Robert M E:
Bruno Loff:
In actualism the Absolute Consciousness made of feelings is seen to be a delusion, and by coming to one's senses one comes to "rest" in what one actually is: one's own flesh and blood body, which is neither prior to anything in particular, nor is it the stuff everything is made out of.
This is not non-dualism you are talking about. I have seen Richard do this as well. What exactly? Grossly misinterpreting other traditions, making straw-man.
Maybe it is not what non-dualism is talking about, but it is what you are talking about:
Robert:
one comes to "rest" in Absolute Consciousness which is prior to everything and also the stuff of everything.
I have frankly never came across any tradition where it is made crystal clear that there is no "beyond," or "absolute consciousness," or "higher self," or "the source". At best, there are some practitioners within the tradition who don't talk about these things. In AF this is clearly exposed for what it is: just some imaginary-like mental phenomena (did you know neurologists nowadays can detect the part of the brain that is activated during mystical experiences?).
E.g. check out www.aypsite.org, or hear Shinzen Young talking about "the source."
I have also never come across a tradition that debunks all morality. You only need to hear the Dalai Lama talk about homosexuality, and how it is "unnatural," and whatnot, to know there's some weird aversion going on. And all that talk about boddhisatva and compassion, the whole sainthood trip... Not to mention the whole concept of paranirvana, or reincarnation. Not to mention that many masters from every main tradition are known to get angry, sad, impatient, procrastinating, etc.
The examples are numerous.
Robert:
No one said Absolute Consciousness is made of feelings. Only you just now. Not me, not other teachers. Just you and Richard.
Not exactly true: in many places, absolute consciousness is often referred to as "pure being" (take Tolle for instance). Hence a feeling, called the "feeling of being." As I have explained previously, it is this very feeling of being which is extirpated when one becomes actually free.
Robert:
In actualism, one works towards the anihilation of that very sense of "I AM." This feature of the mind, one realizes, is completely fueled by, and in fact indistinguishable from, feelings. Anihilation should eventually follow from doing the procedure I explained above, of actively working towards living one's only moment of being alive in the best possible way.
I AM in non-duality tradition is focused upon to realize it is limited. The purpose is to see it not you. You are not limited or conceptual. So this is not unique to AF. Richard is not the first to discover this. He is not the only proponent of it either.
Now I'm not saying that Richard was the first doing this (although he does), but he's the first person I know of, and everyone
I know of who's done it, was a practicing actualist at one point. But I would be happy to know of a counter-example (and, for my part, I'm talking about people I have contacted with, not some obscure past master whose words I interpret as it suits me).
Whether what Richard is talking about is actually how [the mahamudra, the i ching, the kamasutra, the art of war, ...] should be interpreted or not, it is certainly different from what the people in the respective traditions are talking about, and hence, I guess, doing.
The fact is that what actualism aims to bring about can be put into such plain terms as Richard did, and that no-one that I know of has done it: either they speak in unclear terms (mystical-schmystical), or they speak in clear terms about something which is obviously different (e.g. Shinzen Young).
Again, I welcome a counter-example. Heck, if someone else out there knows of what Richard is talking about, and has actually written it in an equally clear way, I would love to read it!
There is a lot of information on the AF trust web-site comparing actualism with non-dual "I am everything" or "I am that" or "I am emptiness" or "I am god" or etc traditions. The answer is no.
Yes, his critique is these traditions is unclear and vague. Worse is that he completely misrepresents these traditions and make straw-man out of them.
I think his critique is clear and to the point. But I do think his critique is limited; for instance mahasi style practice seems to have a different flavor than any tradition criticized by the AF trust.
Robert:
The end of their own suffering.
(1) I was under the impression that 4th path already did that. (2) If not, what a waste of time. (3) Besides, if Daniel didn't end his suffering than his opinion is of limited value and why did he write a whole book about it? (4) The fact that he now practices AF is disappointing, because the more I hear and read about it the more I get convinced it's a lot of hot air or worse complete bogus.
(1) As defined by the hardcore dharma movement in recent years, 4th path does not end suffering. One is still liable to be sad, angry, fearful, etc. Of course, different people have different definitions of enlightenment et al.
(2) Have you had the experience yourself in order to dismiss it as a waste of time?
(3) Proabably because he didn't think of it as a waste of time.
(4) Hah

Of course one needs to do the practice in order to see for oneself whether it is hot air or complete or partial bogus.
Robert:
Maybe you don't like to hear this. It may be a bit harsh, but it's my honest opinion, no sugarcoating.
I personally had severe aversion to the AF trust website for quite a few months, until I realized that I was filtering the content with various emotions, which of course didn't quite work, the actualist proposal being what it is. Try to distinguish how much of your opinion is based on fact, direct experience and indirect experience (factual stuff you read etc), and how much is just feeling-based prejudice.
After having behaved in this fashion myself, I have now several times encountered other people who believe actualism is bogus or worst, without having absolutely any direct experience of it. Maybe it's karma? ;-) If you have a PCE (as I have), and still think it is bogus, then I will be really surprised!

So what is your interest in this? Are you aiming to eliminate your own suffering? Whom do you know that has done this completely and unequivocally, other than the AF people? Whom else claims to have, in no unclear terms, eliminated sadness, fear, malice, etc, so that they do not ever never arise? [1]
Take care,
Bruno
[1] You should look at how Shinzen Young needs to complexify and contort his teaching with the notion of "ordinary happiness" and "extraordinary happiness," only to make up for the fact that he actually hasn't gotten rid of his suffering. "Extraordinary happiness," of course, is when he zones out and believes he is god. (
link)