I think the big cause of "controversy" with this topic is that there are two differing viewpoints in this forum.
Viewpoint #1-- Enlightenment means uprooting all the defilements, e.g. no more lust or craving for formless realms or anything like that. The suttic perspective.
Viewpoint #2-- Enlightenment doesn't eliminate anything, it is a change in perspective, emotions still manifest but there is no self to do the manifesting, "there is no suffering because there is no sufferer." This is the MCTB arahat, or perhaps it would be better to call it a Burmese arahat.
My personal opinion is that I ought not to form any opinions, that I should get to MCTB arahatship and see if I need to do anything from there. I am not an arahat. That said, I do have some thoughts...
There are many on this board who say that MCTB arahatship is actually just a sakadagami in the fetter model. I'm not sure where this comparison comes from, but not being very enlightened I don't really feel justified in commenting. Actualism is, apparently, the way to "finish" the process. However, isn't it odd that the Buddha gave four stages of enlightenment, and that vipassana practice (4 Foundations of Mindfulness, anapanasati, etc etc) prescribed in the suttas results in four distinct levels of reduction in self? It is quite a coincidence, and this ought to be considered when trying to compare the MCTB model with the fetter model.
Furthermore, with post-suttic texts like the Vishudimagga and the Abhidhamma, we find fairly detailed discussions of path moments and whatnot, including three moments before nibbana, the mind taking nibbana as an object, the three doors, and so on. All these things line up with the actual experience of vipassana mastery.
In other words, the four paths of the suttas have been studied and elucidated in great detail. The four paths of the suttas, the four paths of the Vishudimagga, the four paths of MCTB, and even some of the maps described in other traditions (e.g. Alchemy), all seem to line up.
And yet... MCTB arahats are just sakadagamis now? Why? Because of emotions?
Taking a look at the opposing viewpoint, that enlightenment involves elimination of specific emotions, we cannot help but run into Actualism. This is not a bad thing. Being mindful of one's emotions was recommended by the Buddha, and if I recall correctly, Dr. Ingram experimented with Actualism with positive results.
However, I do have some reservations. I realize I may be beating a dead horse here, but I feel that it is pertinent to the discussion.
First we have Richard, the "founder" of Actual Freedom. He claims to be free of any kind of affect, and others report something remarkable about his presence along these lines. And yet, he appears to manifest emotions in certain situations. His negative reaction towards the "spread" of Actualism on the DHO and his claim that Peter (who wrote most of the AF website?) was no longer Actually Free, are two examples. I'm certainly not saying that he's a bad guy, there has been far worse in Buddhist circles (I see Chogyam Trungpa's name up there somewhere), but it is a bit disconcerting when the man claims to be free of all affect.
But enough about the people, what about the practice? Unfortunately, I have never had a PCE, at least that I can remember, but they sound nice, and plenty of other folks have had them and can attest to their niceness. But temporary PCEs are hardly the goal-- permanent elimination of affect is the goal. Let's look at the practitioners who have done this.
...And there's a problem. There honestly don't seem to be any. A look through the past posts on this board indicate a pattern that seems to go along the lines of claiming actual freedom, renouncing the claim to actual freedom, and then disappearing from cyberspace. Tarin greco and Tommy M come to mind, though perhaps it was more personal and Actualism didn't play a big part.
It's not enough to turn me off completely from actual freedom, but it's enough to make me nervous.
Furthermore, there are other spiritual traditions with perfectly valid goals that more or less take the opposite path of actualism. I'm thinking of things like Western Magick, Vajrayana, shamanism, and occultism in general. For people in this boat, actualism would be a pretty poor choice, for obvious reasons.
There is another more complex dimension with regards to the above paragraph-- what if we have a psychic healer who chooses to pursue actualism and "loses" his power in the process? Is he selfish for doing this? Other people can no longer benefit from his abilities, but his own personal suffering is eliminated. In many ways it's like the old bodhisattva vow vs. getting enlightened debate, but this is a pretty heavy subject.
Actualism basically eliminates the axis of development regarding powers. I'm not sure if this is a wise decision, considering the powers can be used to help others.
I should go ahead and say that I have some personal experience with "the powers," and offer no further comment other than our materialistic society may not quite have it right. ;)
This post is turning out longer than I expected, so I will try to wrap it up, but before I do let's talk about MCTB arahatship again. At that level of attainment, there is no self, no Watcher, no Agent, no Perceiver, no Doer, nothing like that, just a field of sensations. Furthermore, there is
no choice. Sensations unfold according to causality, there is no "self" making decisions or anything like that. Therefore, the decision to pursue actualism, at a high insight level, is not a decision at all, it is simply the inevitable unfolding of experience. Along these same lines, there is no self to have emotions.
I should also point out that Theravada has its own system for working with emotions called the Sublime Abodes.
What I'm getting at is, while actualism may be nice, arahatship is more ultimate, even perhaps the most ultimate realization one can have.
Daniel himself mentions this in his essay regarding his experiments with actualism:
That said, there are lots of aspects of things to develop, lots of ways to continue to grow, lots of things to work on, as that is just one axis of development, albeit a very fundamental one, perhaps the most fundamental one.
And so I have continued to grow and learn and this brain has continued to change and learn new things. None have changed anything about that fundamental insight in April 2003, and that is truly remarkable, given how much has gone on since then.
That whole section is great, Daniel talks about working on emotions while still being an arahat and how those things fit in.
In conclusion--
The MCTB view regarding Arahatship being a change in perspective, where emotions still manifest but are seen for what they are, lines up remarkably well with later commentaries on the suttas, and on this basis seems fairly sound.
The suttic or fetter view, which is closely tied with Actualism practice, doesn't seem to line up with reality, as there don't seem to be any persons that are free of emotions. There is an unsettling tendency of claiming actual freedom, renouncing that claim, then vanishing, at least off cyberspace.
All this said, we are all mature adults here, we can make our own decisions regarding practice, goals, and even interpreting suttas. If emotional freedom is what makes you happy, go for it! Never sell yourself short when it comes to enlightenment.
Again, I'm not an arahat, just a guy who has put a lot of thought into goals and practice, who has read some of the suttas and contemplated emotional models, and to a lesser extent has followed the political shitstorm surrounding Actual Freedom.
Peace,
E