Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Books and Websites

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 4:02 PM
Heather MacDonald:
This line I found curious... "the spiritual aspirant who wishes to further their search into the area that lies beyond enlightenment (and any other form of an altered state of consciousness)".

Can there be "an area beyond enlightenment" or does he just mean after enlightenment?
...
From what I gather enlightenment is actually the transcending of the limitations of all forms of consciousness; whether physical, psychological or spiritual. Maybe I've just been talking to the wrong guyemoticon


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Well, there are enlightened folk here and at KFD (Kenneth Folk Dharma) that seem to still be meditating and looking for stuff to do, so it seems there is... as well as enlightened folk who went on to attain an Actual Freedom, so it seems something different than or superseding what people consider enlightenment nowadays (which may or may not be what it was considered to be in, for example, the Buddha's time).


Enlightenment appears to be a very subjective claim to fame so to speak, there seems to an enlightened guru on every street corner selling his/her wares. So many say this, so many say that. It’s all maybe this, maybe that or maybe the other. The simple way out of that conundrum is to dip your toes into the water and fully submerge. We’ve got to know directly, otherwise its just blind acceptance and/or total self delusional belief. When words/actions fail to indicate any advanced state of being, it is easy enough to see through the pretentious or delusional claims of guru’s.

I cannot see why enlightenment would change though, for surely Truth is Truth. It would seem logical that if one attained enlightenment, one would no longer have to use the tools which led to that state of being. Therefore, why continue with meditation, or take up another form of practice? Surely an enlightened person would know whether a technique would work or not.

Heather MacDonald:
So we can't be too superficial about an essential problem which humanity has ignored for so long. If we face it, we'll understand it - totally.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
and that's what the actualist method is designed to get one to do.. understand your human nature so thoroughly that it disappears.


You’re not asking me to accept that human nature simply disappears are you? I mean, I read the sample chapters of Richard’s Journal, wherein he talks of his great delight in the wonders of travel, drinking coffee in cafes, shopping, exploring his and his lover’s sexuality. Are these not examples of the human condition in action…attraction, appreciation, indulgence, etc. Is sexuality not an instinctive aspect of being human? So if he’s totally transcended human nature, why would he be interested in the indulgence of such. Do you actually understand the vast difference between human nature and the human condition?

Heather MacDonald:
How "intrinsic" and/or "inherent" is all the bad stuff to the human condition. I'd say it isn't intrinsic or inherent at all, that gets us off on the wrong foot. I'd say, look at the conditions which give rise to the madness. Which came first? Can we know? Yep, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, however we can solve this one.

When people are born into violence, hate, etc, obviously they are going to think it normal, and that is the essence, they think it. Thinking can change, there is no set pattern. Nothing intrinsic.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
it's not the social conditioning that is the issue, it's human nature itself.


Okay, you’re saying human nature, however Richard either forgot to mention that, and used the term “the human condition”- with apparent deliberation, or you are using the wrong term to interpret what he means.

A condition relates directly to a state, not to the fundamental nature. If I was sick with a tummy bug, I would not assume that my fundamental human nature is sick, or that Human Nature itself is sick, just that there is a condition of sickness affecting a particular aspect of my being.

So if he means human nature, why can’t Richard make this clear from the outset? Intrinsic can apply to human nature, but does not necessarily apply to the human condition. Intrinsic means integral, essential, something we cannot do without. I’d suggest that there is absolutely no requirement for anger, jealousy, etc, but that these are a condition of misidentification. In other words, all emotions are conditional to a certain way of perception and identification, not actually an intrinsic aspect of human nature.

Richard makes no explanation as to why he believes that “human condition” is inherently at fault. He simply makes a general sweeping statement which he assumes all will take at face value. It’s like a Christian saying, “Well, god made us this way”. So, if god made us good and bad (in whatever combination), what’s the problem? Why distrust the wisdom of god? Why try to hide the bad? The simple answer being; there is no good or bad, just an interpretation of what applies directly to ourselves in a particular circumstance according to our particular point of view.


Richard:
The instinctual passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the iceberg and not the main issue at all. All the different types of conditioning are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over countless aeons to seek to curb the instinctual passions. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and re-arrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition. [link]


Yes, “the human condition”, I read that phrase in the first paragraph. Sorry, but the above quote does not help, if anything, it muddies the waters even more.

It is sheer speculation to insert terms which are not actually known to be true… “reptile brain”, “animal self”. I mean, take “the human animal”. That is a meaningless additive which assumes too much concerning humans and animals – a loaded term.

If we are genuinely enquiring into what it is we are, we cannot begin with any set idea, for we have no basis for any idea. An idea is just an idea, a thought, a fiction. Ideas such as “instinctual passions” “animal self”, etc, come not from Richard’s objective observation, but from sources external and prior to Richard – from the very problem itself.

It’s like where he states as fact; “The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this”. That is just so much nonsense on so many levels.

I could present a case as to why animals are aware of their death and their own sense of self (which I’m sure to most pet owners would be obvious fact). I can also present a case whereby the mind itself transforms feeling into identification thus overlapping thought as a ‘thinker’ as an ‘I’. If I were writing an introduction I would elucidate the complete process, something Richard fails to do with the above quote.

It is typical of Richard of course, for he simply drops terms in, assuming either the reader will know what he’s talking about or maybe he just lacks the wherewithal to understand that few will understand what a “pure conscious experience” is. This is why I suspect Richard isn’t so enlightened after all, there are too many schoolboy errors in that introduction. Communication is only communication when there is clarity.

Heather MacDonald:
But then isn't Richard saying this too when he ends with... "I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition". Maybe he just doesn't understand what intrinsic implies or thought it would add a little drama. But words have to be use correctly, otherwise they mislead and then where are we?

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
all the bad stuff (and the good stuff[1]) is intrinsic to the human condition. you can't have the human condition without the bad stuff. so he advocates being totally free from the human condition - removing it completely. the bad stuff is still intrinsic to the human condition.. it's just that you can exist as a human being without being subject to the human condition. in other words, having human nature is not intrinsic to being consciously aware as a flesh&blood body.

[1] EDIT: see below for clarification.


There is nothing intrinsic concerning the human condition for the human condition can be anything depending upon the input – the conditioning factors – physical and psychological. A friend of mine put it perfectly… “Human nature is the hardware, conditioning - the software. When you reach basic nature, there’s nothing to change, there is no problem”.

If human nature is not intrinsic to being aware how can we be aware?

It would be more accurate to say that if pleasure is our central focus then we’ll experience pain due to events not going our way - or if we are so self centred as not to realize our place in the scheme of things, we’ll suffer - not due to the nature of Nature, but due to our own orientation, expectation, demands, etc.

But really you are not helping Richards case, for as I stated above he thinks shopping is so wonderful. He actually sounds like a kid in a sweetshop, which would be fair enough, but Richard claims to be “enlightened beyond enlightenment”. So why overlook the point of origin of the “abundant” supply, the conditions of the farming methods, the effect of such upon the planet, the conditions of the workers, etc. Only an ignoramus can elevate a shopping experience into a religious one.

He bemoans of “vehemently unappreciative peoples”. Ask yourself why Richard. These people have to struggle by, obviously most of it is due to their own ambition, their own pursuit of some silly unsustainable ideal lifestyle to which they willingly conform, but for those who do not want to conform to the consumerist standard, they still need money to survive – they have no option as this is a consumerist society and its laws will be imposed. Again Richard cannot quite comprehend the “belittling” of such. He also has a dig at the “developing nations” depending on the great white hope, maybe he’s a rep for Monsanto? The serious point being, that the “developing nations” are in actual fact “recovering nations” from the aftermath of English or European invasion and rule.

There really is so much wrong with Richard that if that is what it is like to be “beyond enlightenment”, then no thanks. It simply smacks of a stupid self indulgence. He has the blinkers on, and readily admits so… “I am immensely appreciative of being alive now and not at some other age in which I would have had to struggle for my “daily bread”... those dreadful times one reads about in the history books and literary works”. Well for most life is a struggle, but it’s a question of why, again there is nothing intrinsic, nothing that cannot be made right with a little adjustment.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 3:29 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Hi Heather,You might want to fix the quotes in your psot as the wall of words is impossible to read.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 3:50 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Before we go on can you define exactly what you mean by human nature and human condition and how you differentiate the two? I admit I was using them interchangeably and maybe not the way Richard was, but you seem to have used it a bit interchangeably too:

Heather MacDonald:
You’re not asking me to accept that human nature simply disappears are you? I mean, I read the sample chapters of Richard’s Journal, wherein he talks of his great delight in the wonders of travel, drinking coffee in cafes, shopping, exploring his and his lover’s sexuality. Are these not examples of the human condition in action…

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 3:57 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nikolai .:
Hi Heather,You might want to fix the quotes in your psot as the wall of words is impossible to read.


Yep, total mess. Looked fine in the preview!

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 4:25 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Before we go on can you define exactly what you mean by human nature and human condition and how you differentiate the two? I admit I was using them interchangeably and maybe not the way Richard was, but you seem to have used it a bit interchangeably too:

Heather MacDonald:
You’re not asking me to accept that human nature simply disappears are you? I mean, I read the sample chapters of Richard’s Journal, wherein he talks of his great delight in the wonders of travel, drinking coffee in cafes, shopping, exploring his and his lover’s sexuality. Are these not examples of the human condition in action…


Appearances are deceptiveemoticon I'm using these terms very accurately within the context of this discussion. I use human nature in the sense of the natural workings of our body, our mind. The human condition is simply conditioning. It's like the way people have tried to modify their bodies through out history. They can modify the body by tatoos, by piercings, by implanting whatever, but that doesn't change the nature of the body. The body remains intrinsically as it was. Likewise, with the mind. We can be brought up to be christian, and yet, that does not fundamentally alter the way our mind works. It shapes our preception, it colours our perception, but it does not intrinsically alter the mind itself. I mean, I can memorize the works of Shakespeare or Mao, the content matters little to how the memory works. The content only matters when there is an identification with such as "my knowledge" - as "Me".

So to clarify... I'm suggesting that neither Richard nor anyone else can possibly be beyond human nature, but they can go beyond human conditioning.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 5:12 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Heather MacDonald:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Before we go on can you define exactly what you mean by human nature and human condition and how you differentiate the two? I admit I was using them interchangeably and maybe not the way Richard was, but you seem to have used it a bit interchangeably too:

Heather MacDonald:
You’re not asking me to accept that human nature simply disappears are you? I mean, I read the sample chapters of Richard’s Journal, wherein he talks of his great delight in the wonders of travel, drinking coffee in cafes, shopping, exploring his and his lover’s sexuality. Are these not examples of the human condition in action…


Appearances are deceptiveemoticon I'm using these terms very accurately within the context of this discussion.
That was the only paragraph that was unclear to me. I didn't see what you were getting at, but did you mean that if he had transcended human nature, as you understand it, there would be no human condition, as you understand it, since the human condition is a conditioning of that human nature, which is gone - so evidence of the latter shows evidence that he hasn't transcended human nature?

Heather MacDonald:
I use human nature in the sense of the natural workings of our body, our mind. The human condition is simply conditioning. It's like the way people have tried to modify their bodies through out history. They can modify the body by tatoos, by piercings, by implanting whatever, but that doesn't change the nature of the body. The body remains intrinsically as it was. Likewise, with the mind. We can be brought up to be christian, and yet, that does not fundamentally alter the way our mind works. It shapes our preception, it colours our perception, but it does not intrinsically alter the mind itself. I mean, I can memorize the works of Shakespeare or Mao, the content matters little to how the memory works. The content only matters when there is an identification with such as "my knowledge" - as "Me".

So to clarify... I'm suggesting that neither Richard nor anyone else can possibly be beyond human nature, but they can go beyond human conditioning.
Of course, no one can go beyond human nature as you defined it, since you defined it as that which no one can go beyond. Can you be more specific, though? Can you define for me what you take to be the fundamental way the (human) mind works, that cannot be altered, and what you take to be the (human) conditioning of the mind, that can be gone beyond?

Heather MacDonald:
When words/actions fail to indicate any advanced state of being, it is easy enough to see through the pretentious or delusional claims of guru’s.

What words/actions would indicate an advanced state of being to you (i.e. one with no human conditioning, if I understand that to be what you meant by an advanced state of being)?

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 5:01 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Heather MacDonald:
It would be more accurate to say that if pleasure is our central focus then we’ll experience pain due to events not going our way - or if we are so self centred as not to realize our place in the scheme of things, we’ll suffer - not due to the nature of Nature, but due to our own orientation, expectation, demands, etc.

But really you are not helping Richards case, for as I stated above he thinks shopping is so wonderful. He actually sounds like a kid in a sweetshop, which would be fair enough, but Richard claims to be “enlightened beyond enlightenment”. So why overlook the point of origin of the “abundant” supply, the conditions of the farming methods, the effect of such upon the planet, the conditions of the workers, etc. Only an ignoramus can elevate a shopping experience into a religious one.

He bemoans of “vehemently unappreciative peoples”. Ask yourself why Richard. These people have to struggle by, obviously most of it is due to their own ambition, their own pursuit of some silly unsustainable ideal lifestyle to which they willingly conform, but for those who do not want to conform to the consumerist standard, they still need money to survive – they have no option as this is a consumerist society and its laws will be imposed. Again Richard cannot quite comprehend the “belittling” of such. He also has a dig at the “developing nations” depending on the great white hope, maybe he’s a rep for Monsanto? The serious point being, that the “developing nations” are in actual fact “recovering nations” from the aftermath of English or European invasion and rule.

There really is so much wrong with Richard that if that is what it is like to be “beyond enlightenment”, then no thanks. It simply smacks of a stupid self indulgence. He has the blinkers on, and readily admits so… “I am immensely appreciative of being alive now and not at some other age in which I would have had to struggle for my “daily bread”... those dreadful times one reads about in the history books and literary works”.

It doesn't follow that being “beyond enlightenment” will result in another Richardalike, nor that a practical investigation of AF wont be a value to you or afford insights that might be unavailable through other means. Also, there may be new AFers who can extract a more lasting message from their condition, so to speak, at some point.

However, the very real question remains as to why AF hasn't stopped Richard from appearing such a smug and self righteous, politically naive and culturally myopic... (I'm not sure how to finish this sentence...) bore.

And however happy and harmless he may feel, or I should say, judge himself to be, with such an apparently contingent and highly conditioned world view (presumably mistaken as an objective evaluation), he will remain the dupe and tool of whatever (political, economic & other) forces are playing through his life, for good or for ill.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/10/11 5:43 PM as a reply to mico mico.
"However, the very real question remains as to why AF hasn't stopped Richard from appearing such a smug and self righteous, politically naive and culturally myopic... (I'm not sure how to finish this sentence...) bore."

Why does he "appear" this way to you and not to someone else. Does the writing change or is it the perception?

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 4:02 AM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
"Why does he "appear" this way to you"

The word 'appear' is much less libelous, don't you think?

"...and not to someone else."

Someone like Richard?

"Does the writing change or is it the perception?"

I'm sure sarcasm must be celebrating it's immunity to AF (perhaps dancing with its patronizing friends).

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 7:21 AM as a reply to mico mico.
mico mico:
"Why does he "appear" this way to you"

The word 'appear' is much less libelous, don't you think?

"...and not to someone else."

Someone like Richard?

"Does the writing change or is it the perception?"

I'm sure sarcasm must be celebrating it's immunity to AF (perhaps dancing with its patronizing friends).


And your sarcasm is keeping you from simply responding to the question? Or better yet, simply entertaining the possibility which Jeff mentions? Really, you don't understand what he was asking? Or are you just playing? LOL

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 10:17 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Before we go on can you define exactly what you mean by human nature and human condition and how you differentiate the two? I admit I was using them interchangeably and maybe not the way Richard was, but you seem to have used it a bit interchangeably too:

Heather MacDonald:
You’re not asking me to accept that human nature simply disappears are you? I mean, I read the sample chapters of Richard’s Journal, wherein he talks of his great delight in the wonders of travel, drinking coffee in cafes, shopping, exploring his and his lover’s sexuality. Are these not examples of the human condition in action…


Heather MacDonald:
Appearances are deceptiveemoticon I'm using these terms very accurately within the context of this discussion.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
That was the only paragraph that was unclear to me. I didn't see what you were getting at, but did you mean that if he had transcended human nature, as you understand it, there would be no human condition, as you understand it, since the human condition is a conditioning of that human nature, which is gone - so evidence of the latter shows evidence that he hasn't transcended human nature?


It seems that no one could possibly have their human nature disappear and remain human. Human nature (to me anyway), is the most basic functioning of what it is to be human, that which underlies the human condition. It’s really like memory. Memory underlies all learning. If memory disappeared, there would be no learning.

In the example of Richard indulging in sex for instance… why would he desire it as he suggests he’s beyond instincts, beyond the human condition, beyond emotions, etc (hence my question: “Are these not examples of the human condition in action”). However his words imply he was exploring, learning, not only that but really enjoying himself while doing so.

I’m not saying that sex isn’t natural nor that it shouldn’t be fully enjoyed, but if what you say is true (human nature disappears) then Richard would not have the nature to be sexual. He would be beyond it in the sense that a baby is beyond sexuality – it simply would not exist – it simply could not exist. Sex takes desire, it takes emotion, feeling, it takes the activation of certain hormones, etc. So, either way, Richard loses out… his delusion is naked for the world to see – the king indeed has no clothes.

The phrases weren’t used interchangeably, but in direct relation to what yourself and Richard have said… if the human condition is an active aspect of Richard’s life then he would indulge himself in whatever. If human nature does not exist, the human condition certainly can’t, but human nature certainly could exist without the human condition. So it's really whether the sexual expression (or whatever) is an aspect of human nature or of the human condition. I'm suggesting that by pursuing sex, i.e. trying to learn it, explore its possibilities, etc, it is of the human condition and is not of the natural human nature.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 10:26 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Heather MacDonald:
So to clarify... I'm suggesting that neither Richard nor anyone else can possibly be beyond human nature, but they can go beyond human conditioning.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Of course, no one can go beyond human nature as you defined it, since you defined it as that which no one can go beyond. Can you be more specific, though? Can you define for me what you take to be the fundamental way the (human) mind works, that cannot be altered, and what you take to be the (human) conditioning of the mind, that can be gone beyond?


The mind, human or otherwise, is memory. As I said, the content of memory can be anything, that does not alter the fact of how memory functions nor what memory is intrinsically.

It’s like the hard drive in your computer, it can store whatever information, but is not altered by that information it stores. Your hard drive will remain as it was when you installed it in the sense that the capacity to store information is the same. Even when your hard drive is damaged beyond repair, it’s fundamental nature remains in the sense that we can make another hard drive by applying the same principles.

Memory is memory and will always be memory.

Same with water… water can be mixed with other chemicals to make juice for instance, it can be polluted by poison, but ultimately it can be restored to its natural fundamental state by a process of purification. The actual water is never tarnished by whatever, its intrinsic state remains. Same with its form, water can be as soft as a droplet or as hard as an iceberg, however water is still water.

Heather MacDonald:
When words/actions fail to indicate any advanced state of being, it is easy enough to see through the pretentious or delusional claims of guru’s.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
What words/actions would indicate an advanced state of being to you (i.e. one with no human conditioning, if I understand that to be what you meant by an advanced state of being)?


Am I saying that people can be without completely without conditioning or simply responding to Richard's claims and your own. A person in an advanced state would be one who had far more insight into every aspect of life that your average Joe. Thier behaviour would be an impeccable reflection of thier words.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 10:40 AM as a reply to mico mico.
mico mico:
It doesn't follow that being “beyond enlightenment” will result in another Richardalike, nor that a practical investigation of AF wont be a value to you or afford insights that might be unavailable through other means. Also, there may be new AFers who can extract a more lasting message from their condition, so to speak, at some point.


Obviously, somebody more balanced ought to be more balanced given more insight, it is Richard's claim of supreme insight that bothers me and the claim that there is something "beyond enlightenment".

Methods don't differ that much. There have been many who have employed similar techniques as Richard proposes, although they do come out with a differing intrepretation of the end results. I find absolutely nothing unique within the Actual Freedom message.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 11:31 AM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Man, so many people get hung up on what Richard has said and wrote.

I also got hung up on what Richard said. You can find a few of my past posts where I am anti-AF here at the DhO. The solution to that was remembering that I'd had PCEs in my childhood, then intentionally triggering a full blown one, seeing that it was possible to repeat, seeing that it has changed me, and is continuing to change me for the better, life becoming happier, more at peace and in control, becoming harmless to those around me, especially loved ones.

I've tried to read the majority of Richard's journal, but it's so repetitive and not very practical that I gave up. It seems written to convince the reader of the uselessness of a "spiritual path". But I have found my path all the way to MCTB 4th path to be extremely useful. I probably would not have even considered AF and PCE practice without having seen how much I could change my brain via insight practice. I don't need to be convinced Richard's view of enlightenment. My goal was always to end suffering for good. MCTB 4th path did a good job of tempering some of that suffering, but it still has its root cause present---> attachment to "being" via the arising of affective feeling.

So rather than rely on Richard's personal way of communicating and some of his beliefs, I rely more so on the practical wisdom and experience of those here, like Tarin, Trent, Daniel and Stephanie. That is enough. I don't need to read into everything Richard has wrote. A lot of it doesn't impress. But the PCE practice does, my continued experience of the practical AF path does. I see it as continuing the notion of seeing this moment "as it is", as well as continuing the insightful search into the cause of suffering. MCTB 4th path exposed this "me" for the bundled conditioned mess it was. It made "things" a little less sticky but it didn't deal with the cause of the arising of suffering--> attachment to "being" via the arising of affective feelings, which then leads to craving, aversion and clinging and we all know how miserable that sequence is. This is the Human Condition in my opinion.

The Human Condition, I think, is what those on any enlightenment path are aiming to gain insight into and/or fix for the better. MCTB 4th path is equated to full enlightenment by many people. But I do not equate it to that. For me the idea of "full enlightenment" means I would have seen through ALL of it; the sense of centre point and the sense of being, all causes of suffering AND put them both to rest for good.

Richard railing against enlightenment becasue he equates what he got with "full enlightenment" is because he thinks that what he got to was "full enlightenment". Other modern teachers consider MCTB 4th path to be full enlightenment too. But it doesn't end suffering for good so why are so many being so stubborn about calling it "full enlightenment"?

4th path as described in MCTB just makes it easier to see and tend to that suffering. So many people would not be turned off from the AF path if Richard didn't rail on enlightenment like he does. I understand that where he got to (probably MCTB 4th path) was seen as unsatisfactory, and I agree...it is!

But was it "full enlightenment"? I am remaining open to the notion that MCTB 4th path is not. What is the frickin harm in that? I still am practicing on the AF path, just without taking on board more belief on what is what. MCTB 4th path exposed the Human Condition with great clarity, this is true. And frankly, the Human Condition SUCKS BALLS! We keep placing self/sense of being/affective feelings up on a pedestal. "It's the Human Condition and it can't be changed". Well, with that mindset, it wont...ever!.

But PCE practice shows that the conditioning factors for the cause of suffering can be stopped. I wish more people could just bypass what they disagree with concerning what Richard has said and just see for themselves that PCE practice, more than just cultivating a peaceful state, sheds light on the illusion that previously was not seen as one was fully immersed in it.

I still avoid reading a lot of the AF website due to some of the repetitive writing. Not saying it's all bad. The article on sensuousness and apperception is gold, and when Tarin or Trent post a link, I pay attention as it could be useful. But even though I don't take everything on board and find Richard hard to read soemtimes, as well as some of his ideas, I am still progressing on the path to what is termed Actual Freedom, because I see it as the end of suffering; exactly what I have alwasy been searching for. I see what needs to be done to address the cause of suffering. It just happens to be called AF by some. Strip it of the baggage and see the core. I have, and I reckon I am going to get it done soon.

S.N. Goenka tells a story of a little boy and his mother. The mother gives the little boy a bowl of deicilous kir. In it are cardamon seeds. The boy complains that he does not want to eat the kir due to the black stones that are in it. The mother tells him, take out the black stones and enjoy the rest, it is still delicious. When the boy one day realizes that the black stones are cardomon, he can then eat them.....or not. At least then he will enjoy the delicious benefits of the rest of the kir instead of throwing away the whole bowl without even trying it while arguing that, because he saw black stones in it, the whole thing must be made of shite.


My 2 cents.

Edited a few times to get this rant out of my system. Hehe!

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 1:10 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Heather MacDonald:
It’s like the hard drive in your computer, it can store whatever information, but is not altered by that information it stores. Your hard drive will remain as it was when you installed it in the sense that the capacity to store information is the same. Even when your hard drive is damaged beyond repair, it’s fundamental nature remains in the sense that we can make another hard drive by applying the same principles.

I think you are conflating the physical hard drive with the idea of a "Hard Drive". They are two different things.

A physical hard drive is a combination of molecules arranged in a certain way. The magnetic plates store the information. The physical hard drive is most certainly altered by the information it stores, as the storing of information is flipping the magnetic bits on the plate. If the physical hard drive were unalterable, it would be impossible for it to store information. Further, as you keep using it, the capacity to store information diminishes as it decays, sectors break, you might even lose your file data, etc. When the physical hard drive is damaged beyond repair, it simply cannot store information anymore.

By fundamental nature you seem to mean the idea of a "Hard Drive". That is - the physical hard drive was built to certain specifications and another one can be built like it. But that would be another physical hard drive - an entirely different one. The 'fundamental nature' you speak of is simply an idea, a concept in certain human minds. But that has nothing to do with the physical hard drive, which just sits there, spins around, and makes noises when given the appropriate electrical signals.

That is to say - the fundamental nature you speak of is nowhere to be found in the physical hard drive. It doesn't exist outside of an idea in certain human minds. The fundamental nature also has no capacity to store information - only the physical hard drive does. And also what is fundamental about something that didn't exist until 60 years ago or less?

Heather MacDonald:
The mind, human or otherwise, is memory. As I said, the content of memory can be anything, that does not alter the fact of how memory functions nor what memory is intrinsically.

Are you saying that human nature - the entirety of that which cannot be changed in humans - is memory? So someone who has completely transcended human conditioning would be left solely with memory and nothing else? There is no other function of the mind than memory? How are you reading these words and replying to them using only memory? And would the faculties that allow you to do that go away upon transcending the human condition (as you define it)?

(I was asking for an exhaustive list - what is the entirety of what you consider to be human nature?)

Heather MacDonald:
A friend of mine put it perfectly… “Human nature is the hardware, conditioning - the software. When you reach basic nature, there’s nothing to change, there is no problem”.

An Actual Freedom is basically the eradication of all the conditioning - and not only that, but the eradication of that which can be conditioned - 'being' itself - which also is equivalent to all feeling and emotion and instinctual passion vanishing. What's left is just the hardware - that is, just the physical body, along with the six senses, along with consciousness conscious of being consciousness, not to mention full retention of the physical and mental faculties such as motor control, intelligence, discernment, and memory. This also happens temporarily in a PCE.

I'm not asking you to accept or believe any of this. The recommended advice is to cultivate a PCE and see for yourself.

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 11:42 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
I just want to let you know how much I appreciate the clarity with which you've laid out the issues here. I've been having a lot of trouble in my own mind--drama I've created for myself, more accurately--about the interest so many highly intelligent people here have in AF. It helps those of us on the sidelines to hear someone articulate the relationship to enlightenment as you have here. I am in no way ready to undertake AF practice b/c I have to keep on with what I'm doing, as it's beginning to bear some fruit. But thank you for taking the time to unpack this question. If there were little heart emoticons, I'd throw in a couple of those!

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 2:15 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nikolai .:
Man, so many people get hung up on what Richard has said and wrote.

I also got hung up on what Richard said. You can find a few of my past posts where I am anti-AF here at the DhO. The solution to that was remembering that I'd had PCEs in my childhood, then intentionally triggering a full blown one, seeing that it was possible to repeat, seeing that it has changed me, and is continuing to change me for the better, life becoming happier, more at peace and in control, becoming harmless to those around me, especially loved ones.

I've tried to read the majority of Richard's journal, but it's so repetitive and not very practical that I gave up. It seems written to convince the reader of the uselessness of a "spiritual path". But I have found my path all the way to MCTB 4th path to be extremely useful. I probably would not have even considered AF and PCE practice without having seen how much I could change my brain via insight practice. I don't need to be convinced Richard's view of enlightenment. My goal was always to end suffering for good. MCTB 4th path did a good job of tempering some of that suffering, but it still has its root cause present---> attachment to "being" via the arising of affective feeling.

So rather than rely on Richard's personal way of communicating and some of his beliefs, I rely more so on the practical wisdom and experience of those here, like Tarin, Trent, Daniel and Stephanie. That is enough. I don't need to read into everything Richard has wrote. A lot of it doesn't impress. But the PCE practice does, my continued experience of the practical AF path does. I see it as continuing the notion of seeing this moment "as it is", as well as continuing the insightful search into the cause of suffering. MCTB 4th path exposed this "me" for the bundled conditioned mess it was. It made "things" a little less sticky but it didn't deal with the cause of the arising of suffering--> attachment to "being" via the arising of affective feelings, which then leads to craving, aversion and clinging and we all know how miserable that sequence is. This is the Human Condition in my opinion.

The Human Condition, I think, is what those on any enlightenment path are aiming to gain insight into and/or fix for the better. MCTB 4th path is equated to full enlightenment by many people. But I do not equate it to that. For me the idea of "full enlightenment" means I would have seen through ALL of it; the sense of centre point and the sense of being, all causes of suffering AND put them both to rest for good.

Richard railing against enlightenment becasue he equates what he got with "full enlightenment" is because he thinks that what he got to was "full enlightenment". Other modern teachers consider MCTB 4th path to be full enlightenment too. But it doesn't end suffering for good so why are so many being so stubborn about calling it "full enlightenment"?

4th path as described in MCTB just makes it easier to see and tend to that suffering. So many people would not be turned off from the AF path if Richard didn't rail on enlightenment like he does. I understand that where he got to (probably MCTB 4th path) was seen as unsatisfactory, and I agree...it is!

But was it "full enlightenment"? I am remaining open to the notion that MCTB 4th path is not. What is the frickin harm in that? I still am practicing on the AF path, just without taking on board more belief on what is what. MCTB 4th path exposed the Human Condition with great clarity, this is true. And frankly, the Human Condition SUCKS BALLS! We keep placing self/sense of being/affective feelings up on a pedestal. "It's the Human Condition and it can't be changed". Well, with that mindset, it wont...ever!.

But PCE practice shows that the conditioning factors for the cause of suffering can be stopped. I wish more people could just bypass what they disagree with concerning what Richard has said and just see for themselves that PCE practice, more than just cultivating a peaceful state, sheds light on the illusion that previously was not seen as one was fully immersed in it.

I still avoid reading a lot of the AF website due to some of the repetitive writing. Not saying it's all bad. The article on sensuousness and apperception is gold, and when Tarin or Trent post a link, I pay attention as it could be useful. But even though I don't take everything on board and find Richard hard to read soemtimes, as well as some of his ideas, I am still progressing on the path to what is termed Actual Freedom, because I see it as the end of suffering; exactly what I have alwasy been searching for. I see what needs to be done to address the cause of suffering. It just happens to be called AF by some. Strip it of the baggage and see the core. I have, and I reckon I am going to get it done soon.

S.N. Goenka tells a story of a little boy and his mother. The mother gives the little boy a bowl of deicilous kir. In it are cardamon seeds. The boy complains that he does not want to eat the kir due to the black stones that are in it. The mother tells him, take out the black stones and enjoy the rest, it is still delicious. When the boy one day realizes that the black stones are cardomon, he can then eat them.....or not. At least then he will enjoy the delicious benefits of the rest of the kir instead of throwing away the whole bowl without even trying it while arguing that, because he saw black stones in it, the whole thing must be made of shite.


My 2 cents.

Edited a few times to get this rant out of my system. Hehe!


Yes but by "remembering a PCE, then intentionally triggering a full blown one", aren't you just conditioning yourself again? It seems like the concept of Anchoring in NLP/Hypnosis to me. Attaching importance to a certain state of consciousness is fine if that's what you want, but is it a route to actual freedom or actual enlightenment?

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 2:52 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Heather MacDonald:
It’s like the hard drive in your computer, it can store whatever information, but is not altered by that information it stores. Your hard drive will remain as it was when you installed it in the sense that the capacity to store information is the same. Even when your hard drive is damaged beyond repair, it’s fundamental nature remains in the sense that we can make another hard drive by applying the same principles.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
I think you are conflating the physical hard drive with the idea of a "Hard Drive". They are two different things.

A physical hard drive is a combination of molecules arranged in a certain way. The magnetic plates store the information. The physical hard drive is most certainly altered by the information it stores, as the storing of information is flipping the magnetic bits on the plate. If the physical hard drive were unalterable, it would be impossible for it to store information. Further, as you keep using it, the capacity to store information diminishes as it decays, sectors break, you might even lose your file data, etc. When the physical hard drive is damaged beyond repair, it simply cannot store information anymore.

By fundamental nature you seem to mean the idea of a "Hard Drive". That is - the physical hard drive was built to certain specifications and another one can be built like it. But that would be another physical hard drive - an entirely different one. The 'fundamental nature' you speak of is simply an idea, a concept in certain human minds. But that has nothing to do with the physical hard drive, which just sits there, spins around, and makes noises when given the appropriate electrical signals.

That is to say - the fundamental nature you speak of is nowhere to be found in the physical hard drive. It doesn't exist outside of an idea in certain human minds. The fundamental nature also has no capacity to store information - only the physical hard drive does. And also what is fundamental about something that didn't exist until 60 years ago or less?


I knew you'd love that analogy, but not at all, there is no conflating going on here. The two are one, as I thought I hinted at. Perhaps you are too much the literalist to actually see what is being written, maybe I ought to have added 'holographic'emoticon I understand the nature of a hard drive, hence my use of such. The data does not alter the actual hard drive, the actual hard drive is simply a recording device. The recording process certainly alters the disk, but the data does nothing to the integrity of the actual drive! What matters is the memory process - that's what I'm saying. Same with the human memory, it matters not what is recorded therein. So conditions/conditioning matter not, the actual problem is another factor altogether.

Heather MacDonald:
The mind, human or otherwise, is memory. As I said, the content of memory can be anything, that does not alter the fact of how memory functions nor what memory is intrinsically.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Are you saying that human nature - the entirety of that which cannot be changed in humans - is memory? So someone who has completely transcended human conditioning would be left solely with memory and nothing else? There is no other function of the mind than memory? How are you reading these words and replying to them using only memory? And would the faculties that allow you to do that go away upon transcending the human condition (as you define it)?

(I was asking for an exhaustive list - what is the entirety of what you consider to be human nature?)


Nope. Memory is a function of memory. Without memory I couldn't possibly understand one word, this page would just be squiggles, spaces, etc. Without understanding the rules of English I would still be at a loss as to what somebody is saying. I mean, it is a bit like humour, it doesn't read very well does it, not compared to the spoken word. Memory is very literal without added layers of memory which can get the gist. I would say that intelligence is more than mere memory, just as creativity is. But observe yourself, how much is simply regurgitation???

Heather MacDonald:
A friend of mine put it perfectly… “Human nature is the hardware, conditioning - the software. When you reach basic nature, there’s nothing to change, there is no problem”.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Actual Freedom is basically the eradication of all the conditioning - and not only that, but the eradication of that which can be conditioned - 'being' itself - which also is equivalent to all feeling and emotion and instinctual passion vanishing. What's left is just the hardware - that is, just the physical body, along with the six senses, along with consciousness conscious of being consciousness, not to mention full retention of the physical and mental faculties such as motor control, intelligence, discernment, and memory. This also happens temporarily in a PCE.

I'm not asking you to accept or believe any of this. The recommended advice is to cultivate a PCE and see for yourself.


Well that's the bit I can't understand... "the eradication of that which can be conditioned - 'being' itself", because if this were so then what is left? Only memory can be conditioned or is there something I've missed in my observation? Isn't consciousness a composite of memory? Rather than "cultivate" anything, I'd rather see myself as I am in actuality. To cultivate is to move towards a certain state is it not? What is the difference of this "consciousness being conscious of itself" as opposed to what everyday people experience?

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 3:51 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Conditioning what/who? A feeling "me"? More like eradicating it.

Fair enough Heather, I'm not interested in arguing any further. It's up to you to see for yourself.

Be happy!

Nick

RE: Essence of Actual Freedom
Answer
5/11/11 4:04 PM as a reply to Heather MacDonald.
Never mind about the analogy then =P. I think I was straying too far from what it was meant to be an analogy for...

Heather MacDonald:
Same with the human memory, it matters not what is recorded therein. So conditions/conditioning matter not, the actual problem is another factor altogether.

What is the actual problem?

-----

Heather MacDonald:
The mind, human or otherwise, is memory. As I said, the content of memory can be anything, that does not alter the fact of how memory functions nor what memory is intrinsically.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Are you saying that human nature - the entirety of that which cannot be changed in humans - is memory? So someone who has completely transcended human conditioning would be left solely with memory and nothing else? There is no other function of the mind than memory? How are you reading these words and replying to them using only memory? And would the faculties that allow you to do that go away upon transcending the human condition (as you define it)?

(I was asking for an exhaustive list - what is the entirety of what you consider to be human nature?)


Heather MacDonald:
Nope. Memory is a function of memory. Without memory I couldn't possibly understand one word, this page would just be squiggles, spaces, etc. Without understanding the rules of English I would still be at a loss as to what somebody is saying. I mean, it is a bit like humour, it doesn't read very well does it, not compared to the spoken word. Memory is very literal without added layers of memory which can get the gist. I would say that intelligence is more than mere memory, just as creativity is. But observe yourself, how much is simply regurgitation???

I was being really literal, here. If you had only memory, you would not be able to see, hear, smell, taste or touch, anything - you didn't mention seeing as a faculty of the mind, just memory. You would not be able to move your arm and press on the keys. You wouldn't have any inputs with which to form memories!

Also, without memory, you'd still be perfectly capable of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching - your senses don't depend on memory to work.

-----

Heather MacDonald:
A friend of mine put it perfectly… “Human nature is the hardware, conditioning - the software. When you reach basic nature, there’s nothing to change, there is no problem”.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Actual Freedom is basically the eradication of all the conditioning - and not only that, but the eradication of that which can be conditioned - 'being' itself - which also is equivalent to all feeling and emotion and instinctual passion vanishing. What's left is just the hardware - that is, just the physical body, along with the six senses, along with consciousness conscious of being consciousness, not to mention full retention of the physical and mental faculties such as motor control, intelligence, discernment, and memory. This also happens temporarily in a PCE.

I'm not asking you to accept or believe any of this. The recommended advice is to cultivate a PCE and see for yourself.


Heather MacDonald:
Well that's the bit I can't understand... "the eradication of that which can be conditioned - 'being' itself", because if this were so then what is left?

What I listed in the next sentence you quoted: "What's left is just the hardware - that is, just the physical body, along with the six senses, along with consciousness conscious of being consciousness, not to mention full retention of the physical and mental faculties such as motor control, intelligence, discernment, and memory."

Heather MacDonald:
Only memory can be conditioned or is there something I've missed in my observation?
Memory is a part of conditioning... you have beliefs and stuff which depend on you being able to remember the beliefs. But I wouldn't say the memory is conditioned, per se... by memory being conditioned, I don't consider learning a fact to be conditioning memory, so we may be using the word 'conditioning' differently, here. But, rather that conditioning depends on memory. What I consider conditioning, that which can disappear, is feelings and emotions (fear, annoyance, hate, regret, etc), the beliefs that cause them (this is good; this is bad; this is right; this is wrong), 'being' itself. by 'being' i mean - you feel like you exist, and you feel that the world exists.. those feelings also disappear.

You also might certainly remember a belief you used to have but not believe it anymore, or that you used to feel this feeling in a certain situation but don't, anymore. This isn't a memory-altering process. Though your feelings about and reactions towards those memories will change.

Heather MacDonald:
Isn't consciousness a composite of memory?
If you suffered total amnesia, wouldn't you still be conscious?

Heather MacDonald:
Rather than "cultivate" anything, I'd rather see myself as I am in actuality. To cultivate is to move towards a certain state is it not?
Well, say that right now you're in state A+B+C+D. And you as you are in actuality is A. Seeing yourself as you are in actuality would require going from A+B+C+D --> A. That motion requires some word - I assume you're not there currently - so I used 'cultivate'. One could say you are cultivating being only as you are in actuality. You could call just-A a state, though it wouldn't be entirely accurate (more like the absence of all states).

Heather MacDonald:
What is the difference of this "consciousness being conscious of itself" as opposed to what everyday people experience?

That's what a PCE is. Note a PCE is just a word describing an experience which isn't new - it happens a lot in childhood and certainly happened before Richard coined the term. Descriptions of PCEs are available here, more about them here. Certainly sounds different than everyday experience!