www.dharmaoverground.org Guest

Forum: Actual Freedom as 4th Path Experience

I figure the Dharma Battleground is as good a place as any for this. My view, just to make this clear, is that Richards 'Actual Freedom' is a misdiagnosed 3rd and 4th path accompanied by a unique 'view'

-Chuck

It's an interesting hypothesis, Chuck. It would help to explain some questions I have had. For example, why do the AF advocates insist that a self persists after 4th Path, or that there are two selves? These assertions are not consistent with enlightenment.

There's more to this story, however, as Tarin points out above. Here is a quote from an online discussion that Chris located yesterday:

> Upon recovering from this delusion, [Richard] claims that his entire
> affective faculty disappeared completely. Since 1992 he claims to
> have experienced no emotions whatsoever, and has been assessed
> independently by two psychiatrists as being alexithymic,
> depersonalised, derealised and anhedonic. (The psychiatrists who
> diagnosed alexithymia verified his claim that not only was he unable
> to experience emotions, he did not exhibit any physical signs of
> emotion.)

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/2003-December/056413.html

Whether Richard is enlightened or not, his condition is pathological. It is by no means something to be admired, mimicked, celebrated, or aspired to, IMHO. As Haquan so eloquently put it, "you are going to mess yourself up in that endeavor." I hope that our readers will recognize a kooky cult when they see it and stay away. I realize that there will always be cults and cult leaders. And there will always be people who feel drawn to eccentric or anomalous personalities. Unfortunately, these things end up badly as often as not. Not so long ago, a man and a woman who claimed to be messengers from God managed to talk 37 people into dying with them in a group suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)

This is just one example of how a seemingly sincere claim of "specialness" can cause a great deal of heartache. Play with cults at your peril.

Kenneth

Hi Kenneth,
I don't think I would pass as 'normal' by western psychological standards. They wouldn't relate to my communing with rocks or trees nor could they relate to my experiences of self, time, reality, etc. I think this is a good topic – To what extent can an awakened person be considered normal by western standards of psychology?
Let's just look at what Richard says and try to get the context of those statements first. I really think we need to first look at our starting point – as in my response to Tarin.

-Chuck

Author: AlanChapman

@Tarin: Just a quick query, if Richard does not feel any emotion whatsoever, how can the goal of Actualism be 'happiness'?

One approach to this issue in general is not to look at what other people are saying about Richard but look at his own words and not just simple statements like "I don't experience emotion" or whatever (that was not a quote - just an example). Let's look for indications of how he lives. Obviously, he created a website and answered lots of questions. He certainly seems to be interested in helping others find this state. These are better indicator of his experience then simple statements that are being thrown around that just become the basis for arguments.

It certainly seems that if one has the sense that there is something left to accomplish on the spiritual path, then you probably aren't an arahat. What's incorrect about that statement?

The same for reacting to any portion of your experience with aversion, including a sense of self, or even "the feeling of being." If you want to get rid of the feeling of being, then there is something about your present experience that is unsatisfactory - you would rather it was a different way, no?

You know, I think the hidden duality here may derive from the idea that "the world is not illusory." Well it may not be illusory, but it ain't real either...

[Edited to remove names, none of this is personal as David pointed out earlier]

Bravo, Trent! A perfect counterpoint to the perspective offered by nonduality IMHO. This is very much in keeping with how I relate to these competing perspectives based on practical experience and careful consideration over a prolonged period of time.

Craig

"One approach to this issue in general is not to look at what other people are saying about Richard but look at his own words and not just simple statements like "I don't experience emotion" or whatever (that was not a quote - just an example). Let's look for indications of how he lives. Obviously, he created a website and answered lots of questions. He certainly seems to be interested in helping others find this state. These are better indicator of his experience then simple statements that are being thrown around that just become the basis for arguments."-Chelek

Surely you jest. Name one deranged cult leader who was not interested in "helping others to find" the state that he was in the business of promoting.

'Do you feel we are all speaking of the same state (at least in theory). That is to say – are you, Richard, and I all speaking of arahat (defined as post fourth path) when we use these terms? '

richard uses neither the term arahat nor post fourth path, but what i understand these terms to mean - and what i understand about how you understand these terms - would be included in his definition of enlightenment.

'Do you relate to how Richard describes enlightenment in your own experience of arahat? 'If not, how is it different?'

richard's description of the condition of enlightenment is wide and varying, and some aspects i relate to and others i dont. for example, the wholeness he talks about, yes. the suffusion in love and compassion, no.

'I would say terms like 'anxiety' or 'fear' are experienced very differently in third vs fourth.'

i dont think the 3rd vs 4th path difference in how things like 'anxiety' or 'fear' are experienced has any bearing on their total and utter absence in a pce (pure consciousness experience), which is how richard experiences 24/7. if you disagree, could you clarify?

also, would you answer the question i ask above, in reply 1? that is, 'does your current, every day experience of 4th path exclude these [all affective experiences] entirely and continuously, such that they never even begin to arise?

Author: AlanChapman

Trent, as an arahat, you would know that the objective world of smashed fingers is neither lllusory or real, from moment to moment. No imagination required.

Hi Bruno,
I didn't know how to answer the question in a way that would be useful. That's why I didn't respond.

-Chuck

OK, ponder this for a while and we can take it from there.

Not really chuck, from my perspective the question seems answerable!

There are many sensations which I have learn to give a name for, generally called "emotions." I am sure that you once could answer this very same question more definitely ("yes, I sometimes feel love/hate/fear/etc"). But this seems not to be the case any longer.

You say: I don't feel that I can define this experience in terms of what phenomena appear or do not appear. The experience itself is void of any definable qualities. It would be like defining the sky in terms of what clouds you happen to see.

But we're talking about the clouds here, do you see "clouds" you recognize as emotions? That is the question Maybe the answer is yes, no, or yes but differently than before, and then "how differently?" begs an answer.

Not really... it seems you only care to explain it through metaphor. Care to try again?

Well, I guess I will find out sooner or later...

Take care

This has been something on my mind recently, and maybe it will be helpful to someone if I voice it.

Say that, pre-enlightenment, people tend to have an experience with properties X,Y, and Z, and call it an emotion. Post-enlightenment, they now have an experience with properties Y and Z only. Is it an emotion? Is it not an emotion?

It seems as if there is a choice at this point: focus on the fact that X is not present and say "no, it isn't an emotion, emotions require X too", or focus on the fact that Y and Z remain, and say "yes, it is an emotion, but somehow different than before."

In this case there is no real answer to whether the experience contains emotions or not, just a matter of deciding whether one wants to emphasize the change, or to emphasize the qualities that continue despite the change.