdom is a particular way of seeing the world: as empty, not inherently existing, no body existing (see Tommy's latest post about any notion of a body existing being mere 'imputation'), all of it unsatisfying, etc. As this is not seeing the world as it is, but rather, projecting an (impermanent, not-self, dukkha, centerless, agentless, etc.) identity more and more onto the world at large, noticing that projected identity is empty, etc., and mistaking the physical world itself to be so, Insight/Wisdom is nothing but delusion.
Indeed, you won't find mention of anything resembling pure intent or the actual world in any of the three trainings, nor even any of Buddha's teachings.
The tricky part is that it seems to work and it seems to promise peace or something desirable, as you indicate:
Daniel Johnson:
I think this is true because it seems clear that awareness increases, more thing are seen clearly for what they are, delusions are seen through. This is progress in terms of general insight into the nature of experience (The 3 characteristics).
...
It seems that the practice follows down this path further and further. I could imagine an end to this path at some point where all phenomena are seen clearly in this way ...
...
I find this path to be fascinating and somewhat inherently valuable for the insight itself.
...
While at times this seems to fit the model of the Dark Night, it also still seems like the most rational, ethical, and intelligent thing I could have done in the situation.
...
In terms of concentration, I think the most clean and quiet my mind has ever been was after 6 weeks on retreat. It was a wonderful state of clarity and tranquility, with a mind that was able to penetrate easily into any object. It was generally quite pleasant. I currently don't know any way to attain such a state without long retreat.
So, you seem to see some value in it. Notice however that none of your listed benefits actually have anything to do with enjoying being alive or interacting with others or having fun or anything like that; they're all related to seeing the world a particular way, that way of seeing the world being valuable in and of itself, and being tranquil in a way which allowed that seeing to happen more readily. Further, I will point out the price you are paying for the above:
Daniel Johnson:
Along with the sensitivity, I've found at times very strong emotional and energetic swings. These are often quite painful, dramatic, intense, irrational, and debilitating - among other things. It seems that the more I practice this meditation, the more unpredictable and erratic the energy can be. Perhaps, to some extent, my response to these various energetic swings also improves with practice. This is beneficial because although it may be more intense or more out of control, at least I am doing less to perpetuate it.
Far be it from being tranquil all the time, it seems a lot of the time you've actually become more unstable/dramatic/irritable, etc. I can certainly relate to that as the same happened to me. At some point shortly after 'stream entry' I wondered if all I had really succeeded in doing is to become bipolar.
Also notice the way you've tied yourself in a knot, here. You say it's a good thing you're doing less to perpetuate these mood swings, even though they're more intense, yet they are only getting more intense as a result of what you're doing in the first place (meditating). The goal of wanting to see the world a certain way overrides such sensibilities, though, and one feels it is all worth it, in the end (but for what end? one doesn't even know).
Daniel Johnson:
I quit my career two years ago to pursue meditation full time.
...
After exhausting my financial reserves and exploring the option of monkhood
So that intense instability, coupled with the fact that you felt calm after having withdrawn from the world, caused you to cease being able to make a living (quitting your career) and to exhaust all your worldly savings... something which definitely made it more difficult to live in the world, no?
Couple those with the fact that you aren't actually seeing through delusions but forming new ones (the universe is not impermanent, every sensation is not suffering, things do exist), and hardly any case can be made for the spiritual path at all.
(By the way, this is why the meditative path takes so much effort and requires withdrawing from the world - because the universe does indeed exist and all your physical senses are (figuratively) screaming at you that this is the case. You have to constantly deny all that by meditating, which takes a tremendous amount of effort - and that's why you need concentration, so you can garner up the psychic power to do so. The affective/psychic faculty is indeed a powerful one.)
In any case, the choice is yours. I've attempted to make the case pro actualism anti spiritualism but it is up to you to do what you want. Needless to say, if you want to pursue the actualist path, you will have to turn around completely, drop all the spiritual beliefs you've picked up over the years, and begin contemplating what it really means to be alive!
Cheers,
- Claudiu