Teague:
Hey Not Tao,
Have you read
this?
It's long, but it gets into the meat pretty quick. I'd be curious to hear what you think. The gist is that Thusness decribes 3 stages of anatta, and that one who has realized all 3 is in a state that matches the descriptions of AF.
People say that PCEs are very nice and I believe them, but people also say that stream entry is nice and I believe them too. I've been practicing toward SE, but I think the everyday practice of investigating emotions is also valuable (it's something I've already done, just not with über dilligence as one might in the hopes of a PCE). I've also heard that it's easier to get PCEs and AF once one is already enlightened (or at least partially), so my thinking is to continue what I'm doing, and if buddhist enlightenment (should I attain it) ain't enough, then I'll switch gears for AF. What was your practice before you got into AF?
It would be nice if all these roads really did lead to the same place, and we could all be one big happy enlightened actually free family.
-T
Richard makes a point of saying enlightenment gets in the way of Actual Freedom (it's "180 opposite of enlightenment"). I'll try to examine this for a moment with as much intellectual honestly as I can muster.
If I consider my previous practice before (I was doing radical acceptance - all emotions, ideas, states, etc were allowed to stay or go as they chose), the results were very spotty and didn't seem to make any real or permanent changes. I had a lot of perceptual changes, but not emotional changes, and the perceptual changes went away when I stopped practicing. I probably didn't make it very far on that path, if it was a path at all. But the problem was that it creates promising states, and it feels like progress, even though I had no idea WHY it was progressing.
This is the problem I see with "aiming for stream entry" and "when I get enlightened, everything will be better." Do you understand HOW it's actually supposed to work? Can you see a step by step process? It doesn't make sense, really. You go through a series of states during meditaton, black out, and suddenly everything is better. Actual Freedom isn't like this at all. It's scientific. You do the process, you see the results, you know why you got the results. It isn't sexy, it's just very obvious. You can't "gun for self-understanding", you just have to do it, you know?
I don't think it would be easier to practice AF once you reach what they call "4th path" here, but this is pure speculation based on what I've read. If you're practiced objectifying states and seeing them as "not-self", then it's going to be hard to come back and say "these emotions are my responsibility, and I can now identify with them." Buddhism is interested in phenomena more than content most of the time. It doesn't matter what it is, it's not-self. This isn't how things are in the suttas, but since you're going for stream entry, I'm assuming you're following the progress of insight.
So while I can't say for sure if AF is really new, or if it's really different from enlightenment, I can say that, personally, it's working much better than the mystical paths I used to follow. I like to understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and this is the first time I can really say both of these things are present in my practice. MY mind used to be such a mystery. Now it's just not. I can actively control myself. I can see an emotional problem, I can see the logical way to work out this problem, and after I have done so, I can see the results directly tied to my efforts. This seems like the key to success to me.
I'll take a look at that article, though it might take me a while to respond.

Eva M Nie:
I haven't heard any thinking that equanimity means lack of unsatisfactoriness, just that you feel way more mellow and chill about it, things that used to majorly bug now are like minor irritations. Oh except for when life itself feels like infinitely boring as hell which I understand can also be part of equanimity. And equanimity can be had prepath according to many.
Isn't it still a state, though? Isn't enlightenment a state? If things change and are better, it's a state. If they don't change, then it's not a state, but, then, what's the point? I asked this in my very first thread here, as well as in a number of other places, and I still don't feel like I've gotten a good answer. To me, if you're aiming for enlightenment, you're just giving up if you accept there is still suffering after it happens.
Eva M Nie:
Well yeah, I'd say so! But I have for some time been of the opinion that DN is about a person's undealt with crap that needs to be dealt with and will keep coming up as long as it is undealt with, so if we were to assume my opinion is right on that, then dealing with your crap would be the logical way to go. Of course, the next argument would be how that is to be done which is what we are already discussing.
If you had never heard of buddhism or actual freedom or any other methods, what would you do, just thinking logically, to make your life more pleasant for yourself?
Eva M Nie:
Well I think it's worth keeping in mind, back in Buddha's day, there was no psychology as we currently know it and there weren't many methods developed like they are now.
Not quite true. A lot of what I use was invented in Greece around the same time the Buddha lived. And actually, I've come up with most of my practice on my own, just through trial and error. It's not so difficult to come up with methods to change the mind once you decide to take full responsibility for it and give it a bit of study.
Eva M Nie:
I think the assumption inherent in the argument here is that the PCE is what happens when you get that other crap out of the way. Assuming that assumption is correct, then the obvious thing to do if more crap came up in the future to get in the way of the PCE would be to deal with that crap the same way you dealt with previous crap. And that assumption also explains why you could argue you are not 'trying' for PCE in the future so much as trying in the now to deal with your crap and the PCE is just a natural outcome that will happen in the future IF you deal with your crap in the now.
If you do the thing properly, you won't be allowing new crap to be created. Try this quickly: see if you can't remember a time where something that bothers you today didn't actually bother you. For me, I can remember the first time I encountered a house centipede. I had, literally, no reaction to it. I didn't know what it was. I can remember back and see how I created my fear of them over time as they appeared more often in my house. If you are watching you emotional state, you will see this kind of thing forming and be able to stop it right away. Once the PCE is stabilized, you don't even need to think about it.
Daniel Leffler:
It's true that my method involves letting go of control (and everything else), that's why I thought 'dropping the guard' was the same thing. I find there is a slight tension (heart center contraction) in trying to control ones experience (anything outside of completely letting go), so bare awareness lets things be just as they are and nature takes over.
That tension comes from trying to let go of the feeling itself without understanding the cause. It's the mind saying, "NO, I haven't gotten through to you yet!" Notice that I didn't say a person drops their guard, but rather that the process itself drops the guard by finding the
cause of the emotion and letting go of
that. This purposeful letting go works because the cause of the emotion is diffused. So you don't let go of anger, you let go of the social imperative to be correct or stronger or better, and the anger goes away instantly.
Daniel Leffler:
Funny you should mention public speaking however. I do have issues with it and it's the one thing (so far) that I would actively like to 'fix'. Perhaps Actaulism practice (or NLP or...) would be the thing to practice in that scenario where there are specific fears/phobias to overcome.
For this, I would spend some time visualizing the worst things I could imagine about public speaking (like the proverbial naked dream, haha) and practice remaining calm in said situations. I would also actively give myself permission to be seen as stupid, to give out bad information, to hurt people's feelings, to become a social outcaste - all the things I might fear happening. Just an example.
Daniel Leffler:
True - sometimes I feel like a ship lost at sea, most of the time I do not. Strong beliefs in something (religion, Actualism, Vipassana) tend to negate those groundless feelings in perpetuity and that's why people love views, they cling to things like guns and religion (and Actualism). It alleviates that sense of groundlessness for a time, as long as those delusional ideas (delusional according to Buddhist teaching like the nature of reality, Three Cs etc) are held tightly to.
Well, what I see as alleviating the feeling of groundlessness for me these days is my direct understanding of my own mind. I can look in there and understand it. This is better than any views or beliefs I've had in the past.
Daniel Leffler:
Well, I think that's a very healthy view that you have, but maybe a relative one. I also understand the paradox of aiming for a state or mindset while abandoning the effort to get there and surrendering to reality (the moment at hand).
I think this is a mischaracterization of what I said, though. I don't need to abandon effort to achieve a PCE because I know exactly what effort will get me there. The whole point I'm trying to make is that there is no mystery. The PCE will only happen when the mind is clear. In fact, it's just a label for a clear mind. So it isn't the same as using acceptance and hoping it will get you to a pleasant state - doing that, you're going to focus on that pleasant state even if you know you're not "supposed" to. Radical acceptance has no path or step by step process, you just have to do it and hope it'll eventually work every time.
Daniel Leffler:
What I am referring to is Actualisms central teaching of (seemingly) reaching a state and staying in it, In my understanding Buddhism has what I would call a larger view, it's about cultivating states sure, but the bigger picture is about cultivating wisdom.
Not quite. The goal of actualism is freedom from emotions. The PCE is a temporary stste where you can see what it's like to be free from emotions. Someone who has finally gotten rid of their emotional center would be living in a PCE, yes, but it isn't a state that magically comes and goes - it's just a way of describing an experience without emotions. It isn't mystical, so it's easy to see how it all works.
Daniel Leffler:
What is the nature of wisdom: joy (call it felicity if you like that word) equanimity (fearlessness if you prefer) compassion (you like harmlessness) and love (wonder perhaps). Those aren't emotions in the context of the Brahmaviharas or a self-based experience. They are simply words that are pointing toward the nature of wisdom, of knowing, the content of emptiness if you will, what is left after everything is taken away.
Felicity, wonder, joy, etc, are way of moving towards a PCE. Richard says that a happy and harmless person has the greatest chance of letting the PCE happen - note, he doesn't use those words to describe the PCE itself. In the PCE there is no way to relate to an internal experience. It's all just gone. You can keep saying that I'm just using other words, but I assure you, I'm really not, haha. There is, simply, literally, no emotional experience in the PCE. The heart is gone, the intestines are gone, there is just nothing there. There is no conceivable way to compare it to an emotional experience. If you don't want to believe in it, or you think it sounds horrifying, that's okay (I might have agreed with you before, even) but it's simply the truth as I've seen it, and actualism is the only place I've seen it explained. I can't tell you why it's so good...it's just, the body loves it, the senses love it. It's complete freedom.
Daniel Leffler:
No not really correct but I think there's a paradox here. This is the entrance to compassion. Would you be happy as others around you suffered greatly? Or feel felicity or whatever? I would submit that that is quite a selfish, a self-centered state and an extremely deep but very subtle ego-centricity that isn't open to the feelings of other beings and is only focused on oneself.
Neither happy nor unhappy. Think of it this way, all the senses are facing outward. There is no internal reference point. An emotionless person is more capable of truly understanding other people because they have no internal reference to distract them or filter their experience. I've seen this first hand in my own experience.
You would understand people are suffering, but you wouldn't suffer at all, nor would you be happy, nor would you feel good about their suffering. None of this exists in the PCE, everything internal is gone.
But then, a compassionate person is immersed in pleasant feelings relating to the suffering of other people. Isn't that what you just said was self-centered? Judgements aside, a compassionate person is still self-focused. They are immersed in their feelings. This is not intimacy, as seen in the PCE. As long as you feel anything at all, you are not "here and now," as they say.
Daniel Leffler:
In the nature of disagreement, I will ask you this (regarding the compassion that you/Actualism negates). What is the source of your urge to be harmless? Is it intellectual? What is the underlying cause of that natural expression of harmlessness that you have experienced in a PCE?
Harmlessness is not referring to Buddhist harmlessness - the Actualist aims to remove feelings of nurture as well as negative feelings. Buddhism creates many inhibitions regarding morality, sexuality, etc that would make it impossible to practice actualism.
The PCE has a complete lack of malice - which means all people are encountered without any kind of barrier, no warding, no bubble of protection. This means the actualist is harmless.
When I am not in the PCE, the feeling of malice towards other people is notably uncomfortable. This is because it is an internal contraction of actual muscles (or the nervous impression of contraction). The same contractions happen for "good" feelings too, which is why the PCE is so much better. No internal lumps exist, every tension has been resolved.
Daniel Leffler:
There is a delineation between accuracy and scientific understanding and subtle arrogance, and I would argue it's a fine line. You are the emotions, you are the central nervous system, Actualism is a brand new discovery, as Byron Katie would say, is that true?
If I may say so without sounding arrogant, I haven't felt any arrogance about actualism.

To be honest, when I first encountered it, I didn't like it. As I learned more about it I could only admit to liking the methods. Now, I can confidently say that it has been very different from my experience with Buddhism. Don't mistake confidence for arrogance, I really have very little stake in the term itself (or the brand, as you'd say).
Daniel Leffler:
So as not to offend, the subtle arrogance I referred to above, is not thinking you're better than other people, I think we're all (relatively) humble. It's religious arrogance that thinks theirs is better, new, or something special. It's simply Wrong View IMO
But is it wrong to point out the differences in something that's genuinely different? I don't want to tell you what's going on in your own mind (that always turns out disastrously) but it might be worthwhile to turn your critical eye around for a moment and examine why you want to prove that Actualism is the same thing as Buddhism. There has been a lot of anger on this forum towards Actualism, and I think it's because it's disconcerting to hear that there might be another option, and that option might not be compatible with the current practice. That's actually how I've felt about the whole pragmatic dharma scene since the beginning, my ideas never quite fit, so it was nice to find something I could actually relate to in the AF stuff.
John Wilde:
On a key theme of this thread: harmlessness and compassion.
One thing that hasn't been brought out yet is that compassion implies relationship, whereas benignity/ harmlessness doesn't.
This is one of the keys to understanding the difference between actualism and the other approaches we talk about here.
Exactly, an absence of malice is not the same thing as the presence of compassion. Beoman touched on this a bit.
As a general note, I'm not sure I'm going to have time to do very long replies for a while, but I'd like to keep this conversation going. Daniel, maybe if we were to talk about one or two thing at a time this would be easier, haha. I am enjoying talking to you, though. I've been able to clarify a lot of things for myself while trying to explain them, and I've noticed an improvement in my practice.