| | Hello all. Are you ready for the most controversial AF topic on DharmaOverground?
Richard has been famous for claiming that he is the 'first' to attain AF and completely overcome suffering. And although the Buddha claimed the same thing, and many of his followers and teachings teach about the elimination of the fetters and suffering in ways that an Actually Free person may describe, he still claims to be the only one. I offer another source; one that is neither Buddhist nor AF, yet describes clearly, and without a doubt, the process that includes MCTB 4th path (once again, it is described so clearly and to be undeniable) and includes the path to the Actual World.
I quote George Ivanovich Gurdjieff in his book "Life Is Only Real Then, When I Am": Among other things, I said then that the most important work for a man who has already cognized with his Reason his real significance- that is to say, who has cognized his error in the sense of the exaggerated importance given to his individuality, which represents, according to his own impartial appreciation in a quiet state, almost a complete "nullity"- is to acquire the ableness to direct for a definite time all his possibilities and all his strength only for the purpose of constating as many as possible of the physical as well as the psychic abnormal facts proceeding in his various functionings, that is, to exercise what is called "self-observation".
It is obligatorily necessary to do so chiefly in order that such undesirable facts, cognized only by his mind, which are still empty of significance for his common presence, gradually assimilating into his nature, should begin to crystallize a steady conviction about everything learned, and through this, as it must lawfully proceed, should come forth in his common presence for the possibility of further work upon himself, an energy of great intensiveness, with the help of which alone is a further work upon himself possible and which is manifested, by the way, in a persistent striving to achieve the "power" during the daytime in his so to say "Waking state," for a definite time to "remember himself."
This is necessary in its turn so that such a man, who has cognized only with his mind the nullity of his individuality and who has decided to struggle consciously with the abnormalities constated by him, which have crystallized in his individuality thanks to the unfitting surrounding conditions of his preparatory age, and which manifest themselves in all sorts of weaknesses that in totality give birth to his will-lessness, character-lessness, inertness and so on, could learn as much as possible not to identify with the surrounding conditions and, continuing to observe his inner and outer manifestations with a simultaneous domination in himself of various feelings of partiality which are becoming inherent in him, and thus constating still more deeply various factors, abnormal even according to his own consciousness, and existing in great number in his psyche as well as in his physical body: all this with the aim of convincing himself with his whole being of his negative properties that are even in his own judgment unworthy of a man, and not only with his, in the present case, meaning-nothing "mind""; so that thus he may again become a person wishing to work upon himself with his whole being, and not only, as I have just said, with his meaningless consciousness.
On account of the great importance of this question, I repeat and underline that all this is indispensable in order that in a man working upon himself should arise and accumulate, as could only lawfully proceed, the needed energy for the possibility of continuing to work with the intensity of striving and power of action upon himself which alone permits the transmutation of oneself from this "nullity" into that "something" which he ought to have been according to even his own "good sense"; this latter, although rarely, does manifest itself in each contemporary man at those moments when the surrounding conditions do not prevent the manifestation of this good sense, that is, to be such as a man ought to be, the, as is said, "acme of Creation," and not what he has become in reality, especially in recent times, namely, as in moments of self-sincerity he knows himself to be- an automatically perceiving and in everything manifesting himself domestic animal.
Ah. Where should a human being begin? He clearly describes MCTB 4th path. Should I mention how Gurdjieff mentions the possibility of stagnating after seeing thru the sense of identity, such as might have been what Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk among others had done for 7 years? Or how he emphasizes using his whole "being" to create the change and how it must be his "being" which wants to let go as opposed to simply thoughts and how it is according to his common sense (as is recorded by Nickolai)?
Let me also repeat part of the quote for an example: I repeat and underline that all this is indispensable in order that in a man working upon himself should arise and accumulate, [...] the needed energy for the possibility of continuing to work with the intensity of striving and power of action upon himself which alone permits the transmutation of oneself from this "nullity" into that "something" which he ought to have been according to even his own "good sense"; this latter, although rarely, does manifest itself in each contemporary man at those moments when the surrounding conditions do not prevent the manifestation of this good sense, that is, to be such as a man ought to be, the, as is said, "acme of Creation,"
This paragraph is clearly pointing at what Richard calls a PCE. No mention of an EE or Virtual Freedom here, but if I understand correctly these are not even pivotal points for the Actualism method. Also, because the grammar may be hard to read I want to point out one thing: at the end he describes how normal man, if he is sincere with himself, is a "domestic animal", and how this is in contrast to the PCE mode. Reread entire passage again if Gurdjieff's quote doesn't make sense.
---
I should like to mention here that I will say with confidence that the sign of a useful and true spiritual practice is by how well it imitates the spiritual/actual reality that it is trying to achieve. By noting the three characteristics, one is noting how the MCTB 4th path world is perceived, and thus it trains the mind to perceive that way until it is permanent. Likewise, a solid AF practice will imitate the myriad of qualities of what Actual Freedom is like until such a process takes over the mind. This is also in line with the idea that enlightenment is a 'biological' effect. By training the mind and optimizing on what the modern world calls "brain plasticity" the mind slowly comes to perceive and become whatever it does repeatedly, be that perceiving the three characteristics in all things, or by being felicitous, happy and harmless.
---
If you are looking for a public example of someone who might be actually free, since examples are hard to come by and Richard has become less available since he stopped taking emails, look at the Dalai Lama. I cannot imagine anybody more committed to being happy and harmless than him. Having met him in person I can attest that I have never seen him show the slightest bit of irritation, impatience, stress or anything similar. But don't take my word for it, there are plenty of youtube videos of him. Be critical, look deeply, and give your honest opinion of whether you see him showing the tiniest sign of stress. And I'll add that if the Dalai Lama has done it, then its logical to assume that at least _one_ of the Tibetan schools of Buddhism has gotten it right and is familiar with the path that leads to the complete cessation of suffering.
Another potential example of an AF person would be Osho. Because many if not all of his meditations he taught people were a bit too goofy and pop-psychology-ish and he was very cult leader like (like Richard perhaps?), I would not be surprised if people's reaction to this would be slight disbelief, however he was very famous for rejecting nearly all spiritual traditions and all teachers that he was aware of (even calling Jesus a lot of nasty names). Sound like an Actual Freedom leader that we know of? More importantly, he claimed that Gurdjieff (author of the above quote) had gotten it right, and listed one or two other spiritual teachers he admired (notably J. Krishnamirti, although Osho thought he had insight, he claimed that he was not the most efficient teacher with his students. I've never looked into him much. Maybe someone who is familiar with him can mention if his ideas are aligned with AF?)
As a side note, Osho was also notorious for making all of his teachings contradictory and making each one seem right in its own circumstance, and then giving the opposite advice two seconds later. This would make it hard to pinpoint his exact beliefs, however a simple reading of his books gives me a strong impression of how he attempts exact communication at the level of the people he is dealing with, similar to Trent's posts here on DhO. He humorously claimed on several occasions that he gave contradicting answers on purpose in order than no religious dogma could be formed after he died. And this flexibility between view-points seems reminiscent of how Actual Freedom is 'without a point of view besides raw sensate reality'.
*END NOTE* Since this may seem a big wall of text, those interested in AF should at least read the quoted part above (which is tabbed over). The rest… as they say… is geography.
`Olyver Mith
[Edited to create a more accurate post title.] |