Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
i cannot speak for others, but as i am the primary (based on the volume of posting) proponent of an actual freedom from the human condition on this forum, you may be referring, in part, to me here. if so, would you please inform me where i am engaging in silly arguing, and where i have not been clear about what is what? i would genuinely like to take it from there.
Of course Tarin, I'm sorry, you haven't engaged in silly arguing at all in regards to this discussion. Quite the opposite, you have been very helpful and informative all the way. In fact the whole discussion in KFD was mostly an emotional response to things that AF people write all around, and, if we look at it carefully, there are hardly any posts by AF practitioners at all. Which makes that discussion all the more silly, in retrospect, and Daniel's sarcasm is well deserved.
ah, ok.. would you then please be more specific about who you are referring to, on what you apprise to be 'the AF front', as having engaged in silly arguing and having been unclear about what is what?
Bruno Loff:
Have you noticed that sometimes emotions distort good judgement?
yes.
have you also noticed how, in being prone to emotion, it is difficult to really tell when an emotion is currently distorting good judgement?
*
Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
does the staggering amount of human-on-human violence in the world, which can easily be ascertained by reading or watching the news, seem equally worthy of dismissal?
No. Does that somehow follow from what I wrote? I think not. My point is that the fact that human suffering and violence comes to an end if we get rid of passions, doesn't imply that everybody doing so is necessarily good. E.g., if we all kill ourselves, or live in isolation, rather than "self immolate," human-on-human violence would come to an end also.
even if it were possible to convince all the world's population to commit suicide, and though such worldwide suicide would end all the wars, rapes, murders, genocides, abuses, domestic violence, grief, despair, and suicides which rage across the planet as i write these very words and also as you read them, it would still not bring about a peace-on-earth that is conscious, that is sensate, that is palpable... that can be experienced and enjoyed for what it is... because there would not be anyone alive to experience and enjoy it. surely, the absence of fear, malice, and sorrow, worry, grief, and ill-will, from the lives of every man and woman alive on earth would be a better way to bring about a global peace-on-earth than would a global suicide.. and surely it would also be more likely to happen (particularly if each one were to aim at bringing it about for oneself)?
and even if it were possible to convince all the world's population to isolate themselves from one another, and though such isolation, were it even possible in this day and age, would necessarily entail the end of wars, rapes, murders, genocides, abuses, and incidents of domestic violence (as no one would encounter anyone else in order to perpetrate these things), there would still be, among other things, suicide, grief, and despair to account for and contend with... and anyone who knows the depths of grief and despair knows that they are truly miserable conditions. further, were global isolation to last for even one generation, it would result in a global peace-on-earth with no one around to enjoy it.. the same situation as above.
do these examples you gave really make sense to you? if they do, how is it that you value your and your fellow human beings' happiness so little?
if they do not... can you offer any other, more sensible, alternatives?
*
Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
ok... but regardless of how much you prefer Daniel's "I'm doing this because I judge it is the best for me" kind of attitude, it stands that one can, in addition to adopting that attitude, also sensibly judge that a world free of stress, fear, and violence is clearly best for me
Yes, one can do that. But one can also sensibly judge that this isn't the case, as I presently do for myself, because apparently it would be a world also free of nurture, beauty, ecstasy, .... (1)
(...)
(1) Of course, unless you just mean a world free of stress, fear, and violence but having nurture, beauty, ecstasy, etc, then I would presently agree. But since this is not the AF condition, I'm assuming you refer to what you actually know how to get, rather than something else.
the world i am referring to is full of conditions of which nurture, beauty, and ecstasy are affective imitations, and for which these imitations are blindly and repeatedly elicited (and clung to) in a futile and never-ending attempt to finally achieve. these conditions are, correspondingly, actual caring, innocent wonder, and the orgiastic joy of being apperceptively alive and all that it entails.
as i have seen, for myself, how (the mechanisms of) the desires and passions you mention operate, and subsequently, as their goals have been fulfilled (and they/'i' have gone extinct accordingly), then what appetite would i have left for them?
indeed, what appetite would anyone have, would that he see what appetite truly is?
Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
(...) (and, for that matter, everyone else).
But who are you to judge what is best for anyone else?
the same person who judges that it is best for other people to, generally speaking, eat when hungry, sleep when tired, take medicine when sick, and die when it is time; the same person that judges that it is best for other people to not, generally speaking, engage in wars, rapes, murders, genocides, abuses, domestic violence, grief, despair, and suicide. i am, essentially, the same person judging that it is best for others to see that they can live in a world free of stress, fear, and violence... and to bring it about for themselves.
Bruno Loff:
Also, how thorough and systematic have you been in exploring other possibilities? What claims can you make beyond "I've done the best I could for myself"?
i got 4th path, all the traditional jhanic attainments, and nirodha samapatti. i explored non-duality as far as i could find it go (before it would be the absolute only). i re-visited my advaitic past. i dipped into the akashic records more times than i can remember. i attempted time travel (hi!). i explored simultaneous manifestation/bilocation. is that enough for you?
Bruno Loff:
No, I much prefer the attitude which I have (I believe correctly) attributed to Daniel.
daniel is a diplomatic pragmatist who i think may sometimes underestimate the potential of his fellow human beings to fully understand what makes them tick (to understand their own desires).
*
Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
as i have read this forum thoroughly and not come across a single place where a credible proponent of actual freedom has proclaimed that 'emotions are bad', i would like to ask you what you are referring to?
I'm referring to the recurrent idea that emotions need to be destroyed in order to be happy and free, and thus, grossly speaking, "bad" for people who do meditation to be happy and free, that's why I used the word "bad". Is that clear?
no. while it follows that 'emotions need to be destroyed (torn down; broken up; done away with; rendered useless or ineffective) in order to be happy and free'
of stress and fear entirely, what makes you think that determining that emotions are 'bad' will lead to this destruction ... and again, where have you actually seen this advocated by a credible proponent of actual freedom?
Bruno Loff:
E.g., in this thread you write that you are happy "by having decided to be happy (and then letting the leaves fall accordingly)," by which of course you mean ending being.
searching the thread you linked to, i did not find that passage, but searching the entire discussion archive, it appeared
here. as what i wrote ('simple - by having decided to be happy (and then letting the leaves fall accordingly).') was in direct reply to your questions raised immediately above ('how are you able to feel interest for anything without desire?! You seem to retain curiosity, but how? You seem to be happy, but how?'), then how is this relevant to your claim that proponents of actual freedom ' that “emotions are bad”'?
Bruno Loff:
Lots of people before have claimed to be happy and free, without getting rid of affection. I suspect you are no more correct than they, and I've decided to investigate it the best I can.
what are you here referring to, about which i am not 'more correct than they'?
if i may suggest, it may be interesting to - as part of your investigation - investigate whether any of those other people you mention who have claimed to be happy and free and affective are entirely free of stress and fear.
*
Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
just out of curiosity.. does the thought that you, and everyone you know, will one day die, and that everything you've ever experienced and everything they've ever experienced (including every every piece of music ever written) will one day vanish and be completely forgotten, also give you a feel of sadness?
i cannot be more sincere than i am in asking this.
Yes, sometimes. I used to get really really sad about that --- my first dark night was focused around the impermanence aspect, I could hardly stop talking about death, it bothered me beyond measure. Then I got used to it, and now its OK. Tarin I do believe in your sincerity, and good intentions, any particular reason you are emphasizing this aspect of sadness, (...)
yes, in order to highlight the role that loss plays in the experience of sadness.. and to point out that, in being sad, you are still afraid of loss (and, ultimately, of dying).
Bruno Loff:
(...) or your own sincerity?
so as to make it clear that i was not asking this question trivially or facetiously, nor did i mean it as a rhetorical platitude, as is so often the case when people discuss the profundity of death without realising its actual implications (including the implications regarding their awareness, or Awareness).
*
Bruno Loff:
Tarin:
would you give me some examples of those interesting ways of interacting with others which depend on 'being'?
I'm sure you could if you tried. Some things related to feelings (nurture, elation, erotism); the variety offered by the persona construct (which albeit having awful results when taken too seriously, can be tremendously fun at other times); empathy or synchronization between two minds (either both or none must have feelings for this to happen); synchronizing the mood of people in a party to the beat of music; listening to an album with a friend, and sharing the feel of it...
have you noticed that two of your three of your first examples of interesting ways of interacting with others which depend on 'being' necessarily involve power - either power over others (nurture), or others having power over you (sexual desire - erotism )? and do yo understand how that the third example (the feeling of elation) does not reinforce 'being', even though it is experienced as/experienced by one?
by the way, i do not experience any desire to synchronise with another's mind... but neither do i feel dyssynchronised from it to begin with.
Bruno Loff:
There are meditative stabilizations other than Actual Freedom. E.g. "samadhi" as it is used by B. Allan Wallace in "The attention revolution," "the way the realised mind stays" in mahamudra, etc. I'm gonna try and look there first.
hmm.. how about 3rd gear?
*
Bruno Loff:
Also, many buddhist meditators I know about are mostly free of stress and fear, and completely free from violence, and not just the "actually free" ones.
ok... but do you know any buddhist meditators who are entirely free from stress and fear (as are those who are actually free)?
tarin