Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Claims to Attainments

Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?

Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/22/14 6:00 PM
It seems to me the Ken Wilber's model of enlightenment as a state and not a stage continues to ring true. In the Hurricane Ranch talk with Daniel Ingram and friends, the boundary's of enlightenment and it associated vows, are questioned and discredited. We have a history of people like Chogyam Trungpa, Kalu Rinpoche and others that are challenged in their roles as teachers of states, to live up to perfect super human standards of enlightenment. These roles have failed throughout history.

I recently, had Daniel's Ingram's final Teacher come on to me, quite strongly. It was awkward as he is a traditional Monk who also advocates the purity of the Arhat, from a traditional Suttric Perspective.

I wonder even from a contemporary perspective, of enlightenment being the mastery of a state, how lonely and lustful does an Arhat get?

Thought, Contributions, should I be sharing this as I don't really wont to go into a long story, to justify the truth of my claim, should I just leave it and take down the thread?

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/22/14 8:43 PM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
Neem Nyima:

I recently, had Daniel's Ingram's final Teacher come on to me, quite strongly. It was awkward as he is a traditional Monk who also advocates the purity of the Arhat, from a traditional Suttric Perspective.

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused-- who is Daniel's final Teacher?? emoticon

I wonder even from a contemporary perspective, of enlightenment being the mastery of a state, how lonely and lustful does an Arhat get?

I am not an arahat, not even close, not even a stream-enterer as a matter of fact... but from what I understand, arahatship is simply the elimination of the gap between "self" and "experience," ie no Watcher, no Agent, nothing like that, just a field doin' its thing, sensations unfolding according to the laws of cause and effect naturally and effortlessly. Sensations that can be labelled as "lonliness" and "lust" may still manifest in arahats but they are simply sensations, no center-point or self is involved at all.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/22/14 11:01 PM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
From what I undertand, the four stage model in Buddhism holds true. In a fully enlightened mind anger will not arise, where can it arise from? What is there to get angry about anyway? A stubbed toe pain sensation? There is no longer a self delusion concept for anger or greed to arise from. What mental formation has to exist to think it is lonely? Physiologically speaking, the human body still creates glandular excretions, which have cause and effect, pleasure sensations, etc, but... if there is no clinging or attachment , there would follow, no lust. Even a not fully enlightened being can use mindfulness to dismiss sednsations for what they are before the craving starts.

So, if one is attempting sexual misconduct, then it would follow that one would not be fully enlightened. But, hey, recognition, no blame, and change, humans.

Does not look as there is a dogma or super human standards, there just is a path and results.


Not claiming anything, just sayin'.

And, hey how ya been, anyway?

Metta


Sigh Fi

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/23/14 3:27 AM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
Hi Neem,

I usually don't respond to threads like this. But because I respect you and your practice, I've made an exception.
Neem Nyima:
It seems to me the Ken Wilber's model of enlightenment as a state and not a stage continues to ring true.

While this may be true for Wilber, it is, however, not true for myself. From my understanding of the Dhamma, awakening is more a maturation of the mind than an impermanent state. But perhaps that's just me. While Mr. Wilber is very intellectually accomplished and a prolific writer, there seem to be areas of his personality that are deficient in one manner or another. 'Nuff said. (Possible disclaimer: I've never been very impressed with any of the ideas that Wilber has expressed. Just my personal opinion. That's not to say that he hasn't a very astute and inventive mind.)

Neem Nyima:

In the Hurricane Ranch talk with Daniel Ingram and friends, the boundary's of enlightenment and it(s) associated vows, are questioned and discredited.

We have a history of people like Chogyam Trungpa, Kalu Rinpoche and others that are challenged in their roles as teachers of states, to live up to perfect super human standards of enlightenment. These roles have failed throughout history.

I recently, had Daniel's Ingram's final Teacher come on to me, quite strongly. It was awkward as he is a traditional Monk who also advocates the purity of the Arhat, from a traditional Suttric Perspective.

I wonder even from a contemporary perspective, of enlightenment being the mastery of a state, how lonely and lustful does an Arhat get?

That action by the Teacher (depending upon the context, which has not been explained here) was quite inappropriate from a multitude of levels, and would seem to demonstrate an immature mind that has not learned restraint, and is still in the process of acquiring maturation.

Just because someone is able to achieve a basic awakening doesn't mean that they have had time to work on eliminating the asavas (sensual passion, states of being, the taking of views, and ignorance). Or perhaps, according to the definition that proclaims that arahants are no longer bothered by the asavas, perhaps the person is not an arahant. Whatever the case, one still has to deal with these underlying tendencies before he can truly be free of mental defilements. Anyone who still clings to sensual passion, to craving for being, to the taking of views, and to ignorance (or denial of any of these), still has some work to do (whether they think so or not).

The asavas, according to an explanation given by Ven. Analayo, are mental influxes (or more familiarly, underlying mental formations) which can "flow into and thereby influence the perceptual process. As with the underlying tendencies, this influence operates without conscious intention. The influxes arise owing to unwise attention (ayoniso manasikara) and to ignorance (avijja). To counteract and prevent the arising of the influxes is the central aim of the monastic training rules laid down by the Buddha, and their successful eradication (asavakkhaya) is a synonym for full awakening."

So, the question might be asked, can a person be awakened, but not fully awakened? I think so. I see no reason why this shouldn't be possible. This would explain the anomalies of the people you have mentioned above (I'm thinking of Trungpa primarily; am not that familiar of Kalu Rinpoche's exploits ). Trungpa has written some powerful passages that suggest a mature understanding of Gotama's Dhamma. I've been impressed with many of the things I've read of his. And yet many of his actions contradicted a mature understanding of these passages.

This, then, becomes a matter of personal choice as to what definition of "awakening" one wants to accept as one's own standard of awakening. Some people are more lax than others. I think we can agree on that. That doesn't mean that the person is any the less enlightened about the dangers of not being aware of anicca, dukkha, and anatta. For did not Gotama once utter: "Formerly and also now, I make known only suffering and the cessation of suffering." That's a pretty tall order for most people to accomplish in itself. And working on the asavas may just be icing on the cake. You think?

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/23/14 10:38 AM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
This is a problem with power. Power and access to people can create great temptations (serotonin). This is a problem in all systems where a human has to be responsible for others.

It's something that people have to watch out for in any hierarchy. (Business, Government, Teachers, etc).

The following book has helped me reduce my expectations with other people. I have a razor sharp awareness now of what people are doing.

Meet your happy chemicals

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/23/14 11:38 PM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
Neem Nyima:
It seems to me the Ken Wilber's model of enlightenment as a state and not a stage continues to ring true. In the Hurricane Ranch talk with Daniel Ingram and friends, the boundary's of enlightenment and it associated vows, are questioned and discredited. We have a history of people like Chogyam Trungpa, Kalu Rinpoche and others that are challenged in their roles as teachers of states, to live up to perfect super human standards of enlightenment. These roles have failed throughout history.

I recently, had Daniel's Ingram's final Teacher come on to me, quite strongly. It was awkward as he is a traditional Monk who also advocates the purity of the Arhat, from a traditional Suttric Perspective.

I wonder even from a contemporary perspective, of enlightenment being the mastery of a state, how lonely and lustful does an Arhat get?

Thought, Contributions, should I be sharing this as I don't really wont to go into a long story, to justify the truth of my claim, should I just leave it and take down the thread?


As I have claimed elsewhere, I have fully completed the path of insight, overcome all dualistic confusion, and reached the state of complete enlightenment, the final stage. There are several things I want to address in response to your post: enlightenment being a state versus a stage, and the standards, or ideas we have regarding the behavior of enlightened individuals.

First, I just want to say that we need to be very clear in what we mean by enlightenment, and why we are on this path to begin with. It should be clear to any serious practitioner that the purpose of the path is not emotional perfection. Instead, the purpose of the path is to overcome our dualistic confusion. The reason we suffer is because we hold to the wrong belief that we are inherently existing individuals, separate from all else. This is what the path seeks to correct. If we are not clear about this, and we seek instead self-perfection, we have deviated from the true purpose of the path. Self perfection is extremely attractive, but it is not realistic. The path consists not of building ourselves up, or selectively stripping away our faults, but seeing through such conceptual delusion.

As for the stage versus state debate, stage implying final and lasting change, and state implying temporary experience, my position is 100% that enlightenment occurs in gradual stages until the end, all of which are lasting. Attainment of genuine insight is stable and lasting, as can only be attested by personal experience. So while this can be extensively debated, let me just state that enlightenment as I define it occurs in stable and lasting stages, and temporary 'state' experiences of non-duality are simply temporary meditative states. Experience of 'state' enlightenment experiences may help to provide valuable direction, but do not affect your mind in a lasting way, or overcome suffering. As the overcoming of suffering is the goal, clearly such states fall short.

Secondly, addressing emotional standards of enlightenment, I want to be clear how enlightenment fits into the broader picture of our emotional life. Ian brought up the idea that while this teacher may be somewhat enlightened, the reason he acted in such an inappropriate manner is that he is not fully enlightened*. However, as a fully enlightened individual, I can tell you that emotions do not cease upon enlightenment. I still get angry, jealous, sad, lustful, you name it... Enlightenment does not affect the spectrum of emotional experience.

(Edited for clarification) While this may be tempting to dismiss, as 'well, you're probably not actually fully enlightened', hear me out. From a metaphysical perspective, we are souls on looong spiritual journeys, with near infinite past incarnations, and likely near infinite more in the future. What's more, there are many other planes of existence outside our universe. Our experience here on Earth is one small part of the overall picture of spiritual development. Earth is unique however in that we exist in the delusion of separateness, which could be likened to a training program. Enlightenment is the end of this program, however it is not the end of soul/ spiritual development. The end of duality does not mean final perfection, but merely the accomplishing of a specific challenge. Thus our search for 'perfection' goes on.. To clarify, what exists after enlightenment, and might be called the 'soul', could be likened to our basic personality structure.

Hope this helps, and I didn't loose you with that last paragraph, ha.

*It may indeed be the case that he is not fully enlightened. Arhatship, or 4th path as defined on this board, is very much the beginning of the journey to full enlightenment. At 4th path, one has an extremely superficial understanding of emptiness. From 4th path to full enlightenment, one must come to understand that oneself is inseparable from emptiness, which is a long way to go.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/23/14 10:02 PM as a reply to T DC.
I still get angry, jealous, sad, lustful, you name it...


Do these emotions come out in your behavior and harm other people? Do these emotions harm you?

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/23/14 11:18 PM as a reply to Adam . ..
Adam . .:
I still get angry, jealous, sad, lustful, you name it...


Do these emotions come out in your behavior and harm other people? Do these emotions harm you?


Well Adam, hopefully not. The point I'm making is that I may have overcome the delusion of separateness, but I'm still so far from perfect that there is effectively no difference between myself and unenlightened people.

Frankly, a belief in enlightened supremacy on my part would simply be arrogance, the same as anyone else believing that they are better than others. The point of enlightenment is realizing you are one with everything, which in practical terms means realizing that you and everyone else are just the same, and no one is any better or worse than anyone else. Sure, in the myraid situations of life, some perspectives may lead toward greater reconciliation, some toward greater divisiveness.. but this is just the facts, how things are. Ultimately, we all make decisions based on our current life perspective, which is constantly evolving, so everything that occurs produces growth. No one can claim to be fully growthed out, or perfect.

As I said above, life is a spiritual journey whether you're enlightened or not. While we all may strive to conquer our demons, such as 'negative' emotions, these are things which go deeper than, and are somewhat tangential to, the issue of our dualistic confusion.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/23/14 11:36 PM as a reply to T DC.
Well Adam, hopefully not.


You hope that they don't harm you and others? But do they? And if your hopes conflict with the reality then why not do something about it?

The point I'm making is that I may have overcome the delusion of separateness, but I'm still so far from perfect that there is effectively no difference between myself and unenlightened people.


ok

Frankly, a belief in enlightened supremacy on my part would simply be arrogance, the same as anyone else believing that they are better than others. The point of enlightenment is realizing you are one with everything, which in practical terms means realizing that you and everyone else are just the same, and no one is any better or worse than anyone else. Sure, in the myraid situations of life, some perspectives may lead toward greater reconciliation, some toward greater divisiveness.. but this is just the facts, how things are. Ultimately, we all make decisions based on our current life perspective, which is constantly evolving, so everything that occurs produces growth. No one can claim to be fully growthed out, or perfect.


Does it have to be a matter of being better/worse than others? Can't it just be the decision that things are better for me and everyone else without my disturbing emotions (any emotions that aren't based on contentment and enjoyment of things as they are)?

As I said above, life is a spiritual journey whether you're enlightened or not. While we all may strive to conquer our demons, such as 'negative' emotions, these are things which go deeper than, and are somewhat tangential to, the issue of our dualistic confusion.


This is true I think. For me inner peace + peace between myself and others is more valuable than overcoming dualistic confusion. You seem to have labeled the overcoming of dualistic confusion as "enlightenment" and emotional changes as not enlightenment, which is ok with me, as that is just a matter of how you choose to define the word "enlightenment." However you seem to talk of emotional changes as though they are way less important, which i can't agree with at all, but to each their own.

If you genuinely, just straight up don't value being free of emotional discontent and malice towards others, then I guess we just part ways here, and there is little else to say. I would only point out all the war, depression, suicide etc. on this planet (as well as subtler forms of the same in your own life, such as being bored, irritated, melancholic, anxious etc.) and ask whether you genuinely don't wish to find a way past all that to happiness. (I am assuming that you don't, or at least it is not a major concern of yours, because of the way you talk about emotional changes being largely irrelevant)

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 12:17 AM as a reply to Adam . ..
Adam . .:

As I said above, life is a spiritual journey whether you're enlightened or not. While we all may strive to conquer our demons, such as 'negative' emotions, these are things which go deeper than, and are somewhat tangential to, the issue of our dualistic confusion.


This is true I think. For me inner peace + peace between myself and others is more valuable than overcoming dualistic confusion. You seem to have labeled the overcoming of dualistic confusion as "enlightenment" and emotional changes as not enlightenment, which is ok with me, as that is just a matter of how you choose to define the word "enlightenment." However you seem to talk of emotional changes as though they are way less important, which i can't agree with at all, but to each their own.

If you genuinely, just straight up don't value being free of emotional discontent and malice towards others, then I guess we just part ways here, and there is little else to say. I would only point out all the war, depression, suicide etc. on this planet (as well as subtler forms of the same in your own life, such as being bored, irritated, melancholic, anxious etc.) and ask whether you genuinely don't wish to find a way past all that to happiness. (I am assuming that you don't, or at least it is not a major concern of yours, because of the way you talk about emotional changes being largely irrelevant)


Overcoming dualistic confusion is peace. It is final peace because you know you have done all you can, you have overcome all that need to be overcome. So many of our worries which cause us angst as just projections of our own minds, and to be enlightened is to see overcome these false projections. So much concern over needing to do this and create peace... are simply conceptual baggage's which are totally false and unnecessary to believe. To be enlightened is to have unshakable contact with compassion for self and other despite the arising of negative emotion and circumstance.

When we are confused about who and what we are, we do not truly have faith that the world is a benevolent place. We see so much evil around us, wars, famine,.., and we feel that it needs to be eradicated, that we need to fix the situation. Truly however, the universe, all of creation is a benevolent and loving. The core matter of all things is inseparable from unspeakable joy, or bliss. We don't need to fix the problems in the world, and frankly for the most part we can't. To work all your life in service of others, to put ceaseless effort into re-mediating a 'broken' situation is to turn a blind eye to the fundamental joy that is present always, from which none are ever truly separate. No situation is truly black, but always a mix of colors, the whole spectrum represented in even the harshest of circumstance.

The problem is truly that we do not see this. We do not see and feel the boundless joy in us and all around us all the time, irrespective of circumstance.

Adam . .:
Frankly, a belief in enlightened supremacy on my part would simply be arrogance, the same as anyone else believing that they are better than others. The point of enlightenment is realizing you are one with everything, which in practical terms means realizing that you and everyone else are just the same, and no one is any better or worse than anyone else. Sure, in the myraid situations of life, some perspectives may lead toward greater reconciliation, some toward greater divisiveness.. but this is just the facts, how things are. Ultimately, we all make decisions based on our current life perspective, which is constantly evolving, so everything that occurs produces growth. No one can claim to be fully growthed out, or perfect.


Does it have to be a matter of being better/worse than others? Can't it just be the decision that things are better for me and everyone else without my disturbing emotions (any emotions that aren't based on contentment and enjoyment of things as they are)?


Adam, of course it seems the situation would be better for everyone without disturbing emotions. I feel the pain of these emotions, and I too feel I would be better off without them. I agree with you. I was extremely bothered by my experience, I had a glimpse of enlightenment, and saw a better way. I struggled though the path, persevering because I wanted more than anything else to conquer my darkness. Never satisfied at any step, I pushed on until finality, until I could go no further. And now here is where I report to you.

Believe me friend, if I believed an end to the evils of the world possible I would strive for it. But I see that it is not to be. I am in the position of enlightened persons before me who reported back that things were actually fine, and there really wasn't much cause for alarm. And again, who could believe them? Clearly evils exist to be remedied.

Everyone exist in different life situations. If everyone were as enlightened and seemingly apathetic as myself, who would be the doctors that we need? Who would help the poor? Everyone has a unique life mission, and enlightenment is not in the cards for everybody, and need not be; to each his own, in his own time.

Emotional perfection cannot be done, and the greatest way to remedy the ills of the world is to overcome your own delusion so that you can act inline with the way things truly are. This helps people in a spiritual way, in a way that no material help can. When I die, I will be at peace, because I have done all I could, do you understand? Everyone gets sick, and some get treatment and get better. Everyone dies. Everyone has come to this life for different reasons, to learn different things, at different places on their spiritual journey. I cannot say what is best for anyone, and ultimately they will decide for themselves. All I can do is point to the truth of things, and thus act a reference of sorts. Sorry if I'm rambling..

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 4:46 AM as a reply to T DC.
T DC:


When we are confused about who and what we are, we do not truly have faith that the world is a benevolent place. We see so much evil around us, wars, famine,.., and we feel that it needs to be eradicated, that we need to fix the situation. Truly however, the universe, all of creation is a benevolent and loving. The core matter of all things is inseparable from unspeakable joy, or bliss. We don't need to fix the problems in the world, and frankly for the most part we can't. To work all your life in service of others, to put ceaseless effort into re-mediating a 'broken' situation is to turn a blind eye to the fundamental joy that is present always, from which none are ever truly separate. No situation is truly black, but always a mix of colors, the whole spectrum represented in even the harshest of circumstance.

Everyone exist in different life situations. If everyone were as enlightened and seemingly apathetic as myself, who would be the doctors that we need? Who would help the poor? Everyone has a unique life mission, and enlightenment is not in the cards for everybody, and need not be; to each his own, in his own time.



Thank goodness more people aren't enlightened!

What are your thoughts on the bodhisattva vow, T DC? I thought you were into Tibetan Buddhism, where Mahayana perspectives seem pretty important.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 8:55 AM as a reply to T DC.
I am only talking about one changing oneself, this is not about some mass movement or "fixing all the problems in the world".

Would you free yourself from disturbing emotions if you did think it were possible?

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 1:13 PM as a reply to Adam . ..
Yes, sure I would free myself from afflicting emotions. Ha, they're painful.. However it is not to be. Again I want to say I made such great progress on the path due to strong motivation; strong motivation to be free from suffering driven by intense experience of suffering, such as pain over afflictive emotions.

However, if myself, at the end the path, say to you that afflicting emotions are not to be conquered, this can be interpreted several ways. I'm lying, I'm wrong.. However I truly am not wrong or lying. The way I wish for you to consider this is that if I, someone in your same situation, got to the end of suffering and saw emotional perfection to be a futile pursuit, yet was at peace, what does that tell you about enlightenment? Emotions, seemingly such a great issue, are just part of life upon enlightenment, an accepted part of life at that.

The path does not get rid of anything, it simply changes your perspective. It will not change your personality! However, better than that, it will allow you to know and accept yourself totally, beyond all doubt. That is the gift waiting for you. It is a different way to think about progression than emotional perfection, but it is much more realistic.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 3:45 PM as a reply to T DC.
However, if myself, at the end the path, say to you that afflicting emotions are not to be conquered


My path is the path to the end of discontentment, anger, frustration, uneasiness, fear, depression, melancholy etc. so you might be at the end of a path but not the end of the path.

Emotions, seemingly such a great issue, are just part of life upon enlightenment, an accepted part of life at that.


Emotions are also just an accepted part of life for 99.999% of human beings.

Also you keep talking about "emotional perfection" which sounds moralistic and based on lots of self-control or something like that. That's not really my path, my path is enjoying every moment come what may such that I have no need for self-control.

I think we are at an impasse here, you are completely firm in saying that changing yourself emotionally is not realistic and even not particularly desirable. I am saying it is possible and it is desirable (for example to avoid becoming "lonely and lustful" and acting inappropriately as in the OP). I guess we just have different opinions, and our conviction in them seems pretty firm so I don't know if much more can come from this conversation.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 8:33 PM as a reply to Neem Nyima.
I think the big cause of "controversy" with this topic is that there are two differing viewpoints in this forum.

Viewpoint #1-- Enlightenment means uprooting all the defilements, e.g. no more lust or craving for formless realms or anything like that. The suttic perspective.

Viewpoint #2-- Enlightenment doesn't eliminate anything, it is a change in perspective, emotions still manifest but there is no self to do the manifesting, "there is no suffering because there is no sufferer." This is the MCTB arahat, or perhaps it would be better to call it a Burmese arahat.

My personal opinion is that I ought not to form any opinions, that I should get to MCTB arahatship and see if I need to do anything from there. I am not an arahat. That said, I do have some thoughts...

There are many on this board who say that MCTB arahatship is actually just a sakadagami in the fetter model. I'm not sure where this comparison comes from, but not being very enlightened I don't really feel justified in commenting. Actualism is, apparently, the way to "finish" the process. However, isn't it odd that the Buddha gave four stages of enlightenment, and that vipassana practice (4 Foundations of Mindfulness, anapanasati, etc etc) prescribed in the suttas results in four distinct levels of reduction in self? It is quite a coincidence, and this ought to be considered when trying to compare the MCTB model with the fetter model.

Furthermore, with post-suttic texts like the Vishudimagga and the Abhidhamma, we find fairly detailed discussions of path moments and whatnot, including three moments before nibbana, the mind taking nibbana as an object, the three doors, and so on. All these things line up with the actual experience of vipassana mastery.

In other words, the four paths of the suttas have been studied and elucidated in great detail. The four paths of the suttas, the four paths of the Vishudimagga, the four paths of MCTB, and even some of the maps described in other traditions (e.g. Alchemy), all seem to line up.

And yet... MCTB arahats are just sakadagamis now? Why? Because of emotions?

Taking a look at the opposing viewpoint, that enlightenment involves elimination of specific emotions, we cannot help but run into Actualism. This is not a bad thing. Being mindful of one's emotions was recommended by the Buddha, and if I recall correctly, Dr. Ingram experimented with Actualism with positive results.

However, I do have some reservations. I realize I may be beating a dead horse here, but I feel that it is pertinent to the discussion.

First we have Richard, the "founder" of Actual Freedom. He claims to be free of any kind of affect, and others report something remarkable about his presence along these lines. And yet, he appears to manifest emotions in certain situations. His negative reaction towards the "spread" of Actualism on the DHO and his claim that Peter (who wrote most of the AF website?) was no longer Actually Free, are two examples. I'm certainly not saying that he's a bad guy, there has been far worse in Buddhist circles (I see Chogyam Trungpa's name up there somewhere), but it is a bit disconcerting when the man claims to be free of all affect.

But enough about the people, what about the practice? Unfortunately, I have never had a PCE, at least that I can remember, but they sound nice, and plenty of other folks have had them and can attest to their niceness. But temporary PCEs are hardly the goal-- permanent elimination of affect is the goal. Let's look at the practitioners who have done this.

...And there's a problem. There honestly don't seem to be any. A look through the past posts on this board indicate a pattern that seems to go along the lines of claiming actual freedom, renouncing the claim to actual freedom, and then disappearing from cyberspace. Tarin greco and Tommy M come to mind, though perhaps it was more personal and Actualism didn't play a big part.

It's not enough to turn me off completely from actual freedom, but it's enough to make me nervous.

Furthermore, there are other spiritual traditions with perfectly valid goals that more or less take the opposite path of actualism. I'm thinking of things like Western Magick, Vajrayana, shamanism, and occultism in general. For people in this boat, actualism would be a pretty poor choice, for obvious reasons.

There is another more complex dimension with regards to the above paragraph-- what if we have a psychic healer who chooses to pursue actualism and "loses" his power in the process? Is he selfish for doing this? Other people can no longer benefit from his abilities, but his own personal suffering is eliminated. In many ways it's like the old bodhisattva vow vs. getting enlightened debate, but this is a pretty heavy subject.

Actualism basically eliminates the axis of development regarding powers. I'm not sure if this is a wise decision, considering the powers can be used to help others.

I should go ahead and say that I have some personal experience with "the powers," and offer no further comment other than our materialistic society may not quite have it right. ;)

This post is turning out longer than I expected, so I will try to wrap it up, but before I do let's talk about MCTB arahatship again. At that level of attainment, there is no self, no Watcher, no Agent, no Perceiver, no Doer, nothing like that, just a field of sensations. Furthermore, there is no choice. Sensations unfold according to causality, there is no "self" making decisions or anything like that. Therefore, the decision to pursue actualism, at a high insight level, is not a decision at all, it is simply the inevitable unfolding of experience. Along these same lines, there is no self to have emotions.

I should also point out that Theravada has its own system for working with emotions called the Sublime Abodes.

What I'm getting at is, while actualism may be nice, arahatship is more ultimate, even perhaps the most ultimate realization one can have.

Daniel himself mentions this in his essay regarding his experiments with actualism:

That said, there are lots of aspects of things to develop, lots of ways to continue to grow, lots of things to work on, as that is just one axis of development, albeit a very fundamental one, perhaps the most fundamental one.

And so I have continued to grow and learn and this brain has continued to change and learn new things. None have changed anything about that fundamental insight in April 2003, and that is truly remarkable, given how much has gone on since then.


That whole section is great, Daniel talks about working on emotions while still being an arahat and how those things fit in.

In conclusion--

The MCTB view regarding Arahatship being a change in perspective, where emotions still manifest but are seen for what they are, lines up remarkably well with later commentaries on the suttas, and on this basis seems fairly sound.

The suttic or fetter view, which is closely tied with Actualism practice, doesn't seem to line up with reality, as there don't seem to be any persons that are free of emotions. There is an unsettling tendency of claiming actual freedom, renouncing that claim, then vanishing, at least off cyberspace.

All this said, we are all mature adults here, we can make our own decisions regarding practice, goals, and even interpreting suttas. If emotional freedom is what makes you happy, go for it! Never sell yourself short when it comes to enlightenment.

Again, I'm not an arahat, just a guy who has put a lot of thought into goals and practice, who has read some of the suttas and contemplated emotional models, and to a lesser extent has followed the political shitstorm surrounding Actual Freedom.

Peace,
E

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 8:38 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
Let me quickly add that I hate the term "MCTB arahat," but use it for the sake of clarity. The arahatship of MCTB is the selfsame arahatship of the Buddha as far as I can tell.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/24/14 11:10 PM as a reply to Eric M W.
There are a multitude of places where I disagree with you. I will focus on the disagreements regarding facts mostly.

First we have Richard, the "founder" of Actual Freedom. He claims to be free of any kind of affect, and others report something remarkable about his presence along these lines. And yet, he appears to manifest emotions in certain situations. His negative reaction towards the "spread" of Actualism on the DHO and his claim that Peter (who wrote most of the AF website?) was no longer Actually Free, are two examples. I'm certainly not saying that he's a bad guy, there has been far worse in Buddhist circles (I see Chogyam Trungpa's name up there somewhere), but it is a bit disconcerting when the man claims to be free of all affect.


Richard's "negative reaction" was clearly about what seemed to him to be misinterpretations of actualism. (which is pretty reasonable)

He doesn't claim that peter is no longer actually free that i know of. (please provide a source from the AFT homepage, as it stands, there are numerous references to peter's becoming actually free still there.)

...And there's a problem. There honestly don't seem to be any. A look through the past posts on this board indicate a pattern that seems to go along the lines of claiming actual freedom, renouncing the claim to actual freedom, and then disappearing from cyberspace.


I think those two cases are really, really different. Tarin said that he maintained his claim of being free of emotions but didn't see fit given a message Richard sent him to maintain that his freedom from malice and sorrow was "actual freedom." This is the reason that he stopped posting as he explains (not because his way of experiencing reality free from malice and sorrow changed).

Tarin:
this is not to say that i am renouncing my claim of being free of malice and sorrow (which is what all this has been about for me anyway); i am not. what i am indicating is that i no longer have sufficient confidence that what i mean by this claim and what i find it to entail and imply is similar enough to what richard means and what that entails and implies to state any kind of equivalence. accordingly, i no longer find it suitable to use the terms that richard has put to his experiences and observations to describe my experiences or observations. without doing so, however, i find that i cannot participate very meaningfully in the conversations concerning actual freedom (which is essentially whatever richard says it is); as i cannot be sufficiently certain that what i have in mind is closely coherent with what richard does, i rarely find it purposeful to present my thoughts on these topics. conversely, it seems more appropriate for me to retire from any statement or claim of authority or authoritative understanding on these matters, so that it is understood that any further thoughts i may present on an actual freedom and related topics are to be understood in light of this retirement.


Tommy said something completely different, that he renounced his claim to being free of emotions (he did this twice actually).

Also, Trent, Peter, Vineeto, Richard, Grant Brisset, Pamela, Grace, Tom (these last three from the AFT homepage) have never renounced their claim in any way as far as I know.

Sensations unfold according to causality, there is no "self" making decisions or anything like that. Therefore, the decision to pursue actualism, at a high insight level, is not a decision at all, it is simply the inevitable unfolding of experience. Along these same lines, there is no self to have emotions.


if that's enough for you, fine.

What I'm getting at is, while actualism may be nice, arahatship is more ultimate, even perhaps the most ultimate realization one can have.


if ultimateness is what your looking for then don't look to actualism in that case

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/25/14 3:00 AM as a reply to T DC.
I still get angry, jealous, sad, lustful, you name it...


I thought these were the mental "defilements" that are gotten rid of on the path to full enlightenment.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/25/14 3:24 AM as a reply to Trial And Error.
Friends,

I feel it is important to consider the following from http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana19.htm:

"When no more firewood is added to a blazing fire, flames would subside and the logs of wood already burning go on smouldering as embers. After some time, they too get extinguished and become ashes. With regard to the arahant, too, we have to think in terms of this analogy. It can be taken as an illustration of the two Nibbàna elements. To the extent the living arahant is free from fresh graspings, lust, hate and delusions do not flare up. But so long as he has to bear the burden of this organic combination, this physical frame, the arahant has to experience certain afflictions and be receptive to likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains.

In spite of all that, mentally he has access to the experience of the extinguishment he has already won. It is in that sense that the arahant is said to be in the Nibbàna element with residual clinging in his everyday life, while taking in the objects of the five senses."

Also, during one of the last days of his 10-day courses in his evening discourse regarding the ten paramis, Goenkaji says something like (paraphrasing here): "If you want to be liberated, you have to keep filling your ten jars drop by drop. If you want to be a Buddha (or reach Full Enlightenment), the jars are too big. Otherwise, full liberation can come with smaller jars."

Just some food for thought.

RE: Arhat: Lonely and Lustful?
Answer
3/25/14 5:58 AM as a reply to Be Free Now.
Be Free Now:
Friends,

I feel it is important to consider the following from http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana19.htm:



Peoples,

As one who has incessantly obsessed about what is what in the past, consider simply getting to what is being called "MCTB 4th path" and using that as a base for discussion instead of rampant speculation based on dogmatic leanings, faithfulness to whomever or whatever and whatever else is triggering the empty ponderings.

Get yourself a new baseline, a permanent shift in perceptual baseline, which stays likes so even post-honeymoon period, which gives one much more to play with, more stability to see cause and effect in play, and such incessant ponderings about what at the moment lays within the realm of locked-in-thought loops (belief) for most of you no doubt (which in hindsight probably can't be avoided, maybe 'stage' specific behaviour) will begin to seem silly, or simply not be seen to arise anymore.

"Post-MCTB 4th path" or whatever you want to title it, if so inclined, one can move in the direction of compoundings ceasing to compound. This compounding arises because of that. Well, what triggers the arising of that? This does. Ah! I see. Seeing this and that leads to this and that's cessation and all that follows this and that. If this compounding still arises, and one has simply established a relationship with it, whether based on notions of 'emptiness' or 'equanimity' or whatever, well, they are relationships, in otherwords, fabrications of mind. If that is your cup of tea....

In the end, each to his/her own. I don't think we can have it any other way.

Arahat shmarahat!

P.S. Bodhisattva Shmodhiratsva!

P.S.S. Getting it done VS locking in the the loops to condition this moment of experience, and the next...

Nick's current subject to change 2 cents.

Beeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaap...........yyyyyyyyyy!

Edited as per usual.