RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/12/14 9:15 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Dream Walker 9/12/14 2:06 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Adam . . 9/12/14 2:14 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/12/14 6:58 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/12/14 6:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/12/14 6:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/12/14 7:30 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom PP 9/12/14 10:08 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/13/14 3:25 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/13/14 1:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/13/14 2:31 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/13/14 3:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/13/14 4:16 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/13/14 4:16 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 8:21 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/14/14 10:27 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 11:17 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/14/14 11:28 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 12:57 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/14/14 1:32 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 1:44 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 3:03 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/14/14 2:13 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/14/14 2:31 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/14/14 2:44 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/14/14 3:32 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/17/14 9:09 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/14/14 3:47 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/14/14 3:52 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/14/14 7:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 5:47 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 7:06 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/15/14 11:55 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/15/14 2:23 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/15/14 6:07 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/15/14 6:30 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/15/14 7:42 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/16/14 12:55 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/16/14 12:16 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/16/14 4:48 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/16/14 10:06 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/16/14 10:43 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/16/14 2:55 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/16/14 11:16 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/16/14 3:23 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/16/14 6:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/16/14 8:22 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/17/14 11:26 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/18/14 12:00 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/18/14 5:42 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/18/14 7:41 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/18/14 11:47 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/21/14 1:21 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/16/14 4:03 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/16/14 7:19 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/15/14 1:03 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 3:20 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/14/14 3:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 4:22 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/15/14 12:43 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/15/14 2:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/17/14 10:58 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/15/14 5:48 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/15/14 4:26 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/15/14 4:42 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/15/14 4:59 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/15/14 5:21 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/15/14 6:55 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/14/14 2:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 4:46 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 5:11 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/14/14 5:40 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 5:51 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/14/14 6:09 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/14/14 6:35 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 7:17 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/14/14 6:14 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/14/14 6:25 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/13/14 4:17 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/13/14 4:07 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/13/14 4:41 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom John Wilde 9/13/14 4:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/14/14 12:04 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/12/14 11:46 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/13/14 5:57 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/14/14 12:50 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/14/14 12:59 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/14/14 9:49 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/14/14 9:47 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/14/14 9:56 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/14/14 10:13 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/14/14 10:41 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/14/14 11:12 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/16/14 11:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/17/14 7:59 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/17/14 9:49 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/17/14 9:57 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/17/14 10:56 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/17/14 11:15 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/17/14 1:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/17/14 1:52 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/17/14 2:17 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Teague 9/17/14 10:18 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/18/14 8:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/18/14 10:08 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/22/14 11:24 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/23/14 8:56 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/24/14 12:57 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Teague 9/18/14 10:22 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/19/14 9:42 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/19/14 11:55 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Teague 9/20/14 2:07 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/21/14 12:49 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/21/14 9:23 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/21/14 10:19 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/22/14 12:00 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/22/14 8:03 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/22/14 11:14 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/22/14 12:49 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/22/14 8:45 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 10:07 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 9:55 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 10:22 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 1:19 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/23/14 11:47 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 12:31 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 1:44 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/23/14 2:55 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 9/30/14 1:42 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 2:40 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/23/14 2:57 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 2:58 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/23/14 3:08 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 4:54 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 5:27 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 6:07 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/23/14 6:35 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 6:27 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/23/14 6:38 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/23/14 7:53 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/23/14 9:45 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom J J 9/24/14 2:34 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/23/14 9:15 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/14 9:24 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/24/14 10:57 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/28/14 2:30 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/29/14 11:38 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/29/14 1:04 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/29/14 5:40 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/29/14 6:27 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 9/29/14 6:30 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/30/14 12:47 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/30/14 10:38 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/30/14 11:37 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/30/14 12:09 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/30/14 2:49 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/30/14 3:29 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/30/14 4:56 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 9/30/14 8:47 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/1/14 11:34 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/1/14 12:19 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/1/14 12:36 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/1/14 1:04 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/1/14 5:45 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/1/14 6:01 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/1/14 6:40 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/1/14 8:00 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/1/14 11:01 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/2/14 6:08 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/3/14 1:33 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/3/14 6:05 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/3/14 7:11 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/3/14 10:32 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 10/4/14 3:04 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/5/14 12:28 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Felipe C. 10/3/14 8:42 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 10/4/14 12:02 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 10/1/14 1:43 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 9/21/14 3:41 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Daniel - san 9/22/14 7:30 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/18/14 3:40 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 9/19/14 12:29 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/19/14 9:44 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 10/5/14 7:58 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/5/14 2:59 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Eva Nie 10/5/14 10:45 AM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/5/14 2:55 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Nikolai . 10/5/14 3:30 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Not Tao 10/5/14 3:27 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Bill F. 10/5/14 6:08 PM
RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom Psi 10/5/14 8:06 PM
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 9:15 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 5:50 AM

A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Hi guys,

I haven't been on here in a while.  I left a while back because I realized I wasn't adding much to the forum, but I'd like to rejoin the community and try to make some useful posts since I've found so many on here over the past year.

Something I've noticed about Actualism is that there isn't a great variety in the way it's presented, and this is, maybe, what leads to so much confusion about it.  I've spent a lot of time over at the AFT website recently looking things up as I encounter them, and I've really come to enjoy how lucid and simple a lot of it is.  My hope for this post is that I can help more people benefit from the ideas, and maybe give any practicing actualists a new set of ideas to work with.

Anyway, the way I've come to see Actualism is that it is a set of tips, ideas, and practices aimed at dismantling the "guard", or the habitual reactionary process that happens when we experience things.  This guarding, or tension, is both physical and mental, and it's always related to self-protection.  As we go about our day, there is an alertness sitting at the back of our minds that is actively scanning for dangers, and a person's personality is, essentially, the result of how many things they see as dangerous, and the way they've come to protect themselves agaisnt these things.  An anxious person sees danger in saying the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing, making mistakes, etc, and protects himself by avoiding and running away from situations that might present these things.  An angry person sees danger in having their ideas, authority, or power challenged, and deals with the danger by making himself large and loud to scare off the threats.

Actualism, then, works in a two fold manner to disable the guard in the short term, and then remove the triggers that cause the guard to appear.  After a bit of practice, the ongoing question in the mind of an actualist is whether or not they see danger in anything in their experience.  When something is encountered that trigers this guarding mechanism, it is examined until it is seen that this thing doesn't need to be taken seriously, and the emotional negativity is resolved.  This weakens the reactivity each time it's done until the reaction simply doesn't happen anymore.

This often turns into a philosophical and ethical examination, and this is where the PCE is important.  After either having or remembering a PCE, a person will realize that the very core of human nature, when it's been stripped of all defense mechanisms, is a mind that is both benevolent and content.  This benevolence is born from contentment, so it's effortless and needs no "guard" (or morality) to persist, and the contentment is so perfectly satisfying that it is known, viscerally, that the mind truely needs nothing.

All moral or ethical guards, like guilt and shame, are seen as pointless because the mind can actually FEEL a perfect kindness towards all things without effort.  Guilt and shame also have negative side effects, like resentment leading to harmfulness, whereas the "check" on our malevolence in the PCE is the contentment that comes from needing nothing at all.  It's only logical to conclude that there's no reason to take guilt and shame seriously.

Anger is seen as pointless because, not only does it feel bad compared to the PCE, but it destroys interpersonal relationships and tends to prevent us from living well with other people.  There is also no need for it because, as seen in the PCE, we don't really need anything to be content - there are truely no threats to protect against.

An interesting realization for me, personally, was how useless anxiety is.  I was laying in bed worried about money, and I had thoughts about how, tomorrow, I would work harder to finish my project so I could become more prolific and maybe scrape by.  These kinds of thoughts were looping in my head when I suddenly realized I had spent most of the day thinking about the same things rather than working.  The irony of the situation was so ridiculous I lost the anxiety completely.  If we were to spend all our time in a PCE, we'd easilly be able to work 12 hour days no-problem, and we'd enjoy the work!

So, at it's core, Actualism is the process of learning to trust spontenaity.  It's about going through your problems, piece by piece, and realizing that none of them are actually serious or important.

But what about the good emotions?  This is something a little harder to understand, I think, but emotions like love and compassion are also reactionary and defensive.  There's a self absorption that is intrinsic to emotions (and I mean that in the normal way, not in the buddist "self" way).  When we experience love, it is a tension, both physical and mental, and it causes us to take possetion of another person.  Most importantly, it causes us to guard against anything that might hurt the feeling.  Compassion is a defense mechanism where the mind learns to enjoy sadness.  In fact, most positive emotions have a negative counterpoint, which is why the emotional experience can be so volitile and confusing.

This way of talking about positive emotions can be very confusing, though, because the PCE is often described in emotional terms like "delight", "wonder", "felicity", etc.  I've found it's best not to be too involved in questioning whether or not I'm experiencing an emotion in particular, though, and instead focus on whether there's any part of my experience that is unpleasant.  This allows the mind more freedom in what it examines, because there's no lable like "love" to skim over.  What I've often found is that, once the negative aspects of a positive experience like love are skimmed away (jealosy, fear of loss, desire to be closer, desire to possess), you're left with the simple benevolent contentment of the PCE anyway.  The love isn't gone so much as transcended.  A good analogy to this is that, because everything is perfect in the PCE, art loses all it's meaning.  That's not because the art-object has dulled, but rather because everything else has increased in beauty to meet it.  Even the idea of beauty is transcended.  The art and the wall behind it are both perfect.  As an artist, I have to say that I think the PCE is where our idea of beauty actually comes from.

The PCE, then, finally happens when the guard is down long enough for the mind to become thoroughly fascinated by the senses.  This fascination takes the mind completely out of the guarding mechanism, and this gives the PCE a "now" and "here" feeling.  It's perfectly possible to think, but the thoughts aren't coming out of that danger-seeking alertness, so even the most inflamatory ideas and events no longer carry emotional weight.  The mind is finally at ease.

I see the PCE, rather than "Actual Freedom", as the goal of the practice.  The reason for this is because the whole purpose of the thing is to let go of that tendancy to watch experience like a hawk.  I've been launched right out of PCEs by trying to figure out why they happened.  I've also wasted a lot of time rehersing negative feelings and trying to stop having them.  It can be helpful to know that there are Actually Free people in the world if you're going through a difficult time and need inspiration, but it's always better, as a practice, to look for freedom now rather than in the future.

I hope this is helpful to people and maybe serves to displace some of the misconceptions there are.  A few of the misconceptions I've had are:

- Actual Freedom is about becoming emotionless.
While it's true that the PCE is emotionless, it's not because the person experiencing it tried to get rid of their emotions in some way.  Anyone who is experiencing a PCE has temporarily let go of their defenses, which is the opposite of suppression.  I used to call it "acceptance" except you aren't accepting the negative emotions, you're accepting that there's nothing you really need to worry about, thus erasing negative emotions.

- PCEs are caused by paying attention - i.e. bare awareness.
I spent a lot of time doing a kind of zazen earlier this year, and while just sitting CAN lead to a PCE, it isn't because of deep concentration but rather deep appreciation.  Concentration is always going to be an exercise in suppresion, and that isn't going to make any deep changes to habitual patterns.  Eventually, even the most concentrated bliss becomes unsatisfyting, whereas the PCE is, itself, satisfaction.

- I must pay close attention to how I feel.
This one is a particular problem for anyone practicing any kind of mental development.  There's no bigger trap than ruminating about feelings.  I've been there a lot in my life, so I understand it.  The actualism method can often sound like rumination, as well.  We're supposed to examine our feelings, no?  But that's why I like to make the particular distiction that actualism is about letting down the guard.  It's impossible to ruminate about that, and it points directly to the problem - which is rumination itself.  By examining emotions dispassionately, we can sort out the the triggers that cause them, but searching wildly for some cause of a negative emotion in the moment is just a waste of time.  It is expressing the negativity to panic and look for a cause.  A better response is to neither express nor suppress the emotion - which is letting down the defenses.  I've found the best thing to do if you're ruminating about something is to distract yourself.  Do something physical or go be social for a while.  Come back to the problem later when you aren't so embedded in it.

I think that's it.  I'm on my tablet right now, so I probably have a lot of spelling errors and typos.  Hopefully that doesn't grate on anyone too much. :3
thumbnail
Dream Walker, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 2:06 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 2:03 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1657 Join Date: 1/18/12 Recent Posts
I like your take on it....I tend to agree with your interperetation. Can emotions be vipassanaized by investigation?

There seems to be a dukkha/stress/fight or flight center in the brain. There seems to be many many "things" that are wired to it. I am leaning towards the idea that you can Vipassanize just about anything that is wired to this center and rewire it so that sensations no longer have to meet the stress threshold to get to conscious awareness. It seems you can rewire by seeing the "thing" clearly or rerouting the signals thru the love center of the brain. There are lots of techniques out there to choose from and some will work better/faster than others for some people.
~D
Adam , modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 2:14 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 2:14 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
thanks, i like this summary.

it is indeed about dropping the guard (a phrase which I think occurs somewhere in the official AFT writings) in my experience. Often it seems like that dropping is something that I can't predict or cause and it just naturally comes out of circumstances when not resisted, and those experiences are wonderful. getting it to happen through intention is a very counterintuitive thing.

sometimes it happens after intense experiences where some aspect of a fascade or a layer of identity can no longer be upheld because it is simply too difficult. other times it happens when circumstances come together very nicely and the world just seems very safe.

often the idea of actual freedom can actually appeal to the "guard" because it can seem like a way to make "me" independent and powerful... but this is a misinterpretation that consistently leads to suffering and confusion.

genuinely dropping the guard in an intentional way requires a willingness to lose everything I think. when I come close to that (but resist it) I often feel like an astronaught whose tether to a spacecraft was lost... floating lost and alone. or I feel like I will become an outcast in society and a failure. the guard only persists because we think it is useful in these ways and I guess investigation is about uncovering those false assumptions. when I don't resist the lowering of the guard though, there is no question that I have moved into a fresher, clearer, easier way of being.

"A better response is to neither express nor suppress the emotion - which is letting down the defenses."
would you mind sharing exactly what this means in practice for you? for me it basically means feeling the emotion in the body without thinking about it.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 6:58 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 6:29 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Dream Walker:
Can emotions be vipassanaized by investigation?


Is vipassana investigation, though? From how I've seen it explained, noting practice, or "noticing" practice, is passive observation of any sensation, and the goal is to see that sensation as being "empty" or selfless or impermanent. This is eventually supposed to lead to the realization that all things are empty and impermanent. Actual Freedom practice is very simple, it just posits that all unpleasantness is caused directly by a belief or an idea about the world, and that by changing those views the unpleasantness will no longer happen. Richard talks about "self" a lot, but this isn't the Buddhist concept of a self. He's simply referring to the idea that there is something that needs to be protected from the outside world. In the PCE, there is no sense of identity, and therefore nothing to protect, but there is very definitely a self in the Buddhist sense. Vipassana doesn't seem to have much to do with emotions at all if you consider the descriptions of the various levels of attainment in the pragmatic dharma circles. It's about how the world is experienced (self vs. no-self).

Conversely, If you're investigating emotions, looking at what caused them and how to change those causes, you probably aren't practicing vipassana.

This is only my understanding of it though.

Dream Walker:
There seems to be a dukkha/stress/fight or flight center in the brain. There seems to be many many "things" that are wired to it. I am leaning towards the idea that you can Vipassanize just about anything that is wired to this center and rewire it so that sensations no longer have to meet the stress threshold to get to conscious awareness. It seems you can rewire by seeing the "thing" clearly or rerouting the signals thru the love center of the brain. There are lots of techniques out there to choose from and some will work better/faster than others for some people.
~D


I've seen that said a number of times here, but I'm not quite sure what it means. If you're "seeing the thing clearly", to me that would mean you are seeing the conceptual trigger - a thought, concept, or belief - and you are seeing how that trigger is not important, not valuable in your experience. Actualism practice hasn't ever been about anything particularly mystical in my experience. It's very obvious why certain problems that I used to have no longer bother me. I simply made the effort to disabuse myself of trigger. An example might be, I used to be afraid of spiders, so I spent some time looking at pictures of spiders and being around living spiders in my house. Now spiders no longer bother me. This might sound stupidly straightforward, but if that fear can change, why can't all fear, and hate, and anger, and boredom, etc. It really does work, it just takes a bit of time and effort - and a bit of persistence. There aren't that many things in our lives that really bother us, we just spin around the same old troubles endlessly. So dramatic changes seem to happen with every harmful belief you get rid of, even if the belief itself is something small.

Adam . .:
"A better response is to neither express nor suppress the emotion - which is letting down the defenses."
would you mind sharing exactly what this means in practice for you? for me it basically means feeling the emotion in the body without thinking about it.


This is something I ask myself a lot, haha. It can be hard to pin down, though. Feeling it in the body without thinking about it... I think that is probably a kind of suppression (if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly). If you consider the PCE, one of its most striking characteristics is how the mind simply isn't bothered by the things it normally would be. It's a true freedom because there's no need to avoid anything or run away from any thoughts. I think this is actually a good pointer to why the state happens. It's counter-intuitive to think you might get there by tuning out a sensation. If you were to suddenly think about the sensation again, you'd lose the PCE instantly. Not that I haven't tried what you're proposing. During a particularly dark period a while back, I was doing a practice where, whenever I felt negativity, I'd simply ignore the emotional qualities and come back to the senses. It became almost automatic to "physicalize" the emotions, or turn off the internal sense of being connected to them. I started falling into these unsettling states where the body seemed to be expressing emotional qualities and feelings, but they didn't have any emotional feeling connected to them. It almost felt like painful muscle spasms. I stopped that practice because it didn't seem to be going anywhere promising. If you're doing something different from this, though, and want to know if it will get you to the PCE, just ask yourself if the practice itself is related to what happens in the PCE. Things like effortlessness, openness, spontaneity, and fearless curiosity lead towards the PCE because they are aspects of the PCE.

Most of the time, letting down the defenses is the simplest and easiest thing you can consider doing with your experience. I mean that literally. Like, if you consider your experience as it is right now, and ask yourself how you can be the least involved in controlling it, that's neither suppressing nor expressing. If the emotion is very bad, it can feel like giving up and giving in completely. All the little tricks and strategies fail one by one until you finally give in and acknowledge that "yes, here I am, feeling like crap", and then it finally stops. You realize at that point that the whole reason it sucked in the first place was because you were fighting against some event or thing in your life. It's the grand reveal, in a way. Our emotions are trying to tell us something, and as long as we're trying to make them go away we're ignoring their purpose. It's like an alarm is going off in our head, and all we need to do to turn it off is read the message and correct the malfunction, but instead we throw things at the speaker, or muffle it with pillows or something. The actualist trains himself to listen to the alarm and read the message as quickly as possible so he can make repairs and move on.

Haha, this post seems to betray my recent star trek marathon...

Adam . .:
often the idea of actual freedom can actually appeal to the "guard" because it can seem like a way to make "me" independent and powerful... but this is a misinterpretation that consistently leads to suffering and confusion.


I can relate to this, definitely! I think it's a bit of a phase, though. After a while you just want to go back to feeling good again, you know? The whole concept of being "freer than thou" or maybe even "free to do what I want!" is so counter to the PCE, that it starts to feel like a direct obstacle.
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 6:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 6:35 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
I like your emphasis on the causes and consequences of guardedness. It gives you a practical handle on current reactive tendencies, and it seems like a pretty good entry point for deeper inquiry into the causes. I'll be interested to read about your results over time. (I'd suggest you look at both the self-defensive and self-assertive tendencies as different expressions of guardedness).

On a more pragmatic and political note, if it were me, I'd avoid using any AF terminology unless/until this thing actually leads to an actual freedom from the human condition exactly as Richard describes it. If that happens, great, you've devised an innovative and demonstrably effective path to the same place, and it'd be wonderful to have a different presentation and a different path. But if your experience at some point diverges from AF, you will not have inadvertently misrepresented their (AFT) message, and will have not muddied the waters for others. I say this because it's happened before, and the likelihood of it happening again is high.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 6:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 6:54 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Haha, I realized the risk when I took the plunge. We'll see what the dragon emu has to say about my interpretation.

Really, though, it would be against the message to talk about "lowering the guard" for a whole post and then add disclaimers about non-affiliation to the AFT at the end, don't you think. :3
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 7:30 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 7:11 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:

Really, though, it would be against the message to talk about "lowering the guard" for a whole post and then add disclaimers about non-affiliation to the AFT at the end, don't you think. :3

No, not at all. There's a difference between blind affective guardedness versus a pragmatic concern for not repeating history in ways that aren't beneficial to anyone. (Speaking personally, I've been present through all the controversies and have had exposure to all flavours of AF/'actualism' so it makes no personal difference to me; it was just a suggestion based on what has happened in the past).
thumbnail
PP, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 10:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 10:07 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 376 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
Best AF thread I've read in quite a long time.

A sincere question to you all, how this practice differenciates with focusing in the Buddhist's 2nd Characteristic, Dukkha? As a point of comparison, what I do is be aware of both attraction and aversion of body sensations, thoughts and emotions, not trying to modify them in any way (2nd C)  but surf the whole wave from arising till passing (1st C), plus resting in the (body's, mind's and emotions') emptyness in the in-between moments/space (3rd C) until another thing pops up.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 11:46 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/12/14 11:46 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Hey Not Tao,

What you have explained is basically what I have always taken to be Right Mindfulness, and/or Bare Attention, or some call Pure Mindfulness/ Pure Awareness.   Also, same technique applied to use the escape hatch in Dependent Origination where one stops the process just before the craving initiates.  Have you ever read The Heart of Buddhist Meditation by Nyanaponika Thera?  Or listened to Dhamma Talks by the late Ayya Khema?  Or read The Magic of the  Mind by Nyanananda Thera ?  If you haven't you would probably enjoy them, as it touches upon what you are describing.  

Anyway good post.

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 3:25 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 3:23 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Pablo . P:
Best AF thread I've read in quite a long time.

A sincere question to you all, how this practice differenciates with focusing in the Buddhist's 2nd Characteristic, Dukkha? As a point of comparison, what I do is be aware of both attraction and aversion of body sensations, thoughts and emotions, not trying to modify them in any way (2nd C)  but surf the whole wave from arising till passing (1st C), plus resting in the (body's, mind's and emotions') emptyness in the in-between moments/space (3rd C) until another thing pops up.


The main difference is that letting down the guard is used specifically to stop the negative emotion as quickly as possible and reveal the source of the emotion so it doesn't have to be felt in the future. As I've come to see it, mindfulness as discussed on the dho is the study of sensations, and the partcular goal of mindfulness is to delegitimize sensation by seeing it as an everchanging and impersonal field of awareness.

Here's an analogy that might illustrate the difference:
An Actualist and a Theravadan are sitting in boats on a lake. Strong waves are rocking the boats. The Theravadan uses acceptance to aclimitize his body to the sensations of rocking back and forth, and after a cycling period of sea-sickness, he gains his sea legs. The Actualist rides the waves, searching for the calmest waters. He eventually finds land and is never bothered by waves again.

The Theravadan may make arguments like, "Seventy percent of earth is covered by water, and I have drifted over all of it and seen the world!" But the actualist would respond with, "Sure, but all I ever wanted was to stop being sea sick. Humans are meant to live on land, not water."


@Psi Phi: I watched a number of Ayya Khema's talks back when I was going through the jhanas every day. I really liked her back then, but I don't really meditate anymore. Anyway, maybe the above illustrates the difference between bare awareness and Actualism? The Actualist is not a passive observer, they are always steering towards shore. Bare awareness also strikes me as "paying attention" which is the "guard" itself. The Actualist is trying to stop that sort of thing and simply enjoy themself.

Maybe it's important to point out that if the negative ruminations don't end, then the guard is still there. The guard is, itself, the origin of the problem, and letting go of the seriousness attached to whatever caused a negative emotion is specifically what makes it end. There is success and failure in the application of the Actualist method (though, I wouldn't focus too heavily on tallying success and failure, as that is, itself, a rumination). Bare awareness allows an emotion to go on until it ends on its own - there's no way to fail, you just watch whatever happens.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 1:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 1:54 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Pablo . P:
Best AF thread I've read in quite a long time.

A sincere question to you all, how this practice differenciates with focusing in the Buddhist's 2nd Characteristic, Dukkha? As a point of comparison, what I do is be aware of both attraction and aversion of body sensations, thoughts and emotions, not trying to modify them in any way (2nd C)  but surf the whole wave from arising till passing (1st C), plus resting in the (body's, mind's and emotions') emptyness in the in-between moments/space (3rd C) until another thing pops up.


The main difference is that letting down the guard is used specifically to stop the negative emotion as quickly as possible and reveal the source of the emotion so it doesn't have to be felt in the future. As I've come to see it, mindfulness as discussed on the dho is the study of sensations, and the partcular goal of mindfulness is to delegitimize sensation by seeing it as an everchanging and impersonal field of awareness.

Here's an analogy that might illustrate the difference:
An Actualist and a Theravadan are sitting in boats on a lake. Strong waves are rocking the boats. The Theravadan uses acceptance to aclimitize his body to the sensations of rocking back and forth, and after a cycling period of sea-sickness, he gains his sea legs. The Actualist rides the waves, searching for the calmest waters. He eventually finds land and is never bothered by waves again.

The Theravadan may make arguments like, "Seventy percent of earth is covered by water, and I have drifted over all of it and seen the world!" But the actualist would respond with, "Sure, but all I ever wanted was to stop being sea sick. Humans are meant to live on land, not water."


@Psi Phi: I watched a number of Ayya Khema's talks back when I was going through the jhanas every day. I really liked her back then, but I don't really meditate anymore. Anyway, maybe the above illustrates the difference between bare awareness and Actualism? The Actualist is not a passive observer, they are always steering towards shore. Bare awareness also strikes me as "paying attention" which is the "guard" itself. The Actualist is trying to stop that sort of thing and simply enjoy themself.

Maybe it's important to point out that if the negative ruminations don't end, then the guard is still there. The guard is, itself, the origin of the problem, and letting go of the seriousness attached to whatever caused a negative emotion is specifically what makes it end. There is success and failure in the application of the Actualist method (though, I wouldn't focus too heavily on tallying success and failure, as that is, itself, a rumination). Bare awareness allows an emotion to go on until it ends on its own - there's no way to fail, you just watch whatever happens.

You seem to get it, but don't seem to get it in Theravadan terms, which is okay, but kind of a mystery.  You are describing,minddfulness and perhaps clear comprehension, and also describing the practical use of understanding dependent origination, i.e. (the cutting off at the root before craving initiates) and by repeating this process each and every time the root is weakened and finally extirpate.

It is a pretty funny viewpoint that Theravadans, are practicing the same meditation skill level as that of a frog, i.e. (frog sits still on a log while the waves go up and down)  As comapared to your view of Actual Freedom , where one gets up and walks across the water like Jesus on a cool summer night.  That is just an incorrect viewpoint, that is based upon mis-understanding.

You said that Bare Awareness allows emotions to go on until it ends on its own.  This is not true, with Bare Awareness, the emotional stage does not get it's chance to arise, i.e. Bare Attention allows the cessation of encountered phenomenon to be known as it is BEFORE one starts to get emotional ( Not wanting (anger/aversion)  and wanting (greed/attachment).  This should also coupled with Clear Comprehension.


Anyway, I am happy for you, despite whatever definitions or vocabulary you want to use.  I am stopping here, trying to keep my posts shorter.

May you maintain Pure Consciousness, 

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 2:31 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 2:31 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
We ultimately are always limited by our own understanding and perception of our experience. Every non-conceptual experience in being talked about is changed into a product of our own cognitive processing. To that end, what I say is entirely irrelevant or relevant to your experience.
 
Love and compassion are not self-referential emotions, and to the extent that we are describing emotions as subjective reactions, they can not accurately be described as emotions. Love exists because there is. It is not for something else or from something or somebody. 
Those who would describe it in such tepid terms have not yet experienced or recognized love, and are describing the heights of affection. Love shits on your shallow displays.
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 3:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 3:54 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts

Love and compassion are not self-referential emotions, and to the extent that we are describing emotions as subjective reactions, they can not accurately be described as emotions. Love exists because there is. It is not for something else or from something or somebody. 
Those who would describe it in such tepid terms have not yet experienced or recognized love, and are describing the heights of affection. Love shits on your shallow displays.
A lot of it comes down to definition.  The term 'love' as commonly used in society seems to denote a clingy wanting possessive kind of emotion where you typically expect things in return or are hurt and angry if you don't get them.  Compassion often denotes a thing where you feel bad because the other person feels bad.  If you are going to use a definition that is not the common societal use, then don't be surprised if others are confused and don't understand you!  ;-)  That's probably why other terms like 'unconditional love,' 'agape,' and 'understanding' often come into use in such circumstances. 

Anyway, on the general subject, I suspect that a lot of the process of enlightenment has to do with dealing with the things/habits we have that are getting in the way.  Deal with those issues and it clears the path for our inner nature to shine.  I don't think there is just one and only one way to do that which is best for everyone.  One potential way is to look directly for the things in the way and use various methods to try to deal with them,  a nonjudgemental dispassionate approach seems to be a common suggestion as part of that process and I do agree that not all ways of looking seem as efficient as others. 
IMO, you need to be willing to look at all things about self especially including the unflattering ones but not to get all sucked into that negative feedback loop. 

Another general method I see is to try to see directly to our true nature without spending so much time on that which might be obscuring, for instance by looking at the 3 characteristics, with the assumption that the stuff in the way will become less relevant if we can do that.  And while everyone seems to have their emphasis one way or another, I haven't really seen anyone that does purely and completely one way without ever ever doing any aspects of the other way ever.  Maybe the two ways are complimentary to each other.  ;-)
-Eva 
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:17 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:03 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:

You seem to get it, but don't seem to get it in Theravadan terms, which is okay, but kind of a mystery.  You are describing,minddfulness and perhaps clear comprehension, and also describing the practical use of understanding dependent origination, i.e. (the cutting off at the root before craving initiates) and by repeating this process each and every time the root is weakened and finally extirpate.

It is a pretty funny viewpoint that Theravadans, are practicing the same meditation skill level as that of a frog, i.e. (frog sits still on a log while the waves go up and down)  As comapared to your view of Actual Freedom , where one gets up and walks across the water like Jesus on a cool summer night.  That is just an incorrect viewpoint, that is based upon mis-understanding.

You said that Bare Awareness allows emotions to go on until it ends on its own.  This is not true, with Bare Awareness, the emotional stage does not get it's chance to arise, i.e. Bare Attention allows the cessation of encountered phenomenon to be known as it is BEFORE one starts to get emotional ( Not wanting (anger/aversion)  and wanting (greed/attachment).  This should also coupled with Clear Comprehension.


I think you missed the key difference I pointed to. The idea behind bare awareness is that we can "hack the system" by focusing our experience into a certain level and tuning out the rest. This has nothing to do with trying to understand the content of an emotion, it's more like a form of selective awareness and concentration. The Actualist want's to see the emotion clearly so he can figure out what's causing it, and this is why he neither suppresses nor expresses the emotion. Bare awareness actually gets in the way of this because it tries to short circuit the process itself and disconnect the emotional part of the mind from awareness.

In my experience, the PCE isn't a bare awareness, but rather a complete contentment that allows for the enjoyment of the senses. I think these really are two different states of mind. I was practicing something a while back that might be called bare awareness, and it had a very jhanic feel - a kind of expanded mind hyper-sensitivity. The PCE, on the other hand, has a very ordinary quality, you are just here, and it is just now, and everything is perfect. I know these things can sound the same, but I don't think they are. The PCE is like Christmas morning or a sunny fall day. Bare awareness seemed more like being on mushrooms or watching high definition TV. I think this is why Richard spends a lot of time saying a PCE isn't an altered state of consciousness. It doesn't take any kind of concentration to create or maintain a PCE, it just requires you to let down your defenses completely.

I think there is something to be said for the way Richard describes his "Actual World" as a fairytale dreamland. Before I encountered Actualism, I was calling the PCE "elf mind". In short, it makes me feel like I am an elf wandering in the woods. Everything is just lovely and magical - but not in a dramatic way. The fact that it's so ordinary is part of what makes it so magical.

I'm sorry if I offended you somehow with my analogy. I thought it was actually a pretty good comparison, myself... You should note I'm using Pragmatic Dharma's interpretation of Theravada, where one continues to cycle through dark nights (the waves in my analogy) after reaching the end of the practice.

William Golden Finch:
We ultimately are always limited by our own understanding and perception of our experience. Every non-conceptual experience in being talked about is changed into a product of our own cognitive processing. To that end, what I say is entirely irrelevant or relevant to your experience.

Love and compassion are not self-referential emotions, and to the extent that we are describing emotions as subjective reactions, they can not accurately be described as emotions. Love exists because there is. It is not for something else or from something or somebody.
Those who would describe it in such tepid terms have not yet experienced or recognized love, and are describing the heights of affection. Love shits on your shallow displays.


I always have a hard time explaining why emotionlessness tops positive emotions for me. If you're really interested in why I might feel this way, though, you'll need to read what follows with the idea that I'm not trying to insult you or your feelings, and I'm not trying to subtly insinuate that my range of experience is somehow superior to yours. I can only say, as you pointed out, what is in my experience, and try to be as lucid as possible about it.

Now, I think the purity of the kindness experienced in the PCE is only possible because it has no emotional component. Kindness, perhaps, sounds like an emotional component, but it's only kindness as an afterthought if you compare it to the emotional mind. Love, as an experience, is self-referential simply because it is an experience. Love happens somewhere in the body as a physical manifestation of pleasure - probably in the heart. This means that "I feel good about that". I am seeing this pleasure inside myself, and because I am consumed by the pleasure, I have a more favorably view of whatever has attracted my love. So I am "looking within myself" so to speak. My attention is on myself and my feeling of love. This isn't to say people who are in love are self-centered, in the traditional meaning of the word, it means they are self-focused, or maybe self-aware.

In comparison, the PCE happens specifically when there is no identity left to capture the awareness. The identity, being the sum of all emotional judgements, is temporarily forgotten and all that's left is a tension-free sensate experience - the experience of being without inhibitions or worries. This experience is pure contentment with everything, and thus there is a benevolence towards everything. So, in this way, the indifference itself is what makes the kindness altruistic in the PCE. There is no emotional connection to any object, so the objects themselves are as free as the mind experiencing them. The most important part of my argument here is that NOTHING has an emotional attachment. With the normal mind, if we have no attachment to something, our other attachments make it invisible to us. We either ignore it completely or find it boring. In the PCE, because there is no emotional drive to steer the awareness, the mind is at rest wherever it lands. So the relationship between the the person experiencing the PCE, and the people interacting with him is completely different. He sees them restfully, and because of that, the experience is kind and benevolent no matter what that other person might say or do.

Eva M Nie:
Another general method I see is to try to see directly to our true nature without spending so much time on that which might be obscuring, for instance by looking at the 3 characteristics, with the assumption that the stuff in the way will become less relevant if we can do that. And while everyone seems to have their emphasis one way or another, I haven't really seen anyone that does purely and completely one way without ever ever doing any aspects of the other way ever. Maybe the two ways are complimentary to each other. ;-)
-Eva


Speaking personally, I don't think the three characteristics have much to do with our true nature, and I don't see them as particularly helpful in self-improvement. I'm not sure that any part of my practice these days is related to an inward quest like this. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I just don't think there's a quick fix or shortcut anymore.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:07 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
I think it would have been impossible to not have read what I wrote as a critique to you. It was triggered by a runnin theme I have come across in pragmatic dharma circles, which is the conflation of "love" with "affection". I was responding to that idea in your post, not you per se. I liked most of what you wrote.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:16 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:09 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
I think we should disband with the ";)" emoticon as it is generally in my experience a way to try to covertly make a passive agressive comment. I think communication would be more effective if we did not use that. Then again...who am I?
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:16 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:12 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Compassion is derived from the Greek: "Com" with and "passion" feeling, or "suffering", depending on whom you ask. So this is to feel "with". Separation is gone. Me feeling bad for you is pity. If that is a common misunderstanding then good that I correct the errors of the common man (or woman). Then again...who am I?
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:41 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:41 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Well, maybe what I thought of as Theravadan may be different than your interpretation, I thought Theravadan was "School of the Elders"  and used the Pali-Canon, the suttas.  Anyway, was pretty sure I understood the state of being you were describing and was happy for you, terminology and verbal formations being set aside.  On that note, I will now slip back into my non-craving state as best as can be expected, and get some excercise and sunshine.  Gotta go outside and Play!!  Woop woop!!

Bye
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 4:54 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:

I think you missed the key difference I pointed to. The idea behind bare awareness is that we can "hack the system" by focusing our experience into a certain level and tuning out the rest. This has nothing to do with trying to understand the content of an emotion, it's more like a form of selective awareness and concentration. The Actualist want's to see the emotion clearly so he can figure out what's causing it, and this is why he neither suppresses nor expresses the emotion. Bare awareness actually gets in the way of this because it tries to short circuit the process itself and disconnect the emotional part of the mind from awareness.

In my experience, the PCE isn't a bare awareness, but rather a complete contentment that allows for the enjoyment of the senses. I think these really are two different states of mind. I was practicing something a while back that might be called bare awareness, and it had a very jhanic feel - a kind of expanded mind hyper-sensitivity. The PCE, on the other hand, has a very ordinary quality, you are just here, and it is just now, and everything is perfect. I know these things can sound the same, but I don't think they are. The PCE is like Christmas morning or a sunny fall day. Bare awareness seemed more like being on mushrooms or watching high definition TV. I think this is why Richard spends a lot of time saying a PCE isn't an altered state of consciousness. It doesn't take any kind of concentration to create or maintain a PCE, it just requires you to let down your defenses completely.


Now that you clearly do understand the difference, it'll be really interesting to see whether your technique of "letting down your defenses completely" delivers the right results. Please keep us posted!
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 5:57 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/13/14 5:57 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Okay,  don't use the ego to read this, it will save alot of dukkha,  I went over to the AF website and read the definition for PCE, and here is my take.  This is Buddhism with a funny twist and unreal adverbs, like "the magic fairy tale like paradise the earth actually is", "glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes" "the delicious wonder of it all".  

But anyway, it is, in my opinion, teaching Anatta, which is seeing while seeing, washing dishes while washing dishes, this is NOT new, as self-proclaimed by the author, it even describes the six sense bases, and experiencing the world with self and no-self.  I am sorry, this is not new and earth ain't no fairy tale, By the Gods the fairies are back!

But, sure the techniques probably work , there are probably different ways to "awakening", to various levels of "awakening".

I just don't see anything new here, from my experience, "knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any self whatsoever", to quote from website, this sounds  like a form of Buddhism.....

Psi Phi

p.s. not trying to blasphemy any new religion or anything, it's just that if something is borrowed or brought over one should give credit where credit is due, If the AF originator was from an island and never encountered Buddhism I can understand, so If he is and didn't know I apologize in advance.  

P.s.s.  I will look into this more, for maybe I mis-stated some things, or judged too fast, or too harshly,  But I feel everyone has the right to investigate everything.
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:04 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:04 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:

In comparison, the PCE happens specifically when there is no identity left to capture the awareness. The identity, being the sum of all emotional judgements, is temporarily forgotten and all that's left is a tension-free sensate experience - the experience of being without inhibitions or worries. This experience is pure contentment with everything, and thus there is a benevolence towards everything. So, in this way, the indifference itself is what makes the kindness altruistic in the PCE. There is no emotional connection to any object, so the objects themselves are as free as the mind experiencing them. The most important part of my argument here is that NOTHING has an emotional attachment. With the normal mind, if we have no attachment to something, our other attachments make it invisible to us. We either ignore it completely or find it boring. In the PCE, because there is no emotional drive to steer the awareness, the mind is at rest wherever it lands. So the relationship between the the person experiencing the PCE, and the people interacting with him is completely different. He sees them restfully, and because of that, the experience is kind and benevolent no matter what that other person might say or do.
What dl you think is the difference between PCE as described and nondualism?
Speaking personally, I don't think the three characteristics have much to do with our true nature, and I don't see them as particularly helpful in self-improvement. I'm not sure that any part of my practice these days is related to an inward quest like this. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I just don't think there's a quick fix or shortcut anymore.
I don't recall anyone saying 3Cs was a quick fix or shortcut.  Seems like it takes a while!  ;-P
-Eva
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:50 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:47 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Just adding:

From AF website:


I
t says: The vowed aim of meditation is to escape the world transcend the ego and "become" the soul etc etc For full AF comment see below

This view, proposed as a fact is just complete non-sense, where does someone ever get this idea, to even say this about such a broad subject such as meditation, it's simply preposterous.  One doesn't even have to believe in a soul to meditate.

Also, to put forth the idea that the vowed aim meditation is to escape the world is mis-leading and deceptive, possibly even causing harm to others well being, it is also a very non-compassionate and thoughtless statement.  If I ever make such an error, please correct me so I may try to set things straight, I am human and prone to errors.

 Some of the thoughts seems good and some of the thoughts seem to come not from a Pure Conscious Awareness, but from a Limited Pure Conscious Awareness, perhaps a mind that has found some release but still restricted by one's own mental formations and viewpoints.  Perhaps the author still has some social instincts of their own to investigate and eliminate, as do alot of us.

Link to Kalama Sutta, if anyone is interested

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html



Contemplation, not meditation ...

The vowed aim of meditation is to escape from the world, transcend the ego and ‘become’ the soul – an imaginary and delusionary shifting of one’s identity from mortal to Immortal, from animal to Divine. Whereas the whole point of the process of actualism is to be aware of, identify, investigate and eliminate both one’s social and one’s instinctual identity – both ego and soul – for both are the source of one’s malice and sorrow. The goal is to become actually happy and harmless, on earth, in this very lifetime.

An actualist’s naiveté and pure intent, firmly based on the purity and perfection evident in the Pure Consciousness Experience, will ensure that one avoids the instinctual lust for the power of feeling oneself to be God as well as the seductive lure of being worshipped as such by others.

thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:59 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:59 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
It's quotes like these that make me wonder, how does he know what "anything anyone else has lived before"  even was?

Richard:

I find this actual freedom to be eminently superior to anything anyone else has ever lived before.

'Nuff Said

thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 8:21 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 8:18 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
Compassion is derived from the Greek: "Com" with and "passion" feeling, or "suffering", depending on whom you ask. So this is to feel "with". Separation is gone. Me feeling bad for you is pity. If that is a common misunderstanding then good that I correct the errors of the common man (or woman). Then again...who am I?


Compassion causes you to treat people well. When there are no feelings at all, a person acts compassionately without feeling compassion because there is nothing driving them away from helping. The higher mind is free to operate without any drivers from the heart. So the emotionless person sees someone in need, and goes to help quite effortlessly because that's what he wants to do. In this way, the OUTCOME of the two states is identical.

However, compassion is also a feeling, and being a feeling, it separates this from that. You are compassionate towards something in particular. In this way, you will be driven to feel malice towards the thing that is causing pain in the person you feel compassion for. An example might be, you feel compassion for the prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp, and you feel malice towards the guards. An emotionless person would feel no malice, even though they would still be inclined to help the prisoners. So in this way the emotionless state is more secure in its potential for true freedom.

An argument people often make against this idea is, "If you have no emotions, why would you do anythig at all." While this question seems logical at first, if you exampine your experience, you'll see that there's often a conflict between what you want to do, and the emotions you are feeling. Consider writer's block. A person wants to write, but their emotional inhibitions about their abilities and the quality of their work stop them from writing. It seems that our desires and our actions aren't based on emotional drives, but rather intellect.

Finally, in my personal experience, the feeling of emotionlessness is more enjoyable than the feeling of compassion. So if you combine my arguments, the two options look like this: a person wants to help other people, so they could either develop compassion or become emotionless. Emotionlessness is a more comfortable state to live in, and it has no potential to create malice, so it seems like a superior goal to me. (Using the word "superior" here means I personally find it to be a better goal. You're free to decide whether or not you agree.)

As to whether compassion is a stepping stone to complete emotionlessness - that's hard for me to say. The way the buddha talks about the bhrama viharas, it certainly seems like it (if you equate equanimity with emotionlessness), but to me it just seems like an extra step.

Psi Phi:
But anyway, is, in my opinion, teaching Anatta, which is seeing while seeing, washing dishes while washing dishes, this is NOT new, as self-proclaimed by the author, it even describes the six sense bases, and experiencing the world with self and no-self. I am sorry, this is not new and earth ain't no fairy tale, By the Gods the fairies are back!


The main problem here, I think, is that Richard's concept of "self" is very different from "self" in anatta. Another problem is that buddhism is not actually unified on what "self" means, as well. So I'm going to compare three different ideas of self. I'll use the terms ActualSelf for what Richard is talking about, TheraSelf for the theravada concept of anatta, and SuttaSelf for the "self" I believe the buddha is talking about in the sutta pitaka.

ActualSelf is made up of two parts - the identity and the soul. This is actually pretty simple. The identity is things like "I am a vegetarian", "I am a man", "I am an Actualist" - and this is seen as the trigger for the emotional thinking, which is the soul. So ActualSelf is personal labels and emotions, nothing else!

TheraSelf is an illusion, and it encompasses everything but EVERYTHING! The whole point of Theravada Buddhism is to see through this illusion clearly and definitively so that nothing is identified with. In the end, there is no self at all.

SuttaSelf is the five aggregates. These five aggregates don't include nirvana, which is the unconditioned, so nirvana is a final liberation and resting point. The Buddha often says that nirvana can be attained in this lifetime - which always led me to believe there would be a permanent freedom from suffering. Depending on who you talk to, people interpret this in many ways...

I think the reason there might be some confusion is because Richard isn't talking about the enlightenment that everyone here talks about. When he says he was enlightened for 11 years, he seems to be referring to the modern Indian concept of Self-Realization. This is always described as the Self (with a capital S) replacing the self (with a lower s) and the Self is Being-Consiousness-Bliss. Richard says he later realized this Self was a grand delusion - a kind of complete emotional absorption - and he had to abandon it as well as the identity to achieve Actual Freedom.

So ActualSelf is something you get rid of, and it's made up ONLY of the personal adjectives and the emotions. Actual Freedom, as seen in the PCE, does not require dis-identification from the body or the mind. Richard often says he IS a flesh and blood body and an apperceptive awareness. TheraSelf is the illusion that anything is self, and once you are an arahant, there is nothing left that identifies with anything. SuttaSelf is unclear, and the Buddha doesn't actually go into it very often or very deeply.

Eva M Nie:
What dl you think is the difference between PCE as described and nondualism?


I don't think I can answer that, TBH. I originally thought my PCEs were non-dual experiences, but the more I've read about non-duality, the more confused I was about what it was actually supposed to be. The whole focus on anatta in general is the main reason I lost interest in Buddhism. If they are the same, I can only conclude that the vast majority of people who have written about non-duality have no idea what they're talking about. Richard's descriptions of what a PCE is have matched my experience identically, so that's why I call them that.

Eva M Nie:
I don't recall anyone saying 3Cs was a quick fix or shortcut. Seems like it takes a while! ;-P


Maybe I meant to say "mystical" fix. Anatta is something you suddenly understand, and it changes your whole concept of reality. Actualism is a simple process of elimination, you have to come to terms with all of your problems and understand them completely.

Psi Phi:
Just adding:

From AF website:


I
t says: The vowed aim of meditation is to escape the world transcend the ego and "become" the soul etc etc For full AF comment see below

This view, proposed as a fact is just complete non-sense, where does someone ever get this idea, to even say this about such a broad subject such as meditation, it's simply preposterous. One doesn't even have to believe in a soul to meditate.


Like I said before, Richard wasn't a pragmatic dharma Buddhist - what he's referring to here is actually a very popular concept. In fact, the term "enlightenment" is probably more associated with what Richard describes than what's talked about on here - ask anyone from India, or any New Ager. You can just conclude that his understanding of meditation doesn't apply to you. Same word, different cultural background and concept.

I should probably point out here again that this is the big source of misunderstanding when Richard talks about there being "no self," as well. He's not referring to anatta, he's referring to the "Self" and the "ego." Ironically, this also seems to me what the Buddha is talking about in the Sutta Pitaka, and people have run with the concept over the centuries.

Psi Phi:
It's quotes like these that make me wonder, how does he know what "anything anyone else has lived before" even was?

Richard:

I find this actual freedom to be eminently superior to anything anyone else has ever lived before.

'Nuff Said



HA! True enough. Though, in context, he's referring to cults, specifically.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 10:27 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 10:27 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Good morning. I know perhaps I am only repeating, but you do not understand what is meant by compassion. The example you gave demonstrates this. In the example you gave compassion is felt as much for the suffering that exists in the guard as the prisoner as oneself. It is not localized, centralized or subjective. It can not even be said to be felt for the guard, the prisoner or oneself. It is a somatic response and as such fails  easy answers.

My perception of your defense of why the emotionless state is more efficacious, is that you have chosen a path and are trying to fit square pegs into a round hole. There is no need to do so, or to defend one's choices. Live your life. I did not even request that you explain further and said I liked much of what you wrote, but I hit upon some area of insecurity that caused you to later reply. Much of the thought you applied was subjective and anecdotal at best, and did not correspond to my own observations and experience. Perhaps I am too direct in how I write. There is no real feeling of judgment or anger in this, it just doesn't look very well thought out, and it seems like you are trying to convinve yourself of something and applying very flimsly logic to do so.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 11:17 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 11:17 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I was just responding further because I thought you were interested. emoticon  In all honesty, I'd really like to find a good way to explain the emotionless state because it's so incomparably lovely to me.  I don't have anything against compassion, or happiness, or love, I just think the PCE really is the "peak experience."  The argument I presented for you is how I came to put more trust in the PCE, because I would sometimes wonder if aiming for it would make me some kind of layabout who doesn't care about anything.  (This was usually if a longer period of time had past since I last had one.)  The truth is, though, that the core of our human nature is both helpful and curious, so anyone who spent a majority or all of their time in the PCE would display all the positive emotional qualities of compassion and kindness and hapiness, even thought the feeling itself is best described as emotionless.

The way I see compassion now is that it is an emotional crutch to express the core of our nature, when really our core nature can just BE without any assistance.  I see spontenaity as the solution.  Even if you see your compassion as all-pervading, aren't you still putting a requirement on why you are kind to people?  If it's a feeling, you're always going to be relating to them through a lense or a filter.  When they talk to you, they will see a compassionate person.  Compare this to if you related to them without any filter.  You would just be there with them, and they would have all of you.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 11:28 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 11:28 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
You are not responding to what I have written, but your own thoughts. As such, it would not seem to be beneficial to continue as I would be doing the same thing. Keep well.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:57 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 12:30 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
You are not responding to what I have written, but your own thoughts. As such, it would not seem to be beneficial to continue as I would be doing the same thing. Keep well.


Feel free to try me again if I misunderstood you in some way. emoticon Since you used the word "compassion", I assumed you were talking about a psycho-physical manifestation of pleasure related to the desire to help or assist other people you perceive to be suffering.

EDIT: Looking back, you compared compassion to suffering/feeling along with someone else. I'd call this empathy, myself, but the word isn't so important. I think my arguments work for empathy as well. Even if you see other people as a part of yourself, or if you see yourself joined to them, or if you see them as a part of a whole that you are also a part of, or if you see both you and them as completely non-existant but also luminous, or if you believe there is only ever one thing and so other people's suffering is your own, it still means you are relating to them through a feeling.

Compassion or empathy, as feelings, make it difficult to see the "actual" clearly. Relating to a person on the level of empathy or compassion entails making a judgement about them. It means feeling "towards" or at them, and they will pick up that "this person in front of me is feeling compassion towards me." The emotionless person, by comparison relates to people with no feeling between them. The other person is free to be who they are.

Consider the nuance in conversation. If you are talking to a compassionate person, there will be a tone, or a color, to the way you relate to them. You will maybe be on your best behavior, or you will adopt a compassionate stance. If you talk to a sad or angry person, you create a different tone. If the person you're talking to sends no colors or tones your way, you're free to set whatever color or tone you want. This is a freer way of relating to people. The emotionless person is able to remain who they are, and so is the person they're talking to. A truer empathy can be developed because of this.
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 1:32 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 1:23 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Not Tao,

While I don’t fully agree with the way you are presenting things, it may be useful for William and you to consider the difference between feeling caring vs. actually caring.

Richard:
In short: feeling caring is incapable of delivering the goods.

As being sincere in the context under discussion is to have the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it would therefore take a perspicuous awareness of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (seeing the fact) to be sincere ... rather than an instinctive feeling of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (intuiting the truth). The feeling of caring (be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring), being primarily the feeling being inside one flesh and blood body caring for the feeling being inside another flesh and blood body (or for an anthropomorphised feeling being called mother earth for instance), is insincere by its very nature. And to realise that such feeling caring is a ‘self’-centred caring – and thus corrupt and/or tainted – is the first step towards sincerity.
 
In other words, when one feels that cares one’s attention is focused on the feeling inspired by the situation. On the other hand, when one actually cares, one’s attention is focused on the situation per se. With the former, one judges something or someone though one’s own values, beliefs and feelings, and with the latter, one meets the whole circumstance spontaneously, freshly, impartially, individually, in all its uniqueness.

As for the debate on compassion, although William says to you ‘you do not understand what is meant by compassion.’, I would argue that you grasp it a lot more clearly than him and so it seems actually that the opposite is the case. For instance, he first says:

Love and compassion are not self-referential emotions, and to the extent that we are describing emotions as subjective reactions, they can not accurately be described as emotions. Love exists because there is. It is not for something else or from something or somebody.

And then he says:

Compassion is derived from the Greek: "Com" with and "passion" feeling, or "suffering", depending on whom you ask. So this is to feel "with". Separation is gone. Me feeling bad for you is pity.

So, how can compassion be felt and yet not be an emotion?

But getting closer to topic again, regardless of his explanation, it doesn’t matter if you ‘feel with’ or ‘feel for’, with compassion what one’s doing is feeling other’s feeling or at least feeling a feeling inspired by the other’s feeling, so, again, one’s focus suddenly changes tracks and therefore one loses sight of the original situation that originated it. In a given situation with a suffering person, this implies not only a reaction to be considerate mainly because one has the need to respond to a feeling of one’s own {so this is indeed a self-referential activity}, but also, as a result, one could just superficially mitigate or even fully misguide the other person by being sympathetic and not precisely useful or honest, for instance.

As a corollary, I would suggest to those interested in actual freedom to keep this Richard’s phrase in mind at all times: 'If I am driven by some force – no matter how Good that force be – then I am not actually free.'
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 1:44 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 1:40 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Hi, Not Tao,

While I don’t fully agree with the way you are presenting things...


I'd love to know where!  emoticon

EDIT: Good quote, btw. That really sums it all up.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:13 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:13 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Felipe: You do not understand what I am saying. The body "feels". The self referential emotion that results is the conceptual overlay on what is a boundless experience. If you have not experienced this, you will continue to confuse what I am saying.
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:31 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:31 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, William,
Felipe: You do not understand what I am saying. The body "feels". 

According to dictionary definitions, 'feeling' usually means an affective or a sensate state or reaction. I guess that with 'the body feels' and going by the rest of your response, you are referring to a sensate reaction or state? If this so and there is no emotional aspect to it, could you explain to me exactly with which of the human senses are you feeling your compassion? 

Or, perhaps, are you saying that you can feel with something which is not sensate or affective? If that's the case, how so?
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:36 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:

Compassion causes you to treat people well. When there are no feelings at all, a person acts compassionately without feeling compassion because there is nothing driving them away from helping. The higher mind is free to operate without any drivers from the heart. So the emotionless person sees someone in need, and goes to help quite effortlessly because that's what he wants to do. In this way, the OUTCOME of the two states is identical.
That seems so from what I've seen, ie that outcome tends to be the similar ( but I would not say exactly the same) for various types of compassion.  Just that each person tends to have their own version of what 'compassion' means, for some it will be what they personally experience, for some it will be how society commonly assumes it to be, for some it will be what they think compassion SHOULD be like, etc.  Such that when one person talks about compassion, he/she may be talking about a somewhat different thing than one another person uses the same term. 
However, compassion is also a feeling, and being a feeling, it separates this from that. You are compassionate towards something in particular. In this way, you will be driven to feel malice towards the thing that is causing pain in the person you feel compassion for. An example might be, you feel compassion for the prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp, and you feel malice towards the guards. An emotionless person would feel no malice, even though they would still be inclined to help the prisoners. So in this way the emotionless state is more secure in its potential for true freedom.
Now we are getting back to more terminology definitions.  Whereas many might consider 'emotionless' to be like a robot, you guys have a different definition.  Which means each time you use the term 'emotionless' in your way, you will often confuse people unless a complicated explanation of your definition is also given and a goodly portion of listeners may not give enough patience and attention to the explanation either, instead tending to stick with their preferred and more established definition that they had from before.  It's a side effect of trying to redefine a common word.  Many developers of new systems get around this problem by inventing novel terminology that has no commonly assumed definition, such that people have less tendency to assume wrong when they hear the word. 
An argument people often make against this idea is, "If you have no emotions, why would you do anythig at all." While this question seems logical at first, if you exampine your experience, you'll see that there's often a conflict between what you want to do, and the emotions you are feeling. Consider writer's block. A person wants to write, but their emotional inhibitions about their abilities and the quality of their work stop them from writing. It seems that our desires and our actions aren't based on emotional drives, but rather intellect.
IMO, intellect and emotions are intertwined.  Things you say to yourself, aka self scripts, influence emotion and emotion influences things you say to yourself.  I don't think you can isolate one from another as the effects are intertwined in a sort of feedback loop.  I agree with you in your description of writer's block problems but I don't agree that PCE is an emotionless state. I guess I don't agree with your definition of emotionless.  I think there are still emotions, just ones that have evolved and morphed and developed such that the experience feels different from before when the emotions were all tangled and at crosssroads with eachother and fighting against eachother. 
Finally, in my personal experience, the feeling of emotionlessness is more enjoyable than the feeling of compassion. So if you combine my arguments, the two options look like this: a person wants to help other people, so they could either develop compassion or become emotionless. Emotionlessness is a more comfortable state to live in, and it has no potential to create malice, so it seems like a superior goal to me. (Using the word "superior" here means I personally find it to be a better goal. You're free to decide whether or not you agree.)
If there is no emotion, then how can you experience enjoyableness and comfortableness?  Why are you using emotion words to describe the feelings of the state if there is no emotion there?

The main problem here, I think, is that Richard's concept of "self" is very different from "self" in anatta. Another problem is that buddhism is not actually unified on what "self" means, as well.
Yeah, I have not had much luck getting that pinned down either.  There is a lot of talk about this and that not being self because you can watch it as if from another place.  But that does not preclude it being a part of self, just that it is not the whole self.  It influences me, I influence it, seems to me that indicates a connection. Also, despite the talk about this and that not being self, no word that I can find on what is self.  Even if we are created from an assortment of other confluences instant by instant, seems to me still that is something that exists and operates and what we call 'self' even if I don't understand all the parts of it.  But I have not had any luck so far getting people to talk about that kind of thing here!  What is self if those things are not self?  ;-P

So I'm going to compare three different ideas of self. I'll use the terms ActualSelf for what Richard is talking about, TheraSelf for the theravada concept of anatta, and SuttaSelf for the "self" I believe the buddha is talking about in the sutta pitaka.

ActualSelf is made up of two parts - the identity and the soul. This is actually pretty simple. The identity is things like "I am a vegetarian", "I am a man", "I am an Actualist" - and this is seen as the trigger for the emotional thinking, which is the soul.
So the definition put forth is that the soul is only 'emotional thinking'  Although that is said to be simple, I am not sure what emotional thinking is.  I can see 'emotions' but isn't 'thinking' what you just said makes up identity? 

So ActualSelf is personal labels and emotions, nothing else!
Are you saying the definition then is 'labels' and emotions or is it 'thinking' and emotions?  What if I am thinking about something that is not identity, is that thinking or is that emotions?  Or is it emotional thinking?  What if I am thinking about something that has no obvious emotions or connections to identity?

TheraSelf is an illusion, and it encompasses everything but EVERYTHING! The whole point of Theravada Buddhism is to see through this illusion clearly and definitively so that nothing is identified with. In the end, there is no self at all.
So is this a self that buddhism says IS the self, instead of not self (anatta?)
SuttaSelf is the five aggregates. These five aggregates don't include nirvana, which is the unconditioned, so nirvana is a final liberation and resting point. The Buddha often says that nirvana can be attained in this lifetime - which always led me to believe there would be a permanent freedom from suffering. Depending on who you talk to, people interpret this in many ways...
So the suttaself is the self that the sutta says is not self (anatta)? 
I think the reason there might be some confusion is because Richard isn't talking about the enlightenment that everyone here talks about. When he says he was enlightened for 11 years, he seems to be referring to the modern Indian concept of Self-Realization. This is always described as the Self (with a capital S) replacing the self (with a lower s) and the Self is Being-Consiousness-Bliss. Richard says he later realized this Self was a grand delusion - a kind of complete emotional absorption - and he had to abandon it as well as the identity to achieve Actual Freedom.
So what does he say is the real self then, the nondelusional one? 

So ActualSelf is something you get rid of, and it's made up ONLY of the personal adjectives and the emotions. Actual Freedom, as seen in the PCE, does not require dis-identification from the body or the mind. Richard often says he IS a flesh and blood body and an apperceptive awareness.
So what does he say happens when the flesh and body dies?  No more flesh and body then what is self?

TheraSelf is the illusion that anything is self, and once you are an arahant, there is nothing left that identifies with anything. SuttaSelf is unclear, and the Buddha doesn't actually go into it very often or very deeply.
Yeah, confuses me as well.  I can see the argument that nothing I can identify clearly seems to be self and that things that are often identified as self, such as emotions and identity are temporary states, but are they saying there is no such thing as self anywere?  If we are just a string of temporary instances, where does the illusion of continuity and self come from if it is just an illusion and there is no self to start with? How can something that does not exist delude itself into thinking it exists?
Eva M Nie:
What dl you think is the difference between PCE as described and nondualism?


I don't think I can answer that, TBH. I originally thought my PCEs were non-dual experiences, but the more I've read about non-duality, the more confused I was about what it was actually supposed to be. The whole focus on anatta in general is the main reason I lost interest in Buddhism. If they are the same, I can only conclude that the vast majority of people who have written about non-duality have no idea what they're talking about. Richard's descriptions of what a PCE is have matched my experience identically, so that's why I call them that.
Yeah, confuses me too.  Some seems to describe their 'enlightenment' such that it sounds like your version of PCE.  I experienced PCE once and it sounds just like what you are describing as well.  But I am not sure on the nonduality thing and how that is diff from PCE. 
Anatta is something you suddenly understand, and it changes your whole concept of reality.
Really, it is supposed to happen all at once suddenly?  From reading the 4 paths descriptions, I got the impression is a gradual deepening understanding.
Actualism is a simple process of elimination, you have to come to terms with all of your problems and understand them completely.
How is that different than some forms of psychology?
-Eva
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:03 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:43 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Hey Not Tao,
I wanted to chime in here because I think the confusion that is happening here (as happens a lot) is due to definition and words we're using, not the experience at all
What you describe as bare awareness is not my experience
What you describe in dropping all guards to the moment as it is in real time is my experience, and my practice - I call that bare awareness (you call it something else)
In bare awareness (my kind) I had the insight that we don't actually let go of clinging, pure consciousness/awareness does that on it's own - that is it's nature, we stay present to what is. Accepting if you like, it's still the development of equanimity and awareness, our nature, nothing is manufactured, perhaps cultivated, probably more like discovered. It's there at the core
I also have to say that your descriptions of love and compassion are not the love and compassion of the 'pure' brahma viharas, not at all
You've probably read about the 'close enemies' of pure mindstates, as was stated earlier, pity is the close enemy of compassion and is selective and personal in it's application, pure compassion just goes out in all directions, to the killer and the killed, although in wisdom it doesn't conflate the actions of the aggressor, but still sees the violent actor motivated by fear and delusion and unhappiness. You have been describing something closer to pity
What you describe of love is how most people generally experience love (love for their spouse or their children). But, unconditional love, as a saint may experience it, or you or I may experience it, if we are so lucky, is 'a one way street' (as Goenka says) it just goes out
You can picture the love of Jesus for instance (again Goenka's example). Even as those confused and violent people are mutilating him and causing enormous pain to his body, he feels nothing but love and compassion for them, that is all he has in his heart, he can't even feel anger because he is fully realized, it doesn't manifest in his heart - his heart is purified 
The emptiness of the Mahayana is countered by the fullness of the Vajrayana, they're same thing but from a different viewpoint (I get this from Chogyam Trungpa and my own experience). What is this emptiness/fullness? It is the Brahma Viharas - love, compassion, joy and equanimity. Strip everything away, including yourself, that is what is left
I'm responding to you because much of what you write is very much inline with my own experience (including acceptance, PCEs, dropping all guards, being inclusive in perception etc). The problem here (as I said and it happens quite commonly) is the language. When you talk of love and compassion and bare awareness you have a different definition of those words, when you describe a PCE as being kind and wondrous, that is our natural state (the brahma viharas). There is also joy and unconditional love there (if we are describing the same thing)
I've talked with lots of friends about my own experience of unconditional love and I found it's an experience that is extremely rare (they look at me funny), most have not had it - I would imagine many people reading this however have - here in the DhO. This is the love that allows your girlfriend to break up with you without a fight even though it is the last thing you could ever possibly want, you love her (personally) so much, you want to always be with her. You don't argue because wisdom sees it clearly, you want her to be happy. You feel joy at her happiness, you feel compassion and kindness towards the Israelis and the Palestinians - you see them both wrapped up in confusion and ignorance. Actualism is nothing new, just like Buddhism isn't, we're using words to describe human development and experience. Wisdom sees that
The couple red flags I have about Actualist teaching are (besides the weirdo presentation and religious-like anti-spiritual views that smack of Scientology v. psychology) are the idea that love and compassion and joy and equanimity are to be discarded, Buddhism tells us these are the highest virtues, and I'd have to agree. Also, trying to maintain a heightened state, whatever it is (PCE) leads to subtle clinging. Equanimity can abide in any state. I would be interested to see if a PCE can be maintained while suffering from the chronic pain of illness, which we'll all need to face.
Buddhism also teaches that anything that is compounded and created is subject to end (including the PCE). What then? I would submit that the PCE is just another name for pure conscious awareness (hardly even another name) and many here know all about it - maybe they call it pure consciousness or bare awareness, or (as I do) simply meditation. Since most people are practicing some subtle effort in their meditation (jhanas) they mean something else by this word than I do, and we talk past each other. It's like when someone says God, I translate it to mean the creative force inherent within all, and the sermon makes sense. Many think it's a personal creator being, and so we are talking about something else entirely. IMHO you veer off the path when your interest goes toward maintaining certain states of consciousness (the PCE) and banishing emotion. Emotion exists, your practice of being with it in it's entirety in real time as your practice without trying to fix or change anything is also my practice. It's called being in the reality of the moment and effortless effort. Just the words are different
Sorry for the ramble, others here have all said the same thing but using their own words 
Daniel
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:44 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 2:44 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Do you really want to privilege Merriam Webster over direct experience? I already answered that with the previous post. You are selectively reading what I am writing and responding to what I am writing with your own concepts. 
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:32 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:17 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
I’m not privileging anything except clear communication. Merriam Webster is an excellent tool as it provides a base from which we can understand each other as human beings, because words do have specific meanings. If you are of the idea that some things are ineffable or that this kind of feeling of compassion is non-affective and non-sensate, perhaps you need to stop referring to it as a feeling and trying to come with a new word for it. Because I take it by your response that it’s neither affective nor sensate? Could you at least answer that?
 
As for the direct experience, I practiced and meditated 3 years in a Tibetan Buddhist tradition which emphasizes compassion as one of its main tools. I also have been practicing Actualism for the last 3 years, so I’m fortunately in a position where I can contrast and compare the nature, approach and flavors of both. From there, I have no problem in classifying such experiences in accordance with common definitions because it’s not that difficult to discern if I’m operating from an affective energy from within {either a feeling or a feeling-based thought} or not {merely sensate}.
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:20 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:18 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Felipe "So, how can compassion be felt and yet not be an emotion?"
As long as one is conscious, how can any experience not be felt?
By your definition every feeling is an emotion, all of this is semantics
You (Actualists) say they experience kindness and wonder but those aren't affects?
Something doesn't add up here...
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:27 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Daniel, please take that quote according to its context and follow the rest of the discussion with William, where I try to clarify further if he refers with that term to an affective or a sensate experience. Do you agree with this conventional categorization? If not, what kind of feeling are you feeling with compassion if not a sensate or an affective one?

EDIT. To be even more specific with the context I'm referring to, keep in mind that we are talking about compassion, and in particular something that William said...
Compassion is derived from the Greek: "Com" with and "passion" feeling, or "suffering", depending on whom you ask. So this is to feel "with". Separation is gone. Me feeling bad for you is pity. 
So, as I said, either feeling bad FOR you {pity} or feeling bad WITH you {compassion} obviously require an affective activity, as it implies a connection between two psyches regardless of power positions {'for' vs. 'with' you}, just as empathy and sympathy do. 
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:47 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Hi, William,
Felipe: You do not understand what I am saying. The body "feels". 

According to dictionary definitions, 'feeling' usually means an affective or a sensate state or reaction. I guess that with 'the body feels' and going by the rest of your response, you are referring to a sensate reaction or state? If this so and there is no emotional aspect to it, could you explain to me exactly with which of the human senses are you feeling your compassion? 

Or, perhaps, are you saying that you can feel with something which is not sensate or affective? If that's the case, how so?


Although clearly affective in nature, what Bill means by love and compassion are probably more akin to states of being than to emotions. Richard experienced them that way too when he was 'enlightened'.
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:52 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 3:52 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, John, nice to see you again.

Although clearly affective in nature, what Bill means by love and compassion are probably more akin to states of being than to emotions.

Fair enough. Let's stay with the broader terms 'affection' and 'affective feeling', then? The point still stands though, and I'm still curious if William thinks compassion is an affective feeling or not.
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 4:22 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 4:15 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Hi Felipe,
I did read back over your distinction between affect and sensate, thank you for clarifying. I think we’re getting too wrapped up in words – what I mean is, there is the experience, and then there are the words that we use to try to get at what that was, the finger and the moon
I think this goes to the paradox at the heart of life/spirituality however and is expressed in the emptiness teachings of Mahayana vs. fullness teachings of the Vajrayana – they are both at play and two ways of viewing life
One could have realized No Self (or obliterated emotions/the self as Actualism prescribes) and still be compassionate. If there is no self (you don’t perceive a psyche here at least on this side of the equation) who is compassionate with who? It’s like if a tree falls in the woods. It’s there even if there’s no sense of self, a natural expression that we are blessed to take part of (my views).  Awareness feels pain (sensate) and sees the pain in another person, compassion naturally arises. Emptiness teachings can get rather dry, and so they’ve been balance out by fullness teachings. Neither one is completely True, they are perspectives looking at the Mystery of Life which you can never quite wrap your arms fully around, or get into language completely, so we have metaphor and poetry.
I prefer to think in terms of personal vs impersonal however and this is demonstrated by the idea of personal love vs. unconditional love. I wouldn’t follow a teaching that promises the obliteration of that, I think it’s a shame (hopefully not pity ;)
If you feel (haha) more in alignment with Richard’s teaching than the Buddha, or Jesus, or anyone else we revere in our culture (Martin Luther King, Jack Kornfield etc…) than I think it’s good that you follow his teachings and the more power to you. I find his teachings odd and culty – for instance when someone says they’ve discovered something totally new and this newly discovered human experience is something no one else knows about etc. I hear 'danger danger'. We are talking about inner human development that has gone on for thousands of years and loads of words have been used to describe loads of states and experiences. I also don’t call myself a Buddhist because I’m averse to religion in general - I vibe with people who see the mystery and don't know the answers to all the questions. I personally see religion (a belief structure to be taken on faith) in Actualist teaching. There is a philosophy to believe and words are re-defined to make an argument to support a pre-ordained conclusion – not the mark of an open mind or scientific method
In my experience compassion and kindness, equanimity and unconditional love describes the empty state of bare awareness, and I revere those teachers and have affinity for those aspects of being (not really emotions but that is a definition also) that engage with humanity on all levels and teach us to have a full view of this explosive mess that we call life. I see suffering out there, I see impermanence, I see us concocting images out of ourselves and each other, these teachings make sense to me on a deep level, maybe not to you
When I read about emotionless states and not experiencing love or compassion (or seeing them as expressions of being to be abandoned) I feel compassion for those that would want to do that – it’s sounds like taking drugs or some type of jhana, it's a mind state. There is pain and suffering in life – you just need to look at it, all around us every day on every level. I’ve myself experienced high levels of equanimity that had no love or compassion and it felt alien-like, as if I were a giant spock praying mantis – not something I wanted to cultivate. I’m not saying a PCE is like this (I've experienced PCEs judging from their written descriptions), but if wonder and contentment are being cultivated in your state of consciousness I would argue there is an affect and not just a sensation – and that’s a good thing! A PCE full time sounds nice, like heaven, but it’s still a ‘mind mod’ as Daniel Ingram referred to it in passing. It’s a conditioned state subject to laws of impermanence like everything else. Or you can change the definition of the words to suit the arguement 
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 4:46 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 4:30 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
In an effort to keep the post from being giant, I'm just going to quote snippets.

All of these are from Eva:
Whereas many might consider 'emotionless' to be like a robot, you guys have a different definition.

I agree with you in your description of writer's block problems but I don't agree that PCE is an emotionless state. I guess I don't agree with your definition of emotionless.

If there is no emotion, then how can you experience enjoyableness and comfortableness? Why are you using emotion words to describe the feelings of the state if there is no emotion there?


I don't think we can know what a robot might feel like, haha, but I get what you mean is that the word emotionless implies coldness. I think the key, here, is to understand that without emotions, the experience becomes purely physical and senate. We can say that the taste of sugar is sweet, and that's a pleasurable experience. It's not because we're emotionally involved with the sugar, it's just a good sensation.

Something that I realized after having PCEs is that emotions are always sensate, and they usually appear in the body as muscular contractions. These contractions are actually kind of painful if you pay attention to them. The transition into a PCE usually involves a physical release of tension for me, accompanied by a feeling of space in the chest where I usually feel emotions. The feeling itself is, quite literally, emotionless, and it's such a relief. The feeling we call "relief" is actually the sudden loss of an emotional contraction, so "complete relief" is also a good description for the PCE.

Are you saying the definition then is 'labels' and emotions or is it 'thinking' and emotions? What if I am thinking about something that is not identity, is that thinking or is that emotions? Or is it emotional thinking? What if I am thinking about something that has no obvious emotions or connections to identity?


Haha, I refuse to believe it was really that complicate to understand for you. I'll rephrase it though: any group you would put yourself into is your identity (old, athletic, young, fat, beautiful, stupid) - essentially any adjective you'd apply to yourself. The soul is what feels emotions.

I don't think you should use me as a source for the various view of self in Buddhism, I've never understood all of it very well. As far as I can tell, though, anything you might identify with should be seen as "not self" in Theravada parlance.

So what does he say happens when the flesh and body dies? No more flesh and body then what is self?


How could he know?

How can something that does not exist delude itself into thinking it exists?


This is why I lost interest in that path. It didn't seem to help me with stress reduction.

How is that different than some forms of psychology?


It's not. emoticon


The following is from Daniel:
What you describe in dropping all guards to the moment as it is in real time is my experience, and my practice - I call that bare awareness (you call it something else)


The difference, IME, comes from what causes the guards to drop. If you use concentration to drop the guard, you end up in a concentration state, like the jhanas. If you use appreciation and enjoyment to drop the guard, you end up in a PCE. The difference might seem subtle, but it seems to make all the difference in my experience. Is what you're calling bare awareness emotionless? That's a good litmus test.

Think of it this way, say you go into a movie with high expectations. Your experience of the movie is going to different from if you went in without expectations. In the same way, concentration on the present moment produces a hyper aware state, relaxing in the present moment produces a contentment that allows the mind to stay still. The two might seem like the same thing, but the difference is the key. The PCE is effortlessness itself. You can't create effortlessness by trying, you have to create it by becoming spontaneous and removing your negativity.

What you describe of love is how most people generally experience love (love for their spouse or their children). But, unconditional love, as a saint may experience it, or you or I may experience it, if we are so lucky, is 'a one way street' (as Goenka says) it just goes out


The main crux of the arguments I was making were about how feeling of any kind is self-referential. Boundless universal love is just a grander form of love. I'm not completely ignorant of these states. They are lovely for sure, but they simply don't compare for me to how genuine the benevolence of the PCE is. It's like discovering the very core of our human nature sees all things favorably due to its perfect ease and comfort. In comparison, love of any kind feels disingenuous. All my personal opinion, again.

When you talk of love and compassion and bare awareness you have a different definition of those words, when you describe a PCE as being kind and wondrous, that is our natural state (the brahma viharas). There is also joy and unconditional love there (if we are describing the same thing)


The easy way to know if this is true is to check whether what you are calling unconditional love and joy are without emotion or psycho-physical feeling. The state that I refer to as the PCE is completely devoid of the "heart center" feeling. Love, when I have felt it, usually registers as a pleasant tightness in the chest. in the PCE, there is nothing there at all. It seems impossible to me that anyone would call it love or joy. That's not to cast aspersions on love and joy, it's just to say that the PCE really is nothing like any emotional experience. The delight manifests physically in the same way rolling yourself into a warm blanket would. The whole body relaxes, the senses open, there is only now and here.

...are the idea that love and compassion and joy and equanimity are to be discarded, Buddhism tells us these are the highest virtues, and I'd have to agree. Also, trying to maintain a heightened state, whatever it is (PCE) leads to subtle clinging. Equanimity can abide in any state. I would be interested to see if a PCE can be maintained while suffering from the chronic pain of illness, which we'll all need to face.


They aren't discarded mindlessly or out of aversion, they're discarded because it's know that there is something better. It's impossible for me to imagine clinging to a PCE. The whole concept of the PCE is that you have resolved your personal war against the world and finally stopped worrying about things. It's a bit like saying we might cling to letting go. Emotions, themselves, are a good indicator of clinging, I think. As for pain, I have some limited experience of pain in the PCE that tells me you can be in pain without being emotional about it. They're two separate things anyway.

Buddhism also teaches that anything that is compounded and created is subject to end (including the PCE). What then?


Isn't that a bit defeatist? What's the point of doing anything, then? I'm just going to have to hope Buddhism is wrong. :3 Even if I knew it was right, though, I'd still spend my time cultivating PCEs. They're that lovely. emoticon

IMHO you veer off the path when your interest goes toward maintaining certain states of consciousness (the PCE) and banishing emotion. Emotion exists, your practice of being with it in it's entirety in real time as your practice without trying to fix or change anything is also my practice. It's called being in the reality of the moment and effortless effort. Just the words are different


I think you've misunderstood my practice. I'll try to state it differently in a nutshell for you, so you can see it all at once. When I notice I am having a negative emotional reaction, I aim to understand why its happening so I can end it as soon as possible. To understand why it's happening I have to make sure I'm not trying to ignore it, nor express it in some unrelated way. After watching for a moment I might say, "Ah, this anger was triggered when the neighbors slammed the door downstairs." I instantly lose any trace of anger because I realize it's ridiculous to keep myself from being content simply because a loud noise happened. If I were to watch it without judgement or without the intention to change it, I may never even know why it happened. So, every time the door slammed, I'd get angry again.

After doing this diligently, the sense of ease and contentment increase until the mind finds little need to focus on anything except what's happening here and now.

This isn't to say that trying to maintain some kind of awareness is completely different, it's to say that the entry point of complete ease and contentment is specifically what makes the PCE worthwhile. It shows that, yes, the path itself is correct and it will eventually end in a PCE baseline when all of the emotional triggers are worked through.
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 7:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 4:56 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:

Although clearly affective in nature, what Bill means by love and compassion are probably more akin to states of being than to emotions.

Fair enough. Let's stay with the broader terms 'affection' and 'affective feeling', then? The point still stands though, and I'm still curious if William thinks compassion is an affective feeling or not.

Yeah.

Pending Bill's comments, a few more thoughts...

Given that our entire lives (almost) are composed of affective states, it can be hard to recognise something as affective in nature, except by contrast, e.g., when it's suspended. (Does a fish know water if it's never out of it?) Within that ocean of affective states there's a wide range of possibilities. Some are so different from the normal, petty, contracted, defensive/assertive emotional states that they feel like they're of a different order altogether, something that isn't merely personal, something that might be cosmic or universal or foundational or intrinsic to the way things are. And considering these transcendent feelings/states have been humanity's highest aspirations and greatest hopes so far, the tendency to ascribe them a beyond-personal status is strong. (I'm not entirely convinced that Richard hasn't fallen prey to a variant of that himself, in a way, but I don't feel I have a strong enough handle on that to argue it persuasively, and don't want to make it my business any more anyway).

If someone who has transcendent feelings is talking to someone who doesn't, and says "no, no, you don't understand, this isn't an emotion", they're right. But if someone who who knows the difference between all feeling states and none at all says "no, no, you don't understand, what you're talking about is still an affective state", they're right too. (In my opinion).
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:11 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:08 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Hi Not Tao
You have a gifted way of describing your experience and your practice
I think I wrote to you because I have the same practice as you do for the most part, it's like you're describing my experience (sometimes) some call it effortless effort or bare awareness, those words make sense to me but I'm not sure if I'm right 
It actually wasn't taught to me, I practiced meditation diligently (two hours a day and a few 10-day Goenka retreats) for two years before I decided to relax wherever there was a contraction. Through experimention I noticed the stress/contracting in any kind of efforting, so I became aware of that (in a contented equanimous state) and contractions dissolve on their own. I'm pretty sure this decribes non-dual training as well
We're just using different words to describe our experiences (and I'm sure we experience things a bit differently as well)
My experience is that within the effortless/aware state there is an underlying joy (call it benevolence that's good too), love for life and beings (whether they 'exist' or not) compassion for those that suffer and feel pain and a deep abiding equinimity. These are just words that seem to align with my experience. Your description of your practice sounds like exactly what I do and the freeing effect I feel. It is not striving to achieve jhanas or anything, it's simply letting go (actually it's awareness on it's own that does the letting go, 'we' can't let go ourselves, that's more subtle effort if we 'try' to let go) 
The heart center contraction (which I am very aware of generally on a sensate level) is the mark of attachment, non-clinging abides in the expansion you describe.
I agree with you that jhanic states involve a contraction because there is a self-created modification there, many teachers not in the meditative tradition (like Byron Katie) teach that the heart center contraction is a sign that there's a lie happening, you are not in line with reality and you are ego building. Many practioners do what we do (I'm pretty sure it's not so complicated emoticon and use different words and teachings to describe it
Equanimity (in my view and experience) is being in sensate pain (or pleasure) and being expansive and non contracted, non-grasping (a tenant of Buddhism) and you can even experience this contentment and benevolence within pain (more difficult in pleasure they say)
I'm pretty sure what you're practicing is nothing new, it certainly vibes with my practice (although not specifically taught to me in the Burmese Buddhist tradition), I think it's Dzogchen and Choiceless Awareness but I'll leave that to others (much more informed than me) to be the judge
Good luck with your practice, I actually stopped calling it practice because it seems more like sane living, the present moment is all there is, so we're really not 'practicing' for anything. More words of course emoticon
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:09 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
That's a good point, John.  I was trying to say something like that with my boat analogy, but I like your direct description better.

I think it's also hard not to be insulting when talking about these things.  We can be very attached to positive emotions, and that's completely understandable.  They're the only way "out" of negativity if you haven't found the PCE.  But soemthing to point out is that Richard says the best way to get a PCE is by being happy and harmless.  If being emotionless was really a terrible experience, why would it come out of happiness?

(I'm not entirely convinced that Richard hasn't fallen prey to a variant of that himself, in a way, but I don't feel I have a strong enough handle on that to argue it persuasively, and don't want to make it my business any more anyway).


I know what you mean here, but the good part of Actualism is that it doesn't matter. The only reason I use the terminology is because it matches perfectly. The concepts are all verifiable and testable. Richard might spread his brand better if he wasn't quite so theatrical in his presentation, but hey, he never claimed the methods erased personality, haha. We'll never know if he's really Actually Free, but then, we'll never know if the buddha was enlightened, or anyone else's personal experience of the world.

EDIT: You snuck a post in there Daniel. ^^

It does sound like we're doing something similar. The main point that seems to be different is that you allow tensions to dissolve on their own, and in actualism we specifically try to find out what they are. The reason I've personally found this important is that I discovered a few neurosis I didn't even know I had. One example is that I realized I had an extreme aversion to getting my clothes dirty - basically a type of OCD. I can consciously let go of this obsession now that I'm aware of it. It was a surprising thing to discover because I had been suppressing it for so long, but I realized it contributed to a lot of my daily discomfort and anxiety. Maybe this is something you do as well, but if not it certainly would take much to add it if it seems helpful to you.

The underlying joy that you're referring to, is it physical or does it have a psychic component?

EDIT2: You said, "'we' can't let go ourselves, that's more subtle effort if we 'try' to let go"
I can understand this viewpoint, and it does work eventually in the moment, but for me in didn't seem to solve problems. I realized pretty recently that, if I can't let go of something, I haven't yet discovered its cause or I still see the cause as important. I used to think I just had random anxiety before, but once I embraced the idea that all negativity had a cause, I was able to discover that OCD habit I had. It really is as simple as understanding what the cause is and realizing it isn't worth the worry. The anxiety ends instantly. It's also weakened so that next time it doesn't seem quite so bad. I worked through arachnophobia this way too. The method shares a lot with therapy - it just assumes we're mentally ill until our experience is perfect.
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:40 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:38 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:

The heart center contraction (which I am very aware of generally on a sensate level) is the mark of attachment, non-clinging abides in the expansion you describe.
I agree with you that jhanic states involve a contraction because there is a self-created modification there, many teachers not in the meditative tradition (like Byron Katie) teach that the heart center contraction is a sign that there's a lie happening, you are not in line with reality and you are ego building. Many practioners do what we do (I'm pretty sure it's not so complicated emoticon and use different words and teachings to describe it

There's contraction, there's expansion, and there's... absence.

The way I'm reading this, you (Daniel) are writing as if Not Tao is talking about expansion, whereas s/he (?) is talking about absence [of affective states].
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:51 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:48 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
John Wilde:
There's contraction, there's expansion, and there's... absence.

The way I'm reading this, you (Daniel) are writing as if Not Tao is talking about expansion, whereas s/he (?) is talking about absence [of affective states].


How would you frame the difference? I'm not sure if I'm talking about expansion or absence. I don't know that I've experience expansion, actually...

(He, BTW emoticon)

EDIT: Maybe naivete is expanded?
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:09 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 5:56 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
John Wilde:
There's contraction, there's expansion, and there's... absence.

The way I'm reading this, you (Daniel) are writing as if Not Tao is talking about expansion, whereas s/he (?) is talking about absence [of affective states].


How would you frame the difference? I'm not sure if I'm talking about expansion or absence. I don't know that I've experience expansion, actually...

Okay, suppose you're upset about something (angry, worried, whatever); you intentionally relax (or otherwise rise above) that contracted feeling, and it gives way to a nice, open, warm, friendly, benign, okay-come-what-may, no longer hurting, well-wishing feeling state which, if it expands all the way, turns into Love and Compassion (with capital letters). That's what I mean by contraction -> expansion. By contrast, absence is when there's nothing to be contracted, and nothing to be expanded. That whole zone of 'being' in which feelings can contract or expand is simply not 'there'. But it's not a blank or a void..... it's a PCE.

EDIT: Maybe naivete is expanded?

Hmm... for me naïvete doesn't feel either expanded or contracted or neutral-equanimous as such. It feels simple, happy, direct, artless, curious, uncomplicated, well-meaning, well-wishing (but not in a bleeding heart way), and untroubled (but not in an I'm-above-it-all / Ive-transcended-the-world way).
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:14 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:04 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
John Wilde:
Daniel Leffler:

The heart center contraction (which I am very aware of generally on a sensate level) is the mark of attachment, non-clinging abides in the expansion you describe.
I agree with you that jhanic states involve a contraction because there is a self-created modification there, many teachers not in the meditative tradition (like Byron Katie) teach that the heart center contraction is a sign that there's a lie happening, you are not in line with reality and you are ego building. Many practioners do what we do (I'm pretty sure it's not so complicated emoticon and use different words and teachings to describe it

There's contraction, there's expansion, and there's... absence.

The way I'm reading this, you (Daniel) are writing as if Not Tao is talking about expansion, whereas s/he (?) is talking about absence [of affective states].
Hi John,
Expansion was just a word I used - but it's not absence either, if by that you mean absence of sensation. It is absent of reaction however, and I mean that as absent of the creation of more sensations/stress. I haven't 'experienced' cessation so I guess that would be real absence, although I have cleared the channels and heavy 'energy' in the body (another kind of absense), but this can be done by effort, and that's not my practice 
What actually happens with me is I am with the sensation and awareness dissolves efforting, or transmutes it or...I'm not sure of the actual mechanism, more words - but it's whatever heart contraction isn't - non-effort. The sensations actually clear, although I have been in a kundalini process for seven years now so I've only been totally clear of bodily sensation on long retreats, years ago, and I've found a 'clear' body doesn't have the same satisfied fearless feeling as the cultivation of awareness and equinimity, regardless of the sensations present in the body or the mental state. Still my head has been clear from the neck up all that time, the heart center still produces sensation and keep the rest of my body clogged - I guess eventual enlightenment (or death?) will take care of that 
More explicitly 'I' am not even with sensation as far as being separate from it, because I notice subtle stress in that duality/witnessing as well, it's more a sinking into the moment, and being it. That's why I somewhat understand (I think) Actualists saying they are the emotions, as there is subtle stress in watching it, maybe that's why I thought maybe it's the same as non-dual practice. But to say we are the emotions is a philosophy/interpretation of experience IMO. Dropping conception and sinking into awareness, as that, is what happens. Words are tough emoticon
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:25 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:23 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:

Hi John,
Expansion was just a word I used - but it's not absence either, if by that you mean absence of sensation. It is abesnt of reaction however and I mean that as absent of the creation of more sensations/stress. I haven't 'experienced' cessation so I guess that would be real absence, although I have cleared the channels and heavy 'evergy' in the body (another kind of absense), but this can be done by effort, and that's not my practice 
What actually happens with me is I am with the sensation and awareness dissolves efforting, or transmutes it or...I'm not sure of the actual mechanism, more words - but it's whatever heart contraction isn't - non-effort. The sensations actually clear, although I have been in a kundalini process for seven years now so I've only been totally clear of bodily sensation on long retreats, years ago, and I've found a 'clear' body doesn't have the same satisfied fearless feeling as the cultivation of awareness and equinimity, regardless of the sensations present in the body or the mental state. Still my head has been clear from the neck up all that time, the heart center still produces sensation and keep the rest of my body clogged - I guess eventual enlightenment (or death?) will take care of that 
More explicitly 'I' am not even with sensation as far as being separate from it, because I notice subtle stress in that duality/witnessing as well, it's more a sinking into the moment, and being it. That's why I somewhat understand (I think) Actualists saying they are the emotions, as there is subtle stress in watching it, maybe that's why I thought maybe it's the same as non-dual practice. But to say we are the emotions is a philosophy/interpretation of experience IMO. Dropping conception and sinking into awareness, as that, is what happens. Words are tough emoticon

Sorry if I'm creating confusion here. What I mean by absence is not the cessation of all sensation, but the absence of all feeling states, whether they're contracted or expanded. A PCE doesn't lie anywhere on the contracted -> expanded feeling scale.

Typically, relaxing contraction does not result in a PCE.... it results in a more expansive state of being. (Which sounds to me like what you're describing. Whether you and Not Tao are indeed talking about the same thing remains to be seen. My current impression is no, but time will tell. I'm curious to see how this unfolds...)
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:35 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:35 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Interesting...

So, yeah, the experience I'm talking about is an absence.  It's like becoming physically empty.  The idea of expansion threw me because it feels like a space opens up, but it's not a heart type feeling, it's entierly different.  Like someone vanished the whole deal.

My experience with expanded states is somewhat limited, but I think that's because they only started appearing for me recently, and I'm not really aiming for them much.  I spent some time one night a little while ago laying on my couch loving the world, but I still want to call that contracted because it feels like the heart is squeezing.  It was an interesting experience because it was very pleasant, but I wanted it to stop so I could have a PCE. XD

Daniel, now that we're getting into the nitty gritty of it, I think there are differences in the experiences.  It's likely I don't know the feeling states that you do very well.  It'd be pointless to try to figure out which of us has something better.  I'm curious if you can't remember a PCE, though.  You said you felt an equanimity that made you feel like an alien, haha, but I don't think that's quite it.  Back when I was doing the jhanas, I'd get something like that if I stuck with the fourth for a while.  The complete absence of an internal world is the cue to look for.  I'm not sure the other parts of the description, like contentment and beauty, are quite so definitive, since they can also happen in other states.
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 7:06 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 6:49 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:

EDIT: You snuck a post in there Daniel. ^^

It does sound like we're doing something similar. The main point that seems to be different is that you allow tensions to dissolve on their own, and in actualism we specifically try to find out what they are. The reason I've personally found this important is that I discovered a few neurosis I didn't even know I had. One example is that I realized I had an extreme aversion to getting my clothes dirty - basically a type of OCD. I can consciously let go of this obsession now that I'm aware of it. It was a surprising thing to discover because I had been suppressing it for so long, but I realized it contributed to a lot of my daily discomfort and anxiety. Maybe this is something you do as well, but if not it certainly would take much to add it if it seems helpful to you.

EDIT2: You said, "'we' can't let go ourselves, that's more subtle effort if we 'try' to let go"
I can understand this viewpoint, and it does work eventually in the moment, but for me in didn't seem to solve problems. I realized pretty recently that, if I can't let go of something, I haven't yet discovered its cause or I still see the cause as important. I used to think I just had random anxiety before, but once I embraced the idea that all negativity had a cause, I was able to discover that OCD habit I had. It really is as simple as understanding what the cause is and realizing it isn't worth the worry. The anxiety ends instantly. It's also weakened so that next time it doesn't seem quite so bad. I worked through arachnophobia this way too. The method shares a lot with therapy - it just assumes we're mentally ill until our experience is perfect.


Nice - I like that you have insight into that distinction between passivity and going after causes - I'm definitely letting nature just do her thing
It's interesting to me to know the cause of our 'stuff'. I do that in day to day life as reactions of aversion and clinging come up I suppose. If you've ever been on a Goenka retreat, he describes old sankharas rising to the surface to meet new ones that are created, and by staying aware and equanimous in the moment we not only cease creating new karma but we dissolve a stock of the old sankharas that we've been carrying around, related to that real-time case of reaction. I think that's why practice in daily life off-the-cushion is so important so that awareness and equinimity meet real life challenges and we can lighten our emotional load a bit at a time. 
I very much like the idea of consciously letting go of my stuff though (not waiting for situational life to bring it to us like you did with spiders) and being more proactive about uprooting it. I've never gone to traditional therapy, and for some reason I feel like it is difficult for me to make an actual connection between what's bugging me and my sensate reactions, like just being gloomy for no apparent reason - but (example of when I did) - when I was about 10 years old a friend of mine had some cigars he wanted to smoke. We went into an abandoned gas station bathroom to be sneaky and the steel metal door (with no handle) closed and locked behind us. We were stuck in there for hours and it was cold, no one could hear us scream though we could see people pass by through a small hole in the door - we thought we were going to die and took turns freaking out/consoling each other. Eventually (late that night) a passerby heard our screams and let us out. After that I developed various phobias - the biggest one being claustrophobia. I realized through introspection that my root fear was a fear of death/annihilation and read books about reincarnation etc, made peace with my fear of death and eventually all of my new phobias withered away. I'd like to do that with other reactive emotions and have considered trying hypnotherapy, as that may connect up somewhere as well, for buried/forgotten memories   

"The underlying joy that you're referring to, is it physical or does it have a psychic component?"
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by a psychic component, but it is physical, as all things are. I'd say it's more like a deep contentment, the absence of creating sensations/stress if that makes sense. It's like a fullness in the body or heart, a deep knowing that that life is perfect just the way it is in the midst of whatever storm is going on. The trick (for me) is to bring myself into the moment through awareness of bodily sensation, and knowledge that, (paraphrasing someone) if you can do something to change your situation there's no reason to stress, because it can be fixed, if you can't do anything to change your undesirable situation, there's no reason to worry, since there's nothing you can do about it. Would that be the psychic component? It's kind of underlying though and not necessary expressed in thought forms
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 7:17 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 7:17 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Interesting...

So, yeah, the experience I'm talking about is an absence.  It's like becoming physically empty.  The idea of expansion threw me because it feels like a space opens up, but it's not a heart type feeling, it's entierly different.  Like someone vanished the whole deal.

My experience with expanded states is somewhat limited, but I think that's because they only started appearing for me recently, and I'm not really aiming for them much.  I spent some time one night a little while ago laying on my couch loving the world, but I still want to call that contracted because it feels like the heart is squeezing.  It was an interesting experience because it was very pleasant, but I wanted it to stop so I could have a PCE. XD

Daniel, now that we're getting into the nitty gritty of it, I think there are differences in the experiences.  It's likely I don't know the feeling states that you do very well.  It'd be pointless to try to figure out which of us has something better.  I'm curious if you can't remember a PCE, though.  You said you felt an equanimity that made you feel like an alien, haha, but I don't think that's quite it.  Back when I was doing the jhanas, I'd get something like that if I stuck with the fourth for a while.  The complete absence of an internal world is the cue to look for.  I'm not sure the other parts of the description, like contentment and beauty, are quite so definitive, since they can also happen in other states.
The emptiness you're feeling must be related to the energy system, which I have experience in the past, where there's no reaction to something because it's not possible to react, you're just cool with stuff
My kundalini experience threw my energy system off (I think) but I know the empty non-reactive feeling, it's like there's nothing there to react, sensation-wise coming from the heart center. I am still clogged with sensation emanating from my heart as (supposedly) kundalini is clearing out all my deeply buried sh*t on her own - that's what they say anyway, and that would be nice to be on auto-pilot if it's true emoticon. I have become less reactive and more patient over the years
The thing about not feeling love or compassion or equanimity or joy still throws me though - these are not heart contracted states in my experience - when they are non-personal. Maintaining the PCE also seems like clinging would develop, as it's still a state, but if it's the state of non-clinging I suppose that would be impossible - I have definitely experienced that. Interesting how this lines up with energy work and how your chakras and channels are doing when you feel non-reactive/empty. Clear and spinning? emoticon
Also not sure how necessary the so-called PCE is in all of this, if the goal is contentment and non-clinging 
The feeling of beauty and wondrousness and awe was what I identified with in the descriptions of the PCE, I had them more often when my meditation practice was more structured, compelling me to practice more these days anyway
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 9:49 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 9:46 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Even if I were to explain succintly craving, the emotions involved, the non-nourishment thereof, and the cessation thereof.

And if I were to succinctly to explain Bare Attention as commonly understood, not your understanding.

And were then to show the similarities between the various experiences described by the words:  PCE, Bare Attention, Emotions, Emotionless State, Equanimity, Cessation, Anatta, etc, etc, 

And then even if you were then having the same experiences described above, it seems that you would still disagree.  Perhaps there is some view out there that some humans are superior or inferior to other humans, when we are all perfect at being what we are in the present moment.  Like the snowflakes, up close they look different, and no two are the same, (this might have been refuted by modern science) but snowflakes from afar, (the universal view) they are basically the same.

Perhaps there is the belief out there that someone has discovered something new to all humans, and that they are the first and only to have done so, and out of compassion they strive to teach this new technique to the common folk.  But also perhaps, there is a reality out there that shows this is not the case, that merely re-wording, and cut and pasting from various methods, does not make something new. 

If someone in the world is proclaiming to be the "one and only bringer of the light", then there is probably a sense of "me" involved.  This is not to say they would not have something to offer, a method or some such.  But a method is a method by any means and methods are not the end result.

Anyway, you could research the topics of Equanimity, Bare Attention, and Right Mindfulness.  But that is just a suggestion.

The experience you have described, sorry to inform you, is common in spiritual circles, as you have probably noticed that most of the advanced practioners here do not even reply to your elatedness, they already know the folly and stand on the sidelines, probably barely amused.

Anyway, I have tried to expalin to you briefly about Bare Attention , and Pure Mindfulness, but you keep coming up with a refutation about some ideas you have about Bare Attention and Pure Mindfulness.

Tips:  Also release Physical Formations, there is tension and tightness in the head, ( meninges), the "furrowing" of the brow is a common one, "setting" the jaw, chest tension, ears held back, (sounds funny, but true), thumb pressing on hand/finger, abdominals tensed and ready, breath held shallow, chest tension Relax the heart area.  This helps to maintain the Wholesome State (PCE)

Also, Verbal Formations, if words are arising in the mind, the mind is not in Full PCE, learn to relax the langauge center of the brain and leave it calm, One doesn't need to narrate every phenomena in life, this will help you to maintain your PCE (Wholesome State/ Equanimity)

And Emotional Formations, keep them balanced, this is called  Equanimity, there is no reason to react in anger if you spill a drink, it already happened , and people on the other side of the world are unaware anyway, universally these occurrences are non-events.  the emotional reactions are not warranted and are just negative mental habits that can and should be immediately released, and by doing so they will lose their energy and eventually disappear altogether.  the same goes with reacting with greed and lust when one is aware of something pleasant or nice, a soda , a new car, or whatever, by using Bare Attention, one does not react, but stays Equanimous towards all formations, this is called Guarding the Sense doors, and will help you to stay within PCE, or Wholesomeness.

Also, don't forget to write at Christmas, very important.

And Breathe, don't forget to breathe.

Your a good kid Not Tao, what you have learned you have learned on your own, you may have heard some tips, and practiced some of this and a little of that, but in the end we have to forge the path ourselves, we are independent, spirtual progress is a do-it-yourself job.  

Maybe now you shou be Now Tao

“Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them – that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like. ”  Lao Tzu

Pie Too
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 9:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 9:47 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
I've warmed up a little more to AF as of late, the dogma of suttic Buddhism really put me off, especially the whole anal morality mentality that the Pali Canon has, one of the prerequisites of streamwinning is moral perfection.

As a side note I just had my first PCE in ages, while enjoying a cigarette, was really nice.

Cheers,

James
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 9:56 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 9:56 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
You smoke the  Wacky 'Backy ?  you from Colorado?
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 10:13 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 10:04 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
Is that what they call it there? No, not regularly. I have in the past. I don't see the spiritual application of it.
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 10:41 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 10:37 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
I find that Richard's warnings about ASCs are pretty on-point as well, although according to him there seem to be no more potent embodiments of the divine or the diabolical. Ever since his self-immolation in 1992, there haven't been any wild, crazy, potent God-men, which is probably why we have recently watered down the standards of awakening, such that it would now be possible for people to claim it.

Figures such as Adi Da Samraj, Chogyam Trungpa, Aleister Crowley and so on and so forth come to mind when I think of these types of people.

I experience visions of being the Buddha in December of 2013 and a grand confidence that I was in fact the next Buddha, looking back this seems to fit Richard's description of awakened beings having a messiah-complex or saviour-mentality, but of course such potent, toxic consciousness doesn't seem to have a hold anymore, as per his extinction of being, which he seems to imply has affected everyone who is an affective being.

Regards,

James

Note: The December visions were also accompanied by classic experiences of the Tevijja, such as feeling that I had transmigrated hundreds of lifetimes, experiences of possessing the greatest knowledge and vision of all human beings. It was disturbing when I took such "revelations" literally, but now I just treat them as another set of experiences.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 11:12 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/14/14 11:12 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Hey again , ( I posted this last March, it's part of the N8fold Path, it's the formula for Right Effort) and I almost forgot, it seems you were descibing this method also:

Right Effort , as I remember anyway, the formula,

First , to abandon an unwholesome state that has already arisen.

Second, to not let unwholesome state arise that has not yet arisen.

Third, to arouse a wholesome state that has not yet arisen.

Fourth, to maintain a wholesome state that has already arisen.

This formula, when practiced , without fail, every mindful moment one is capable of , should not be taken lightly. 

With proper practice, one will eventually easily dismiss, anger, jealousy, etc etc (insert unwholesome state) And replace and sustain wholesome states, equanimity, joy, etc etc

Of course you will probably disagree with me that this is part of what you are practicing/doing, even though this is what you said you were doing.

Pop Eye
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 12:43 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 12:43 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:
Hi Felipe,
I did read back over your distinction between affect and sensate, thank you for clarifying. I think we’re getting too wrapped up in words – what I mean is, there is the experience, and then there are the words that we use to try to get at what that was, the finger and the moon
Yeah, I think that is a lot of it, different attempts and terms used cause confusion and even arguments. 
I prefer to think in terms of personal vs impersonal however and this is demonstrated by the idea of personal love vs. unconditional love.
Whereas someone else might say the words used should be emotional vs emotionless.  My personally take is evolution of emotions such that the emotions have less 'I' in them.  (very similar to your 'impersonal'  but I see it happening more on a gradual continuum)  Ironic really that some of these arguments are probably people having the same aims and goals but just using diff terminology and so confusing eachother!  ;-P

I wouldn’t follow a teaching that promises the obliteration of that, I think it’s a shame (hopefully not pity ;)
If you feel (haha) more in alignment with Richard’s teaching than the Buddha, or Jesus, or anyone else we revere in our culture (Martin Luther King, Jack Kornfield etc…) than I think it’s good that you follow his teachings and the more power to you. I find his teachings odd and culty – for instance when someone says they’ve discovered something totally new and this newly discovered human experience is something no one else knows about etc. I hear 'danger danger'. We are talking about inner human development that has gone on for thousands of years and loads of words have been used to describe loads of states and experiences. I also don’t call myself a Buddhist because I’m averse to religion in general - I vibe with people who see the mystery and don't know the answers to all the questions. I personally see religion (a belief structure to be taken on faith) in Actualist teaching. There is a philosophy to believe and words are re-defined to make an argument to support a pre-ordained conclusion – not the mark of an open mind or scientific method
Well that probably describes most Buddhism too!  Most of it probably started out in similar ways, branches off of branches off of branches of teaching, and the circular reasoning is there too.  ;-)   Really, any belief system can become a cult.  A lot of has to do with who is leading the party.  Also, seems to me that the most powerful cults have a lot of really good teaching in there, that is what hooks in the followers, they feel deep inside that parts of it are true and they get results, good feelings, etc from it, so they become 'believers.'  The problem is once someone becomes a follower, that person may no longer notice the few parts that are less true or that are just down right manipulative.  It's actually a super classic advertising technique to hide an untruth or a manipulation amongst many truths where it is most likely to go unnoticed.  If cult leaders are not fully aware of their dark side, they may even not be fully aware of their own manipulations.  It may be something as simple as a leader liking attention and adoration and if that's all, it may not become too troublesome, but sometimes that taste of power just unleashes desire for more and more and the leader becomes increasingly unstable.  Any group can become cultlike if the leader is both charismatic and unbalanced.  That doesn't mean that the other 97% of the teachings were wrong or bad though, it only needs to be a tiny bit that poisons the well water. 

When I read about emotionless states and not experiencing love or compassion (or seeing them as expressions of being to be abandoned) I feel compassion for those that would want to do that –
Again, as I stated before, I think it's a case of him using 'emotionless' to describe something else than what the average person assumes to be 'emotionless.' 

 PCE full time sounds nice, like heaven, but it’s still a ‘mind mod’ as Daniel Ingram referred to it in passing. It’s a conditioned state subject to laws of impermanence like everything else.
Really, do we know this for sure? Seems like they come on their own?  I don't recall doing anything special to get mine, it was really quite a bit of a surprise.  How do we know PCE is not a natural state?
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 1:03 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 1:03 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts

EDIT2: You said, "'we' can't let go ourselves, that's more subtle effort if we 'try' to let go"
I can understand this viewpoint, and it does work eventually in the moment, but for me in didn't seem to solve problems. I realized pretty recently that, if I can't let go of something, I haven't yet discovered its cause or I still see the cause as important. I used to think I just had random anxiety before, but once I embraced the idea that all negativity had a cause, I was able to discover that OCD habit I had. It really is as simple as understanding what the cause is and realizing it isn't worth the worry. The anxiety ends instantly. It's also weakened so that next time it doesn't seem quite so bad. I worked through arachnophobia this way too. The method shares a lot with therapy - it just assumes we're mentally ill until our experience is perfect.
That whole thing about try and not try, I noticed can be used in contradictory ways.  Like I've heard that some things aren't good because they involve 'trying' and trying is apparently wrong or bad.  Instead you supposedly  have to allow or let go.  But doesn't the paths involve TRYING to see the 3Cs and trying and practicing other things?  After a while, it gets to sound like 'trying' is only allowed if the trying corresponds with what we some people decide is worth trying, but no other things.  Really, I don't how anything can get done preenlightenment without at least some occasional trying.  ;-)

Anyway, despite my nitpicking, what I do I think is rather close to what Actual Freedom does, except I didn't make a whole belief system out of it nor did I work out any special terminology.  But the basic concept of looking at thoughts and emotions and trying to figure out the cause of any negative ones, does work.  You just have to keep drilling down until you get to the root of each thing.  The more I understand the cause, the more the problem seems to kind resolve on it's own as if those wayward segments of me, once understood, are able to integrate or something.  I don't think you can really 'try' to get rid of negative thoughts and have it work, instead those negative issues seem to just refuse to leave the building, but if you instead 'try' to understand the negativity, then THAT seems to work for both understanding AND resolving.  But it's not like I thought up the system all on my own, I heard bits and pieces of it here and there and tried different things and found that one seemed to work.  And I do think this is a very useful tool and method that will lead far, but just not sure if it's all that will ever be needed and will teach all that can ever be learned.      
-Eva
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 11:55 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 11:49 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:
I very much like the idea of consciously letting go of my stuff though (not waiting for situational life to bring it to us like you did with spiders) and being more proactive about uprooting it. I've never gone to traditional therapy, and for some reason I feel like it is difficult for me to make an actual connection between what's bugging me and my sensate reactions, like just being gloomy for no apparent reason - but (example of when I did) - when I was about 10 years old a friend of mine had some cigars he wanted to smoke. We went into an abandoned gas station bathroom to be sneaky and the steel metal door (with no handle) closed and locked behind us. We were stuck in there for hours and it was cold, no one could hear us scream though we could see people pass by through a small hole in the door - we thought we were going to die and took turns freaking out/consoling each other. Eventually (late that night) a passerby heard our screams and let us out. After that I developed various phobias - the biggest one being claustrophobia. I realized through introspection that my root fear was a fear of death/annihilation and read books about reincarnation etc, made peace with my fear of death and eventually all of my new phobias withered away. I'd like to do that with other reactive emotions and have considered trying hypnotherapy, as that may connect up somewhere as well, for buried/forgotten memories


Yes, this sounds more like how I see Actualism. Something that helps tremendously with phobias or obsessions in particular is negative visualization. (As a side note, negative visualization is not part of Actualism. I actually got it from modern therapy techniques.) Essentially, once you have identified the phobia - which can be half the battle - you can practice confronting it with your imagination. For my spider phobia, I looked at pictures on google images, and then I would sit with my eyes closed and imagine spiders crawling on me. There is an initial fear that comes up, but if you remain calm, it goes away very quickly. It only took about 5 days of doing this, and the fear was gone. Part of the effectiveness of using your imagination is that it's the imagination that creates most of our fear, so by practicing negative visualization you are aiming at the root of the problem. I see spiders in my house a lot these days, and I always make a point to let them crawl on my hand. This reinforces the new paradigm in my mind. I really don't see the phobia coming back, though, it's just gone. I actually kind of like spiders now. :3 I'll have to try some bigger spiders soon and see how that goes.

The whole experience was pretty eye-opening though. I'd been afraid of spiders for many years, and there were nights I couldn't sleep because I had seen a spider earlier and was looping thoughts in my mind like, "a spider is going to come crawl on me, I can't close my eyes!" Sometimes even an image on TV would set it off. It only took 5 days to cure it! If I could change some thought pattern that was that fundimental so quickly, I really think it's possible to change anything.

Daniel Leffler:
"The underlying joy that you're referring to, is it physical or does it have a psychic component?"
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by a psychic component, but it is physical, as all things are. I'd say it's more like a deep contentment, the absence of creating sensations/stress if that makes sense. It's like a fullness in the body or heart, a deep knowing that that life is perfect just the way it is in the midst of whatever storm is going on. The trick (for me) is to bring myself into the moment through awareness of bodily sensation, and knowledge that, (paraphrasing someone) if you can do something to change your situation there's no reason to stress, because it can be fixed, if you can't do anything to change your undesirable situation, there's no reason to worry, since there's nothing you can do about it. Would that be the psychic component? It's kind of underlying though and not necessary expressed in thought forms


I guess I'm not sure what I meant by psychic component, haha. All I can say is that, since I am a human and you are a human, we can probably agree on what emotions are in general. When I say the thing I call a PCE is truely emotionless, it means I can't conceive of using a word like joy to describe it. However, there is another state that I've experienced that has a sort of mental sweetness to it, almost like an effortless jhana you can walk around with. I got that a lot when I was doing jhana meditation everyday and practicing radical acceptance. If I stick with that it can erupt into a kind of full body sensual bliss - basically jhana. It has a love-like quality with a sensation like a glowing warmth in the chest. I wrote a poem about it once and I called it, "a glowing coal of patience in my chest." Does this sound like what you're talking about?

I think I'd call that a sutta jhana. The buddha always called the third and fourth jhanas "calm abodes" - which strikes me as meaning once they happen, you can stay there. Undoubtedly it's a very positive way to live, and if that's your ongoing situation then I applaud your accomplishment. It isn't a PCE, though. Also, a very hard fourth jhana - where you are completely blank and spock-like - that isn't a PCE either.

The thing I call a PCE has no inner sensations whatsoever. There is no emotional experience in the body. Even if I were to look for where my heart center is, or what I'm feeling, there would be nothing to find. Everything turns to jelly because it's so relaxing - like going beyond the idea of positive and negative to an entirely new mental paradigm. This might sound alien or cold or horrible, but all I can say is that it's perfect in my experience.

Daniel Leffler:
Maintaining the PCE also seems like clinging would develop, as it's still a state, but if it's the state of non-clinging I suppose that would be impossible - I have definitely experienced that.


I really don't know if this is true or not (states can't last), but think of it this way - the only way to have a PCE is by resolving all conflicts and tensions that cause emotions. Once they're resolved, the PCE happens because that's just the most basic part of the mind. It's not a state, like happiness or sadness, it is just resolution of all conflict, unification of all opinions, the complete abandonment of inhibitions. So there's nothing really to cling to unless I am no longer in the PCE, whereupon I'll ask myself what caused me to leave it, and resolve whatever conflict happened. My practice is more about my baseline, than about "permanence." I do have a default state of being that constitutes most of my waking life. The goal is to raise this until the baseline is a perfect experience. This is called "virtual freedom" by Richard. It's only logical to assume that, if you can remain in a happy and harmless baseline, it will only continue to deepen. If I happen to be angry again after years of not being angry, then I would just apply the actualist method to the anger - figure out what it is, and realize it isn't worth being unhappy about - and go back to my happy baseline.

Important to mention again is that, while the PCE is emotionless, that's just a description, not a method. The Actualist doesn't try to get rid of emotions, he tries to enjoy himself as much as possible. The PCE comes out of this enjoyment and appreciation of simply existing.

@Psi Phy: I took your suggestion and did some research on bare awareness. From what I've read, I still think there is a difference (minor or major, you can decide) in what I am doing now. I don't really know your history with Actualism, but it seems like you have a lot of negative opinions about it. Personally, I don't mind whatever words are applied to my practice, so let's say for a moment that I am following no tradition or path in particular and I have come up with everything I'm doing through trial and error (because, really, that's the truth of it anyway). You can forget, for a moment, that there's a guy out there named Richard who believes he's the "one and only bringer of the light", since that bothers you. You must already do the same thing if you read the Buddhist suttas, no? I think that line is used verbatim in a number of places, haha.

So here I am, just me an my practice. Now if you can further assume I'm not stupid (which maybe you do, judging by the tone of your post), then, as I am capable of reading, thinking, and reflecting, I might have a legitimate reason for saying there's a difference, don't you think? I gather from quotes like this...

Psi Phi:
The experience you have described, sorry to inform you, is common in spiritual circles, as you have probably noticed that most of the advanced practioners here do not even reply to your elatedness, they already know the folly and stand on the sidelines, probably barely amused.


...that you've already made up your mind about my opinions and ideas. But maybe we can start over. My main interest with this thread is helping people see that there really is another way of practicing and thinking about mental development.

Psi Phi:
Anyway, I have tried to expalin to you briefly about Bare Attention , and Pure Mindfulness, but you keep coming up with a refutation about some ideas you have about Bare Attention and Pure Mindfulness.


As I said, I took some time to read about bare awareness and mindfulness on Access to Insight. I'll will directly reference this article and show how my process is different: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel121.html

By bare attention we understand the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us, at the successive moments of perception. It is called "bare" because it attends to the bare facts of a perception without reacting to them by deed, speech or mental comment.


I do not attend to the bare facts of my perceptions. In fact, I only pay attention to one aspect of existence - the emotions. I specifically question myself as to why my emotional state is the way that it is. I do not just note, "anger, sadness, confusion," (as well as "seeing, feeling," etc.) I say, "Ok, I'm angry, what caused it? It was caused by that guy cutting me off in traffic. Is that worth being unhappy? Is that really important? Am I served by this anger in any way?" The answer is always "no," and I am very quickly out of my anger. The emotion is examined, and the reason is found and cured.

But in the methodical development of mindfulness aimed at the unfolding of its latent powers, bare attention is sustained for as long a time as one's strength of concentration permits. Bare attention then becomes the key to the meditative practice of satipatthana, opening the door to mind's mastery and final liberation.


My practice doesn't involve any concentration because, as humans, we are already completely focused on our emotional state. It doesn't need to be maintained. It is, instead, a self-reflection exercise aimed at figuring out why a negative feeling (or positive passion) is present. It is therapy, not meditation.

But how are we to deal with that unwieldy, tangled mass? Usually we try to ignore it and to rely on the counteracting energies of our surface mind. But the only safe remedy is to face it — with mindfulness. Nothing more difficult is needed than to acquire the habit of directing bare attention to these rudimentary thoughts as often as possible.


I am also seeking to face my problems, but not with mindfulness or bare attention. Instead I judge the quality of each emotion, and if it is judged negatively, I seek to understand the trigger so I can disable it. Bare attention does not go further than directing awareness onto the sensation itself, as seen here:

The working principle here is the simple fact that two thoughts cannot coexist at the same time: if the clear light of mindfulness is present, there is no room for mental twilight. When sustained mindfulness has secured a firm foothold, it will be a matter of comparatively secondary importance how the mind will then deal with those rudimentary thoughts, moods and emotions.


In bare awareness, the goal is to ferret out all aspects of existence and see them clearly. I don't share this goal. I'm only interested in understanding the cause of my emotions, and disabling those causes.

When the facts and details of the mind's conditioned nature are uncovered by meditative practice, there is an increased chance to effect fundamental changes in the mind. In that way, not only those hitherto unquestioned habits of the mind, its twilight regions and its normal processes as well, but even those seemingly solid, indisputable facts of the world of matter — all will become "questionable" and lose much of their self-assurance.


This is a major theme in buddhism - metaphysics. There is no self, all matter is empty and luminous, awareness is not separate from sensation, etc. I don't spend any time or energy investigating any part of my experience except the emotions, as that is all that's important to living freely.

I'm going to move on to your tips now. I think they show that what you are calling a PCE is not the same as what I'm calling a PCE.

Psi Phi:
Also release Physical Formations, there is tension and tightness in the head, ( meninges), the "furrowing" of the brow is a common one, "setting" the jaw, chest tension, ears held back, (sounds funny, but true), thumb pressing on hand/finger, abdominals tensed and ready, breath held shallow, chest tension Relax the heart area. This helps to maintain the Wholesome State (PCE)


If it is a state that needs to be maintained, it isn't a PCE. The PCE only happens when all emotional conflict has been resolved, and the mind is free from tension. If there are physical tensions, they are a good sign that there is an emotional experience happening, and they can be examined. To relax them intentionally without trying to understand the cause would be a kind of suppression and an opportunity to discover and eliminate an emotional trigger would be missed.

Psi Phi:
Also, Verbal Formations, if words are arising in the mind, the mind is not in Full PCE, learn to relax the langauge center of the brain and leave it calm, One doesn't need to narrate every phenomena in life, this will help you to maintain your PCE (Wholesome State/ Equanimity)


If you need to suppress thought to enter or maintain a specific state, it isn't a PCE. One of the most remarkable aspects of the PCE is that you can think about things that would normally upset you, and they have no effect on you. This makes the PCE a good place to challenge beliefs you're holding on to. It will give you a simple solution you can remember for the next time you have trouble with said beliefs.

The PCE is not an altered state of consciousness. It is our normal waking consciousness without emotional filters. Thought happens or doesn't happen depending on the needs of the moment.

Psi Phi:
And Emotional Formations, keep them balanced, this is called Equanimity, there is no reason to react in anger if you spill a drink, it already happened , and people on the other side of the world are unaware anyway, universally these occurrences are non-events. the emotional reactions are not warranted and are just negative mental habits that can and should be immediately released, and by doing so they will lose their energy and eventually disappear altogether. the same goes with reacting with greed and lust when one is aware of something pleasant or nice, a soda , a new car, or whatever, by using Bare Attention, one does not react, but stays Equanimous towards all formations, this is called Guarding the Sense doors, and will help you to stay within PCE, or Wholesomeness.


I aim to question anything that causes anger. Your description here might be one way to delegitimize your anger. However, I don't seek to release anger. I don't try to calm myself down, or relax, or ease tension. Instead, I specifically try to find the cause, and I know I have found the cause when the tension goes away. Think of it like this analogy, there is a strong light that is bothering my eyes. To ease the tension, I might hold up my hand (relax physical tensions) or close my eyes (stop thoughts) or let my eyes adjust (acceptance). What I do instead is unplug the lamp (delegitimize the cause).

Actualists believe that every single tiny insignificant little problem has a cause. They investigates every single little problem to find the source so they can unplug the lamp. They are their own psychologist, delving into everything as fully and deeply as they need to. It isn't bare awareness, it's deep psychological exploration.
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 2:23 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 2:17 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:
Not Tao:
Daniel Leffler:
"The underlying joy that you're referring to, is it physical or does it have a psychic component?"
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by a psychic component, but it is physical, as all things are. I'd say it's more like a deep contentment, the absence of creating sensations/stress if that makes sense. It's like a fullness in the body or heart, a deep knowing that that life is perfect just the way it is in the midst of whatever storm is going on. The trick (for me) is to bring myself into the moment through awareness of bodily sensation, and knowledge that, (paraphrasing someone) if you can do something to change your situation there's no reason to stress, because it can be fixed, if you can't do anything to change your undesirable situation, there's no reason to worry, since there's nothing you can do about it. Would that be the psychic component? It's kind of underlying though and not necessary expressed in thought forms


I guess I'm not sure what I meant by psychic component, haha. All I can say is that, since I am a human and you are a human, we can probably agree on what emotions are in general. When I say the thing I call a PCE is truely emotionless, it means I can't conceive of using a word like joy to describe it. However, there is another state that I've experienced that has a sort of mental sweetness to it, almost like an effortless jhana you can walk around with. I got that a lot when I was doing jhana meditation everyday and practicing radical acceptance. If I stick with that it can erupt into a kind of full body sensual bliss - basically jhana. It has a love-like quality with a sensation like a glowing warmth in the chest. I wrote a poem about it once and I called it, "a glowing coal of patience in my chest." Does this sound like what you're talking about?

I think I'd call that a sutta jhana. The buddha always called the third and fourth jhanas "calm abodes" - which strikes me as meaning once they happen, you can stay there. Undoubtedly it's a very positive way to live, and if that's your ongoing situation then I applaud your accomplishment. It isn't a PCE, though. Also, a very hard fourth jhana - where you are completely blank and spock-like - that isn't a PCE either.

The thing I call a PCE has no inner sensations whatsoever. There is no emotional experience in the body. Even if I were to look for where my heart center is, or what I'm feeling, there would be nothing to find. Everything turns to jelly because it's so relaxing - like going beyond the idea of positive and negative to an entirely new mental paradigm. This might sound alien or cold or horrible, but all I can say is that it's perfect in my experience.
Not Alien Not Cold Not Horrible Not Tao, and it lines up with a couple experiences I've had years ago, something very familiar here, hmmm...
If anything I find this conversation fascinating, and potentially extremely useful to myself and maybe others reading
The sutta jhana you describe is closer in tone to the benefits accrued from my daily 'bare awareness' practice, achieved through bare attention, dropping guards, equanimity and allowing everything to just happen, not through concentration or anything manufactured, but I also don't get there through happiness, as you describe. An inner peace does develop however (not heart constricted at all) and a slight smile happens on it's own many times, but my hands also naturally form mudras (I think to balance the energy which my body is packed to the brim with from a kundalini s- storm and my emotional load is lightened : )
The PCE experience, which I clearly need to read more about now (the kool aid sounds delicious, may I please have a glass?! ;) sounds like Satori - I woke up this morning thinking that, although as I read about that experience online, different people even mean different things by that word, it's so hard to know if we're all talking about the same thing! I wonder if Daniel I's PCE is similar to yours in his write-up?
http://integrateddaniel.info/my-experiments-in-actualism/
I've always been confused by the 'blip' description of nirvana of Mahasi/MCTB and why it's so valued (sounds like deep sleep) and I don't think that's the teaching of enlightenment in Zen, but they are a tricky bunch to figure out! Still, the emotional perfection model (although debunked by MCTB ) is the teaching of the Buddha (for arahats) and the reason many got into meditation in the first place I'd say, not to discuss the existence of fairies with sawfoot! Though it is an epic thread  emoticon
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4835855
Relatedly, I think there’s some intellectual dishonesty at play with the fact that so many acquire a new religion (Three C’s, Rebirth, the Big Blip etc) forgetting the fact that they got into meditation because of just one C in particular – dukkha! The other Cs are meant to be the salve for that (so says Buddha) but those that call themselves totally done say otherwise, emotions still arise. Conundrum!
I guess I'm looking for parallels with other words/traditions since the PCE seems like a relatively easy experience to set oneself up for and others must have written about it before Richard. There’s thousands of years of practice here and millions of practitioners, surely this isn’t something new?!
I'm also really interested to hear if you have any thoughts about the energy system and all of this? (Or if anyone else smart and non-foofy has an intelligent thought?) I have experienced myself the emotionlessness PCE-seeming state where life is magical and beautiful and vibrant (in momentary glimpses here and there) and a knowing that fear (or anger or elation...) could not possibly arise because there was no knot at the heart to meet the external reaction, just being cool, a cool motherf-er
I've also experienced sensations leaving the body just as reactions manifest, as though they couldn't be held (after meditating intensely at retreat for 10 days). Do you have any thoughts on the energy system and the part it plays in actualist practice/the PCE? Do you think your energetic system is clear and chakras spinning when a PCE ensues? It has been discussed before (I really gotta read this stuff myself lol)
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5227446
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/93663
Also, how long do your PCEs last? What else should I read? (besides everything?) Ok, I really need to get back to work now...noting aversion! ;)
Daniel
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 2:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 2:36 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:

Danel Leffler PCE full time sounds nice, like heaven, but it’s still a ‘mind mod’ as Daniel Ingram referred to it in passing. It’s a conditioned state subject to laws of impermanence like everything else.
Really, do we know this for sure? Seems like they come on their own?  I don't recall doing anything special to get mine, it was really quite a bit of a surprise.  How do we know PCE is not a natural state?
I agree with everything you wrote in your two posts Eva - for example, not throwing the baby (Actualist method) out with the bathwater (Richard's philosophy lol). I also think the PCE sounds like a non-clinging state by definition, so 'natural' could very well be the case, although I know some think anything outside of straight up cessation and the ceasing of the time/space continuuim that it's all a mind mod - getting philosophical, danger!
Anyway, your analysis and insights are quite well received and I detect big amounts of wisdom and understanding coming from 'you' through these bits and bytes and the whole series of tubes. I hope I'm not massaging your ego here, anyway, there is no spoon! 
Best, Daniel
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 5:48 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 3:49 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Daniel,

Daniel:

 I think we’re getting too wrapped up in words – what I mean is, there is the experience, and then there are the words that we use to try to get at what that was, the finger and the moon.

I think this goes to the paradox at the heart of life/spirituality however and is expressed in the emptiness teachings of Mahayana vs. fullness teachings of the Vajrayana – they are both at play and two ways of viewing life

I think it’s much more than semantic.
 
Daniel:

One could have realized No Self (or obliterated emotions/the self as Actualism prescribes) and still be compassionate. If there is no self (you don’t perceive a psyche here at least on this side of the equation) who is compassionate with who?

You have to consider that compassion is an emotion or a state classified as ‘good’, just like love, sympathy, empathy, etc. In other words, it’s driven by passional motivations which then give rise to ideologies such as ‘putting the others before one’ or ‘turn the other cheek’.
This is NOT harmlessness in the actualist sense.  Harmlessness is the absence of both good and bad feelings. In other words, feeling compassionate is to actively seek to feel and alleviate other’s suffering and harmlessness is being completely carefree in the emotional level but considerate and intimate in the actual one, as there are no self-centered forces that impede one to be and behave well-meaningly, attentively, kindly, etc. In the absence of malice, the antidotes are redundant and futile. They don't even arise anymore as the affective energy is completely null.

Another interesting point to consider is that to an actually free person there is no agenda, there is no drive whatsoever to be this or that, so this implies that there is nothing deep to do for the rest {peace is a natural state to the AF anyway, so no need for morality}, because, at the end, everyone is responsible for their own wellbeing. This is in flagrant contrast with the idea to be compassionate, and here I remembered a very old post of mine that is precisely about all this. I recommend you check it out, as it also responds to other methodological points you raise later in your post.

Daniel:
I find his teachings odd and culty – for instance when someone says they’ve discovered something totally new and this newly discovered human experience is something no one else knows about etc.

Yeah, the same thing happened to Galileo, and yet the Earth moves. Do you actually believe there is no more space for human innovation?
 
Daniel:

I hear 'danger danger'.

Surely you agree with me that, just like there are actual dangers out there, we are programmed to hear all kinds of things as true and yet they are often result to be ropes and not snakes at closer inspection. Are you sure where exactly the burden of the danger you perceive is?
 
Daniel:

We are talking about inner human development that has gone on for thousands of years…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
 

Daniel:
and loads of words have been used to describe loads of states and experiences…


Don’t underestimate Richard on this one, as he has passed years reading all kinds of reports from traditions all over the world to compare notes. He even studied pali etymology in an effort to grasp what’s meant originally by the Buddha.

 
Daniel:
I also don’t call myself a Buddhist because I’m averse to religion in general

Regardless of how you consider yourself, do you hold Buddhist beliefs?

Daniel:
 
- I vibe with people who see the mystery and don't know the answers to all the questions.

Specifically in this topic, I vibe with people who see solutions and do know the answers to eradicate human suffering, not because I take it by faith from them but because I’ve put their words to work personally and I’ve been seeing with my own eyes and heart what’s been possible just in three years of human life, and if I follow the pattern it’s just a matter of time.

Humility is not equal to intellectual honesty. 

Daniel:

I personally see religion (a belief structure to be taken on faith) in Actualist teaching. There is a philosophy to believe and words are re-defined to make an argument to support a pre-ordained conclusion – not the mark of an open mind or scientific method

Have you tested that yourself by wholeheartedly trying the actualist method here or you are just busy reacting? I say it because you use terms such as ‘philosophy’ and ‘belief’ which are just the contrary of the spirit of the actualist method.  If you want to have proof of what you are saying, I suggest that you give the method a shot but not in the intellectual level, but in the experiential/existential one. That would indeed be a mark of an open mind and a scientific method from your part.

Daniel:

When I read about emotionless states and not experiencing love or compassion (or seeing them as expressions of being to be abandoned) I feel compassion for those that would want to do that – it’s sounds like taking drugs or some type of jhana, it's a mind state.

I’d suggest that you take a look at this but in the opposite direction. Think of how you are addicted to feelings, how you seem to need them to give meaning to your life, how they make you think that there’s nothing valuable away from them, how they make you predictable, acting by instinct just like any other animal but in more sophisticated ways.

Daniel:
There is pain and suffering in life – you just need to look at it, all around us every day on every level.

See the post I referred to earlier, but in summary, I’ll say that regardless of how I feel about it, the world is what it is. I can do things to make it better but my influence is very limited, so in the end everyone is responsible for their own wellbeing. 

Can you see how this attitude is more pragmatical and hands-on by making a radical change in oneself and only then being helpful by not adding problems to the world, and the compassionate one implies that one puts the others before and therefore loses sight of his own problems and malicious contributions?

And speaking of emotional junkies, and quoting from the other post I mentioned, here is a pretty nasty addiction

Felipe:
Let's see a couple of examples from the same author Lama Zopa:

'The same thing applies to the entire path to enlightenment taught by the Buddha. Actualizing this path depends on the kindness of sentient beings. Without the existence of suffering sentient beings there is no way to generate loving kindness and compassion, no way to actualize bodhicitta, no way to progress along the path. There’s no way to actualize the Mahayana path, to complete it, to eliminate all the defilements and achieve all the qualities of cessation, to attain all realizations without depending on the kindness of sentient beings. No way.'

So, we need the suffering of other beings to get enlightened. Pretty perverse if you ask me. You need that suffering to fuel your compassion. 


Daniel, in summary, you yourself counter your argument of this being pure semantics when you react strongly against the very idea of being a free human without affective drives such as love and compassion. A feeling is a feeling and it requires an affective faculty regardless of personal or impersonal aspects. It's just something you feel from the heart and inspired by your affective connection to other feeling beings and by your raw instinctual passions. Just as you find actual freedom limited, I see the spiritual freedom as limited {as it keeps the possibility of all kinds of feelings arising}, conditioned {by my feelings and other's feelings} and driven {with affective agendas and missions}.

I guess at least we can agree that these methods {spiritual and actualist} are different both in their ways and in their results. Obviously, if I want to build muscle, I’m going to lift and consume a ton of proteins, but if I want to lose fat, I’d rather do cardio. In that same way, by feeling good feelings, you are doing exactly that: building your affective muscle, and that’s very different from thinning them and then losing them by neither express nor repress them, as the actualist method proposes. It's illogical to think that I'll be free from an affective being when I've been empowering the affective elements that conform it the whole time.
 
From here, you can see how your phrase ‘One could have realized No Self (or obliterated emotions/the self as Actualism prescribes) and still be compassionate’ doesn’t make any sense. You can’t equate both results {no self and actual freedom} and their effects {an actually free person can be considerate in a given situation but never compassionate}. Compassion and consideration operate in two whole different levels, at least from the results showed by AF and the PCE, just like one can be productive at work without being stressed or being caring without being loving or fleeing for one's life without being fearful.

Anyway, of course everyone has the right to choose to be slim or muscular, spiritual or actualist, and in that regard I wish you the best in whatever endeavor you choose for yourself.

Cheers!

Felipe

EDIT: Corrected links
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 4:26 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 4:24 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
Long rant:

I find it bizarre how people are unable to differentiate actualist and Buddhism dogma, actualism is simple:
  • There is a self.
  • Said self is the cause of all suffering (in Richard's words: war, suicides, suffering etc)
  • The extinction of said self, is the end of suffering.

Any good Buddhist (and by good I don't mean morally good) should be able to see that that is simply miccha-ditthi (wrong view), as per the Alagaddupama Sutta found on Dharmafarer:



It is thus blatantly obvious that actualism (as formulated by Richard), is thus incompatible with Buddhism.

Once someone possesses non-dual insight it becomes increasingly obvious that a "self" is not the problem, which is why I can never fully take up actualism, it simply doesn't work.

The Buddha states that the end of suffering is contingent upon an unborn, uncreated. According to Richard an actual freedom is contingent upon an unborn, uncreated universe, the matter, space and time of which is permanent.

In practice terms, actualism simply doesn't work, the method is to enjoy this moment of being alive, but the drive enjoy sensual pleasures simply is not that strong. Moreover Richard is overly logical and rational, and attempts to appeal one's logical/rational side of being, pragmatically speaking, his teaching (which he would loathe it being called) simply, does not, work.

Happiness is overrated, sure I'm happy, so what? I'm not actually free, Richard identifies his 'self' with emotions themselves, a Buddhist faux pas.

He makes nearly every mistake in the book.

Note: ironically Richard claims to enjoy sense-pleasures without sensual lust (anhedonically), this is not possible.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 4:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 4:37 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Daniel, if you can remember a PCE, it's generally the best teacher for Actualism as a whole.  It sounds like you may remember one.  Hard to say, though.  It's the kind of thing that slaps you across the face as "Ohh, ok." because it does fit the descriptions perfectly.  It's hard to imagine being emotionless, but it's pretty clear once it happens.  Being a cool cucumber is a good description, haha.

@ Felipe: Since you seem to have a handle on the method, would you mind going into "nipping it in the bud", as that's something I don't think I understand fully.  Often times I have a "same old thing" emotion, and even though I understand the cause of it and don't think it needs to be examined further, I still seem to be holding on to it.  If I spend too much time focused on it, it just turns into rumination and philosophizing.  Is nipping in the bud a direct refusal to bother with it further, like turning your mind to somethig else, or what do you actually do for that?

It seems like there's a conflict between the idea of minimizing emotions, and neither supressing nor expressing them.

EDIT: Hello James.  You always confuse me with your posts, haha, you seem to have two opposite opinions at once in the same threads.
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 4:59 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 4:59 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. - Whitman


My actual opinion on actual freedom (no pun intended) is that it is blatantly a heretical doctrine (to use Buddhist terms). I made a thread about this a while back but I was reverse-trolled so no discussion took place. Actualism commits several faux pas, one of which is the notion that there are two genuine goals (and by genuine I mean real or categorical): being ASCs (Awakening) and Actual Freedom.

According to the Buddha, the goal is one, not many.

I found it so strange that so many of the members here somehow succumbed to the influence of this doctrine, which is probably due to a lack of grounding in Buddhist dogma. The Buddha warns against interpreting meditative experiences without a grounding in right view, moreover he warns against using rationality/logic purely by itself to derive view. (Re, the Brahmajala Sutta)

Richard no doubt had powerful experiences, but in all likelihood, derived a bunch of strange views from his PCE, moreover his "perfection" is diametrically opposed to the Buddha's dukkha.

The various strange experiences that meditators experiences (lol) on this forum is probably due to a lack of right view as well, intense concentration and attentiveness, without any grounding in dogma or knowledge can lead one astray, Re: Dogen's story of the monk of the fourth stage of meditation.

As such, this is my lion's roar: Actualism sucks.

Of course if that's not enough for you, you could try it yourself and personally be dissatisfied with the doctrine.

Regards,

James
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 5:21 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 5:21 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao, yeah I guess I had a lot of questions in there haha
I am really interested in the energetic system aspect of actualist experience however, but I guess it would be conjecture on your part anyway
take it easy! D
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 6:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 5:55 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Oh, I'm sorry Daniel, I read your post and forgot you had questions in there.

Daniel Leffler:
I wonder if Daniel I's PCE is similar to yours in his write-up?


Here's a quote from his article:

That said, it was not that long before I was having some experiences that were very impressive, wondrous, in which everything was just totally fascinating and amazing, all experiences seemed to delight the sense doors, and the only obvious feeling was one of strong wonder, at least initially, until that would give way to fear that the experience would end, which they all did after some minutes or occasionally hours. On the slightly lighter side, I began to feel that I was able to get into a second mode of experiencing reality, something sort of like a muted version of a full PCE, something I thought of as the PCE-mode, and, if I could get into that, the whole rest of my day would be much more enjoyable and easy, timeless in some way, lighter, and clearly better.


This doesn't match how I would describe the PCE. You use delight and wonder to get into a PCE, but the PCE wouldn't have wonder in it. The experience is very "positive", but that's only because of the physical relief it provides. I think the state Daniel is talking about here can be entered through concentration practice. For a while earlier this year, I was doing a practice where I would sit and watch something intently until this kind of state locked in. The PCE is different, yet similar. The beauty of the world is revealed, yes, but that's because there is no emotional involvement. Daniel said he felt fear the experience would end, which is a disqualifier for me. Whenever I have had a PCE, it seems to last the rest of the day most of the time. There's just nothing much to be bothered about - even losing the PCE. I don't know what his PCE-mode might be.

I've generally taken issue with Daniel's article because he doesn't seem to be describing Actualism in any way. I don't know what Tarin was doing, but he must have focused almost exclusively on concentration on the present moment when he told Daniel about it. The PCE is a result of feeling carefree and uninhibited, and you can't be like that if you're trying to concentrate.


Daniel Leffler:
I'm also really interested to hear if you have any thoughts about the energy system and all of this


I don't know what the energy system might be. If I take a wild stab at guessing what you mean, I've had a lot of interesting physical experiences while doing the jhanas. You might be interested in this post I made: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5537323

Truth be told, I don't think it's much related to what I'm doing now. I haven't been meditating that way for a number of months, and I haven't had any "energy" type experiences. Energy and meditation are linked as far as I've seen. I've never read much about chakras, and while I have had feelings in different places, like the throat, heart, third eye, lower abdomen, I never really gave them much thought.

Something to consider, during the PCE, the heart "lump" seems to disappear, so it's possible the rest would as well for you if you're more aware of them. Is this open and spinning? IDK, really...

Here are some good link about the path:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/path1.htm
as you read along you can click the links on the side to see everything in more depth.

Also, something I'll do is just google a word along with "actual freedom" and you'll usually get a few hits on the site. This list is sorted by topic, so you could skim and see if anything looks interesting:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/index.htm
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 6:30 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 6:22 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Cool Not Tao thank you!
I'm very intrigued and I obviously have a lot of reading and procrastinating to do : )

@Felipe I wrote a whole snappy retort to your post (and it imploded into cyberspace without a trace! Anicca anicca...) where I basically drew a firm line between Richard's philosophy and his practice and implored that they not be conflated as I believe you are doing by making him a superman (ie he could be a total whack job and a terrible writer but his teaching may be sound - keep an open mind anyway). I also compared him to Adi Da (just trying to get an emotional rise out of you). I said 'culty' because I don't think one needs to buy into Richard's philosophy to experience a state that is clearly a part of human development, no matter what words you use. 
You say an innate 'harmlessness' keeps you from hurting other people, I call that compassion. This is what I meant by semantics. I look for commonalities and you are looking for differences, I sense it's because Actualists (and people in general) want to feel they have discovered something totally revolutionary and they are super-special that no one else has any experience of, and I doubt that very much. Of course we're all beautiful snowflakes here anyway : ) I am ready to be proven wrong of course, and I'll do my homework
As I said, the kool aid sure looks good, and I think you should pass it over this way, because clearly you've had enough 
btw since you claim non-affectiveness and a lack of emotion entirely (99% of the time?) I feel like I can insult you and your guru to my endless delight. I'm LOLing and
Cheers to you as well my friend,
Daniel
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 6:55 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 6:55 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
 Not Tao:
 @ Felipe: Since you seem to have a handle on the method, would you mind going into "nipping it in the bud", as that's something I don't think I understand fully.  Often times I have a "same old thing" emotion, and even though I understand the cause of it and don't think it needs to be examined further, I still seem to be holding on to it.  If I spend too much time focused on it, it just turns into rumination and philosophizing.  Is nipping in the bud a direct refusal to bother with it further, like turning your mind to somethig else, or what do you actually do for that?
 
It seems like there's a conflict between the idea of minimizing emotions, and neither supressing nor expressing them.
 
 
I suggest that you read what’s on the AFT website to get a correct understanding, here.

But I’ll say a couple of things on how I made that process a lot easier as time passed:

The part of going back to feeling good is pretty important, because, if you don’t, you’ll end up expressing or suppressing them by thinking about them or acting on them in several worse ways.

Now, that’s not easy at first, so what I did in my first times practicing this, when emotions were particularly challenging by their intensity and duration, I’d investigate the hell out of them by just staying with them, deeply, trying to flavor them enough and making notes to recognize them again next time and then cut them before they become the monsters they can be {from a subtle feeling can come a strong emotion and then a permanent mood}.

It was curious, though, that sometimes, when doing that for hours, it resulted in the sudden disappearance of the emotions, as if my body and mind said: ‘well, we had the information we needed, let’s get this over with’. The miracles of the bright light of awareness  I guess!

It’s important not to become an investigation junkie, as this investigation doesn’t lead anywhere if it’s not taken with the intent of returning to be happy and harmless as soon as possible. So take sufficient notes of each emotion, and each time you get across them again remember your prior investigations and stop fueling them again. You can measure your success as that nipping in the bud becomes effortless and automatic with certain feelings that used to cause you a lot of trouble. And this is a huge relief! Pat yourself in the back whenever you note that, see how this thing works. If a feeling you thought you had it already resolved comes again, don’t be desperate. Be patient but mostly be curious about your feeling, as each one becomes an opportunity to know yourself better.

Apropos of curiosity, another useful tool is to contemplate how all emotions are not that important. They don’t come from something ultimate or profound, but basically from an instinctual program. That program, being software, is just running predictable actions with the information that comes to it, so it all starts from certain basic rules that can be changed as it is not hardwired. Another thing is the program is there for a reason not related to you as individual, so no fault or guilt at that. It’s just a set of rules set by nature to perpetuate the species, just instincts like any other animal have and nothing divine, ultimate or transcendent. This down to earth approach will help you to not react with the shell of your social identity, to not be serious about those feelings, to be your best friend and to be considerate with yourself, but mostly to strip those feelings from all their credibility.

Once you experientially noticed that they don’t deserve the credibility we humans invest in them, also because you’ve tasted them enough in your investigations to know that they suck, everything will be easier. As you {at least partially} know that there are no solutions within the human condition, also by contrasting it with the purity and perfection from the brief experiences you lived outside such human condition, it just becomes the obvious thing to do to step out from any good or bad feeling at all, and invest that remaining energy in ways that emulate the PCE or get you closer to it.

It’s like a common sense at its best: just as it’s obvious to get your hands out of hot pan in the instant you feel it, you’ll nip them in the bud immediately after becoming aware of them, as they always are problematic in one way or another. So, you can guess that this takes a lot more work with positive emotions, as they don’t necessarily show their true colors that early or that easily.

In the end, what this reflection produces is that you become sincere in your endeavor to be happy and harmless and then you can do whatever it takes to get to your aim, without any remorse or guilt for you letting go of your good and bad feelings and daring to be felicitous and innocuous at all times no matter what. You just need to take that decision each time again and the minimization comes naturally due to lack of use. Indeed, those cerebral connections seem to die as you don’t fuel them enough and then, progressively, the other kinds of feelings begin to becoming your default mode.

At least, that’s been my experience so far, although there’s still a long way to go!

Hope that helps,

Felipe
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 7:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/15/14 7:42 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts

I wrote a whole snappy retort to your post (and it imploded into cyberspace without a trace! Anicca anicca...)

Oh man, that sucks! That happened to me as well a couple of times recently, haha.
 
where I basically drew a firm line between Richard's philosophy and his practice and implored that they not be conflated as I believe you are doing by making him a superman (ie he could be a total whack job and a terrible writer but his teaching may be sound - keep an open mind anyway).

This is interesting. Could you expand on why do you think there is a philosophy in actualism? How that relates to its ‘practice’ aspect? Why exactly do you think I’m conflating ‘Richard's philosophy and his practice’?

By the way, I don’t think he is a superman, and it’s cool that you specified that you ‘believe’ that that is the case, as your belief is simply that, it doesn’t have correspondence with my reality. In other words, and to repeat, I speak from the personal results of a guideline that an Aussie dude posted on the Internet. I tried with other methodologies and I didn’t get the results I’m getting with this one in particular, that’s all. 

I said 'culty' because I don't think one needs to buy into Richard's philosophy to experience a state that is clearly a part of human development, no matter what words you use.


Oh, I don’t doubt nor Richard doubts about the universality of the PCE itself. It’s a pretty common happening. Actually, I could launch my actualist practice years thanks to a PCE I had in a trip to Barcelona. At that time {2007}, I didn’t know absolutely anything about actualism nor eastern spirituality.

The uniqueness and merit of this method, though, is to identify the incredible value of such experience and trying to actualize it 24/7/365. If you think that this is delusionary or clingy, it just shows how different is from other spiritual methodologies.
 
You say an innate 'harmlessness' keeps you from hurting other people, I call that compassion. This is what I meant by semantics. I look for commonalities and you are looking for differences,

I disagree. The absence of malice is different from the presence of compassion. If you’re going to focus on the resultant behavior, then let’s put the whole picture and see how the compassionate ones are driven to love and help others {think of how the Tibetan gurus or Osho act}, and often at harmlessness’ expense. When one is free from malice and sorrow in a PCE, that drive or any affective drive does not exist. It’s different to say ‘I don’t harm you because I love you’ than ‘I don’t harm you because I’m incapable of feeling malice’.

 
I sense it's because Actualists (and people in general) want to feel they have discovered something totally revolutionary and they are super-special that no one else has any experience of, and I doubt that very much.

Well, instead of psychoanalyzing actualists and the supposed self-aggrandizing impact of the novelty effect on them, I suggest that you take the words of actualists at face value and inform yourself both intellectually and existentially about them to make an informed opinion. That’s the least you could do if you really want to talk about it.
 
btw since you claim non-affectiveness and a lack of emotion entirely (99% of the time?)

Nope, I’m not there yet, but I've had PCEs and life is only getting better.
 
I feel like I can insult you and your guru to my endless delight.
 
Hehe, not my guru but sure, go ahead if you like!
 
I'm LOLing and Cheers to you as well my friend,
 
Cheers, dude!
 
Felipe
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 12:16 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 12:16 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
[quote=
]



@Psi Phy: I took your suggestion and did some research on bare awareness. From what I've read, I still think there is a difference (minor or major, you can decide) in what I am doing now. I don't really know your history with Actualism, but it seems like you have a lot of negative opinions about it. Personally, I don't mind whatever words are applied to my practice, so let's say for a moment that I am following no tradition or path in particular and I have come up with everything I'm doing through trial and error (because, really, that's the truth of it anyway). You can forget, for a moment, that there's a guy out there named Richard who believes he's the "one and only bringer of the light", since that bothers you. You must already do the same thing if you read the Buddhist suttas, no? I think that line is used verbatim in a number of places, haha. 


 

So here I am, just me an my practice. Now if you can further assume I'm not stupid (which maybe you do, judging by the tone of your post), then, as I am capable of reading, thinking, and reflecting, I might have a legitimate reason for saying there's a difference, don't you think? I gather from quotes like this...

Psi Phi:
The experience you have described, sorry to inform you, is common in spiritual circles, as you have probably noticed that most of the advanced practioners here do not even reply to your elatedness, they already know the folly and stand on the sidelines, probably barely amused.


...that you've already made up your mind about my opinions and ideas. But maybe we can start over. My main interest with this thread is helping people see that there really is another way of practicing and thinking about mental development.

Psi Phi:
Anyway, I have tried to expalin to you briefly about Bare Attention , and Pure Mindfulness, but you keep coming up with a refutation about some ideas you have about Bare Attention and Pure Mindfulness.


As I said, I took some time to read about bare awareness and mindfulness on Access to Insight. I'll will directly reference this article and show how my process is different: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel121.html

By bare attention we understand the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us, at the successive moments of perception. It is called "bare" because it attends to the bare facts of a perception without reacting to them by deed, speech or mental comment.


I do not attend to the bare facts of my perceptions. In fact, I only pay attention to one aspect of existence - the emotions. Then you are too late at this point, with pure mindfulness, you would have already cut off the root of the problem.I specifically question myself as to why my emotional state is the way that it is. I do not just note, "anger, sadness, confusion," (as well as "seeing, feeling," etc.) If your verbal, again, your too late, you are working at a later and less efficient stage than bare attention.I say, "Ok, I'm angry, what caused it? It was caused by that guy cutting me off in traffic. Is that worth being unhappy? Is that really important? Am I served by this anger in any way?" The answer is always "no," and I am very quickly out of my anger. The emotion is examined, and the reason is found and cured. That is correct, abandoning the unwholesome state and arousing and maintaining the wholesome state.

If you were using bare attention anger would not arise nor develop.  emoticon

But in the methodical development of mindfulness aimed at the unfolding of its latent powers, bare attention is sustained for as long a time as one's strength of concentration permits. Bare attention then becomes the key to the meditative practice of satipatthana, opening the door to mind's mastery and final liberation.


My practice doesn't involve any concentration because, as humans, we are already completely focused on our emotional state. It doesn't need to be maintained. It is, instead, a self-reflection exercise aimed at figuring out why a negative feeling (or positive passion) is present. It is therapy, not meditation.

But how are we to deal with that unwieldy, tangled mass? Usually we try to ignore it and to rely on the counteracting energies of our surface mind. But the only safe remedy is to face it — with mindfulness. Nothing more difficult is needed than to acquire the habit of directing bare attention to these rudimentary thoughts as often as possible.


I am also seeking to face my problems, but not with mindfulness or bare attention. Instead I judge the quality of each emotion, and if it is judged negatively, I seek to understand the trigger so I can disable it. Bare attention does not go further than directing awareness onto the sensation itself, as seen here:

 Right because that is where emotions arise from, sensations, you have to train your mind to be more aware and quicker to catch the process at this stage, or it will go into the emotional sate, which you then have to work on from that point forward.

The working principle here is the simple fact that two thoughts cannot coexist at the same time: if the clear light of mindfulness is present, there is no room for mental twilight. When sustained mindfulness has secured a firm foothold, it will be a matter of comparatively secondary importance how the mind will then deal with those rudimentary thoughts, moods and emotions.


In bare awareness, the goal is to ferret out all aspects of existence and see them clearly. I don't share this goal. I'm only interested in understanding the cause of my emotions, and disabling those causes.

The cause of your emotions is reactions to sensations, bare attention disables the cause of of emotions at a very early stage in thier formation.

When the facts and details of the mind's conditioned nature are uncovered by meditative practice, there is an increased chance to effect fundamental changes in the mind. In that way, not only those hitherto unquestioned habits of the mind, its twilight regions and its normal processes as well, but even those seemingly solid, indisputable facts of the world of matter — all will become "questionable" and lose much of their self-assurance.


This is a major theme in buddhism - metaphysics. There is no self, all matter is empty and luminous, awareness is not separate from sensation, etc. I don't spend any time or energy investigating any part of my experience except the emotions, as that is all that's important to living freely.

I don't really get too much into metaphysics, there can be fun discussions, to be sure.  You say you don't spend any time or energy except investigationg emotions, but why not go a step further and investigate the actual cause of emotions, the sensations, the sensations are the trigger, not psychological baggage.
 


I'm going to move on to your tips now. I think they show that what you are calling a PCE is not the same as what I'm calling a PCE.

Like I said earlier, even if I agreed with you, you would have a problem with it, 
Psi Phi:
Also release Physical Formations, there is tension and tightness in the head, ( meninges), the "furrowing" of the brow is a common one, "setting" the jaw, chest tension, ears held back, (sounds funny, but true), thumb pressing on hand/finger, abdominals tensed and ready, breath held shallow, chest tension Relax the heart area. This helps to maintain the Wholesome State (PCE)


If it is a state that needs to be maintained, it isn't a PCE. The PCE only happens when all emotional conflict has been resolved, and the mind is free from tension. If there are physical tensions, they are a good sign that there is an emotional experience happening, and they can be examined. To relax them intentionally without trying to understand the cause would be a kind of suppression and an opportunity to discover and eliminate an emotional trigger would be missed.  The cause is the tension, the rest is just mental storytelling.



Right, that is why the tips, the physical formations are and external indicator of  the internal.  Sometimes the external formations actually are the cause of internal unrest, why play with them just eliminate at the root.
Psi Phi:
Also, Verbal Formations, if words are arising in the mind, the mind is not in Full PCE, learn to relax the langauge center of the brain and leave it calm, One doesn't need to narrate every phenomena in life, this will help you to maintain your PCE (Wholesome State/ Equanimity)


If you need to suppress thought to enter or maintain a specific state, it isn't a PCE. One of the most remarkable aspects of the PCE is that you can think about things that would normally upset you, and they have no effect on you. I do this anyway.  This makes the PCE a good place to challenge beliefs you're holding on to. I don't believe in anything, I only know what I know.  It will give you a simple solution you can remember for the next time you have trouble with said beliefs.

If you do not have a silent peaceful mind in PCE, then one would be incorrect into thinking that was the best stae of experience, there's better.

The PCE is not an altered state of consciousness. It is our normal waking consciousness without emotional filters. (one-third as pure as  bare attention, but not quite as pure as bare attention)  Thought happens or doesn't happen depending on the needs of the moment.

Thoughts arise due to previous causes and effects.

Psi Phi:
And Emotional Formations, keep them balanced, this is called Equanimity, there is no reason to react in anger if you spill a drink, it already happened , and people on the other side of the world are unaware anyway, universally these occurrences are non-events. the emotional reactions are not warranted and are just negative mental habits that can and should be immediately released, and by doing so they will lose their energy and eventually disappear altogether. the same goes with reacting with greed and lust when one is aware of something pleasant or nice, a soda , a new car, or whatever, by using Bare Attention, one does not react, but stays Equanimous towards all formations, this is called Guarding the Sense doors, and will help you to stay within PCE, or Wholesomeness.


I aim to question anything that causes anger. Your description here might be one way to delegitimize your anger. However, I don't seek to release anger. I don't try to calm myself down, or relax, or ease tension. Instead, I specifically try to find the cause, and I know I have found the cause when the tension goes away. Think of it like this analogy, there is a strong light that is bothering my eyes. To ease the tension, I might hold up my hand (relax physical tensions) or close my eyes (stop thoughts) or let my eyes adjust (acceptance). What I do instead is unplug the lamp (delegitimize the cause).

Anger is caused by habitual reactions to sensations, you don't have to be angry about anything ever.  

Actualists believe that every single tiny insignificant little problem has a cause. They investigates every single little problem to find the source so they can unplug the lamp. They are their own psychologist, delving into everything as fully and deeply as they need to. It isn't bare awareness, it's deep psychological exploration.

Sounds like fun, bare awareness is just one part of my practice, want to talk about Right Effort, and how to use it when one slips from Bare Attention?  It's pretty much the same thing as Actualism.....

It's been fun discussing this stuff with you,  and I am about as clear on Actualism as I need to be right now.  It is about not having emotional reactions, and living that way, because it feels good, unemotionally, ... 

Bye Bye

I am glad you are finding peace, perhaps if you had experienced Bare Attention, and I had experienced PCE we could find more common ground and common definitions for the experiences, though there is always the chance I am a chimpanzee typing and this just happens to be the words that come out.  Wonder if a chimp is in PCE or Bare Attention, does it think it has a Self?  Cousins.  

thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 12:55 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 12:26 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:

I wrote a whole snappy retort to your post (and it imploded into cyberspace without a trace! Anicca anicca...)

Oh man, that sucks! That happened to me as well a couple of times recently, haha.
 
where I basically drew a firm line between Richard's philosophy and his practice and implored that they not be conflated as I believe you are doing by making him a superman (ie he could be a total whack job and a terrible writer but his teaching may be sound - keep an open mind anyway).

This is interesting. Could you expand on why do you think there is a philosophy in actualism? How that relates to its ‘practice’ aspect? Why exactly do you think I’m conflating ‘Richard's philosophy and his practice’?

By the way, I don’t think he is a superman, and it’s cool that you specified that you ‘believe’ that that is the case, as your belief is simply that, it doesn’t have correspondence with my reality. In other words, and to repeat, I speak from the personal results of a guideline that an Aussie dude posted on the Internet. I tried with other methodologies and I didn’t get the results I’m getting with this one in particular, that’s all. 

I think I assumed a lot in my post Felipe, I actually came back online to delete it bc I thought it may have been presumptive and over the top, maybe even a little mean. I was actually being snarky (emotion or not? discuss...)
The philosophy I was referring to was Richard's apparent disdain for 'spiritualism' (as he sees it) and his idea that not everything is impermanent. But I'm really too ignorant about Actualism to speak with any real authority


I said 'culty' because I don't think one needs to buy into Richard's philosophy to experience a state that is clearly a part of human development, no matter what words you use.


Oh, I don’t doubt nor Richard doubts about the universality of the PCE itself. It’s a pretty common happening. Actually, I could launch my actualist practice years thanks to a PCE I had in a trip to Barcelona. At that time {2007}, I didn’t know absolutely anything about actualism nor eastern spirituality.

The uniqueness and merit of this method, though, is to identify the incredible value of such experience and trying to actualize it 24/7/365. If you think that this is delusionary or clingy, it just shows how different is from other spiritual methodologies.

I think I've had a couple of 'accidental' PCEs in my day as well, but I will read up on the stuff and get to work, it all sounds very familiar anyway. 

 
You say an innate 'harmlessness' keeps you from hurting other people, I call that compassion. This is what I meant by semantics. I look for commonalities and you are looking for differences,

I disagree. The absence of malice is different from the presence of compassion. If you’re going to focus on the resultant behavior, then let’s put the whole picture and see how the compassionate ones are driven to love and help others {think of how the Tibetan gurus or Osho act}, and often at harmlessness’ expense. When one is free from malice and sorrow in a PCE, that drive or any affective drive does not exist. It’s different to say ‘I don’t harm you because I love you’ than ‘I don’t harm you because I’m incapable of feeling malice’.

When I say compassion I am speaking from my experience, but I do understand how the dictionary definition that you laid out is not exactly how I would define the compassionate aspect of the brahmavihara. Imagine caring for others without ego, without an idea of image or gain or loss. I have experienced the state of incapable of feeling malice for long periods of time as well and it was the result of bare awareness practice. I could feel the sensations and/or the lack thereof. I think you assume a lot sometimes as well and hold a bit too tight to your definitions. btw Osho was a freak IMO, but so was Adi Da, and maybe even Richard. That doesn't mean their teaching is any less authentic, just that there are ginormous shadows and unconciousnesses sometimes regardless. I am speculating again...

 
I sense it's because Actualists (and people in general) want to feel they have discovered something totally revolutionary and they are super-special that no one else has any experience of, and I doubt that very much.

Well, instead of psychoanalyzing actualists and the supposed self-aggrandizing impact of the novelty effect on them, I suggest that you take the words of actualists at face value and inform yourself both intellectually and existentially about them to make an informed opinion. That’s the least you could do if you really want to talk about it.

Well, I was reacting to the way you tend to see differences instead of commonalities, for example, I went into detail about my experience of compassion and unconditional love (without a heart center reaction, without an affective reaction) and you kept on trying to make a point by using your definition. I stand by my assertion that more listening needs to happen and definitions need to be made clear. For instance, I consider wonder and benevolence to be emotions, but no need to argue with me, and no need to belabor this, I feel like I'm getting a sense of the teaching here as I've experienced at least extremely similiar things to PCE and maybe 'sub-PCE' states
I appreciate very much how descriptive you and Not Tao are in your explanations but I also sense (from you) wanting to possess something for yourself that is special and discounting the fact that if Actualism is what you say it is (a natural unmanufactured state to paraphrase) than many many people have had at least glimpses.

 
btw since you claim non-affectiveness and a lack of emotion entirely (99% of the time?)

Nope, I’m not there yet, but I've had PCEs and life is only getting better.

That's good, I hope it gets better and better for everyone! (Buddhist joy in the happiness of others expressed in that sentiment) and if life brings terrible things I will hopefully have compassion ;) 

 
I feel like I can insult you and your guru to my endless delight.
 
Hehe, not my guru but sure, go ahead if you like!

No I was just trying to be funny. Aussies are weird all around, so they get the benefit of the doubt to begin with haha

 
I'm LOLing and Cheers to you as well my friend,
 
Cheers, dude!
 
Felipe

Live long and prosper and nanu nanu emoticon
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 4:48 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 4:48 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
@Felipe: Thank you for the detailed response. emoticon  I've actually read that page (and others) a number of times, and I still didn't understand it very well.  I think I've had a bit of a breakthrough, though, and your post confirms I'm on the right track now.  The key seems to be putting complete trust in the PCE.  There's no need to come up with new solutions to every problem.  We can just remind ourselves that, not only is the PCE a perfectly pleasant state of mind, but it allows us to solve problems creatively in the moment.  We can safely forget our problems and just be free - the emotional reactions are completely useless.  Maybe I'll make another thread about it.

@Psi Phi: While I'm sorry that you don't seen value in the methods, I'm glad you can at least see that they're different.  You spent most of your post telling me I was doing things wrong, and while that's true from a Buddhist perspective, it isn't true for my practice - this obviously means they're not the same thing.  Since the practices aren't the same, it makes sense to conclude the results aren't the same as well.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 10:06 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 10:06 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
@Felipe: Thank you for the detailed response. emoticon  I've actually read that page (and others) a number of times, and I still didn't understand it very well.  I think I've had a bit of a breakthrough, though, and your post confirms I'm on the right track now.  The key seems to be putting complete trust in the PCE.  There's no need to come up with new solutions to every problem.  We can just remind ourselves that, not only is the PCE a perfectly pleasant state of mind, but it allows us to solve problems creatively in the moment.  We can safely forget our problems and just be free - the emotional reactions are completely useless.  Maybe I'll make another thread about it.

@Psi Phi: While I'm sorry that you don't seen value in the methods, I'm glad you can at least see that they're different.  You spent most of your post telling me I was doing things wrong, and while that's true from a Buddhist perspective, it isn't true for my practice - this obviously means they're not the same thing.  Since the practices aren't the same, it makes sense to conclude the results aren't the same as well.

Oh, I do indeed see the value in "your" methods,  I have been using "your actual freedom method" for many years now, and alot of which I developed on my own without any outside help, then later found it to match up with other teachings.  But, I do not call them "my" teachings, or "Actualists" or "Buddhists" though it may seem that way.  So there is no "Buddhist perspective"  , it is only that the terms and explanations Buddha uses tend to line up with reality.  So, no , you are not doing things wrong, you are doing things right, if emotions have already arisen, you have found a method that works to reduce the negative emotional responses, until eventually they will arise no more, and have found a nice baseline state to return your awareness to, (PCE).  There is absolutley nothing wrong with that, it is very beneficial and you will procedd effectively upon your spiritual path in this way.  I was mostly poking fun at you to try and get you to rid yourself of clinging to an idea that this is all new and only Actual Freedom People are special etc, etc, This leads to a superiorit complex, and while it might make you feeld good, it is pity , and I don't need pity.  We are all humans and no-one is special, too bad.  And yes spiritual practice is the same, just different verbage, results are the same, same human minds, same spiritual developments.  But one needs to view this from a Universal viewpoint first, and not from a "my" practice standpoint, or "my" teacher said such and such.  Or ONLY Actual Freedom self-labled peoples are the best, or only Buddhist are the best, that is all non-sense.  

Again , your practice is NOT new, Also there are the naturally happy people, they are just not bothered by negative emotions, they are just born that way.

So anyway , sorry if you keep mis-reading me, and again let's just be glad for everyone that has found a way to progress spiritually, it's not so easy for alot of people to even get started and keep on track, much less quibble about which way is better to eliminate or reduce unwholesomeness, or quibble about if this or that is the same.

Personally, what you have explained, I feel that I have been there done that, and am doing, and have found the same types of methods in multitudes of places.   Again, a method is just a method, use whatever works, it will eventually get you to the same shore.

So, thank you for your time and patience.

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 10:43 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 10:42 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
I was mostly poking fun at you to try and get you to rid yourself of clinging to an idea that this is all new and only Actual Freedom People are special etc, etc, This leads to a superiorit complex, and while it might make you feeld good, it is pity , and I don't need pity.


I'm a bit curious to know where I displayed any superiority complex. I don't believed I have one. At least, I don't feel one towards you. You have elevated yourself pretty far above me with each of your posts, so if anything I feel like you see me as an inferior. You kept saying I was a Buddhist who is doing things wrong, so I just wanted to make sure you at least saw my methods weren't the same as Buddhism. I don't think I said anywhere that Actualism was new or I believed I was special, either, so I'm just a bit perplexed, haha...

If it makes you feel better, the only thing I've felt while talking to you on this thread is the desire to make things clear.

Also, I only said it was "my" practice to take ownership of it. You seemed to get offended by the very idea of Actualism, so I tired to remove that obstacle for you.
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 11:16 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 11:02 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
@Psi Psi
Here are the facts to date that I find perplexing and intriguing:
You say that Not Tao's practice of Actualism is the same as bare awareness practice and that's what it seemed (sometimes seems) like to me. I practice bare awareness myself and it is not concentration - it involves awareness and equanimity and letting things just be (please correct any errors I make here as I gather you are a higher level practitioner than me, this is IMO) Guards are dropped through acceptance (or awareness) and everything happens on it's own. 
Not Tao goes into detailed descriptions about his former practice of 'radical acceptance' and describes 'sutta jhanas' of deep contentment that are (according to him) not the PCE event at all. A few times in my life I've experienced a vivid brilliance that seems in line with the PCE experiences I have read about and they are different from the peaceful contentment and fearlessness developed through my bare awareness practice. My working hypothesis is that there is a different flavor to the experience when accessed through equanimity (as I do) compared to what you would experience if you accessed that 'natural state' by focusing on happiness (as I believe Not Tao and Actualists do)
Just to further complicate things, Daniel Ingram spent years practicing 'Actualism' with close friends that were very engaged and learned in the teaching and has a lot to say about it. He says the PCE/Actualist method is a different beast all together and not something he had experienced prior, nor something that he found lined up with Buddhist practice teachings or maps (though it was 'Buddhist' as far as leading to more and more wholesome mind states and an investigation and penetration into 'reality') and something that affected his feel for jhanas quite markedly and seemed to change his life and outlook and baseline in quite major ways (all in his personal website if you haven't read it)
I take all three of your experiences respectfully and am trying to make sense out of the disagreements. I gather you have a lot of wisdom, knowledge and time-on-the-cushion in 'spiritual practice' from many vantage points and you may be the one closer to the actual truth (it makes the most sense in my mind thinking logically about everything). Still, when I read Not Tao, he seems like an intellectually honest person to me (fairies are fake!) and he also seems quite down to earth, rather intelligent and experienced enough to draw distinctions between various consciousness-altering experiences - he takes the time to describe his experience well in a detailed fashion. Daniel Ingram is an extremely gifted (IMO) meditator, better yet at describing his experience to others, recalling moment-by-moment events clearly and honestly, and delineating them, classifying them, and writing about them pretty well (minus the excrutiating run-on sentences and over-the-top rants : ). Still, Not Tao says that Daniel's accounts of PCEs don't sound authentic mainly because Daniel developed a fear at some point that the experience would end (a 'disqualifier' as far as Not Tao was concerned by I don't know about that)
I don't want to muddy the argument and say it's all the same. Yes, the goal and effect seem to be the same. I dwell in awareness and equanimity and old cravings and aversions dissolve on their own over time - Not Tao apparently just recently decided that remaining in a PCE would have the same effect and he didn't need to be so literal and proactive about routing out specific fears and compulsions. Maybe Kundalini is doing my heavy lifting for me (who can say), it certainly is an f-ing uncomfortable experience that's been going on for years and years and surrender seems the only way out for this snake stuck in some long ass tube : )
So where is the truth? I find Not Tao, and especially Daniel Ingram, extremely good at patiently describing their various conscious states and experiences, but something isn't adding up. I want you to address specifics where you see correlations in bare awareness and PCEs, or something. I would also imagine there is some idiosyncratic element at play here (as D Ingram suggests in his write up) and the conflation of verbiage and definition (as I suggest in the exhausting preceding back and forth with me and the cult members haha), but there still seems to be something there. Something not lining up or something. Is there no there there? What about known unknowns and especially unknown unknowns? ;)
ok, off to work, I'm pretty sure my mortgage is decidedly not an illusion... 
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 2:55 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 2:55 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Psi Phi:
I was mostly poking fun at you to try and get you to rid yourself of clinging to an idea that this is all new and only Actual Freedom People are special etc, etc, This leads to a superiorit complex, and while it might make you feeld good, it is pity , and I don't need pity.


I'm a bit curious to know where I displayed any superiority complex. I don't believed I have one. At least, I don't feel one towards you. You have elevated yourself pretty far above me with each of your posts, so if anything I feel like you see me as an inferior. You kept saying I was a Buddhist who is doing things wrong, so I just wanted to make sure you at least saw my methods weren't the same as Buddhism. I don't think I said anywhere that Actualism was new or I believed I was special, either, so I'm just a bit perplexed, haha...

If it makes you feel better, the only thing I've felt while talking to you on this thread is the desire to make things clear.

Also, I only said it was "my" practice to take ownership of it. You seemed to get offended by the very idea of Actualism, so I tired to remove that obstacle for you.

Your old post:

Not Tao - 2014-04-27 00:31:42 - RE: How has your freedom held up over the years?


I was actually interested to see if anyone had claimed it outside of the AFT, since, to be perfectly honest, it just seems very culty and self-aggrandizing on their site.  I've read a lot of Tarin's posts, but it looks like he's not posting around here anymore?  I saw the post where he withdrew his claim, but it seemed more like he was saying "well, nothing has changed fro me, but I'm not interested in being part of these politics anymore," which makes sense.

Anyway, I'm mainly interested in Actualism because it mostly lines up with the practice I'm already doing, and seems to have delivered the results I suspected it would for other people.  After 3 years how would you describe your day-to-day experience?  What's your practice look like?

Psi Phi Today:

And so Actualism lined up with the practice you were already doing, as I had explained myself, For me my practice lined up with the Right Effort formula in Buddhism, which seems to have some correlation to your practice and to Actualism.  When I try to explain my experiences in terms, you have basically become defensive with your definitions, and perhaps I have mirrored that myself, and looking back to what you previously viewed as culty and self-aggrandizing, maybe you can then see why that view is projected, though denied.

We all change moment to moment, spiritual progress is a path, time is short.

Perhaps, Actualism is a modern revival of Epicureanism, and not coinciding with Buddhism at all, I could be wrong on both counrs, as I haven't read much on Actualism , yet.  And as I have actually enjoyed your writings, I have also enjoyed Epiurus as well.  But I am seeking between pleasure and pain, though find the value of cultivating the wholesome to bring things into balance first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" is the greatest good, but the way to attain such pleasure is to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires. This led one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure to be the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 3:23 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 2:55 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I know you directed that at Psi, but since you seem to be working to draw the threads together, I can maybe point out a few things to help you.

Daniel Leffler:
I practice bare awareness myself and it is not concentration - it involves awareness and equanimity and letting things just be...Guards are dropped through acceptance (or awareness) and everything happens on it's own.

Daniel Leffler:
Yes, the goal and effect seem to be the same. I dwell in awareness and equanimity and old cravings and aversions dissolve on their own over time - Not Tao apparently just recently decided that remaining in a PCE would have the same effect and he didn't need to be so literal and proactive about routing out specific fears and compulsions


I think you might have misunderstood me here. It's actually the opposite. My practice used to be exactly like yours. I would accept everything without paying attention to or judging the content. This would lead me through the jhanas when meditating, and then "off the cushion" (I used a chair, haha), the jhanas would follow me around during the day. I only meditated for about 30 minutes a day, but since the method to do jhana was radical acceptance, it was easy to maintain practice through the day. This led to periods of incredible "sweetness" where simply breathing felt like eating chocolate. In DhO parlance, it was all very A&P - thought it seemed to go on for months. However, the problem with this practice is that it didn't "heal" anything. The same old problems kept creeping up on me, and I had to struggle between extremes of mood.

What I am doing now is opposite. I don't try to achieve any states or even "insights" through meditation. Instead, I examine the emotions with the specific intent of disabling them through reasoning and comparing them to the PCE. This has led to a slow and steady improvement of my baseline existence.

Now, I do have some experience with altered states of consciousness, and I understand that these things are very messy. But this is why I'm trying to be precise. I can point to 3 or 4 separate states of mind that might be called PCEs (I believe they are "mistaken" for PCEs), and then there are the formless jhanas which, if you have good concentration from practice, can be maintained on a low level while up and walking around. They can even lock in and make it feel like you're on a different plain of existence - everything is beautiful, the world is panoramic and open, etc.

But for the last 8 months, I've always been aiming at one thing in particular - the emotionless state. I stumbled into it on New Years Eve this year, and nothing can compare to it. All of my efforts have been aimed at it since it happened, and before it happened my interest in meditation was dabbly at best. It is its own category and world. While it shares qualities of concentration states and the expanded emotional state in terms of the "fireworks" (hereness, nowness, sensory effects), the key, the grand daddy, the epitome of the state that sets it apart from everything else is the emotionless aspect of it. It's the cause of all the special effects, and it's the instruction from which the whole practice of Actualism comes from.

So maybe the following is made more clear:

Daniel Leffler:
Still, Not Tao says that Daniel's accounts of PCEs don't sound authentic mainly because Daniel developed a fear at some point that the experience would end (a 'disqualifier' as far as Not Tao was concerned by I don't know about that)


There are other things Daniel describes in his practice summary that don't have anything to do with Actualism. He describes paying close attention to the senses and trying to unite the sensory field. He also describes going through an "Actualist Dark Night". This is impossible, because the whole purpose of Actualism is to examine your emotions and root out the cause. The Dark Night is a symptom of rumination and a heightened awareness of negative emotions without resolving them. You don't use any kind of meditation or concentration or heightened awareness to practice Actualism. You simply watch your emotional reactions and correct them as you go through your day.

Maybe I'm harping on the point a bit, but it's all I've been trying to say this whole time. I began the thread by talking about lowering the guard. This isn't something you do TO the emotions, it's something that happens when you delegitimize the emotions. The PCE happens, you don't make it happen. Lowering the guard happens, you don't make it happen. Instead, you pick apart every emotion you have until there is nothing left. What remains is the PCE.

The PCE is actually very simple. The ordinariness is what makes it so relaxing. It's not "timeless", you just realize there's all the time in the world. It's not "non-dual", it's just intimate, like a fall day. It's not vivid and clear and bright, it's painterly, like the golden light at sunset. Most importantly, it's not equanimity, balance, or emotional stillness, it's complete emotionlessness. It's emotionless because you've finally given up the emotions, not because you snapped your mind into a different way of seeing the world. The emotions are worked through and the PCE is left. If emotions appear, the PCE is gone. So if you fear you are going to slip out of a state, it isn't a PCE, and if you have a Dark Night, it isn't Actualism.

The whole point of Actualism is to understand yourself on a psychological level. It isn't a spiritual practice like bare awareness, it's simply self-examination. You seek to understand the emotions, and the PCE is the result of proper practice.


@Psi Psi: It's interesting you say that because I've noticed a lot of similarities to Epicurean philosophy as well! After I started doing negative visualization, I looked it up on Google to see if anyone had written about it, and it's was apparently used by the Stoics. I'd be comfortable saying Actualism was epicurean. Maybe on this forum I could switch to calling myself an epicurean and see if people react better. emoticon

EDIT: After a bit of reading, I'm going to take that back a bit. The Epicureans were rather ascetic. It actually sounds more Buddhist, on a second viewing. I'll have to re-read some of these things.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 4:03 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 3:44 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
No, I am not a high level practioner, at least I don't think so, my mind is different than before, anger is now irritations, and greed is now mostly habits, I still buy stuff, and then usually don't even do anything with the stuff.  So anger and greed, while still present,really only occasionaly arise in more subtle forms,  and if it does can be easily dismissed, like shooing a fly, most of the time.  But, then again maybe I am just a meat robot preprogrammed for hunting and gathering., snuffling in the dirt, for the rest of my wretched existence... nah, just kiddin'

"There is no snuffling in the dirt and that is the law"  Island of Dr Moreau, H.G. Wells, (from memory, paraphrased)

Yeah , I am totally with you on Bare attention and mindfulness, maybe there is one thing in practicing that is different:  Four Supreme Efforts, which Actualists kinda describe, but will say otherwise even if it was same, Or maybe y'all won't)

First is this Mindfulness (Bare Attention) we could all agree on?  Bhante Gunaratana link

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html

This is Ayya Khema's little discourse on the Four Supreme Efforts:

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/khema/hereandnow/supreme_efforts.php

Right Efforts summarized:

http://www.imsb.org/buddhalists/FourRightEfforts.pdf


This is as far as I see Actualism going, but I have not yet looked deeply, and have more practice of my own to develop and consolidate.  I don't know how deeply Actualism goes into or ignores, the 37 factors of enlightenment, looks like Samma Samadhi is a taboo, and I am not too sure on the extent of  development of the Wisdom Paths.  It could be just fine to Mind/Body Hack the Human system and sustain a state of blissful awareness, maybe thats it.  Maybe it's just the dropping of the "I", and happiness (un-emotional happiness) is what's left.  Maybe Actualist aren't describing the "taste of the Mango", but are describing the "taste of an Kiwi"


But the Right Efforts as a 24/7 practice, which needs mindfulness as a foundation, is probably the main link-up that I am referring to repeatedly, that you may be questioning / inquiring about.

Or possibly the Factor of Piti (joy) and it's arousal from within, and being a joy independent of external factors is also a possible key to this mystery. But to translate it would have to be an "emotionless joy"??, Mahasi Sayadaw does differentiate between wholesome joy and unwholesome joy, as an aside.

Which , by the way, I wish Sayadaw's full treatise was available in English, "The Progress of Insight" is but one, yes ONE chapter of a two volume 700 page tome, and look at the results from one chapter of instruction.

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/the-practical-dharma-of-mahasi-sayadaw/


Anyway this is turning into a link-o-rama

Pleasure to meet you.

Psi Phi









thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 6:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 6:33 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
I know you directed that at Psi, but since you seem to be working to draw the threads together, I can maybe point out a few things to help you.
Awesome Not Tao, very happy to collect from multiple sources

Daniel Leffler:
I practice bare awareness myself and it is not concentration - it involves awareness and equanimity and letting things just be...Guards are dropped through acceptance (or awareness) and everything happens on it's own.

Daniel Leffler:
Yes, the goal and effect seem to be the same. I dwell in awareness and equanimity and old cravings and aversions dissolve on their own over time - Not Tao apparently just recently decided that remaining in a PCE would have the same effect and he didn't need to be so literal and proactive about routing out specific fears and compulsions


I think you might have misunderstood me here. It's actually the opposite. My practice used to be exactly like yours. I would accept everything without paying attention to or judging the content. This would lead me through the jhanas when meditating, and then "off the cushion" (I used a chair, haha), the jhanas would follow me around during the day. I only meditated for about 30 minutes a day, but since the method to do jhana was radical acceptance, it was easy to maintain practice through the day. This led to periods of incredible "sweetness" where simply breathing felt like eating chocolate. In DhO parlance, it was all very A&P - thought it seemed to go on for months. However, the problem with this practice is that it didn't "heal" anything. The same old problems kept creeping up on me, and I had to struggle between extremes of mood.

What I am doing now is opposite. I don't try to achieve any states or even "insights" through meditation. Instead, I examine the emotions with the specific intent of disabling them through reasoning and comparing them to the PCE. This has led to a slow and steady improvement of my baseline existence.
I guess I was referring to your recent inquiry to Felipe about "nipping it in the bud" and I thought you said something about just dwelling in a PCE without being so psychological about it (my paraphrase)
I am not trying to achieve any states or insights at all either in meditation, I am applying bare awareness or going inward, with a focus on the bodily sensations. I guess the difference for me is I have noticed marked changed in my reactivity and baseline if you will
Still, I'm interested in your practice and I have plenty of studying to do. I've started reading the Actualist site and it's a bear. I'm going to be patient in my collecting of data

Now, I do have some experience with altered states of consciousness, and I understand that these things are very messy. But this is why I'm trying to be precise. I can point to 3 or 4 separate states of mind that might be called PCEs (I believe they are "mistaken" for PCEs), and then there are the formless jhanas which, if you have good concentration from practice, can be maintained on a low level while up and walking around. They can even lock in and make it feel like you're on a different plain of existence - everything is beautiful, the world is panoramic and open, etc.
That's very cool. I'm not nearly as good at you or Daniel at being precise with investigation or language when describing these states, although I do seem to have a knack for concentration and insight - of course I may just be a fish that's only used to experiencing the water : )

But for the last 8 months, I've always been aiming at one thing in particular - the emotionless state. I stumbled into it on New Years Eve this year, and nothing can compare to it. All of my efforts have been aimed at it since it happened, and before it happened my interest in meditation was dabbly at best. It is its own category and world. While it shares qualities of concentration states and the expanded emotional state in terms of the "fireworks" (hereness, nowness, sensory effects), the key, the grand daddy, the epitome of the state that sets it apart from everything else is the emotionless aspect of it. It's the cause of all the special effects, and it's the instruction from which the whole practice of Actualism comes from.
ok, so here's what's on my mind now and it comes from my study and immersion in Buddhist training and philosophy. On the one hand you say (above) that you're not aiming for any particular states (like me), but here you say you are gunning for the PCE because it is maybe like feeling really alive? (I'm putting words in your mouth). Let's just say it's the tits. My question then has to do with the development of deep subtle craving. Let's imagine you spend the next twenty years in PCE, not necessarily blissed-out because I am getting the sense that it's a very sane state (despite the culty vibes and weirdness of it's presentation). Let's say you wake up one day and that state (which we can all agree it is) is gone. You no longer have access to it for some reason. Life becomes gray. Does all your years of practice prepare you for that and do you maintain your deep peace and contentment within those circumstances? It's a very real possibility anyway, at the end of the day none of us really has a clue with what we're dealing with here. 
I guess I ask that question because it seems to me, that in the big picture, Buddhism (as I know it) is prescribing a practice that is bigger than mind state. I think of Ajahn Chah as I write this. Sometimes life is very ordinary and grim - there's no PCE. Sometimes there's anger and pain (I think I'm speaking from both of our experiences if I may be so bold). What then? Are you better or perhaps even worse off than before?

So maybe the following is made more clear:

Daniel Leffler:
Still, Not Tao says that Daniel's accounts of PCEs don't sound authentic mainly because Daniel developed a fear at some point that the experience would end (a 'disqualifier' as far as Not Tao was concerned by I don't know about that)


There are other things Daniel describes in his practice summary that don't have anything to do with Actualism. He describes paying close attention to the senses and trying to unite the sensory field. He also describes going through an "Actualist Dark Night". This is impossible, because the whole purpose of Actualism is to examine your emotions and root out the cause. The Dark Night is a symptom of rumination and a heightened awareness of negative emotions without resolving them. You don't use any kind of meditation or concentration or heightened awareness to practice Actualism. You simply watch your emotional reactions and correct them as you go through your day.
Now my mind is a bit blown. Daniel is certainly a high level practioner capable of much of the mapped territory and maybe then some. He's also quite good at describing his experience - his experience went on for a couple of years I believe. If your conjecture is true (and I am not doubting you just probing) than did he discover a third thing?! Something else we can argue about lol? He says it was amazing and incredible and affected his outlook and the jhanic states in general. This plot is certainly getting sicker : )

Maybe I'm harping on the point a bit, but it's all I've been trying to say this whole time. I began the thread by talking about lowering the guard. This isn't something you do TO the emotions, it's something that happens when you delegitimize the emotions. The PCE happens, you don't make it happen. Lowering the guard happens, you don't make it happen. Instead, you pick apart every emotion you have until there is nothing left. What remains is the PCE.
I understand this point very much Not Tao. I would express letting go (lowering the guard) in exactly the same way. I had this insight through my personal practice years ago. I read all these spiritual books and teachers that said, just let it go. I became aware that there is a subtle effort and aversion in trying to let things go, and so I cultivated bare awareness (acceptance is another helpful word) and it seemed to me that awareness itself lets go, that the nature of awareness is to let go, sometimes little by little and sometimes just the floor dropping out from under you, but certainly as it damn well pleases

The PCE is actually very simple. The ordinariness is what makes it so relaxing. It's not "timeless", you just realize there's all the time in the world. It's not "non-dual", it's just intimate, like a fall day. It's not vivid and clear and bright, it's painterly, like the golden light at sunset. Most importantly, it's not equanimity, balance, or emotional stillness, it's complete emotionlessness. It's emotionless because you've finally given up the emotions, not because you snapped your mind into a different way of seeing the world. The emotions are worked through and the PCE is left. If emotions appear, the PCE is gone. So if you fear you are going to slip out of a state, it isn't a PCE, and if you have a Dark Night, it isn't Actualism.
I hear you and it does sound like something I've experienced - I think a big stumbling block for myself and others is that you (or Actualists) call equanimity (and love and compassion) an emotion. When you described the heart center and when Felipe went into detail describing some sort of ego-based compassion, that was not it. There is something happening with semantics here because sometimes I totally get you (above) and sometimes it doesn't add up (above referring to equanimity as an emotion). Equanimity (and the other brahmaviharas) seem to be describing Mahayana emptiness to me. Acting spontaneously without ego or self-referencing is another way of saying 'emotionless' perhaps. I think we have a problem in our definitions (for one thing at least)

The whole point of Actualism is to understand yourself on a psychological level. It isn't a spiritual practice like bare awareness, it's simply self-examination. You seek to understand the emotions, and the PCE is the result of proper practice.
ok, is it intellectual like an inner dialogue happening? Like talk therapy? Becasue vipassana meditation certainly is self-examination at a very deep level and transformative for many (me included)

Anyway, I like these 'talks'. I would have a lot less friends if I tried this shit out on them. Take care emoticon
Daniel


@Psi Psi: It's interesting you say that because I've noticed a lot of similarities to Epicurean philosophy as well! After I started doing negative visualization, I looked it up on Google to see if anyone had written about it, and it's was apparently used by the Stoics. I'd be comfortable saying Actualism was epicurean. Maybe on this forum I could switch to calling myself an epicurean and see if people react better. emoticon

EDIT: After a bit of reading, I'm going to take that back a bit. The Epicureans were rather ascetic. It actually sounds more Buddhist, on a second viewing. I'll have to re-read some of these things.
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 7:19 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 6:45 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
No, I am not a high level practioner, at least I don't think so, my mind is different than before, anger is now irritations, and greed is now mostly habits, I still buy stuff, and then usually don't even do anything with the stuff.  So anger and greed, while still present,really only occasionaly arise in more subtle forms,  and if it does can be easily dismissed, like shooing a fly, most of the time.  But, then again maybe I am just a meat robot preprogrammed for hunting and gathering., snuffling in the dirt, for the rest of my wretched existence... nah, just kiddin'

You are describing my practice as well my friend (except for the meat robot part speak for yourself ;). I went without anger for years, the last few years however I worked like a dog (financial s- storm that threatened the roof over my head) and much of my anger etc came back. Although my baseline certainly isn't where it was. Anyhoo, I'm back to practice and it is supporting very much


"There is no snuffling in the dirt and that is the law"  Island of Dr Moreau, H.G. Wells, (from memory, paraphrased)

Yeah , I am totally with you on Bare attention and mindfulness, maybe there is one thing in practicing that is different:  Four Supreme Efforts, which Actualists kinda describe, but will say otherwise even if it was same, Or maybe y'all won't)

First is this Mindfulness (Bare Attention) we could all agree on?  Bhante Gunaratana link

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html

This is Ayya Khema's little discourse on the Four Supreme Efforts:

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/khema/hereandnow/supreme_efforts.php

Right Efforts summarized:

http://www.imsb.org/buddhalists/FourRightEfforts.pdf


I will read those links diligently and savor their meanings and maybe start a new thread in the not-too-distant future. This whole discussion has created many more questions than answers so far (go figure ;) and Buddha is turning over in his grave right now. Go sit in the dark and don't move! (he's screaming) 



This is as far as I see Actualism going, but I have not yet looked deeply, and have more practice of my own to develop and consolidate.  I don't know how deeply Actualism goes into or ignores, the 37 factors of enlightenment, looks like Samma Samadhi is a taboo, and I am not too sure on the extent of  development of the Wisdom Paths.  It could be just fine to Mind/Body Hack the Human system and sustain a state of blissful awareness, maybe thats it.  Maybe it's just the dropping of the "I", and happiness (un-emotional happiness) is what's left.  Maybe Actualist aren't describing the "taste of the Mango", but are describing the "taste of an Kiwi"

Yes maybe they are full of kiwis and us poor saps are over here with nothing but boring ass mangoes. Something doesn't sit well about that theory for me though either. With all the inner exploration and inward technology that has been practiced and disseminated since time immemorial I just can't fathom that a natural state so easily accessed could be totally left out of the picture. It is a mysterious ball of rock we're cooped up on here however...



But the Right Efforts as a 24/7 practice, which needs mindfulness as a foundation, is probably the main link-up that I am referring to repeatedly, that you may be questioning / inquiring about.

Or possibly the Factor of Piti (joy) and it's arousal from within, and being a joy independent of external factors is also a possible key to this mystery. But to translate it would have to be an "emotionless joy"??, Mahasi Sayadaw does differentiate between wholesome joy and unwholesome joy, as an aside.

Which , by the way, I wish Sayadaw's full treatise was available in English, "The Progress of Insight" is but one, yes ONE chapter of a two volume 700 page tome, and look at the results from one chapter of instruction.

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/the-practical-dharma-of-mahasi-sayadaw/


Anyway this is turning into a link-o-rama

Link-o-rama! I will read the ONE. Seriously, this shit is endless lol (do the Actualists not lol becasue they're not happy? tree in the woods maybe...)


Pleasure to meet you.

Psi Phi



And a great pleasure to meet you as well sir. Wishing you piti and metta, with a side of karuna. I'm gonna go eat some chocolate pudding

Daniel
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 8:22 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 7:42 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:
There is something happening with semantics here because sometimes I totally get you (above) and sometimes it doesn't add up (above referring to equanimity as an emotion). Equanimity (and the other brahmaviharas) seem to be describing Mahayana emptiness to me. Acting spontaneously without ego or self-referencing is another way of saying 'emotionless' perhaps. I think we have a problem in our definitions (for one thing at least)


Haha, I'm not really sure if I caan reframe things any other way. If you think you understand what I'm say, who am I to judge you. However, if something just doesn't seem to line up, there's no need to try to make it. Why does Actualism have to fit in somehow? After doing lots of reading, I've concluded that it just doesn't. Maybe in the future I'll go back to Buddhism if it seems more useful again, but there's no need to keep trying to wedge things together.

I like Actualism because it explains the experiences I've had perfectly. If the language seems odd to you, that should be telling.
Daniel Leffler:
I guess I was referring to your recent inquiry to Felipe about "nipping it in the bud" and I thought you said something about just dwelling in a PCE without being so psychological about it (my paraphrase)


I'll try to explain what I meant better. As emotions come up, it isn't uncommon to identify them right away once the practice has been going for a while. The problem I had was that I was searching for individual solutions to each problem when it came up. A better way to negate the emotions is to compare them to the PCE directly and ask yourself what's better. The PCE always wins, and, logically, it is a more productive and healthier way to approach any situation. So I realized I could use my trust for spontaneity as a direct way to delegitimize any emotion. I think this trusting attitude is what's meant by naivete.

As I keep saying, the whole method is to see an emotion, and understand viscerally why it's no longer needed. You are telling the mind directly, "I see you have made anger in this situation. Let me demonstrate why anger isn't needed." The mind sees your reasoning and says, "Ah, okay, I understand. I don't need to be angry." Then the anger goes away instantly. In the future, it either doesn't come back, or it is weakened, eventually to be removed.

Think of it like this. Lets say you're anxious about a public speaking engagement you need to go to. (If you don't have trouble public speaking, just imagine some time in your life you had anxiety.) Now imagine what your mind would do if you suddenly got a call from someone saying the event was canceled. Your mind, upon viscerally understanding that it no longer needed to be anxious, would release the anxiety utterly and completely. This is exactly how Actualism works.

Compare that to how you describe your method:

Daniel Leffler:
I am applying bare awareness or going inward, with a focus on the bodily sensations.

Daniel Leffler:
I would express letting go (lowering the guard) in exactly the same way. I had this insight through my personal practice years ago. I read all these spiritual books and teachers that said, just let it go. I became aware that there is a subtle effort and aversion in trying to let things go, and so I cultivated bare awareness (acceptance is another helpful word) and it seemed to me that awareness itself lets go, that the nature of awareness is to let go, sometimes little by little and sometimes just the floor dropping out from under you, but certainly as it damn well pleases


Maybe you can see now, Actualism is not about letting go like this. Letting go, the way you have described it here, means letting go of control. I do have some experience with this method, and I had the same kinds of results. The emotions would disappear at their own pace, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.

I won't judge your practice, but the problem I had with my own practice of letting go was that I had no idea what the emotions were relating to, where they came from, or why they were going away. Part of the problem is that when we say "just let go" we look at the sensation and try to let go of it. The sensation has a cause, though, and we can't let go until the cause is remedied. This is why we have to use mental gymnastics like "I can't want to let go, I just have to BE letting go" or whatever variation. I've had a lot of these kinds of ideas. The fact that you would ask something like the following makes me think you must feel like a ship lost at sea, the same way I did:

Daniel Leffler:
On the one hand you say (above) that you're not aiming for any particular states (like me), but here you say you are gunning for the PCE because it is maybe like feeling really alive? (I'm putting words in your mouth). Let's just say it's the tits. My question then has to do with the development of deep subtle craving. Let's imagine you spend the next twenty years in PCE, not necessarily blissed-out because I am getting the sense that it's a very sane state (despite the culty vibes and weirdness of it's presentation). Let's say you wake up one day and that state (which we can all agree it is) is gone. You no longer have access to it for some reason. Life becomes gray. Does all your years of practice prepare you for that and do you maintain your deep peace and contentment within those circumstances?....Sometimes life is very ordinary and grim - there's no PCE. Sometimes there's anger and pain (I think I'm speaking from both of our experiences if I may be so bold). What then? Are you better or perhaps even worse off than before?


Refer back to how I described the method before. Actualism is about understanding yourself completely. The feelings don't come and go magically. When they come, they are examined for the cause, and the cause is delegitimized. So there is no gunning for states, there is a simple process of elimination until nothing is left. I aim to be in the PCE, but I realize I can't force my way there. I have to have true understanding of my emotional situation before I can go there. If you were to spend 20 years in a PCE, it would be because you had understood yourself so completely that there were no emotional reactions for 20 years. The emotional reactions would have been completely removed long ago. It doesn't make sense to think you'd suddenly be thrown out of it. I'll entertain the idea for you, though, because your next point is actually one of the oddest parts of Buddhism to me. If you were to wake up one day and suddenly be unhappy, then at that moment in time you'd be unhappy. It wouldn't mean 20 years of contentment meant nothing. That's like saying, "If I can't have everything, I don't want anything at all." It's not very useful to use an idea like impermanence as an excuse not to try to enjoy life as much as possible, don't you think?

Another question is, does a buddhist maintain peace and contenment when they feel unhappy? No, they just feel unhappy. (And if here you say they aren't unhappy because they're maintaining equanimity, then isn't equanimity just a state as well? what happens when that ends?) Being unhappy sucks, no matter how much training you have.

But, as I said before, my main interest is in the baseline everyday experience. Even if I were to feel slightly irritated once a day, that would be far better than perpetual equanimity in cycling dark nights.

Daniel Leffler:
It's a very real possibility anyway, at the end of the day none of us really has a clue with what we're dealing with here.


Like I said, the whole point of Actualism is to get a clue what we're dealing with. It's about self-understanding and self-discovery. If you don't have a clue, everything will be mysterious, and then, yes, you might go into a state for a number of years and leave it again without any idea why.

Daniel Leffler:
If your conjecture is true (and I am not doubting you just probing) than did he discover a third thing?! Something else we can argue about lol? He says it was amazing and incredible and affected his outlook and the jhanic states in general. This plot is certainly getting sicker : )


Short answer, I have no idea, haha. Daniel has a lot of experiences no one else does - and I'm sure other people have experiences he doesn't have. Try this as a mental experiment for a moment. What if nothing had categories or names, and we could only look at each individual experience on it's own. It's like colors - we say there are 3, or 6, or 100. You can draw as many lines as you want on a color wheel, but it's infinite. End of the day, we just have to decide what we want, and figure out how to get there. I don't think anything is simple when it comes to definitions.

Personally, I beleive Daniel's descriptions of a PCE are in a different color class from Actualism.  Maybe he was practicing dzogchen.

EDIT: I'd like to mention, too, that I don't necessarily look down on or disparage radical acceptance. I practiced it for a number of years, and it does work in the moment. Sometimes I still use it if I find a particular emotion too overwhelming to investigate. It's the easiest way to pay the least attention to an emotion when you're trying to distract yourself. I don't think it solves problems, though. So if it leads to enlightenment, it's probably and all-or-nothing type thing, where complete acceptance locks in at all times, and the emotional state stays in a perpetual jhana (which sounds a lot like being-cosciousness-bliss to me).

My posts have only been intended to clarify, so if you feel I'm representing your practice negatively, it's mainly because I am trying to draw a comparison, not because I don't think anyone should practice that way.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 11:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/16/14 11:52 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Okay, this pretty much describes what I have been trying to relate to you on, as copied below, link provided.  That, point just before craving, the cut off, the escape hatch, to "Be" and remain at, just before the emotions start their cycle, Was this " the nip in the bud" referred to earlier??  This is also explained by observing Dependent Origination in "Real Time" daily living, on and off the sitting posture.  The Right Effort Formula is also same as what you are practicing to reduce and eliminate the emotional reactions (samskaras, habitual tendencies). 

So , it does indeed seem the same, which is good, just terms are different, anyway it all works, and that is what matters.

He even uses the words Bare Awareness, (bold faced below for easy reference)
of which you said was incorrect, but alas it is correct, bare awareness is interchangeable, the truth is the truth, whatever words are used.  But, even as Richard says, this is all nort new, or "anyone's" this has always been there.

To me it is the natural state of the mind without distubances, 

For example:  The mind rests in reality, as an egg in a nest.

When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment ... in a word: apperceptiveness.

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/attentivenesssensuousnessapperceptiveness.htm

It is nice to see this explained from another viewpoint, but this is also some of what the Buddha taught, interesting.  Dhamma is Dhamma in any language.

Peace,  

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 7:59 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 7:59 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Haha, I'm sure you're going to say I'm being contrarian again, but the difference comes from the entry point.  Please try to see the difference rather than the similarity, here.  The description above is what happens naturally AFTER attentiveness to the emotions successfully removes them, it isn't a practice but a result.  If you are using bare awareness as a practice, then you are attempting to get to a point before the emotions exist.  In both the PCE and bare awareness there is a direct contact with sense data - that is the similarity.  The difference comes from the fact that the actualist method does not require the emotions to be accepted or let go of, or anything of that tature.  They are understood and resolved, meaning the emotional center remains unfocused.  This causes the heart center to disappear completely because there is simply nothing happening there, resulting in an emotionless state.  Bare awareness creates emotional responses in the heart center because the emotional focus is still lingering.  For me, this results in a different state completely, even though, like I said before, the fireworks are still there - like vividness, clarity, sensory unity, etc. Bare awareness has an emotional sweetness (joy, compassion, love) and the PCE removes the concept of emotion completely. The absence itself is very pronounced and, for me, the whole point of the thing.

I've done a lot of reading, an I've never seen any Buddhist texts say the goal is to become emotionless. This is why I was so confused - I just couldn't understand how this state fit in. For a while I assumed equanimity meant emotionlessness, but that just means being at peace with what happens.

Actually, the only place I've seen emotionlessness mentioned is the tao te ching. "Other people are excited, as though they are at a parade, I alone don't care, I alone am expressionless, like an infant before it can smile."
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 9:49 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 9:49 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
No difference to me, Richard explains what happens in my experience in his words, and the Buddha explains what happens in my experience in his words.  Bare attention is the point of inflection BEFORE emotions arise, if one fails to miss this point, THEN , after that point the emotions arise,THEN one has to work from that point, with the Four Right Exertions, or what you explain as getting back to PCE , but with understanding what occurred, either way WISDOM is the key to progress.

Go with the explanation and terms you are comfortable with, if it works it works.

May the Force be with you

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 9:57 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 9:57 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Then you must seen the goal as becoming emotionless, as well.  That way of thinking about bare awareness is different from what I've read before.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 10:56 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 10:56 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Then you must seen the goal as becoming emotionless, as well.  That way of thinking about bare awareness is different from what I've read before.


This koan came from an old Zen story: a student said to Master Ichu, 'Please write for me something of great wisdom.' 


Master Ichu picked up his brush and wrote one word: 'Attention.' 
The student said, 'Is that all?' 

The master wrote, 'Attention. Attention.' 
The student became irritable. 'That doesn't seem profound or subtle to me.' 

In response, Master Ichu wrote simply, 'Attention. Attention. Attention.' 
In frustration, the student demanded, 'What does this word attention mean?' 

Master Ichu replied, 'Attention means attention.' 

Maybe now we all know, 

Maybe it should have been differentiated from the start, Bare Attention is "Bare" or "absent of other factors", There is  Attention mixed with emotions, pre-judgements, associated thoughts, etc.  then there is attention stripped away from all of that, Bare Attention.  In this way the mind is unclouded and can "be aware" clearly, Pure, undiluted in the Conscious Experience.  Currently, I am still working at this level, there are alot of subtle layers to "de-activate" or "unprogram".  It seems this process is gradual due to the fact that the process of change is a process of actually re-organizing living cells, neurons, and neuron circuit, or neural pathways,  Feed the good , starve the bad.  Hence, the ego's resistence, survival instinct, cells have to die off, through abandonment, then new patterns re-grown through cultivation in place thereof.


An elderly Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life… He said to them, “A fight is going on inside me, it is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One wolf is evil—he is fearful angry, jealous and negative. The other is good—he is happy, peaceful, positive and content. The grandchildren thought about it for a minute, and then one asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win, Grandfather?” The Elder smiled and replied, “Whichever wolf you feed.”

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 11:15 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 11:15 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
Maybe it should have been differentiated from the start, Bare Attention is "Bare" or "absent of other factors", There is  Attention mixed with emotions, pre-judgements, associated thoughts, etc.  then there is attention stripped away from all of that, Bare Attention.  In this way the mind is unclouded and can "be aware" clearly, Pure, undiluted in the Conscious Experience.  Currently, I am still working at this level, there are alot of subtle layers to "de-activate" or "unprogram".  It seems this process is gradual due to the fact that the process of change is a process of actually re-organizing living cells, neurons, and neuron circuit, or neural pathways,  Feed the good , starve the bad.  Hence, the ego's resistence, survival instinct, cells have to die off, through abandonment, then new patterns re-grown through cultivation in place thereof.
So ΨΦ, how do the Brahmaviharas fit into this for you? The Brahmaviharas are incompatible with a PCE. It is impossible to cultivate them if you are actually free. Is this the case for what you call Bare Attention as well? In what you call Pure Conscious Experience, is it possible - or even inevitable - that you will experience the Brahmaviharas?
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 1:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 12:28 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Psi Phi:
Maybe it should have been differentiated from the start, Bare Attention is "Bare" or "absent of other factors", There is  Attention mixed with emotions, pre-judgements, associated thoughts, etc.  then there is attention stripped away from all of that, Bare Attention.  In this way the mind is unclouded and can "be aware" clearly, Pure, undiluted in the Conscious Experience.  Currently, I am still working at this level, there are alot of subtle layers to "de-activate" or "unprogram".  It seems this process is gradual due to the fact that the process of change is a process of actually re-organizing living cells, neurons, and neuron circuit, or neural pathways,  Feed the good , starve the bad.  Hence, the ego's resistence, survival instinct, cells have to die off, through abandonment, then new patterns re-grown through cultivation in place thereof.
So ΨΦ, how do the Brahmaviharas fit into this for you? The Brahmaviharas are incompatible with a PCE. It is impossible to cultivate them if you are actually free. Is this the case for what you call Bare Attention as well? In what you call Pure Conscious Experience, is it possible - or even inevitable - that you will experience the Brahmaviharas?
BrahmaViharas means to me Wholesome States, And the last two  steps of the Four Right Exertions, arousing and maintaining the Wholesome States, Sympathetic Joy, Compassion, Metta, and Equanimity.  The pinnacle being Equanimity, of which in my opinion in similar if not same as what Actualism defines as PCE, though Equanimity might have to be further defined as a PURE Equanimity,  Though I could be wrong, as I have only read about Actualism a few days ago.  It seems that when the Unwholesome states are abandoned and tidied up, what naturally arises and what is left is the Brahma Viharas.  Now, I have work to do , and it could be that even the Brahama Viharas are merely more Formations, and if that is so, even these would have to be released, leaving.?.?  Cessation?  But, I am not at that level currently.

I see similarities with Actualism and Buddha's teaching, but in a way in that a Mouse footprint fits inside the Elephant's footprint, (Buddhism being the Elephant) sorry if that offends anyone, it's just my view.

And personally the Brahma Viharas require further development within my being, I have natural tendencies to be cold, uncaring, and indifferent, seeing things just as a natural impersonal process.  My compassion comes from knowing "we" are born into all this without a choice, we were "pre-programmed" by millions of years of instinct that can be very violent, greedy and selfish, for survival to pass it's genes, coupled with that, society is like a giant mental formation that  is inherently delusional.

It is like swimming upstream.....

If I did not answer your question sufficiently, then perhaps I may have evaded it successfully...

Live Long and Prosper

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 1:52 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 1:52 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
As the whole point of the practice is to remove, rather than add, things, I'll take your mouse and elephant strategy as a sign I'm on the right track. :3
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 2:17 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 2:17 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
As the whole point of the practice is to remove, rather than add, things, I'll take your mouse and elephant strategy as a sign I'm on the right track. :3
That's funny, you got me to chuckle.

So does this mean you are on the mouse track?

Pie Pie

Hey, I'm just kiddin', seriously simplest is best
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 9:09 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 9:09 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
I have been busy with family stuff. More interesting than my giving you an answer would perhaps be wondering why you need me to put something into one of two boxes that you are familiar with? The second I say what it is, I've lost the thing already. And the endless tail chase goes on. What would it mean if it's not something that could be put into a box.

Finally, I have been through periods where it seemed that to have ever felt an emotion or to have ever taken a thought personally was insanity. I have had experiences of love more powerful than maybe anything else, with no trace of subjectivity, just love experiencing itself, justifying itself. I am not an armchair mystic. This has all been documented on kfd and you are welcome to read more there if you'd like. At this point I understand that in calling something freedom or pure, I am self-inflicting the suffering of negation and pretending that the pain is "out there" or "in here".

Lastly, let's speak for a moment about reproducability. In order for a method to be useful it must be reproducible. It should, in effect, perform as it says it does. Do you know anyone who has practiced AF for years who you have regular contact with, who has remained in a permanent PCE? Of the many I have encountered in this scene for a number of years, I have seen one after one claim total freedom from any emotional pain, only to recant with time. They too were convinced they had found something entirely new and different, only to cash in their chips when humanness or humility returned.
thumbnail
Teague, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 10:18 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 10:18 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 104 Join Date: 8/1/11 Recent Posts
Hey Not Tao,
  Have you read this?

It's long, but it gets into the meat pretty quick.  I'd be curious to hear what you think.  The gist is that Thusness decribes 3 stages of anatta, and that one who has realized all 3 is in a state that matches the descriptions of AF.

People say that PCEs are very nice and I believe them, but people also say that stream entry is nice and I believe them too.  I've been practicing toward SE, but I think the everyday practice of investigating emotions is also valuable (it's something I've already done, just not with über dilligence as one might in the hopes of a PCE).  I've also heard that it's easier to get PCEs and AF once one is already enlightened (or at least partially), so my thinking is to continue what I'm doing, and if buddhist enlightenment (should I attain it) ain't enough, then I'll switch gears for AF.  What was your practice before you got into AF?

It would be nice if all these roads really did lead to the same place, and we could all be one big happy enlightened actually free family.

-T
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 10:58 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 10:58 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:
Eva M Nie:

Danel Leffler PCE full time sounds nice, like heaven, but it’s still a ‘mind mod’ as Daniel Ingram referred to it in passing. It’s a conditioned state subject to laws of impermanence like everything else.
Really, do we know this for sure? Seems like they come on their own?  I don't recall doing anything special to get mine, it was really quite a bit of a surprise.  How do we know PCE is not a natural state?
I agree with everything you wrote in your two posts Eva - for example, not throwing the baby (Actualist method) out with the bathwater (Richard's philosophy lol). I also think the PCE sounds like a non-clinging state by definition, so 'natural' could very well be the case, although I know some think anything outside of straight up cessation and the ceasing of the time/space continuuim that it's all a mind mod - getting philosophical, danger!
Anyway, your analysis and insights are quite well received and I detect big amounts of wisdom and understanding coming from 'you' through these bits and bytes and the whole series of tubes. I hope I'm not massaging your ego here, anyway, there is no spoon! 
Best, Daniel
LOL, you are totally massaging my ego!  I don't think a few words one way or another will make any major difference though in any egomaniacal tendencies, I do try to keep an eye on the little ego beastie so it doesn't cause too much damage.  ;-)  That being said, this is a great thread thanx to contributions of many, plus I am still trying to sort out Buddhist philosophy which perhaps is extra hard because apparently Buddhists don't agree either.  I love it when I can ask tons of questions and people might actually try to answer them!  ;-)
-Eva
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 11:26 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/17/14 11:26 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:


Refer back to how I described the method before. Actualism is about understanding yourself completely. The feelings don't come and go magically. When they come, they are examined for the cause, and the cause is delegitimized. So there is no gunning for states, there is a simple process of elimination until nothing is left. I aim to be in the PCE, but I realize I can't force my way there. I have to have true understanding of my emotional situation before I can go there. If you were to spend 20 years in a PCE, it would be because you had understood yourself so completely that there were no emotional reactions for 20 years. The emotional reactions would have been completely removed long ago. It doesn't make sense to think you'd suddenly be thrown out of it. I'll entertain the idea for you, though, because your next point is actually one of the oddest parts of Buddhism to me. If you were to wake up one day and suddenly be unhappy, then at that moment in time you'd be unhappy. It wouldn't mean 20 years of contentment meant nothing. That's like saying, "If I can't have everything, I don't want anything at all." It's not very useful to use an idea like impermanence as an excuse not to try to enjoy life as much as possible, don't you think?
Well I think you have to consider the situations that most 'Buddhists' are not technically enlightened but they are trying to understand the teachings anyway and they won't understand it the same way the enlightened ones will understand it, and even those guys don't agree fully, and the vagueness of language and issues of translation across languages will add to the confusion.  So someone that may never have experienced equanimity may still be responsible anyway for teaching it.  And my understanding is Buddhism teaches that there is dukkha normally but the interpretation of how one experiences dukkha, it at all, after enlightenment seems to vary quite a bit. Also, seems there is often a trend in these zen type things that once you understand something properly, you then get free from it.    

Another question is, does a buddhist maintain peace and contenment when they feel unhappy? No, they just feel unhappy. (And if here you say they aren't unhappy because they're maintaining equanimity, then isn't equanimity just a state as well? what happens when that ends?) Being unhappy sucks, no matter how much training you have.
I haven't heard any thinking that equanimity means lack of unsatisfactoriness, just that you feel way more mellow and chill about it, things that used to majorly bug now are like minor irritations.  Oh except for when life itself feels like infinitely boring as hell which I understand can also be part of equanimity.  And equanimity can be had prepath according to many.   
But, as I said before, my main interest is in the baseline everyday experience. Even if I were to feel slightly irritated once a day, that would be far better than perpetual equanimity in cycling dark nights.
Well yeah, I'd say so!  But I have for some time been of the opinion that DN is about a person's undealt with crap that needs to be dealt with and will keep coming up as long as it is undealt with, so if we were to assume my opinion is right on that, then dealing with your crap would be the logical way to go.  Of course, the next argument would be how that is to be done which is what we are already discussing..  ;-)
-Eva

Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 12:00 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 12:00 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:


Haha, I'm not really sure if I caan reframe things any other way. If you think you understand what I'm say, who am I to judge you. However, if something just doesn't seem to line up, there's no need to try to make it. Why does Actualism have to fit in somehow? After doing lots of reading, I've concluded that it just doesn't. Maybe in the future I'll go back to Buddhism if it seems more useful again, but there's no need to keep trying to wedge things together.
Well I think it's worth keeping in mind, back in Buddha's day, there was no psychology as we currently know it and there weren't many methods developed like they are now.  We may have actually learned and organized a few things in all that time that Buddha being only one person did not know or have time to develop.  How far could he alter the minds of the people in that era before it was too much for them?  Even himself being a product of that era, how many new things could he develop in just one lifetime?  Even now, psychology is quite young and underdeveloped but I'm thinking that your method is very similar to cognitive psych and a few others that have been shown to actually work fairly reliably for some things.  But even for psych or any method, only a small percentage of the population would even being willing to put a lot of time into that kind of self search and be open to it. Such things take a lot of effort and dedication to see the truth even when it might be unpleasant. 

Daniel Leffler:
I would express letting go (lowering the guard) in exactly the same way. I had this insight through my personal practice years ago. I read all these spiritual books and teachers that said, just let it go. I became aware that there is a subtle effort and aversion in trying to let things go, and so I cultivated bare awareness (acceptance is another helpful word) and it seemed to me that awareness itself lets go, that the nature of awareness is to let go, sometimes little by little and sometimes just the floor dropping out from under you, but certainly as it damn well pleases.  Plus you can only work to let of of things if you are willing and able to first notice the thing in the first place. 
Well I think a lot of books say that and it's not that they are wrong but they don't tell you how to let go.  SOme books are written by those who are sorta naturally happy and optimistic anyway so maybe it was a bit easier for them than the normal.  Ot they are just not digging deeply into the details of their methods assuming it would be obvious to others since it was obvious to them.  Certainly there are times when I see some negative thing  in my head and am able to tell myself to just let it to but other times it's most sticky and does not so easily toddle off at the slightest command. 
Maybe you can see now, Actualism is not about letting go like this. Letting go, the way you have described it here, means letting go of control. I do have some experience with this method, and I had the same kinds of results. The emotions would disappear at their own pace, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.
Yes, definitely.
Daniel Leffler:
On the one hand you say (above) that you're not aiming for any particular states (like me), but here you say you are gunning for the PCE because it is maybe like feeling really alive? (I'm putting words in your mouth). Let's just say it's the tits. My question then has to do with the development of deep subtle craving. Let's imagine you spend the next twenty years in PCE, not necessarily blissed-out because I am getting the sense that it's a very sane state (despite the culty vibes and weirdness of it's presentation). Let's say you wake up one day and that state (which we can all agree it is) is gone. You no longer have access to it for some reason. Life becomes gray. Does all your years of practice prepare you for that and do you maintain your deep peace and contentment within those circumstances?....Sometimes life is very ordinary and grim - there's no PCE. Sometimes there's anger and pain (I think I'm speaking from both of our experiences if I may be so bold). What then? Are you better or perhaps even worse off than before?
Kinda sounds like you are asking if your mood suddenly changed then would your mood change?  Could anyone really answer that without having experienced it?  What would happen if you thought you were fully enlightened and then 20 years later, you suddenly lost all your bliss and you no longer have access to it?  And life becomes ordinary and grim, what then?  Are you better or perhaps worse off than before?  Such questions are so packed with assumption, that it would happen in the first place and that a person now would know how he might deal with something in the future..
Refer back to how I described the method before. Actualism is about understanding yourself completely. The feelings don't come and go magically. When they come, they are examined for the cause, and the cause is delegitimized. So there is no gunning for states, there is a simple process of elimination until nothing is left.
I think the assumption inherent in the argument here is that the PCE is what happens when you get that other crap out of the way.  Assuming that assumption is correct, then the obvious thing to do if more crap came up in the future to get in the way of the PCE would be to deal with that crap the same way you dealt with previous crap. And that assumption also explains why you could argue you are not 'trying' for PCE in the future so much as trying in the now to deal with your crap and the PCE is just a natural outcome that will happen in the future IF you deal with your crap in the now.  

I aim to be in the PCE, but I realize I can't force my way there. I have to have true understanding of my emotional situation before I can go there. If you were to spend 20 years in a PCE, it would be because you had understood yourself so completely that there were no emotional reactions for 20 years. The emotional reactions would have been completely removed long ago. It doesn't make sense to think you'd suddenly be thrown out of it. I'll entertain the idea for you, though, because your next point is actually one of the oddest parts of Buddhism to me. If you were to wake up one day and suddenly be unhappy, then at that moment in time you'd be unhappy. It wouldn't mean 20 years of contentment meant nothing. That's like saying, "If I can't have everything, I don't want anything at all." It's not very useful to use an idea like impermanence as an excuse not to try to enjoy life as much as possible, don't you think?
Well I think the Buddhist assumption I hear often is that true enlightenment is permanent so they would not expect that scenario, ie 20 years of enlightened state to suddenly be broken, but the few times I have heard anything similar, the Buddhist assumption seems to have been that the person still had a bit of learning left to go and should meditate more, not that the person was back to square one or anything. 
-Eva
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 5:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 2:58 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Daniel Leffler:
There is something happening with semantics here because sometimes I totally get you (above) and sometimes it doesn't add up (above referring to equanimity as an emotion). Equanimity (and the other brahmaviharas) seem to be describing Mahayana emptiness to me. Acting spontaneously without ego or self-referencing is another way of saying 'emotionless' perhaps. I think we have a problem in our definitions (for one thing at least)


Haha, I'm not really sure if I caan reframe things any other way. If you think you understand what I'm say, who am I to judge you. However, if something just doesn't seem to line up, there's no need to try to make it. Why does Actualism have to fit in somehow? After doing lots of reading, I've concluded that it just doesn't. Maybe in the future I'll go back to Buddhism if it seems more useful again, but there's no need to keep trying to wedge things together.

I like Actualism because it explains the experiences I've had perfectly. If the language seems odd to you, that should be telling.

I think you are right that it's important to follow teachings that you vibe with. And I'm not saying everything has to line up, but we are dealing with the/a natural state of being and that (IMO) is what Buddhist practice is all about. I understand that for you and some others Buddhist teachings don't do the trick - hence many other teachings, practices and religions

Daniel Leffler:
I guess I was referring to your recent inquiry to Felipe about "nipping it in the bud" and I thought you said something about just dwelling in a PCE without being so psychological about it (my paraphrase)


I'll try to explain what I meant better. As emotions come up, it isn't uncommon to identify them right away once the practice has been going for a while. The problem I had was that I was searching for individual solutions to each problem when it came up. A better way to negate the emotions is to compare them to the PCE directly and ask yourself what's better. The PCE always wins, and, logically, it is a more productive and healthier way to approach any situation. So I realized I could use my trust for spontaneity as a direct way to delegitimize any emotion. I think this trusting attitude is what's meant by naivete.

As I keep saying, the whole method is to see an emotion, and understand viscerally why it's no longer needed. You are telling the mind directly, "I see you have made anger in this situation. Let me demonstrate why anger isn't needed." The mind sees your reasoning and says, "Ah, okay, I understand. I don't need to be angry." Then the anger goes away instantly. In the future, it either doesn't come back, or it is weakened, eventually to be removed.

Think of it like this. Lets say you're anxious about a public speaking engagement you need to go to. (If you don't have trouble public speaking, just imagine some time in your life you had anxiety.) Now imagine what your mind would do if you suddenly got a call from someone saying the event was canceled. Your mind, upon viscerally understanding that it no longer needed to be anxious, would release the anxiety utterly and completely. This is exactly how Actualism works.

Compare that to how you describe your method:

Daniel Leffler:
I am applying bare awareness or going inward, with a focus on the bodily sensations.

Daniel Leffler:
I would express letting go (lowering the guard) in exactly the same way. I had this insight through my personal practice years ago. I read all these spiritual books and teachers that said, just let it go. I became aware that there is a subtle effort and aversion in trying to let things go, and so I cultivated bare awareness (acceptance is another helpful word) and it seemed to me that awareness itself lets go, that the nature of awareness is to let go, sometimes little by little and sometimes just the floor dropping out from under you, but certainly as it damn well pleases


Maybe you can see now, Actualism is not about letting go like this. Letting go, the way you have described it here, means letting go of control. I do have some experience with this method, and I had the same kinds of results. The emotions would disappear at their own pace, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.

It's true that my method involves letting go of control (and everything else), that's why I thought 'dropping the guard' was the same thing. I find there is a slight tension (heart center contraction) in trying to control ones experience (anything outside of completely letting go), so bare awareness lets things be just as they are and nature takes over.
Funny you should mention public speaking however. I do have issues with it and it's the one thing (so far) that I would actively like to 'fix'. Perhaps Actaulism practice (or NLP or...) would be the thing to practice in that scenario where there are specific fears/phobias to overcome. Budhism teaches that a root fear is death/clinging to existence and general delusion about the nature of reality (among other deeply held subconscious tendencies perhaps). The promise is (that none of us have realized yet at least permanently as far as I can tell so who can really say) that those basic tendencies can be transcended ultimately and once and for all. But you and I are apparently mere mortals at least : )


I won't judge your practice, but the problem I had with my own practice of letting go was that I had no idea what the emotions were relating to, where they came from, or why they were going away. Part of the problem is that when we say "just let go" we look at the sensation and try to let go of it. The sensation has a cause, though, and we can't let go until the cause is remedied. This is why we have to use mental gymnastics like "I can't want to let go, I just have to BE letting go" or whatever variation. I've had a lot of these kinds of ideas. The fact that you would ask something like the following makes me think you must feel like a ship lost at sea, the same way I did:

True - sometimes I feel like a ship lost at sea, most of the time I do not. Strong beliefs in something (religion, Actualism, Vipassana) tend to negate those groundless feelings in perpetuity and that's why people love views, they cling to things like guns and religion (and Actualism). It alleviates that sense of groundlessness for a time, as long as those delusional ideas (delusional according to Buddhist teaching like the nature of reality, Three Cs etc) are held tightly to. People find comfort in God and Actualism and all sorts of isms becasue it removes that sense of groundlessness. Groundlessness (however) could very well be a fact of life (things are not permanent like Actualism says unless that word is up for re-definition as well) so being 'grounded' in groundlessness (or cool with reality) seems like a more mature teaching to me. Or we can just believe that things are permanent instead such as Richard proclaims


Daniel Leffler:
On the one hand you say (above) that you're not aiming for any particular states (like me), but here you say you are gunning for the PCE because it is maybe like feeling really alive? (I'm putting words in your mouth). Let's just say it's the tits. My question then has to do with the development of deep subtle craving. Let's imagine you spend the next twenty years in PCE, not necessarily blissed-out because I am getting the sense that it's a very sane state (despite the culty vibes and weirdness of it's presentation). Let's say you wake up one day and that state (which we can all agree it is) is gone. You no longer have access to it for some reason. Life becomes gray. Does all your years of practice prepare you for that and do you maintain your deep peace and contentment within those circumstances?....Sometimes life is very ordinary and grim - there's no PCE. Sometimes there's anger and pain (I think I'm speaking from both of our experiences if I may be so bold). What then? Are you better or perhaps even worse off than before?


Refer back to how I described the method before. Actualism is about understanding yourself completely. The feelings don't come and go magically. When they come, they are examined for the cause, and the cause is delegitimized. So there is no gunning for states, there is a simple process of elimination until nothing is left. I aim to be in the PCE, but I realize I can't force my way there. I have to have true understanding of my emotional situation before I can go there. If you were to spend 20 years in a PCE, it would be because you had understood yourself so completely that there were no emotional reactions for 20 years. The emotional reactions would have been completely removed long ago. It doesn't make sense to think you'd suddenly be thrown out of it. I'll entertain the idea for you, though, because your next point is actually one of the oddest parts of Buddhism to me. If you were to wake up one day and suddenly be unhappy, then at that moment in time you'd be unhappy. It wouldn't mean 20 years of contentment meant nothing. That's like saying, "If I can't have everything, I don't want anything at all." It's not very useful to use an idea like impermanence as an excuse not to try to enjoy life as much as possible, don't you think?

Well, I think that's a very healthy view that you have, but maybe a relative one. I also understand the paradox of aiming for a state or mindset while abandoning the effort to get there and surrendering to reality (the moment at hand). What I am referring to is Actualisms central teaching of (seemingly) reaching a state and staying in it, In my understanding Buddhism has what I would call a larger view, it's about cultivating states sure, but the bigger picture is about cultivating wisdom. What is the nature of wisdom: joy (call it felicity if you like that word) equanimity (fearlessness if you prefer) compassion (you like harmlessness) and love (wonder perhaps). Those aren't emotions in the context of the Brahmaviharas or a self-based experience. They are simply words that are pointing toward the nature of wisdom, of knowing, the content of emptiness if you will, what is left after everything is taken away. Words are tripping people up here. For those that have expereinced those ego-less states (I think many on the DhO you and I apparently included) the only confusion arises when we try to communicate the experience. To you Actualism does a better job, and in fact I think felicity (or contentment) may be a better translation than 'happy', which seems very surface oriented to me. But it's a translation that is then perceived by others - no permanency there as comforting as that may be. Still if you look at the definition of felicity (is Felipe here? : ) it is 'the quality or state of being happy; an instance of happiness; a pleasing manner or quality...' Joy has also been used. Richard must have been extremely detailed when he chose that word to describe the experience, to him happy means contracted, and I understand that perception. It is not innate to the word however, the experience stands on it's own


Another question is, does a buddhist maintain peace and contenment when they feel unhappy? No, they just feel unhappy. (And if here you say they aren't unhappy because they're maintaining equanimity, then isn't equanimity just a state as well? what happens when that ends?) Being unhappy sucks, no matter how much training you have.

No not really correct but I think there's a paradox here. This is the entrance to compassion. Would you be happy as others around you suffered greatly? Or feel felicity or whatever? I would submit that that is quite a selfish, a self-centered state and an extremely deep but very subtle ego-centricity that isn't open to the feelings of other beings and is only focused on oneself.
In the nature of disagreement, I will ask you this (regarding the compassion that you/Actualism negates). What is the source of your urge to be harmless? Is it intellectual? What is the underlying cause of that natural expression of harmlessness that you have experienced in a PCE? Not to answer your question for you, but I will anyway ;) that is Buddhist compassion. Different sure than everyday ego-based compassion that Felipe described before, but these are words pointing toward experiences of egolessness, something saints and practioners have experienced for millenium. They happen naturally and spontaneously without thought. A child runs in front of a car and you risk your life (in the moment without thought and without concern for your own life) to save him. When that state becomes permanent we say someone is fully enlightened. Richard calls that Actually Free (trademark inserted here)


But, as I said before, my main interest is in the baseline everyday experience. Even if I were to feel slightly irritated once a day, that would be far better than perpetual equanimity in cycling dark nights.

Daniel Leffler:
It's a very real possibility anyway, at the end of the day none of us really has a clue with what we're dealing with here.


Like I said, the whole point of Actualism is to get a clue what we're dealing with. It's about self-understanding and self-discovery. If you don't have a clue, everything will be mysterious, and then, yes, you might go into a state for a number of years and leave it again without any idea why.

This is the compelling teaching in Actualism and why it needs more investigation on my part. One constant among Actualists (and religious people in general whether Buddhist Christian or what have you) I have found disconcerting is the lack of awareness/sensitivity to that mystery and deep paradox that the practice seems to encourage (and Claudiu displays it by knowing the sound of a tree in the woods and you display some of it here) There is a delineation between accuracy and scientific understanding and subtle arrogance, and I would argue it's a fine line. You are the emotions, you are the central nervous system, Actualism is a brand new discovery, as Byron Katie would say, is that true? Do you know that that's true? This is why I like the intellectual honesty debate (fairies) and why groundlessness seems to appear from time to time when investigating the nature of truth and reality. It's a red or blue pill question and I'm on the fence myself. I just wanna have fun and enjoy life! Funnily, that's where I am in my practice these days, long philosphical debates on the DhO notwithstanding ;)


Daniel Leffler:
If your conjecture is true (and I am not doubting you just probing) than did he discover a third thing?! Something else we can argue about lol? He says it was amazing and incredible and affected his outlook and the jhanic states in general. This plot is certainly getting sicker : )


Short answer, I have no idea, haha. Daniel has a lot of experiences no one else does - and I'm sure other people have experiences he doesn't have. Try this as a mental experiment for a moment. What if nothing had categories or names, and we could only look at each individual experience on it's own. It's like colors - we say there are 3, or 6, or 100. You can draw as many lines as you want on a color wheel, but it's infinite. End of the day, we just have to decide what we want, and figure out how to get there. I don't think anything is simple when it comes to definitions.

Personally, I beleive Daniel's descriptions of a PCE are in a different color class from Actualism.  Maybe he was practicing dzogchen.

EDIT: I'd like to mention, too, that I don't necessarily look down on or disparage radical acceptance. I practiced it for a number of years, and it does work in the moment. Sometimes I still use it if I find a particular emotion too overwhelming to investigate. It's the easiest way to pay the least attention to an emotion when you're trying to distract yourself. I don't think it solves problems, though. So if it leads to enlightenment, it's probably and all-or-nothing type thing, where complete acceptance locks in at all times, and the emotional state stays in a perpetual jhana (which sounds a lot like being-cosciousness-bliss to me).

My posts have only been intended to clarify, so if you feel I'm representing your practice negatively, it's mainly because I am trying to draw a comparison, not because I don't think anyone should practice that way.

Understood my friend. For me, IME, there have been drastic shifts in personality and behavior from my Vipassana/bare awarenss practice, so much that my psycho-physical system has loads and loads of knots of heavy bottled up but now-unleashed energy in my system practically shooting out of my arse (hands and feet and top of the head to be specific, actually). So I think for you to say bare awareness works only in the moment and not as long term beneficial and positive psychological shifts and changes would be your experience, and it should be qualified thusly to make things more personal and less religious sounding. In fact, referring to your take on bare awareness practice, everything only works in the moment (the moment is all there is). And my understanding (in Buddhism, science and Actualism) is that if you take enough of those moments and string them all together you will have your life story - happy and harmless

I know this is mostly tomatoes tomatos but I really enjoy the exploration - and I sincerely look forward to hearing more about your practice and incremental improvements. I'm also going to look into this Actualism thing more to maybe deal with my fear of public speaking. Plus snakes. I hate snakes : )
D

EDIT: So as not to offend, the subtle arrogance I referred to above, is not thinking you're better than other people, I think we're all (relatively) humble. It's religious arrogance that thinks theirs is better, new, or something special. It's simply Wrong View IMO
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 3:40 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 3:40 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
[quote=
]
So ΨΦ, how do the Brahmaviharas fit into this for you? The Brahmaviharas are incompatible with a PCE. It is impossible to cultivate them if you are actually free. Is this the case for what you call Bare Attention as well? In what you call Pure Conscious Experience, is it possible - or even inevitable - that you will experience the Brahmaviharas?Had to contemplate on this a little, and work, and stuff.  Okay, the experience I am trying to describe, and I guess I don't know what it is called has these characteristcs.

First this is any any posture or movement.

Second no thoughts arise, they are not suppressed either, just no thoughts, no imaginings, daydreams or verbal formations.

Third, and I still have to look into this, cringing to write this, but BrahmaViharas are absent also.  BUT, and this might be rationalization on my part, it could be unconditional BrahmaViharas.  For instance, Metta, but unconditionally, just a radiating from chest area, more of an openness caused by a released state, absent of tension, same with skull/meninges area, no tightness, mind is not mentally, physically or emotionally cling in that moment.  

Fourth, when "tradional thinking" starts up, as is needed to operate in daily living, or to deal with people, the mode switches, but can be glided right back into.

Fifth, I would say it is a state of release, an openess of the mental, physical and emotional, if anyone of those comes into play, then it is not the experience.  

Sixth, duration of experience? smallest : one mind moment , longest : who knows? 

I would normally just call this Mindfulness, or perhaps Equanimity,  and no this is not "permanent", but from past responses I am probably wrong, which is fine, I am tired of the endless wordgames, and other games of spiritual immaturity, which I have recently been involved in, and will and have definitely learned about myself from.  

And what of you, Beoman?  About the BrahmaViharas are they not Wholesome States?  And if they are , would it not be wise to cultivate them?

Psi Phi
John Wilde, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 7:41 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 7:41 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
On a key theme of this thread: harmlessness and compassion.

One thing that hasn't been brought out yet is that compassion implies relationship, whereas benignity/ harmlessness doesn't.

This is one of the keys to understanding the difference between actualism and the other approaches we talk about here.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 8:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 8:36 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Teague:
Hey Not Tao,
  Have you read this?

It's long, but it gets into the meat pretty quick.  I'd be curious to hear what you think.  The gist is that Thusness decribes 3 stages of anatta, and that one who has realized all 3 is in a state that matches the descriptions of AF.

People say that PCEs are very nice and I believe them, but people also say that stream entry is nice and I believe them too.  I've been practicing toward SE, but I think the everyday practice of investigating emotions is also valuable (it's something I've already done, just not with über dilligence as one might in the hopes of a PCE).  I've also heard that it's easier to get PCEs and AF once one is already enlightened (or at least partially), so my thinking is to continue what I'm doing, and if buddhist enlightenment (should I attain it) ain't enough, then I'll switch gears for AF.  What was your practice before you got into AF?

It would be nice if all these roads really did lead to the same place, and we could all be one big happy enlightened actually free family.

-T


Richard makes a point of saying enlightenment gets in the way of Actual Freedom (it's "180 opposite of enlightenment"). I'll try to examine this for a moment with as much intellectual honestly as I can muster.

If I consider my previous practice before (I was doing radical acceptance - all emotions, ideas, states, etc were allowed to stay or go as they chose), the results were very spotty and didn't seem to make any real or permanent changes. I had a lot of perceptual changes, but not emotional changes, and the perceptual changes went away when I stopped practicing. I probably didn't make it very far on that path, if it was a path at all. But the problem was that it creates promising states, and it feels like progress, even though I had no idea WHY it was progressing.

This is the problem I see with "aiming for stream entry" and "when I get enlightened, everything will be better." Do you understand HOW it's actually supposed to work? Can you see a step by step process? It doesn't make sense, really. You go through a series of states during meditaton, black out, and suddenly everything is better. Actual Freedom isn't like this at all. It's scientific. You do the process, you see the results, you know why you got the results. It isn't sexy, it's just very obvious. You can't "gun for self-understanding", you just have to do it, you know?

I don't think it would be easier to practice AF once you reach what they call "4th path" here, but this is pure speculation based on what I've read. If you're practiced objectifying states and seeing them as "not-self", then it's going to be hard to come back and say "these emotions are my responsibility, and I can now identify with them." Buddhism is interested in phenomena more than content most of the time. It doesn't matter what it is, it's not-self. This isn't how things are in the suttas, but since you're going for stream entry, I'm assuming you're following the progress of insight.

So while I can't say for sure if AF is really new, or if it's really different from enlightenment, I can say that, personally, it's working much better than the mystical paths I used to follow. I like to understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and this is the first time I can really say both of these things are present in my practice. MY mind used to be such a mystery. Now it's just not. I can actively control myself. I can see an emotional problem, I can see the logical way to work out this problem, and after I have done so, I can see the results directly tied to my efforts. This seems like the key to success to me.

I'll take a look at that article, though it might take me a while to respond. emoticon

Eva M Nie:
I haven't heard any thinking that equanimity means lack of unsatisfactoriness, just that you feel way more mellow and chill about it, things that used to majorly bug now are like minor irritations. Oh except for when life itself feels like infinitely boring as hell which I understand can also be part of equanimity. And equanimity can be had prepath according to many.


Isn't it still a state, though? Isn't enlightenment a state? If things change and are better, it's a state. If they don't change, then it's not a state, but, then, what's the point? I asked this in my very first thread here, as well as in a number of other places, and I still don't feel like I've gotten a good answer. To me, if you're aiming for enlightenment, you're just giving up if you accept there is still suffering after it happens.

Eva M Nie:
Well yeah, I'd say so! But I have for some time been of the opinion that DN is about a person's undealt with crap that needs to be dealt with and will keep coming up as long as it is undealt with, so if we were to assume my opinion is right on that, then dealing with your crap would be the logical way to go. Of course, the next argument would be how that is to be done which is what we are already discussing.


If you had never heard of buddhism or actual freedom or any other methods, what would you do, just thinking logically, to make your life more pleasant for yourself?

Eva M Nie:
Well I think it's worth keeping in mind, back in Buddha's day, there was no psychology as we currently know it and there weren't many methods developed like they are now.


Not quite true. A lot of what I use was invented in Greece around the same time the Buddha lived. And actually, I've come up with most of my practice on my own, just through trial and error. It's not so difficult to come up with methods to change the mind once you decide to take full responsibility for it and give it a bit of study.

Eva M Nie:
I think the assumption inherent in the argument here is that the PCE is what happens when you get that other crap out of the way. Assuming that assumption is correct, then the obvious thing to do if more crap came up in the future to get in the way of the PCE would be to deal with that crap the same way you dealt with previous crap. And that assumption also explains why you could argue you are not 'trying' for PCE in the future so much as trying in the now to deal with your crap and the PCE is just a natural outcome that will happen in the future IF you deal with your crap in the now.


If you do the thing properly, you won't be allowing new crap to be created. Try this quickly: see if you can't remember a time where something that bothers you today didn't actually bother you. For me, I can remember the first time I encountered a house centipede. I had, literally, no reaction to it. I didn't know what it was. I can remember back and see how I created my fear of them over time as they appeared more often in my house. If you are watching you emotional state, you will see this kind of thing forming and be able to stop it right away. Once the PCE is stabilized, you don't even need to think about it.

Daniel Leffler:
It's true that my method involves letting go of control (and everything else), that's why I thought 'dropping the guard' was the same thing. I find there is a slight tension (heart center contraction) in trying to control ones experience (anything outside of completely letting go), so bare awareness lets things be just as they are and nature takes over.


That tension comes from trying to let go of the feeling itself without understanding the cause. It's the mind saying, "NO, I haven't gotten through to you yet!" Notice that I didn't say a person drops their guard, but rather that the process itself drops the guard by finding the cause of the emotion and letting go of that. This purposeful letting go works because the cause of the emotion is diffused. So you don't let go of anger, you let go of the social imperative to be correct or stronger or better, and the anger goes away instantly.

Daniel Leffler:
Funny you should mention public speaking however. I do have issues with it and it's the one thing (so far) that I would actively like to 'fix'. Perhaps Actaulism practice (or NLP or...) would be the thing to practice in that scenario where there are specific fears/phobias to overcome.


For this, I would spend some time visualizing the worst things I could imagine about public speaking (like the proverbial naked dream, haha) and practice remaining calm in said situations. I would also actively give myself permission to be seen as stupid, to give out bad information, to hurt people's feelings, to become a social outcaste - all the things I might fear happening. Just an example.

Daniel Leffler:
True - sometimes I feel like a ship lost at sea, most of the time I do not. Strong beliefs in something (religion, Actualism, Vipassana) tend to negate those groundless feelings in perpetuity and that's why people love views, they cling to things like guns and religion (and Actualism). It alleviates that sense of groundlessness for a time, as long as those delusional ideas (delusional according to Buddhist teaching like the nature of reality, Three Cs etc) are held tightly to.


Well, what I see as alleviating the feeling of groundlessness for me these days is my direct understanding of my own mind. I can look in there and understand it. This is better than any views or beliefs I've had in the past.

Daniel Leffler:
Well, I think that's a very healthy view that you have, but maybe a relative one. I also understand the paradox of aiming for a state or mindset while abandoning the effort to get there and surrendering to reality (the moment at hand).


I think this is a mischaracterization of what I said, though. I don't need to abandon effort to achieve a PCE because I know exactly what effort will get me there. The whole point I'm trying to make is that there is no mystery. The PCE will only happen when the mind is clear. In fact, it's just a label for a clear mind. So it isn't the same as using acceptance and hoping it will get you to a pleasant state - doing that, you're going to focus on that pleasant state even if you know you're not "supposed" to. Radical acceptance has no path or step by step process, you just have to do it and hope it'll eventually work every time.

Daniel Leffler:
What I am referring to is Actualisms central teaching of (seemingly) reaching a state and staying in it, In my understanding Buddhism has what I would call a larger view, it's about cultivating states sure, but the bigger picture is about cultivating wisdom.


Not quite. The goal of actualism is freedom from emotions. The PCE is a temporary stste where you can see what it's like to be free from emotions. Someone who has finally gotten rid of their emotional center would be living in a PCE, yes, but it isn't a state that magically comes and goes - it's just a way of describing an experience without emotions. It isn't mystical, so it's easy to see how it all works.

Daniel Leffler:
What is the nature of wisdom: joy (call it felicity if you like that word) equanimity (fearlessness if you prefer) compassion (you like harmlessness) and love (wonder perhaps). Those aren't emotions in the context of the Brahmaviharas or a self-based experience. They are simply words that are pointing toward the nature of wisdom, of knowing, the content of emptiness if you will, what is left after everything is taken away.


Felicity, wonder, joy, etc, are way of moving towards a PCE. Richard says that a happy and harmless person has the greatest chance of letting the PCE happen - note, he doesn't use those words to describe the PCE itself. In the PCE there is no way to relate to an internal experience. It's all just gone. You can keep saying that I'm just using other words, but I assure you, I'm really not, haha. There is, simply, literally, no emotional experience in the PCE. The heart is gone, the intestines are gone, there is just nothing there. There is no conceivable way to compare it to an emotional experience. If you don't want to believe in it, or you think it sounds horrifying, that's okay (I might have agreed with you before, even) but it's simply the truth as I've seen it, and actualism is the only place I've seen it explained. I can't tell you why it's so good...it's just, the body loves it, the senses love it. It's complete freedom.

Daniel Leffler:
No not really correct but I think there's a paradox here. This is the entrance to compassion. Would you be happy as others around you suffered greatly? Or feel felicity or whatever? I would submit that that is quite a selfish, a self-centered state and an extremely deep but very subtle ego-centricity that isn't open to the feelings of other beings and is only focused on oneself.


Neither happy nor unhappy. Think of it this way, all the senses are facing outward. There is no internal reference point. An emotionless person is more capable of truly understanding other people because they have no internal reference to distract them or filter their experience. I've seen this first hand in my own experience.

You would understand people are suffering, but you wouldn't suffer at all, nor would you be happy, nor would you feel good about their suffering. None of this exists in the PCE, everything internal is gone.

But then, a compassionate person is immersed in pleasant feelings relating to the suffering of other people. Isn't that what you just said was self-centered? Judgements aside, a compassionate person is still self-focused. They are immersed in their feelings. This is not intimacy, as seen in the PCE. As long as you feel anything at all, you are not "here and now," as they say.

Daniel Leffler:
In the nature of disagreement, I will ask you this (regarding the compassion that you/Actualism negates). What is the source of your urge to be harmless? Is it intellectual? What is the underlying cause of that natural expression of harmlessness that you have experienced in a PCE?


Harmlessness is not referring to Buddhist harmlessness - the Actualist aims to remove feelings of nurture as well as negative feelings. Buddhism creates many inhibitions regarding morality, sexuality, etc that would make it impossible to practice actualism.

The PCE has a complete lack of malice - which means all people are encountered without any kind of barrier, no warding, no bubble of protection. This means the actualist is harmless.

When I am not in the PCE, the feeling of malice towards other people is notably uncomfortable. This is because it is an internal contraction of actual muscles (or the nervous impression of contraction). The same contractions happen for "good" feelings too, which is why the PCE is so much better. No internal lumps exist, every tension has been resolved.

Daniel Leffler:
There is a delineation between accuracy and scientific understanding and subtle arrogance, and I would argue it's a fine line. You are the emotions, you are the central nervous system, Actualism is a brand new discovery, as Byron Katie would say, is that true?


If I may say so without sounding arrogant, I haven't felt any arrogance about actualism. emoticon To be honest, when I first encountered it, I didn't like it. As I learned more about it I could only admit to liking the methods. Now, I can confidently say that it has been very different from my experience with Buddhism. Don't mistake confidence for arrogance, I really have very little stake in the term itself (or the brand, as you'd say).

Daniel Leffler:
So as not to offend, the subtle arrogance I referred to above, is not thinking you're better than other people, I think we're all (relatively) humble. It's religious arrogance that thinks theirs is better, new, or something special. It's simply Wrong View IMO


But is it wrong to point out the differences in something that's genuinely different? I don't want to tell you what's going on in your own mind (that always turns out disastrously) but it might be worthwhile to turn your critical eye around for a moment and examine why you want to prove that Actualism is the same thing as Buddhism. There has been a lot of anger on this forum towards Actualism, and I think it's because it's disconcerting to hear that there might be another option, and that option might not be compatible with the current practice. That's actually how I've felt about the whole pragmatic dharma scene since the beginning, my ideas never quite fit, so it was nice to find something I could actually relate to in the AF stuff.

John Wilde:
On a key theme of this thread: harmlessness and compassion.

One thing that hasn't been brought out yet is that compassion implies relationship, whereas benignity/ harmlessness doesn't.

This is one of the keys to understanding the difference between actualism and the other approaches we talk about here.


Exactly, an absence of malice is not the same thing as the presence of compassion. Beoman touched on this a bit.


As a general note, I'm not sure I'm going to have time to do very long replies for a while, but I'd like to keep this conversation going. Daniel, maybe if we were to talk about one or two thing at a time this would be easier, haha. I am enjoying talking to you, though. I've been able to clarify a lot of things for myself while trying to explain them, and I've noticed an improvement in my practice. emoticon
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 10:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 10:08 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Not to be a bastard, but, I couldn't really read this beyond the first parapgraph. Too much misinformation. You might experience stream entry and the stages of insight before deciding they are not of value. They do not fix everything, and make everything all better. Rather they are a valuable process in that they illuminate places where we are interfering with flow of reality/life and creating separate realities. In seeing these things clearly are entanglements with them begin to come undone. Stream entry is subtle, yet in its wake one knows that one has been changed. Life did not feel the same after, and it never was. 

Speak from what you know. Not what you imagine to be, or what you would like to be to fit your current mode of seeing.

I would also suggest everyone go back and read my previous post at it contained loads of good information, some dazzling poetics and an all around slam dunk refutation to Felipe's pernicious lies.

I gotta go now. The new Lenny Kravitz album leaked and Ive been waiting on that motherfucker.
thumbnail
Teague, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 10:22 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 10:17 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 104 Join Date: 8/1/11 Recent Posts
Not Tao:


]Richard makes a point of saying enlightenment gets in the way of Actual Freedom (it's "180 opposite of enlightenment"). I'll try to examine this for a moment with as much intellectual honestly as I can muster.

If I consider my previous practice before (I was doing radical acceptance - all emotions, ideas, states, etc were allowed to stay or go as they chose), the results were very spotty and didn't seem to make any real or permanent changes. I had a lot of perceptual changes, but not emotional changes, and the perceptual changes went away when I stopped practicing. I probably didn't make it very far on that path, if it was a path at all. But the problem was that it creates promising states, and it feels like progress, even though I had no idea WHY it was progressing.

This is the problem I see with "aiming for stream entry" and "when I get enlightened, everything will be better." Do you understand HOW it's actually supposed to work? Can you see a step by step process? It doesn't make sense, really. You go through a series of states during meditaton, black out, and suddenly everything is better. Actual Freedom isn't like this at all. It's scientific. You do the process, you see the results, you know why you got the results. It isn't sexy, it's just very obvious. You can't "gun for self-understanding", you just have to do it, you know?

I don't think it would be easier to practice AF once you reach what they call "4th path" here, but this is pure speculation based on what I've read. If you're practiced objectifying states and seeing them as "not-self", then it's going to be hard to come back and say "these emotions are my responsibility, and I can now identify with them." Buddhism is interested in phenomena more than content most of the time. It doesn't matter what it is, it's not-self. This isn't how things are in the suttas, but since you're going for stream entry, I'm assuming you're following the progress of insight.

So while I can't say for sure if AF is really new, or if it's really different from enlightenment, I can say that, personally, it's working much better than the mystical paths I used to follow. I like to understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and this is the first time I can really say both of these things are present in my practice. MY mind used to be such a mystery. Now it's just not. I can actively control myself. I can see an emotional problem, I can see the logical way to work out this problem, and after I have done so, I can see the results directly tied to my efforts. This seems like the key to success to me.

I'll take a look at that article, though it might take me a while to respond. emoticon


First of all, thanks for your dutiful replies to everyone's comments.  Second of all...

It's a crazy statement to say that enlightenment and AF are 180 degrees opposed.  They're both a form of waking up.  180 degrees opposed would be stregthening our identity and indulging fear, anger, greed passion, etc., which neither AF or enlightenment do, so they're in the same ball park.  They are also so close to agreement on the idea of Anatta that they're practically sibblings.

Tarin also said (I believe in the Hurricane ranch talk) that he wasn't having any luck with AF practice pre-path, but he knew that Richard was "enlightened" (in quotation marks, because I don't think he was enlightened in a Buddhist context) before he achieved AF, so Tarin decided to get enlightened first too; and it seemed to work for him.

I'm not going to argue with you that I think the practices of AF sounds logical and that they would deliver results.  In fact I'm going to employ them to some degree, becuase I don't see any harm in doing so and see potential benefit.  But I think you have a very simplistic explanation of Buddhist practice.  It's not simply just going through states, blacking out, and feeling better.  There is just as much investigation going on in meditation as there is in AF practice; there is simply different objects of investigation, and different hypotheses driving the investigation, but I believe they are both science of mind.  Instead of running experiements outside the body with some scientific apperatus, we're using our awareness, and the 6 senses.

So if I believe that AF practices would yield good results, why don't I drop what I'm doing and focus solely on cultivating PCEs?  Because I've already received much benefit from meditation, and my experience matches up with what people have reported for centuries, not just some kooky Australian guy (sorry for the ad homnem, but he's a kook), so I have faith to continue.  And it's not just that I'm taking it on faith either.  During meditation I cultivate and train my brain to be equanimous to sensory input, and this has slowly but surely been creating a mind free from imbalance and reaction.  Like today, for instance, I was hammering in a stake in the ground, and I hit my hand pretty hard with the hammer; the Teague from the past would have gritted his teeth and groaned angrily, but the Teague of the present noticed the pain of the blow, the flicker of annoyance, but reacted to neither and the annoyance evaporated.  After a short moment of observation I continued hammering, though a bit more carefully.

Maybe the actually free person would have appercepted the sumtuousness of the experience and I'm really just missing out.  Who knows?

-T
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 11:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/14 11:47 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts

True - sometimes I feel like a ship lost at sea, most of the time I do not. Strong beliefs in something (religion, Actualism, Vipassana) tend to negate those groundless feelings in perpetuity and that's why people love views, they cling to things like guns and religion (and Actualism).
Well I think it works for a while but for most people the grounding wears off and they eventually move on to new beliefs and views looking for renewed grounding..
It alleviates that sense of groundlessness for a time, as long as those delusional ideas (delusional according to Buddhist teaching like the nature of reality, Three Cs etc) are held tightly to.
Interesting you included the 3Cs but thinking about it, it could be that the purpose of the 3Cs is to counteract other delusions.  I am not sure if you need to fully believe in the 3cs as much as you need to let go of other incorrect assumptions about reality and the 3cs are a tool for counteracting those other beliefs.  In the end, I suspect it would be enough if one were just open minded and not clinging too hard to any particular belief, but we are brought up with beliefs and assumptions and this reality basically seems made out of them, so that might be a tall order indeed!
People find comfort in God and Actualism and all sorts of isms becasue it removes that sense of groundlessness. Groundlessness (however) could very well be a fact of life (things are not permanent like Actualism says unless that word is up for re-definition as well) so being 'grounded' in groundlessness (or cool with reality) seems like a more mature teaching to me. Or we can just believe that things are permanent instead such as Richard proclaims
Well if you want to argue that nothing is permanent then how is enlightenment permanent?  Does it get a special exemption?  If actualism is a part of enlightenment, does it get a special waver as well?  What if it's part of our natural state?  Since we are not sure what exactly is enlightenment, different gurus can't agree and I have yet to see anyone turn bronze into gold, then it's still up for debate what exactly does and does not constitute enlightenment and what does and does not get the Buddhist permanence waver!  ;-)  Anyway, if you just think of actualism as a tool for helping you dealing with your crap, then that reframing of the issue makes it hard to argue permanence because the issue is no longer as relevant.  Once you learn a tool, you will likely keep using it until it stops working, you forget, or you die.  Assuming we change when we die, then even enlightenment probably changes when we die.  We will no longer be dragging around the horseflesh and so our basic circumstances will be different.  Is a tool permanent?  That question is not typically asked, instead what is asked is if the tool works? 

Well, I think that's a very healthy view that you have, but maybe a relative one. I also understand the paradox of aiming for a state or mindset while abandoning the effort to get there and surrendering to reality (the moment at hand). What I am referring to is Actualisms central teaching of (seemingly) reaching a state and staying in it, In my understanding Buddhism has what I would call a larger view, it's about cultivating states sure, but the bigger picture is about cultivating wisdom. What is the nature of wisdom: joy (call it felicity if you like that word) equanimity (fearlessness if you prefer) compassion (you like harmlessness) and love (wonder perhaps).
You don't get those in PCE?  I sure did. 

No not really correct but I think there's a paradox here. This is the entrance to compassion. Would you be happy as others around you suffered greatly? Or feel felicity or whatever? I would submit that that is quite a selfish, a self-centered state and an extremely deep but very subtle ego-centricity that isn't open to the feelings of other beings and is only focused on oneself.
Someone asked something like this to the Dalai Lama, the question was about how the Dalai Lama seems so upbeat and happy, but how was he able to feel this way when Tibet and many other areas of the world were suffering so much.  His answer was basically to allow yourself to feel happy, you don't have to suffer because others suffer.  And when you think about it, this makes sense, me suffering does nothing to help other peoples' suffering.  It only adds more suffering.  If you want to help others, then help them, but your suffering will not help them at all.  However, there are lots of more practical ways to help them like for instance trying teach them ways to help themselves.  If someone is starving, do you cry for them out of sadness, give them a fish, or teach them how to fish? 

In the nature of disagreement, I will ask you this (regarding the compassion that you/Actualism negates). What is the source of your urge to be harmless? Is it intellectual? What is the underlying cause of that natural expression of harmlessness that you have experienced in a PCE? Not to answer your question for you, but I will anyway ;) that is Buddhist compassion.
Well I don't think the Buddhists own it personally!

Different sure than everyday ego-based compassion that Felipe described before, but these are words pointing toward experiences of egolessness, something saints and practioners have experienced for millenium. They happen naturally and spontaneously without thought. A child runs in front of a car and you risk your life (in the moment without thought and without concern for your own life) to save him. When that state becomes permanent we say someone is fully enlightened. Richard calls that Actually Free (trademark inserted here)
Well you give a certain viewpoint of running in front of the car, but what if the viewpoint is that this world is a video game and/or an illusion, then so what about the car because the car and even death is just a temporary game, then so what if you run in front of a car?  The thought processes may be quite different if you are enlightened.  Personally, I used to be quite envious of those who had more money or opportunities than me but now, that rarely happens.  It's actually not because I have become Mother Theresa or anything, just that I have changed my opinions on how reality works and how things come into people's lives and that to have their situation, I would need to be like them instead of like me and although some of their situation seems good on the surface, a lot of those people are truly not very happy anyway.  So why be envious of them?  So it's more like I see a lot of those things now as like a waste of time and effort for something that will not lead to happiness.  So although some may think it's some kind of honorable thing that I don't crave after their stuff that much anymore, it's really not a special kindness on my part, just lack of desire to live someone else's scenario.  My point though is that when someone of one kind of perspective tries to understand the action of another, it's easy to wrongly interpret motivation and thought processes of that other person. 

This is the compelling teaching in Actualism and why it needs more investigation on my part. One constant among Actualists (and religious people in general whether Buddhist Christian or what have you) I have found disconcerting is the lack of awareness/sensitivity to that mystery and deep paradox that the practice seems to encourage (and Claudiu displays it by knowing the sound of a tree in the woods and you display some of it here) There is a delineation between accuracy and scientific understanding and subtle arrogance, and I would argue it's a fine line. You are the emotions, you are the central nervous system, Actualism is a brand new discovery, as Byron Katie would say, is that true? Do you know that that's true? This is why I like the intellectual honesty debate (fairies) and why groundlessness seems to appear from time to time when investigating the nature of truth and reality. It's a red or blue pill question and I'm on the fence myself. I just wanna have fun and enjoy life! Funnily, that's where I am in my practice these days, long philosphical debates on the DhO notwithstanding ;)
I don't see actualism as super different from several forms of psychology like cognitive behavioral, but adds a bit of a metaphysical spin on it with the PCEs and running in similar circles with Buddhism.  I do agree, there is not much new under the sun, but there is sometimes new packaging methods, grouping methods, ways of saying things and new angles on trends.  In the end, the real question is how well does something work?  I just can't see much downside to understanding self and dealing with your crap.  Perhaps the main danger would be there is more evolution to go but the system may discourage it in subtle or not so subtle ways, perhaps a potential danger of sitting on your laurels.  I also think down the line that a natural progression will be closer and closer links understood between metaphysics, psychology, and physics/science, so should be an interesting ride!
-Eva


thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 12:29 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 12:29 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
What you are trying to achieve:

Anhedonia, Depersonalization, Derealization, and Alexithemia

One can't really say they would wish you well on your quest.  But, one does seem to go in the direction they are heading.  So, indeed, perhaps AF really is 180 degrees from other practices.  

The brain is malleable (neuroplasticity), just be sure of the changes you want to make.

I will try to state as little as possible in an attempt to bypass a  session of "Words With Friends".

Good Night Everyone, have peaceful dreams

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 9:42 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 9:42 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Teague:
It's a crazy statement to say that enlightenment and AF are 180 degrees opposed.  They're both a form of waking up.  180 degrees opposed would be stregthening our identity and indulging fear, anger, greed passion, etc., which neither AF or enlightenment do, so they're in the same ball park.  They are also so close to agreement on the idea of Anatta that they're practically sibblings.

Well, literally nothing I did while meditating proved to be helpful in any way when I started practicing actualism. Concentration plays no part of the actualist path. Having worked to gain access to jhanas proved to be helpful not at all. The nyanas play no part in actualism. None of the insights I gained played any part in actualism because they were actually incorrect! The insight is that emotions are "not me" because there is no self, ultimately. Yet the factuality is that 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'. In fact, any progress I did make while meditating, actually proved to be detrimental when I switched over to actualism, because I had to undo all those mental and emotional habits that I had learned. The first few months after I switched could be well-termed as 'getting back to normal'.

There are still after-effects of my late meditative practice. Whenever I lie down and close my eyes I can still really easily get into some altered states of consciousness. But it's not helpful - just the contrary.

So from personal experience I have no qualms about saying that enlightenment and actual freedom are 180 degrees opposite. Superficially, they are similar, yes, but once you dig into any of the substance of it, it is clear where they depart and why.

One thing that might not be clear in my posting about actualism, is that I really would have preferred it if actualism and meditation and Buddhism all pointed in the same direction. Then there would be no need for this division, which clearly can be difficult for people to deal with. I really do prefer to be agreeing with people than to be disagreeing. But integrity and dedication to the facts preclude me from doing so. And actually it's a good thing actualism is something new, because Buddhism has had a few thousand years to bring about peace on earth and it hasn't succeeded thus far.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 9:44 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 9:44 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
What you are trying to achieve:

Anhedonia, Depersonalization, Derealization, and Alexithemia

There's a vast difference between being an anhedonic, depersonalized, derealized, alexithemic feeling-being, and being actually free, which has been diagnosed by one (or two?) psychiatrists as anhedonia, depersonalization, derealization, and alexithemia.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 11:55 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/14 11:55 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
@Beoman: I'm glad you can say something about this because I really don't have enough experience to show whether they're different or not. I know that I didn't get anything I would call insight while practicing meditation - only temporary relief. I think that's because I was looking for answers directly related to my emotional negativity, though, rather than the more indirect route of seeing everything as "not-self." I never understood how anatta was supposed to fix problems - and the way I've seen it explained, it doesn't. Going through years of meditation just to see anxiety as not-self doesn't seem worth it to me...
thumbnail
Teague, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/14 2:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/14 2:07 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 104 Join Date: 8/1/11 Recent Posts
Hmm, ok.  I don't know why, but I'm still more inclined to meditate.  Maybe my confirmation bias is too strong.

-T
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 12:49 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 12:49 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

Well, literally nothing I did while meditating proved to be helpful in any way when I started practicing actualism.
Concentration plays no part of the actualist path.
Well, seems to me that observing personal issues and drilling down to the core of them takes a fair lot of concentration,  you need to be concentrating most of the day on self observation.  I know a lot of people who sure can't seem to do it even for a few minutes.  In fact, it seems you have to get a certain amount of progress before you'd be even willing to try or see the point to it.  But then again, I am biased in that I really don't believe people spend lots of time in their lives not learning anything.  I think we are always learning things, even if the things we are learning are not obvious until much later. 

Having worked to gain access to jhanas proved to be helpful not at all. The nyanas play no part in actualism. None of the insights I gained played any part in actualism because they were actually incorrect! The insight is that emotions are "not me" because there is no self, ultimately. Yet the factuality is that 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'.
I suspect that part of this is semantics again.  You notice that you can't see source of emotions and thoughts but you can observe them, thus one could say they are 'not me' or one could say one aspect of them are 'me' but either way you are noticing a lot about observer and what is observed and that you can't see where things come from originally.  They arrive and pass away, their source can't be seen.  So we assign some kind of theory to it, like annata or I am my emotions or whatever, but the observations are similar.  We can observe the same things but come up with different labels. Or we can assign sense of self to different parts of the system we observe. 

In fact, any progress I did make while meditating, actually proved to be detrimental when I switched over to actualism, because I had to undo all those mental and emotional habits that I had learned. The first few months after I switched could be well-termed as 'getting back to normal'.

There are still after-effects of my late meditative practice. Whenever I lie down and close my eyes I can still really easily get into some altered states of consciousness. But it's not helpful - just the contrary.
This term confuses me these days.  What is altered states of consciousness?  Doesn't conscious vary through the day anyway?  Which one is the normal state of consciousness supposed to be anyway?  I suspect the answer would not even be the same from one person to the next.  But maybe you are saying that you got into a habit of being in one kind of consciousness for meditation and that is not the one you wanted for Actualism?  Because it certainly does seem that actualism also alters states of consciousness if you are going or PCE. 
So from personal experience I have no qualms about saying that enlightenment and actual freedom are 180 degrees opposite. Superficially, they are similar, yes, but once you dig into any of the substance of it, it is clear where they depart and why.
I wonder why it is that when people come up with  a new system, they often are very invested in saying it's TOTALLY new and unlike other things.  I, like someone else who already mentioned it, think 180 degrees opposite would be more like people who fight hard to remain in delusion, shopping for the latest new designer purse and worrying about if their lawn is better than the neighbors.  There are plenty of Buddhist gurus who have strong flavors of actualism in their teachings.  Buddhist teachings vary widely, it's not just one method.  Seems kind strange to be adamant in lumping all Buddhist teachings as being one lump of similarity that is opposite actualism. 
One thing that might not be clear in my posting about actualism, is that I really would have preferred it if actualism and meditation and Buddhism all pointed in the same direction. Then there would be no need for this division, which clearly can be difficult for people to deal with.
Well I am still not sure how lots of meditation skills apparently not helping you with actualism, and a habit of going into altered states appearing to be counterproductive, equates with 180 degrees opposite and totally different in every way and not even pointing in the same direction.  My dog training skills don't help me much with my sports playing skills, and vice versa, and there are a few things that are good in one but bad in the other, but that does not make them opposites or even that they take me in opposite overall paths.  If you think about it, one part of a mountain can have grasslands, one part forests, one part heavy snow, one part cliffs.  Many different paths meander through many varying territories on their way up the mountain.  Rock climbing skills may not help you in the grasslands and sprinting skills may not help you in the forest, the thing with skills is to know when to apply them and when to instead apply different skills.  There is not just one skill that is good for every territory equally.  And it's only when you reach the very very top of the mountain when all paths converge that the territories around them start to look more and more similar.  Are you totally sure you are all the way to the top of the mountain yet that you expect all successful paths to look so similar to yours at this time? 

I really do prefer to be agreeing with people than to be disagreeing. But integrity and dedication to the facts preclude me from doing so. And actually it's a good thing actualism is something new, because Buddhism has had a few thousand years to bring about peace on earth and it hasn't succeeded thus far.
LOL!!  Well we'll have to see if actualism can bring peace on earth then!  Is that the standard of success?  Peace on Earth or you suck and should go home!  ;-P  That evangelical tones might just step on more than few isolated toes.    Anyway, psychology too has been working on peace for humans for quite a number of decades and they haven't gotten it either, but time will tell.
-Eva 
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 1:21 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 1:21 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:

No not really correct but I think there's a paradox here. This is the entrance to compassion. Would you be happy as others around you suffered greatly? Or feel felicity or whatever? I would submit that that is quite a selfish, a self-centered state and an extremely deep but very subtle ego-centricity that isn't open to the feelings of other beings and is only focused on oneself.
Are you sure those are the only two options, ie suffer along with others or be selfish?  I remember once that an interviewer asked the Dalai Lama how he could seem to be so happy all the time when Tibet and so many other parts of the world suffered so much, and the Dalai Lama answered something to the effect that you should give yourself permission to feel happy.  I can't remember if he also said this other thing or if it's just my personal opinion but I would say that if you feel it is best to suffer because someone else also suffers, how does an extra person suffering help anything?  What good does it do?  And if you feel you must suffer because another suffers, now does everyone around you also need to suffer when they see you suffer?  Such a suffering disease could spread faster than ebola if it weren't for some of those 'selfish' nonsufferers to stop it!  Suffering does not help anyone and if they want you to suffer too, IMO that is also not a skillful drive for them to have.  Instead, if you want to help them, then I'd say just help them directly, not be suffering but by lending a hand. 

I know this is mostly tomatoes tomatos but I really enjoy the exploration - and I sincerely look forward to hearing more about your practice and incremental improvements. I'm also going to look into this Actualism thing more to maybe deal with my fear of public speaking. Plus snakes. I hate snakes : )
D
I've heard very good things about NLP being very good for quick removal of phobias.  It's kind of their specialty. 
EDIT: So as not to offend, the subtle arrogance I referred to above, is not thinking you're better than other people, I think we're all (relatively) humble. It's religious arrogance that thinks theirs is better, new, or something special. It's simply Wrong View IMO
I totally see your point though. Maybe few separate ideas and groups would ever get launched if there isn't at least one charismatic leader pushing that it is all new amazing never before seen totally different than all those others and way more effective Next Big Thing!  Then get all evangelical and stomp on many many toes of the established groups (who tend to have a much more sedate and mellowed version of evangelical tendencies) by implying that their way sucks dog meat compared to this new way, thus generating hoards of argument and dissent and pissing off tons of people, which is a very effective and well known form of free advertising.  If you want fresh coconut, sometimes you have to shake a lot of trees. 
-Eva
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 3:41 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 3:21 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:


This is the problem I see with "aiming for stream entry" and "when I get enlightened, everything will be better." Do you understand HOW it's actually supposed to work? Can you see a step by step process? It doesn't make sense, really. You go through a series of states during meditaton, black out, and suddenly everything is better.
ON the face of it, that is a good argument, but I would say instead that what really matters is if it works, not if you understand how it works yet.  Because in the end, even as I deal with emotions and work with them, I still don't really understand them either, where they come from and EXACTLY why they develop as they do.  Sure, I can understand them enough to work out problems, but really emotions are strange things.  And I of course, I don't really understand what the bleep is going on with the 4 paths and Buddhism and whatnot either, but they do work for at least some and the fact that it is all so mysterious still to us, I think is something that long term will need to be rectified.  There is a lot there that really really deserves better understanding. Heck, after all, therein might well reside the most amazing mysteries of consciousness and the universe.  The fact that we don't understand hardly a thing about it other than some basic observations of patterns is amazing!      

Actual Freedom isn't like this at all. It's scientific. You do the process, you see the results, you know why you got the results. It isn't sexy, it's just very obvious. You can't "gun for self-understanding", you just have to do it, you know?
But yes, I do agree that actualism seems more logical sounding than other methods you have mentioned, although 'scientific' might be a bit of a stretch until you have at least gotten together a list of research studies to back your words. 

I don't think it would be easier to practice AF once you reach what they call "4th path" here, but this is pure speculation based on what I've read. If you're practiced objectifying states and seeing them as "not-self", then it's going to be hard to come back and say "these emotions are my responsibility, and I can now identify with them." Buddhism is interested in phenomena more than content most of the time. It doesn't matter what it is, it's not-self. This isn't how things are in the suttas, but since you're going for stream entry, I'm assuming you're following the progress of insight.
Not all the gurus seem to teach purely in that way, but yeah, there is a tendency in that direction and I think I can see your point there.  I also agree that IMO, the tendency to try to bypass issues by going for the 'not me' approach only may have a long term end result of people carrying more issues forward instead of sorting them out earlier.  Whatever you want to say is or is not you, emotions do seem to affect people even at higher levels of attainment.  And on the flip side, people can affect their emotions back the other way via thought changes and changing of habits.  So whatever you want say emotions truly are, one thing they do not seem to be is totally separate from us.  Personally, I currently consider them a constituent of me, not totally me but part of what goes into the stew. 

Eva M Nie:
I haven't heard any thinking that equanimity means lack of unsatisfactoriness, just that you feel way more mellow and chill about it, things that used to majorly bug now are like minor irritations. Oh except for when life itself feels like infinitely boring as hell which I understand can also be part of equanimity. And equanimity can be had prepath according to many.

Isn't it still a state, though? Isn't enlightenment a state? If things change and are better, it's a state. If they don't change, then it's not a state, but, then, what's the point? I asked this in my very first thread here, as well as in a number of other places, and I still don't feel like I've gotten a good answer. To me, if you're aiming for enlightenment, you're just giving up if you accept there is still suffering after it happens.
From what I've seen Buddhism considers it all as diff states, including equanimity, until you get to enlightenment which is like the only natural state so it's special cuz it is the natural one.  Something like that, but I'm not a Buddhist expert either so can't really answer that one with any authority. 

If you had never heard of buddhism or actual freedom or any other methods, what would you do, just thinking logically, to make your life more pleasant for yourself?
Well, I had heard of enlightenment but really didn't put much serious stock into or have much inkling of the supposed details.  And while I'd done some meditation, the only thing I learned was breath deep and long and concentrate on it.  And when they asked me if  had any questions, it seems like it would be too rude to ask "Well is that ALL there is to it?!!?" and so I didn't ask anything and that perhaps contributed to my lack of having any other clue.  Because you aren't supposed to talk at the sanga and the newsletters didn't go into this deeper stuff, so bascially I had no clue these things existed.  It was only just in the last few months that I found this board and lots of info on the official spiel and all it's many versions.  So I am actually uniquely in position to easily imagine something I have lived through already. 

And what I can tell you is what I came up with was cobbled together from some new age stuff and psychology and my own logic, and what it looked like was part actualism (which to me is a lot like some forms of psychology), and part some of the events and things of of the paths. And one reason I don't laugh about the jhanas at all is because for a while, I did something that was like that.  I figured out that I could change my mood by concentrating with determination on the mood of determination.  At which time I would sort of zoom through several emotions and get to a sort of rambo version of equanimity that I called 'determination' in that I felt very centered and determined but overall pretty mellow about things.  What amazed me most though was that I would always go through the same sequence of emotions to get to the final destination.  I could never go directly to the end without those other emotions being passed through first which I thought was really interesting and strange.  The emotions I went through were similar to the jhanas although kind of a more simplified version, but in the same order.  That seemed a useful process for a while, but eventually I came to realize that long term I would need to deal more directly with causes of emotions if I wanted to get more progress on them.  But I found it interesting that I had also came up with a sort of jhana changing game for myself, without ever knowing there was such a thing already established. And although I eventually realized that game was not the final solution, I do suspect it played a role in my development so I would not say it was useless. 
Eva M Nie:
Well I think it's worth keeping in mind, back in Buddha's day, there was no psychology as we currently know it and there weren't many methods developed like they are now.
 It's not so difficult to come up with methods to change the mind once you decide to take full responsibility for it and give it a bit of study.
I did not find it super difficult once I got to the point of taking full responsibility either.  But getting to the point of taking full responsibility, was a LONG bit of work. Maybe part of the prob is society tends to teach the opposite, kind of a victim mentality. But no matter how good the batting strategy, it's useless unless you can get the batter up to the plate in the first place.  
If you do the thing properly, you won't be allowing new crap to be created. Try this quickly: see if you can't remember a time where something that bothers you today didn't actually bother you. For me, I can remember the first time I encountered a house centipede. I had, literally, no reaction to it. I didn't know what it was. I can remember back and see how I created my fear of them over time as they appeared more often in my house. If you are watching you emotional state, you will see this kind of thing forming and be able to stop it right away. Once the PCE is stabilized, you don't even need to think about it.
Hm, I can't currently think of any fears that started in easy to remember parts of later life.  What's left seems to go all the way back to prememory infancy.  I've spent most of my life getting rid of fears and phobias, not developing new ones.  It's just that I had a lot to start with so there's been a lot of work to do. 
That tension comes from trying to let go of the feeling itself without understanding the cause. It's the mind saying, "NO, I haven't gotten through to you yet!"
Yeah, that's been my experience, it keeps coming back relentlessly until you figure out the source, although some things like phobias I was able to push through using other psych methods like desensitization.   
Notice that I didn't say a person drops their guard, but rather that the process itself drops the guard by finding the cause of the emotion and letting go of that. This purposeful letting go works because the cause of the emotion is diffused. So you don't let go of anger, you let go of the social imperative to be correct or stronger or better, and the anger goes away instantly.
Good description. 
For this, I would spend some time visualizing the worst things I could imagine about public speaking (like the proverbial naked dream, haha) and practice remaining calm in said situations. I would also actively give myself permission to be seen as stupid, to give out bad information, to hurt people's feelings, to become a social outcaste - all the things I might fear happening. Just an example.
Yeah, I do that too sometimes, imagine a likely worst case scenario like maybe I totally screw it up, then I ask myself if that happened, could I handle it, what would I do realistically?  And realistically, if that happened, is even that bad an outcome worth all the fear I am putting into it?  Couldn't I just instead laugh, make a joke about it and move on?  Is it worth the kind of fear like a lion is about to eat me just for worry of flubbing a few lines or whatever?  And the logical answer is invariably that no, it is not worth it.  Then I think back on all the things I have done in the past that were screw ups and I lived through them just fine and now they are ancient memories.  And that kind of thinking does help.  But I have to make the effort to battle the illogic using logic.  I have to be on guard for the illogic or it tends to sneak back in.  But I am getting better at it, less illogic, easier fights, longer spaces inbetween. 
I think this is a mischaracterization of what I said, though. I don't need to abandon effort to achieve a PCE because I know exactly what effort will get me there. The whole point I'm trying to make is that there is no mystery. The PCE will only happen when the mind is clear.
Well probably at least a long term one won't.  I did have a PCE long ago, my mind was far far from clear n, but for some reason, it cleared for a few hours that one time back then.  I had no idea how much weight of stress I was carrying until it was suddenly gone.  Truly amazing!  But can't say I could tell you how it happened back then, it was long before I had much clue what I was doing. 

In fact, it's just a label for a clear mind. So it isn't the same as using acceptance and hoping it will get you to a pleasant state - doing that, you're going to focus on that pleasant state even if you know you're not "supposed" to. Radical acceptance has no path or step by step process, you just have to do it and hope it'll eventually work every time.
Well I think probably there are some self help books and what not that lay out paths and steps for that.  It's another one of those ideas that exists in many versions and places.  I think a lot of these ideas tend to get overinflated, like they are good for some situations but not so much for others, but if you take them as the gospel and the answer to all things, they tend to come up lacking. 
There is, simply, literally, no emotional experience in the PCE. The heart is gone, the intestines are gone, there is just nothing there. There is no conceivable way to compare it to an emotional experience. If you don't want to believe in it, or you think it sounds horrifying, that's okay (I might have agreed with you before, even) but it's simply the truth as I've seen it, and actualism is the only place I've seen it explained. I can't tell you why it's so good...it's just, the body loves it, the senses love it. It's complete freedom.
I think I may be starting to get an inkling of this terminology.  What you are saying is the feelings you have do not come through the body or seem to be related to the body and they are a different kind of thing yes?  Like a natural state that is not body related? 

Neither happy nor unhappy. Think of it this way, all the senses are facing outward. There is no internal reference point. An emotionless person is more capable of truly understanding other people because they have no internal reference to distract them or filter their experience. I've seen this first hand in my own experience.
I have seen something similar in that the less 'me' there is in the way (maybe some would call this part as being my ego), the more I can clearly see someone else without their issues triggering my issues and then my issues flaring up and blocking my view.  Sort of like I am no longer in my own way as much of seeing clearly.  The less I am thinking about myself, the more I can think about other people clearly.  The more issues I have and the better others are at triggering my issues (due to certain conjunctions of personalities), the more I can't see them clearly.   
 Buddhism creates many inhibitions regarding morality, sexuality, etc that would make it impossible to practice actualism.
A lot of the Buddhist groups do this yes (ignoring tantra), but I think a lot of it has also been influenced by the cultures the groups develop in.  For instance, according to what I learned, Buddha forbid followers to worship him or his image and he would not let them use his image when he was alive, yet if you go to many Buddhist schools now, they will have you bowing in front of an image of Buddha as part of standard routine.  "If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha" is clearly not universal!  What Buddha said is not always exactly what is taught in pure form. 

But is it wrong to point out the differences in something that's genuinely different? I don't want to tell you what's going on in your own mind (that always turns out disastrously) but it might be worthwhile to turn your critical eye around for a moment and examine why you want to prove that Actualism is the same thing as Buddhism.
Not arguing it's the same, just not accepting it is 180 degrees opposite either.   I do think that some gurus teach some very similar stuff to the core practice of Actualism, just that they brand it differently with a different over arching theory behind it that makes it sound more acceptable to the Buddhist community.  Instead of trying to stick out, they are trying to fit in.  There has been a lot of anger on this forum towards Actualism, and I think it's because it's disconcerting to hear that there might be          another option, and that option might not be compatible with the current practice. That's actually how I've felt about the whole pragmatic  dharma scene since the beginning, my ideas never quite fit, so it was nice to find something I could actually relate to in the AF stuff.

Well I think if you come in and seem to indicate that you think that not only is your new way different but also that it is far better than their old way and that their way is basically almost useless and also slow and illogical, or even something that kind of sounds like that, and you even come into their 'territory' to say it, well you are just guaranteed to step on a lot of egos and piss off a lot of people!  ;-P  Buddhism may be supposed to be about letting go of ego, but a lot of people still have theirs plus for some people there is even strong religious overtones so you would basically be striking at the core of their very identity for some people.  Which brings me back to my previous issue in that, even if actualism is very very useful if practiced, it's still going to be totally useless if people refuse to try it.  And how many are far enough along in their path that they would even consider it seriously in the first place?  Psychology has the same problem.  No matter how useful, most people will completely refuse to try it for a variety of reasonings and excuses.  It's a big problem! 
been able to clarify a lot of things for myself while trying to explain them, and I've noticed an improvement in my practice. emoticonAs a general note, I'm not sure I'm going to have time to do very long
replies for a while, but I'd like to keep this conversation going.
Daniel, maybe if we were to talk about one or two thing at a time this
would be easier, haha. I am enjoying talking to you, though.

Thank you for your time so far.  Ironically, it's clarified a few of my understandings on Buddhism as well, partly because I've become more clear about what is a PCE and how that relates and doesn't relate to nondualism and other things which has helped me to understand PCE better as well as the other things better.  And I do think I've gained a much better understanding of actualism terminology and where it comes from.  Another thing I really like about it is a very good attempt to describe states clearly which I appreciate greatly.  As for keeping board threads on narrow lanes of subject material, good luck with that one, trying to herd humans is like trying to herd cats!  
-Eva 
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 9:23 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 8:45 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Have you guys seriously considered that actualism might be different from buddhism?  I mean genuinely and seriously without aversion towards the idea.  It's worth looking into simply because, if it really is different, it's possile you could be doing the wrong thing to reach your goal.  Buddhism is old, but that doesn't mean it's correct.  It also doesn't mean that every practice aimed at mental improvement is buddhist.

Actually, the main response I've gotten from people is, "you're just practicing Buddhism, but you're doing it wrong."  Isn't that kind of a ridiculous idea?  Haha, if it's Buddhism, then it's Buddhism.  If it's different, it's different.  You have to pick one or the other, no?

This isn't a new argument in response to anything, I'm just responding to a perception I've gotten from the conversations on here.

eva:
ON the face of it, that is a good argument, but I would say instead that what really matters is if it works, not if you understand how it works yet. Because in the end, even as I deal with emotions and work with them, I still don't really understand them either, where they come from and EXACTLY why they develop as they do. Sure, I can understand them enough to work out problems, but really emotions are strange things. And I of course, I don't really understand what the bleep is going on with the 4 paths and Buddhism and whatnot either, but they do work for at least some and the fact that it is all so mysterious still to us, I think is something that long term will need to be rectified. There is a lot there that really really deserves better understanding. Heck, after all, therein might well reside the most amazing mysteries of consciousness and the universe. The fact that we don't understand hardly a thing about it other than some basic observations of patterns is amazing!


If you make the commitment to take complete responsibility for your emotions, they will not be mysterious at all - this has been my chief argument. The emotions are completely understandable, and this means they can be actively controlled through careful study of experience. I am always angry for a reason, scared for a reason, sad for a reason, etc, and these reasons are directly tied to belief I have - this is when I should be angry, this is when I should be scared, this is when I should be sad. When I have taken the time to directly challenge these beliefs, and change my mind about them (note that I am changing my own mind, there is no magical event that does it for me) I no longer feel like I should have an emotional reaction to events, and thus I don't. It's actually so straightforward it's stupid, but I've ignored it for my while life because I like my beliefs. It's who I am - it's my complete identity. To abondon them is to, literally, go against myself and tell myself I am wrong. But I've realized that I AM wrong. I have seen that, when the identity is gone completely, life is grand and perfect. So this means the only thing between the me and perfect contentment is the beliefs that tell meI need to feel a certain way at a certain time.

This is the ONLY thing in the way, so the only method that is needed is challenging beliefs that lead to negativity. No concentration, no altering of perception or consciousness, no blissful jhanas or insights into the nature of consciousness. All that's needed is to give up that thing that says "here is when you feel sad, and here is when you feel angry." This isn't a mystery, it's just common sense, really.

Edit: I see you already talked about some of this eva...and I see I have too, haha. Maybe that's a sign I don't reall have much more I can say on the topic.

Edit 2: Not to use a pun, but striking at the core of someone's identity might be a great service to them.emoticon I do try to be kind, though. I'm not interested in hurting people's feelings.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 10:19 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 10:17 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Hey Not Tao,
What you have explained is basically what I have always taken to be Right Mindfulness, and/or Bare Attention, or some call Pure Mindfulness/ Pure Awareness.   Also, same technique applied to use the escape hatch in Dependent Origination where one stops the process just before the craving initiates.  Have you ever read The Heart of Buddhist Meditation by Nyanaponika Thera?  Or listened to Dhamma Talks by the late Ayya Khema?  Or read The Magic of the  Mind by Nyanananda Thera ?  If you haven't you would probably enjoy them, as it touches upon what you are describing.  
Anyway good post.Psi Phi


Oh wait , Deja Vu, This was just from my experience, take it or leave it, the above suggestions are from people, that , IMHO, have/had acheived actual freedom.  Concepts are concepts, words are words, Cling to Nothing.  Honestly I would delve more into AF, except most of it is already a part of my practice, this would be redundant, just learning new words for old concepts.  And indeed there are some differences, as there are in many types of practices, I was only pointing out similarities in my practice and AF, initially I was kind of excited to see someone engaging in the spiritual path as it pertains directly to emotions and their internal/external triggering mechanisms.  While I have accepted and re-iterated some of the similarities between just two spiritual practices between the two,( AF and Buddhism), not really mentioning Neuroscience, Taoism, or numerous others, you are the only one claiming there is absolutley , no correlation, 180 degrees opposite, etc.  

Well fine, that's your opinion, your mental formation, I have my opinion and my mental formation.  I may be wrong, but AF has not yet come up with anything new, in my opinion. I am free to use AF and it's techniques if I want to, as with any other methods, it's not yours.

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 12:00 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/14 11:59 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
P.S.   I promise to leave you alone to do your practice(s), these were only viewpoints which I had thought were interesting I apologize if I have disturbed you or anyone else.  I still have trouble relating to/with the personality view.  Anyway, I have not taken offense to anything you have posted, it is an interesting subject and whatnot and you have some good ideas.  

Sincerley,

Psi Phi

Knock Knock

Whose there?

Anatta

Anatta who?

Anatta who you think I am
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 11:14 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 11:14 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

Well, literally nothing I did while meditating proved to be helpful in any way when I started practicing actualism.
Concentration plays no part of the actualist path.
Well, seems to me that observing personal issues and drilling down to the core of them takes a fair lot of concentration,  you need to be concentrating most of the day on self observation.  I know a lot of people who sure can't seem to do it even for a few minutes.

I should have been clearer: given the context, "concentration" refers to "samadhi", i.e. that concentration in "Right Concentration", that which, when cultivated, leads to jhanas and such. You do need concentration in the colloquial sense to do just about anything worthwhile, including actualism, but it's a different thing than meditative concentration, and I'm not even sure I agree that working on meditative concentration (e.g. sitting down and following your breath for 1 hour) directly leads to better colloquial concentration. In any case, to the extent that going on the spiritual path did help my colloquial concentration - and I'm not sure to what extent that is, and it might even have hindered it, e.g. coding while in the Dark Night is ridiculously hard - then to that extent it helped with actualism also. But that's a general life skill, not directly pertaining to meditation. I could have gotten the same effects or better by doing other things.

Eva M Nie:
Having worked to gain access to jhanas proved to be helpful not at all. The nyanas play no part in actualism. None of the insights I gained played any part in actualism because they were actually incorrect! The insight is that emotions are "not me" because there is no self, ultimately. Yet the factuality is that 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'.
I suspect that part of this is semantics again.  You notice that you can't see source of emotions and thoughts but you can observe them, thus one could say they are 'not me' or one could say one aspect of them are 'me' but either way you are noticing a lot about observer and what is observed and that you can't see where things come from originally.  They arrive and pass away, their source can't be seen.  So we assign some kind of theory to it, like annata or I am my emotions or whatever, but the observations are similar.  We can observe the same things but come up with different labels. Or we can assign sense of self to different parts of the system we observe. 

Hmm do you really see the following two as being fundamentally the same insight?
1) Emotions are not 'me', because there is no 'me', 'me' is just an illusion, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', but there are still emotions because they were not 'me'
2) Emotions are 'me', both emotions and 'me' are just illusions, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', and there are also no more emotions because they were 'me'
It's not just a matter of semantics. They are substantially different insights. Plus the end results are different. Richard's experience is that he actually *is* the flesh and blood body's apperceptive consciousness. In Buddhist terms this would be delusory since it would be ascribing 'self' to consciousness, and consciousness is also impermanent and dukkha and therefore not-me, etc. Yet in actualism this is the me that I actually am, as opposed to the affective 'me' which is of an entirely different nature.

Eva M Nie:

In fact, any progress I did make while meditating, actually proved to be detrimental when I switched over to actualism, because I had to undo all those mental and emotional habits that I had learned. The first few months after I switched could be well-termed as 'getting back to normal'.

There are still after-effects of my late meditative practice. Whenever I lie down and close my eyes I can still really easily get into some altered states of consciousness. But it's not helpful - just the contrary.
This term confuses me these days.  What is altered states of consciousness?  Doesn't conscious vary through the day anyway?  Which one is the normal state of consciousness supposed to be anyway?  I suspect the answer would not even be the same from one person to the next.

Generally normal consciousness is what regular people experience on a usual basis, e.g. happy, bored, groggy, tired, excited, angry, loving, etc. An altered state of consciousness would be something out of the ordinary like a spiritual experience, a drug experience, a dissociative experience (e.g. right after trauma one might dissociate for a bit as a defense mechanism), jhanas, nyanas, Brahma viharas, etc.
Eva M Nie:
But maybe you are saying that you got into a habit of being in one kind of consciousness for meditation and that is not the one you wanted for Actualism?

Yes, I'm saying I got into the habit of going into certain altered states of consciousnesses when lying down with eyes closed, and to some extent when walking around also, and these were quite detrimental to practicing actualism since I first had to exit the ASCs and get back to a more normal state of consciousness before effectively applying the method.
Eva M Nie:
Because it certainly does seem that actualism also alters states of consciousness if you are going or PCE.

Well, suffice it to say that entering jhanas and nyanas and such are counter-productive with regards to experiencing PCEs.
Eva M Nie:
So from personal experience I have no qualms about saying that enlightenment and actual freedom are 180 degrees opposite. Superficially, they are similar, yes, but once you dig into any of the substance of it, it is clear where they depart and why.
I wonder why it is that when people come up with  a new system, they often are very invested in saying it's TOTALLY new and unlike other things.

How often does this really happen? Most of the time when people discuss "new" meditative techniques, they draw parallels with other ones. They build up on what has already been done. Maybe they'll point out what they do differently but they'll generally agree on the goal being the same. To wit, no matter how diverse and variegated the Buddhist sects are, they will all ultimately agree that they are all aiming for what the Buddha taught.

Anyway, it isn't as if I came up out of the blue, decided that actualism was different from other things, and am now fighting to valiantly defend my stance against an onslaught of dissenters. Indeed when I initially came across actualism, my understanding after a few months of experience with it is that it was ultimately the same as Buddhism, but with different terms for the same things, and that Richard didn't have a proper understanding of Buddhism which is why he insisted they were different. However, after being with Richard & Vineeto in person for a week or so, I came to realize that they were experiencing something quite different than all the other people I had met that were on spiritual paths (e.g. Kenneth Folk, Tarin, Trent), that I was misinterpreting and misunderstanding what was written on the AFT site, that what was written on the AFT site does factually correspond with their (different) experiences, and thus that what is being described is actually quite different fundamentally, at the root of it.

From there it seems that it would be quite beneficial to others to understand that there are two choices to be made, here. If someone thinks there is only one choice, when in fact there are two, then they can't make an informed decision. But if they understand that there are two choices, then they can choose: stick with meditation, or try something different. The choice is theirs. And the choice to realize that there are choices, is also theirs, interestingly enough. I have realized that I can't make anybody understand anything. But certain people that are ready will be able to read what I write and get an inkling of the facticity of what I say, and that may afford them a choice they otherwise wouldn't have.

Eva M Nie:
I, like someone else who already mentioned it, think 180 degrees opposite would be more like people who fight hard to remain in delusion, shopping for the latest new designer purse and worrying about if their lawn is better than the neighbors.  There are plenty of Buddhist gurus who have strong flavors of actualism in their teachings.  Buddhist teachings vary widely, it's not just one method.  Seems kind strange to be adamant in lumping all Buddhist teachings as being one lump of similarity that is opposite actualism.

The 180 degrees opposite points to certain fundamental things. For example, with Buddhist teachings, the self (as understood in actualism) is expanded/strengthened/ignored/suppressed, whereas in actualism, the self is totally removed. As such: 180 degrees opposite. I get what you're saying though, and initially at least the paths are similar. At least the reason to begin on the paths is similar: you realize there's something wrong with life, or with the world, or with yourself, and you want to improve it, so you undertake the study of existence to see what you can't make out of it all. Then maybe you realize there's something wrong with 'me', with the 'self', that 'I' am messing it all up. So I can agree that someone worrying about their neighbors' lawn is further from actualism than someone who has begun trying to figure out how to live well with themselves and others.

However the thing about the spiritual path is that the further you go down it, the further you get from the actualist path. It actually requires backtracking, undoing the spiritual conditioning, in order to be able to then make progress with actualism. Hence again the 180 degrees opposite thing. So a full blown Buddhist who meditates 4 hours a day and has attained to certain degrees of enlightenment, might actually be further from an actualist than that person worrying about their neighbors' lawn. I mean, just see how much intense friction there is between the meditators here and the actualists.

Eva M Nie:
One thing that might not be clear in my posting about actualism, is that I really would have preferred it if actualism and meditation and Buddhism all pointed in the same direction. Then there would be no need for this division, which clearly can be difficult for people to deal with.
Well I am still not sure how lots of meditation skills apparently not helping you with actualism, and a habit of going into altered states appearing to be counterproductive, equates with 180 degrees opposite and totally different in every way and not even pointing in the same direction [...]

See above.

Eva M Nie:
I really do prefer to be agreeing with people than to be disagreeing. But integrity and dedication to the facts preclude me from doing so. And actually it's a good thing actualism is something new, because Buddhism has had a few thousand years to bring about peace on earth and it hasn't succeeded thus far.
LOL!!  Well we'll have to see if actualism can bring peace on earth then!  Is that the standard of success?  Peace on Earth or you suck and should go home!  ;-P  That evangelical tones might just step on more than few isolated toes.    Anyway, psychology too has been working on peace for humans for quite a number of decades and they haven't gotten it either, but time will tell.

Well, what's the stated goal of Buddhism? Has it succeeded in the thousands of years it has existed? If not, why not? Maybe it doesn't work?

But yeah, time will tell whether actualism works. Maybe not, I really don't know. It is working for me though.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 12:49 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 12:49 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
From what you stated below, sitting down and following your breath for one hour, That is not Jhana, that is called following the breath for one hour.
Following the breath is a method, a key to unlocking the door. Again that is not Jhana, but you probably already know that, I just wanted to clarify for anyone who might think otherwise.  If one was able to follow the breath , without pause , continuously for one hour, that would still not be Jhana, that would be mindfulness, being aware of the breath sensation.  


but it's a different thing than meditative concentration, and I'm not even sure I agree that working on meditative concentration (e.g. sitting down and following your breath for 1 hour) directly leads to better colloquial concentration. 
thumbnail
Daniel - san, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 7:30 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 7:28 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 309 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
[quote=Not Tao

]As a general note, I'm not sure I'm going to have time to do very long replies for a while, but I'd like to keep this conversation going. Daniel, maybe if we were to talk about one or two thing at a time this would be easier, haha. I am enjoying talking to you, though. I've been able to clarify a lot of things for myself while trying to explain them, and I've noticed an improvement in my practice. emoticon


Agreed Not Tao on both fronts - it gets tough to talk about too much at once, and I also find clarity in our conversations - especially when we disagree! I've enjoyed them very much myself as well : )
In that vein, we still have one when it comes to the C Word - compassion. I'd like to clarify a point I made before, that maybe slid by, and shed some more light on misunderstandings. Buddhist training (and Actualist training apparently) has a lot of fake-it-til-you-make-it practice. I apprecated you delineating felicity as something that is practiced until a PCE is reached (where no felicity apparrently ensues). Something similiar is true in the misunderstanding of compassion as we've spoken about here, as I referred to as 'Buddhist compassion' (note to Eva, I called it 'Buddhist' to identify what I apprehend as the Buddhist understanding of the word, not that Buddhists have any monopoly over it of course! : ). A lot of Buddhist training is in cultivating metta and karuna etc, but (as Chogyam Trungpa taught I believe) a virtue that is 'practiced' is actually a vice. When Actualists on this forum describe compassion, it is relative compassion and not true compassion. The compassion of the BrahmaViharas (as I understand it and IME) comes from the natural state - it is a description of emptiness
You may call it lack of malice, but that's not accurate in my view. A lack of malice could just as easily be indifference. Unless Actualists are indifferent to other people's pain and suffering, then what you are describing as 'no-malice' is the Buddhist concept of compassion. Again (so as not to belabor this discussion) this is not the manufactured (practiced) compassion that has been argued about ad naseum here. This is the spontaneous naturally occuring fact of how a fully awakened person responds to the world. Someone free of ego clinging and free of fear and delusion naturally feels kindness toward life and toward beings, it manifests in myriad ways. The Actualist experience in this regard is not anything new, and that really doesn't matter of course
To see more where Actualist teaching and Buddhist teaching intersect, read this article (if you haven't already) 'Enlightenments' by Jack Kornfield. I found many of the same topics touched on here with admirable doses of ambiguity and mystery (which I see you're not a fan of ;)
http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Enlightenments.html
take care, D
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 8:03 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 8:03 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Have you guys seriously considered that actualism might be different from buddhism?  I mean genuinely and seriously without aversion towards the idea. 
If i have aversion, it's rather mild.  I'm not entrained in buddhist belief systems.  Another issue is what is buddhism?  It's all over the map and the gurus often don't agree and keep saying the other guy is wrong, etc. So if not all parts of buddhism agree with each other and it's so hugely wide ranging, it's hard to compare other things with it.  Its tendrils reach far and wide and even fight with eachother as much as actualism fights with it.  There is probably very little if any ground that no Buddhist has ever touched on.  Seems likely some parts of buddhism are more correct than others but which ones?  

It's worth looking into simply because, if it really is different, it's possile you could be doing the wrong thing to reach your goal.  Buddhism is old, but that doesn't mean it's correct.  It also doesn't mean that every practice aimed at mental improvement is buddhist.
I suspect that there are different paths for different people.  You won't see me saying one exact path is the best path for everyone.  But I do suspect some paths might work better for a higher percentage of people.  I also have a strong suspicion that different tactics work better on different parts of the path.  
Actually, the main response I've gotten from people is, "you're just practicing Buddhism, but you're doing it wrong."  Isn't that kind of a ridiculous idea?  Haha, if it's Buddhism, then it's Buddhism.  If it's different, it's different.  You have to pick one or the other, no?
If someone said that here, I missed it.  What I got from it is that some aspects of some practioners of Buddhism sound similar to actualism (but not identical) and that descriptions of your attainments sound similar to some of the attainments described by Buddhists, like PCE.  Personally, I think actualism sounds a lot like psychology.  All the methods I've heard thusfar I have also heard used in various schools of psych.  The main variation from psych that I can see is the overarching belief system and labels associated with location of self and PCEs, etc. And also you have a strong emphasis (which I like very much) on not just making it to a 'normal' level of functioning but to continue working even after that, although that attitude is becoming more common with NLP and other self help methods as well.   
If you make the commitment to take complete responsibility for your emotions, they will not be mysterious at all - this has been my chief argument. The emotions are completely understandable, and this means they can be actively controlled through careful study of experience. I am always angry for a reason, scared for a reason, sad for a reason, etc, and these reasons are directly tied to belief I have - this is when I should be angry, this is when I should be scared, this is when I should be sad. When I have taken the time to directly challenge these beliefs, and change my mind about them (note that I am changing my own mind, there is no magical event that does it for me) I no longer feel like I should have an emotional reaction to events, and thus I don't. It's actually so straightforward it's stupid, but I've ignored it for my while life because I like my beliefs.
In that I agree with you although I got those kinds of info and ideas from the new age book called "Seth Speaks" plus various schools of psych.  But yeah, I do often wonder why I didn't do this sooner as it seems obvious now.  Pay attention to your self scripts (more psychobabble here) and you will start to see how you have been self programming yourself all along to do stupid (I mean unskillful) stuff.  Perhaps I just had to get to where I could see it in the first place. If it's so 'easy' then perhaps you can explain why others don't see its easiness and importance and why you didn't see it earlier?  IMO, you have to get to a certain point before you will be able to see it, which interestingly is like a whole bunch of stuff along the path. First you can't see it and even fight against it, then you finally see it and are amazed, and then shortly after that, you wonder what took you so long to see the obvious!  ;-P 
This is the ONLY thing in the way, so the only method that is needed is challenging beliefs that lead to negativity.
Are you sure it's the only thing and that you understand it fully?  From what I hear, many have claimed actual freedom and then recanted later.  I do suspect actualism can be quite useful, but choosing to believe it's the only thing worth doing and the only way that works and is good is a whole 'nother banana.
No concentration, no altering of perception or consciousness, no blissful jhanas or insights into the nature of consciousness. All that's needed is to give up that thing that says "here is when you feel sad, and here is when you feel angry." This isn't a mystery, it's just common sense, really.
What your method, which is not unsimilar to things I use myself, seems to me to be is a method and a tool and a good one, but I am unconvinced that it contains the totality of all that is to be learned ever. 
Edit 2: Not to use a pun, but striking at the core of someone's identity might be a great service to them.emoticon I do try to be kind, though. I'm not interested in hurting people's feelings.
Agreed.  Sometimes no pain no gain.  I wasn't actually attempting to indicate a value judgement on what you were doing or their belief systems or your belief systems or how people responded.  It is what it is.  The question if I recall correctly was one of wondering why people reacted negatively and so I gave my opinion as to why I thought you get a lot of flack and will probably continue to do so as long as your tactics remain the same.  It's group dynamics. 
-Eva 
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 8:45 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 8:45 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


Hmm do you really see the following two as being fundamentally the same insight?
1) Emotions are not 'me', because there is no 'me', 'me' is just an illusion, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', but there are still emotions because they were not 'me'
2) Emotions are 'me', both emotions and 'me' are just illusions, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', and there are also no more emotions because they were 'me'
It's not just a matter of semantics. They are substantially different insights. Plus the end results are different. Richard's experience is that he actually *is* the flesh and blood body's apperceptive consciousness. In Buddhist terms this would be delusory since it would be ascribing 'self' to consciousness, and consciousness is also impermanent and dukkha and therefore not-me, etc. Yet in actualism this is the me that I actually am, as opposed to the affective 'me' which is of an entirely different nature.
Best I can tell, in both, the end result is there is no me and it's all illusions.  You both get to the same place on the map.  The part about if there should be emotions or not, as far as I can tell, does not have common agreement in Buddhism so can't say if they agree or not on that one, although the leader of this group does seem to be more in the direction of the yes-on-emotions camp. 
Eva M Nie:
Because it certainly does seem that actualism also alters states of consciousness if you are going or PCE.
Well, suffice it to say that entering jhanas and nyanas and such are counter-productive with regards to experiencing PCEs.
In Buddhism, I got the impression that jhanas cultivation is a stepping stone skill, but not the ultimate goal (and some groups don't even emphasize it much at all).  In Buddhism, I got the impression that PCEs are a stepping stone skill but not the ultimate goal (and some groups don't even emphasize it much at all). 
I wonder why it is that when people come up with  a new system, they often are very invested in saying it's TOTALLY new and unlike other things.

How often does this really happen? Most of the time when people discuss "new" meditative techniques, they draw parallels with other ones.
Could be it's the less common approach but I've seen the same patterns in the past in every area of interest.  For instance, in remote viewing, a group started that said they were doing a whole different method that flew in the face of what other more 'old fashioned' groups were doing.  They seemed to have good ideas so I investigated.  What I found was they had lots of good ideas but also that they were not super knowledgeable about the intricacies of what other groups were doing so they thought their ideas were ALL new. When I pointed out many areas of agreement with their group's methods and other methods, they really didn't want to hear it AT ALL.  But what had happened, not surprisingly, was that all successful groups had learned many similar lessons about what actually worked on the ground when the rubber hits the road, even when they didn't know the other groups were doing it too.  Each had different emphasises sure, and different terminology, but also many similar ideas as well. 

What really brought the group patterns to my attention was when some news reporters came to cover some of the groups and shoot video, the news people had seen the pattern so many times in various areas of endeaver that they could immediately spot the new controversial group amongst the old school groups and they talked about the group patterns some to us.   Reporters tend to like the newer more radical groups because those people tend to be more risk takers who will go out on a limb, do live demos, etc, they are the type that is more likely to work unscripted and say more radical things which makes for more interesting video.  The new groups are the ones that are most likely to say and do things that stir the pot and they tend to have very similar patterns of behavior. 
They build up on what has already been done. Maybe they'll point out what they do differently but they'll generally agree on the goal being the same. To wit, no matter how diverse and variegated the Buddhist sects are, they will all ultimately agree that they are all aiming for what the Buddha taught.
Sure, but they don't agree on what the Buddha taught.  The pali cannon was written how many hundreds of years after Buddha died was it?  ;-)
However, after being with Richard & Vineeto in person for a week or so, I came to realize that they were experiencing something quite different than all the other people I had met that were on spiritual paths (e.g. Kenneth Folk, Tarin, Trent), that I was misinterpreting and misunderstanding what was written on the AFT site, that what was written on the AFT site does factually correspond with their (different) experiences, and thus that what is being described is actually quite different fundamentally, at the root of it.
OK well can't say I've seen the same myself yet.  You have not said any words that to me explain that opinion. 
From there it seems that it would be quite beneficial to others to understand that there are two choices to be made, here.
In order to accept that assumption, I would need to accept the earlier ones but I don't accept them.  I'm not really against them either but it takes a lot of evidence for me to decide to narrow my options into such tightly packed methods of belief and so far you have not come even close to giving me that evidence.
If someone thinks there is only one choice, when in fact there are two, then they can't make an informed decision.
If someone thinks there are two choices, when in fact there is only one, then they can't make an informed decision.  ;-)
But if they understand that there are two choices, then they can choose: stick with meditation, or try something different. The choice is theirs. And the choice to realize that there are choices, is also theirs, interestingly enough. I have realized that I can't make anybody understand anything.
No one can make anyone do anything.  But you have probably helped others to think of new things or new angles at least, even if they haven't become true believers.  ;-)

However the thing about the spiritual path is that the further you go down it, the further you get from the actualist path. It actually requires backtracking, undoing the spiritual conditioning, in order to be able to then make progress with actualism. Hence again the 180 degrees opposite thing. So a full blown Buddhist who meditates 4 hours a day and has attained to certain degrees of enlightenment, might actually be further from an actualist than that person worrying about their neighbors' lawn. I mean, just see how much intense friction there is between the meditators here and the actualists.
Although ironically, the main friction seems to be your assertions that actualism is totally new and different, not so much that the methods aren't potentially good in themselves. 
LOL!!  Well we'll have to see if actualism can bring peace on earth then!  Is that the standard of success?  Peace on Earth or you suck and should go home!  ;-P  That evangelical tones might just step on more than few isolated toes.    Anyway, psychology too has been working on peace for humans for quite a number of decades and they haven't gotten it either, but time will tell.
Well, what's the stated goal of Buddhism? Has it succeeded in the thousands of years it has existed? If not, why not? Maybe it doesn't work?

But yeah, time will tell whether actualism works. Maybe not, I really don't know. It is working for me though.
I figure many Buddhists would say that a main problem is few people are willing to do the work/meditation/introspection needed.   You may well find that actualism will find they'll have the same problem.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  
-Eva 
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 11:24 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/22/14 10:22 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hello,

William:
I would also suggest everyone go back and read my previous post at it contained loads of good information, some dazzling poetics and an all around slam dunk refutation to Felipe's pernicious lies.

Oh? Could you point to me where exactly did I lie, let alone perniciously? I thought we were having an honest conversation here. If you think that a disagreement in a debate is necessarily a lie, then what's the point really? Further, you have refuted nothing. If anything, what you did there was not answering my question. You only argued that I tried to put things into my own boxes, but you didn't even try to explain or expand things a lot more in your own vocabulary. 
 
Let’s review your main and original point in this thread:

William:
Love and compassion are not self-referential emotions, and to the extent that we are describing emotions as subjective reactions, they can not accurately be described as emotions. Love exists because there is. It is not for something else or from something or somebody.Those who would describe it in such tepid terms have not yet experienced or recognized love, and are describing the heights of affection. Love shits on your shallow displays.
It was triggered by a runnin theme I have come across in pragmatic dharma circles, which is the conflation of "love" with "affection".
 
First of all, do you agree that ‘affection’ is the broader term to refer to anything related to feelings, in other words, that it’s an umbrella term containing all the other words we use to refer to any feeling-related activity such as emotions, moods, passions, sentiments?

If we agree on this, we can move on to my main point, which is related to your most recent response:

William:
I have been busy with family stuff. More interesting than my giving you an answer would perhaps be wondering why you need me to put something into one of two boxes that you are familiar with? The second I say what it is, I've lost the thing already. And the endless tail chase goes on. What would it mean if it's not something that could be put into a box.
 
Finally, I have been through periods where it seemed that to have ever felt an emotion or to have ever taken a thought personally was insanity. I have had experiences of love more powerful than maybe anything else, with no trace of subjectivity, just love experiencing itself, justifying itself. I am not an armchair mystic. This has all been documented on kfd and you are welcome to read more there if you'd like. At this point I understand that in calling something freedom or pure, I am self-inflicting the suffering of negation and pretending that the pain is "out there" or "in here".
 
To me at least, after years of investigation, it’s not really a mystery when I’m operating affectively and when I’m not, and all the in-between states, be them strong emotions or very subtle feelings or affective states such as those compassionate or grateful or even subtler feelings related to conditioned happiness.

When you say all those things about conflations between ‘heights of affection’ and ‘love’, the thing that comes immediately to mind is that those don’t imply a difference in kind but a difference in degree. A difference in degree is not a difference in kind. When you experience states such as compassion or love you are experiencing them affectively. That is: no matter how subtle or stabilized or open or decentralized or non-subjective or aimless they are or appear to be, they have their root in your instinctual passions. There are subtle parts of you which  are irradiating such compassion and love.  You yourself said it well:

William:
Compassion is derived from the Greek: "Com" with and "passion" feeling, or "suffering", depending on whom you ask. So this is to feel "with". Separation is gone. Me feeling bad for you is pity. 

And I did say, and I repeat: either feeling FOR you {pity} or feeling WITH you {compassion} obviously requires an affective activity, as it implies a connection between two psyches regardless of power positions {'for' vs. 'with' you}, just as empathy and sympathy do. Buddhism 'ends' the separation by unifying affective energies, by sharing those feelings or by expanding them to gargantuan proportions that encompass all sentient beings, and not by eliminating the affective faculty that make that very connection or expansion possible.

Now, compare what you said there with the realization of being sans emotions, being only this body, totally autonomous and completely by itself, lacking any vibe or affective transmition whatsoever, not irradiating anything, not recieving anything from other sentient beings, etc. Here, the end of the separation comes from the realization that, once the psyche has gone, I'm just a material piece of universe just like the rest. As this body is naturally connected from that premise, it doesn't need extra ingredients such as love or compassion to make connections because the separation was an illusion all along. 
There is no compassionate or loving drives or states whatsoever in the actual world.

Do those states really look similar to you? If not, what it seems to be the main difference? 

 
Another thing is that this affective activities aren’t really that mysterious as Buddhism often make them to be. You can see manifestations, although more rudimentary, of such instincts in other animals, not just the human ones, and they are clearly part of an instinctual program to propagate each species. If you want to remain cryptic and mysterious and fundamentally agnostic towards your own affective activity, you are free to do it, but that doesn’t mean that affective parts of you are still in operation, and, therefore, that there may be a lot of unseen ‘self’ operating in you, even if you consider such states to be selfless.

In summary, if you value such affective manifestations as valid ways[1] to be free or achieve freedom, go ahead and cultivate them or live with them, but I’d suggest that maybe there are ways which lie outside of Buddhism that could make you change your opinion in regards to to what extent you’ve been operating from your affection {the affective faculty is more pervasive, tentacly and cunning than what it seems to be}, be it in stronger or subtler forms, and how they relate or not relate to different paradigms of freedom.

So no, I haven’t told any lies, I’m just speaking from my own experience and practice just like you speak from yours. I’ve been Buddhist too and practicing in a tradition with a lot of emphasis on feelings, and I’ve felt them from all the range from the stronger all-in concentration on compassion to subtler feelings of emptiness from tantric practices. Although, of course, I cannot assure you that I got to feel what you’re feeling, I can sincerely make projections according to these experiences and comparing what I’ve been learning in this other method. But, anyway,  it’s not only me, a lot of actualists and not actualists out there spoke about how both methods lead to different states once they sincerely put them into practice: Buddhism transcending affection or keeping the ‘good’ side of the affective package, and actualism eliminating the affective faculty from the root.

William: 
Lastly, let's speak for a moment about reproducability. In order for a method to be useful it must be reproducible. It should, in effect, perform as it says it does. Do you know anyone who has practiced AF for years who you have regular contact with, who has remained in a permanent PCE? Of the many I have encountered in this scene for a number of years, I have seen one after one claim total freedom from any emotional pain, only to recant with time. They too were convinced they had found something entirely new and different, only to cash in their chips when humanness or humility returned.
 
Of course if what you decide to count is the people from the DhO you’re not going to find people who are actually free, as they were not practicing actualism per se but a hybrid practice where they even valued enlightenment as a valid way to get to there, contrary to the instructions of the original actualism method.

There is, however, a report which says that at least 7 people are actually free, other reports of people who are virtually free or very close to be virtually free, and reports of people benefiting consistently and progressively. All this in a 15 or 20 year span that this method has been around publicly.

Anyway, I just want to be clear that, in having this conversation, I’m not defending anything nor trying to be insulting in any way. I’m just sharing and discussing from what I’ve been learning, and not trying to take advantage from dictionaries or to be reductionist or tricky or to just plainly lie, as you seem to be thinking. I’m just being sincere as I’m expecting you to be, coming from your experience.

Cheers,
Felipe

--
[1] William:
They too were convinced they had found something entirely new and different, only to cash in their chips when humanness or humility returned.

It's interesting that you mention humility here. Do you consider humility as an affective state or do you consider it a thing that is only there once you are free, just like you say you experience compassion and love? Do you consider humility as good quality to cultivate just as the brahmahivaras? Do you think of it as a valuable tool to get to the truth and freedom?  
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 10:07 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:31 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


Hmm do you really see the following two as being fundamentally the same insight?
1) Emotions are not 'me', because there is no 'me', 'me' is just an illusion, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', but there are still emotions because they were not 'me'
2) Emotions are 'me', both emotions and 'me' are just illusions, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', and there are also no more emotions because they were 'me'
It's not just a matter of semantics. They are substantially different insights. Plus the end results are different. Richard's experience is that he actually *is* the flesh and blood body's apperceptive consciousness. In Buddhist terms this would be delusory since it would be ascribing 'self' to consciousness, and consciousness is also impermanent and dukkha and therefore not-me, etc. Yet in actualism this is the me that I actually am, as opposed to the affective 'me' which is of an entirely different nature.
Best I can tell, in both, the end result is there is no me and it's all illusions.

Really. In one state with no 'me' there are emotions, and in another state with no 'me' there are no emotions, and to you that's the same result? It's not clear that the 'me' referred to in each is different, or rather that the understanding of what 'me' is in each is different?
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:55 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:55 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Eva M Nie:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


Hmm do you really see the following two as being fundamentally the same insight?
1) Emotions are not 'me', because there is no 'me', 'me' is just an illusion, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', but there are still emotions because they were not 'me'
2) Emotions are 'me', both emotions and 'me' are just illusions, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', and there are also no more emotions because they were 'me'
It's not just a matter of semantics. They are substantially different insights. Plus the end results are different. Richard's experience is that he actually *is* the flesh and blood body's apperceptive consciousness. In Buddhist terms this would be delusory since it would be ascribing 'self' to consciousness, and consciousness is also impermanent and dukkha and therefore not-me, etc. Yet in actualism this is the me that I actually am, as opposed to the affective 'me' which is of an entirely different nature.
Best I can tell, in both, the end result is there is no me and it's all illusions.

Really. In one state with no 'me' there are emotions, and in another state with no 'me' there are no emotions, and to you that's the same result? It's not clear that the 'me' referred to in each is different, or rather that the understanding of what 'me' is in each is different??
So, are you saying , in one view there are emotions but they arise due to cause and effect and thus , through wisdom, could be understood to be the resultant of impersonal process?  This view assumes at full understanding that there is no feeling of an "I or me", ever again, but emotions could still arise, they would just be seen for what they are, phenomenon.

And on the other view, that the "I or Me" is not perceived, and that since the emotions were a subset of the "I or me",  therefore , not from wisdom is this an understanding, but it is the actual experience of reality as being separate and cut off completely from the feeling of an "I or me" and therefore also cut off from emotions entirely?

Does this sound closer to what you are trying to explain?

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 10:22 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 10:22 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
So, are you saying , in one view there are emotions but they arise due to cause and effect and thus , through wisdom, could be understood to be the resultant of impersonal process?  This view assumes at full understanding that there is no feeling of an "I or me", ever again, but emotions could still arise, they would just be seen for what they are, phenomenon.

And on the other view, that the "I or Me" is not perceived, and that since the emotions were a subset of the "I or me",  therefore , not from wisdom is this an understanding, but it is the actual experience of reality as being separate and cut off completely from the feeling of an "I or me" and therefore also cut off from emotions entirely?

Does this sound closer to what you are trying to explain?

Hmm... maybe. I think you got the main distinction down: in one approach emotions are or can be the result of an impersonal process, so there can be no "I or Me" but still be emotions, while in the other, emotions *are* a personal process, so with no "I or Me" there can't still be emotions.

I just wanted to point out two things:
* It's not that the "I or Me" is not perceived, it's that that which generated the "I or Me" - the affective faculty - is removed. The distinction is important: in one case, it's there but being ignored and thus not perceived, while in the other, it's simply not there so there's nothing to ignore and thus it isn't perceived.
* Once this happens, it is the actual experience of reality as, not being "cut off completely", but rather, there simply being no feeling of an "I or me" whatsoever, and therefore also no emotions whatsoever. Again the distinction is that in one case, there are emotions and experience and experience is cut off from emotions, while in the other there is just experience with no emotions to be cut off from.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 1:19 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 11:36 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Psi Phi:
So, are you saying , in one view there are emotions but they arise due to cause and effect and thus , through wisdom, could be understood to be the resultant of impersonal process?  This view assumes at full understanding that there is no feeling of an "I or me", ever again, but emotions could still arise, they would just be seen for what they are, phenomenon.

And on the other view, that the "I or Me" is not perceived, and that since the emotions were a subset of the "I or me",  therefore , not from wisdom is this an understanding, but it is the actual experience of reality as being separate and cut off completely from the feeling of an "I or me" and therefore also cut off from emotions entirely?

Does this sound closer to what you are trying to explain?

Hmm... maybe. I think you got the main distinction down: in one approach emotions are or can be the result of an impersonal process, so there can be no "I or Me" but still be emotions, while in the other, emotions *are* a personal process, so with no "I or Me" there can't still be emotions.

I just wanted to point out two things:
* It's not that the "I or Me" is not perceived, it's that that which generated the "I or Me" - the affective faculty - is removed. The distinction is important: in one case, it's there but being ignored and thus not perceived, while in the other, it's simply not there so there's nothing to ignore and thus it isn't perceived.
* Once this happens, it is the actual experience of reality as, not being "cut off completely", but rather, there simply being no feeling of an "I or me" whatsoever, and therefore also no emotions whatsoever. Again the distinction is that in one case, there are emotions and experience and experience is cut off from emotions, while in the other there is just experience with no emotions to be cut off from.

"Whewwy Kawowow!"  Huh?  No really, okay, so I think I am more coming "from" the direction of being cut off from emotions and trying to actually develop emotions and/or being able to perceive them.  A few years ago , I was finally able to experience the , for better words, the opening of the Heart Chakra, Anahata.  Before that I really had little clue as to what was this "love" everyone was talking about, though I have always loved my parents, my wife, and my children, this was like an opening of a whole new level, I could love them without expecting anything in return, a love independent of their actions.  This is being further developed within, I have never really "hated" anyone too seriously, I have always considered everyone a friend, even when they didn't think so.  But, this does seem to be a real feeling, and by having this feeling, and being in touch with it, IMO also puts one in touch with others.  

I think when one walks into a room most people can "feel" if there is negative vibes, or "positive" vibes, "the amosphere was charged with excitement", etc.  I think it is important to not only be aware of these subtle energies we emit from our body/mind, but also important to stay aware of them , in ourselves and in others, empathy.  I have always been very sensitive and empathetic to others, though I used to ignore or suppress this with indifference, and mostly used politeness, and moral values as my compass upon how to act/not act.  This is all changing now, there is a new pathway. 

For me there is still some undiscovered science, so this is speculation.  Say humans are receptive, like antennae, (which we are) and one "transmits" their emotional energy into the environment, (which we do, since energy obviously is not a contained close looped system), and then we go further and understand resonance, i.e. (put two tuning forks side by side, strike one and both will vibrate to the same frequency), so then there is most likely a Human Resonance occurring, (put two humans side by side, one emits hatred , then so will the one next to them, or reverse, one emits Metta, then so will the one next to them)

So to pursue a path that cuts one off from emotions, and awareness thereof, IMHO, seems unwise, even if one thought they were pure, from a logical standpoint/viewpoint, they wouldn't really know for sure, as they have no emotion feelings to relate or compare to, they would be ignorant of emotions in themselves and others.

Again,, I am not attacking any practices, and just trying to dicuss / not argue, for the benefit of all involved, and all not involved.

As one folk to another,

Psi Phi
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 11:47 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 11:47 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Eva M Nie:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


Hmm do you really see the following two as being fundamentally the same insight?
1) Emotions are not 'me', because there is no 'me', 'me' is just an illusion, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', but there are still emotions because they were not 'me'
2) Emotions are 'me', both emotions and 'me' are just illusions, once 'me' is seen for the illusion, there is no more 'me', and there are also no more emotions because they were 'me'
It's not just a matter of semantics. They are substantially different insights. Plus the end results are different. Richard's experience is that he actually *is* the flesh and blood body's apperceptive consciousness. In Buddhist terms this would be delusory since it would be ascribing 'self' to consciousness, and consciousness is also impermanent and dukkha and therefore not-me, etc. Yet in actualism this is the me that I actually am, as opposed to the affective 'me' which is of an entirely different nature.
Best I can tell, in both, the end result is there is no me and it's all illusions.

Really. In one state with no 'me' there are emotions, and in another state with no 'me' there are no emotions, and to you that's the same result? It's not clear that the 'me' referred to in each is different, or rather that the understanding of what 'me' is in each is different?
Your label of 'emotionless' sounds similar other poeple's description of higher or different or evolved emotions.  I think I see what you are saying when you say 'emotionless' but it's not how I or others would probably choose to describe it because we were not trained to think in the actualist way with actualist terminology.  I do recognize the PCE state you are describing, I just have never called it 'emotionless.'  Therefore I suspect that your PCE state is similar to what others experienced, just that you are using different terminology and then saying different terminology means a different state.  But different terminology only means different terminology. 

As for different choice on what to label 'me,' I am not sure it makes a huge difference what is your current 'me' label considering that in all the methods, buddist or not, perspective is expected to shift over time.  Current perspectives are expected to shift, apparently in the end all to the same place of no me and illusions.  Do I really think it's super important what intermediary perspectives you try to cultivate if you end up in the same place?  Only so much as if one way works better than another.  Either way you are expected to investigate the sensate universe deeply, you probably label some stuff as this or that, and then the more you understand it, your perspective continues to shift.  One guy saw a big white rock and called it 'not me' and investigated it some and the surroundings some.  Another guy saw a big white rock and called it 'me' and investigated it more and maybe the surroundings a bit less.  Maybe they spend some time arguing over the proper label of the rock.  In the end, the true identity of the big white rock does not change, only the labels for it.  In the end, both investigators after much investigation come to a conclusion of 'no me' and 'illusions.'  That's pretty cool!  And IMO if the end result is the similarity across methods, then that is probably the most important part of the story and tells me all roads lead to Rome.
-Eva 
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 12:31 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 12:01 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
Your label of 'emotionless' sounds similar other poeple's description of higher or different or evolved emotions.  I think I see what you are saying when you say 'emotionless' but it's not how I or others would probably choose to describe it because we were not trained to think in the actualist way with actualist terminology.  I do recognize the PCE state you are describing, I just have never called it 'emotionless.'  Therefore I suspect that your PCE state is similar to what others experienced, just that you are using different terminology and then saying different terminology means a different state.  But different terminology only means different terminology.

You have two choices of how to take what I am saying when you see me describing the PCE as completely devoid of affect, having nothing to do with any sort of emotion* at all, that emotional joy and felicity is but a pale imitation of the actuality of the PCE:

1) I am actually describing something that has nothing to do with emotions.
2) I am not really describing something that has nothing to do with emotions, I choose to use this inaccurate description for whatever reason, and thus it is the same as experiences you have had which do not match up with the description.

How have you concluded that it's #2 that is the case, and not #1? That is, why do you doubt my ability to discern what is an emotion and what is not?

To put it differently, it seems strange to say: I have experienced what you are describing, but you're describing it wrong. Why are you so sure that you weren't just experiencing something other than what I am accurately describing?

-----
* And just to drive the point home, "emotion" includes William's "non self-referential" love and compassion.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 1:44 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 1:42 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Maybe we should define emotions first, so that then we can define emtionless.

In Buddhism, as far as I can see, there is no term for emotions, it seems that it is linked and intertwined with other mental processes,   

See second paragraph of paper in link


http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org/ScientificPublications/2005/EkmanBuddhistCurrentDirectionsInPsychologicalScience.pdf


So in Buddhist terminology, there is no such thing as separate emotions, so there really can't be much of a discussion of "emotionless", unless one were to start ripping out the human anatomy.

The Wiki definition of emotions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

In psychology and philosophyemotion is a subjectiveconscious experience characterized primarily by psychophysiologicalexpressionsbiological reactions, and mental states. Emotion is often associated and considered reciprocally influential with mood,temperamentpersonalitydisposition, and motivation.[1] It also is influenced by hormones and neurotransmitters such as dopamine,noradrenalineserotoninoxytocincortisol and GABA. Emotion is often the driving force behind motivation, positive or negative.[2] An alternative definition of emotion is a "positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity."[3]The physiology of emotion is closely linked to arousal of the nervous system with various states and strengths of arousal relating, apparently, to particular emotions. Emotions are a complex state of feeling that results in physical and psychological changes that influence our behaviour. Those acting primarily on emotion may seem as if they are not thinking, but cognition is an important aspect of emotion, particularly the interpretation of events. For example, the experience of fear usually occurs in response to a threat. The cognition of danger and subsequent arousal of the nervous system (e.g. rapid heartbeat and breathing, sweating, muscle tension) is an integral component to the subsequent interpretation and labeling of that arousal as an emotional state. Emotion is also linked to behavioral tendency. Extroverted people are more likely to be social and express their emotions, while introverted people are more likely to be more socially withdrawn and conceal their emotions.Research on emotion has increased significantly over the past two decades with many fields contributing including psychology,neuroscienceendocrinologymedicinehistorysociology, and even computer science. The numerous theories that attempt to explain the origin, neurobiology, experience, and function of emotions have only fostered more intense research on this topic. Current areas of research in the concept of emotion include the development of materials that stimulate and elicit emotion. In addition PET scans and fMRI scans help study the affective processes in the brain.[4]


Again, in accordance to the definition above, one could not really be "emotionless", as defined. Unless, one had some sort of Alexythemia, which apparently 1 in 10 of us do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia

Alexithymia
 /ˌlɛksəˈθmiə/ is a personality construct characterized by the sub-clinical inability to identify and describe emotions in the self.[1] The core characteristics of alexithymia are marked dysfunction in emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relating.[2] Furthermore, individuals suffering from alexithymia also have difficulty in distinguishing and appreciating the emotions of others, which is thought to lead to unempathic and ineffective emotional responding.[2] Alexithymia is prevalent in approximately 10% of the general population and is known to be comorbid with a number of psychiatric conditions.[3]
The term "alexithymia" was coined by psychotherapist Peter Sifneos in 1973.[4][5] According to the OED, the word comes from the Greek words λέξις (lexis, "speech") and θυμός (thumos, "soul, as the seat of emotion, feeling, and thought") modified by an alpha privative, literally meaning "no words for emotions". 

So, again, trying to sincerely understand for the benefit of all, what is , specifically in Actualism, Emotion and Emotionless?  Not trying to put you on the spot, if one doesn't know they don't know, and for one, I don't know.

In Peace

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:55 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:11 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
To me, it's simple.  The PCE has no internal feelings whatsoever.  I can see, touch, taste, smell, and feel pressure on my skin.  I can feel if there is internal pain or not.  Aside from this, any concept of "I feel good" or "I feel bad" or "I am _______" is simply gone completely.  If you asked me, I would simply say there is nothing there.

This isn't complicated in the least.  If you haven't experienced it, that's fine, but it's like beoman said - we're not all complete idiots who aren't in touch with our emotions, haha.  I know what it means to feel something, you all do too.  Now just imagine there is nothing there and all that's left is the senses.

Thoughts also still arise, but they are just soundless sounds, they have no feeling in the head, throat, heart, or gut attached to them. I can think about anything at all and my old internal reactions don't come up.

This isn't alexithmia either. The reason the PCE happens is because the emotions all subside (and you can watch them subside as well - it's an intentional thing that happens). There is a very distinct difference between experiencing an internal pressure and not experiencing it.

If we say the PCE feels good, it's because it feels like slipping into a hot bath, eating a chocolate bar, and having a cool breeze play over the face.  When all the internal feelings go away, it feels like the body is finally relaxed after a lifetime of torment.  Even the good feelings are like internal muscle cramps. I always notice how incredibly my leg muscles feel, and every breath tastes sweet and has a fullness to it. Everything delights the senses because sensing itself is incredible.

You mention the chakras, psi.  Just imagine if they were removed completely, and there you go.  It's silly to make this so complicated and pull out hundreds of dictionary definitions.  It's just very straightforward, IMHO. The first time I experienced a PCE, I called it emotionless right away and started doing Google searches to find out what it was. Instead of focusing on what it isn't (Omg, the emotions are gone?! You must all want to be serial killers! What about when you see children getting ripped to pieces by wolves? Haha, sorry.) Instead, focus on what it IS - the body finally freed from representing intangible psychic ideas (emotions) as muscle cramps. Muscle cramps and itches can definitely feel good, but they're still muscle cramps.

It's so freeing because it just feels like there is nothing trying to coerce you or guide you. The thing we most identify with - the core of our awareness - is finally left alone. Actually, you might say it's the only time I've felt like I actually had "free will."

The absence of malice really is indifference.  You just have to carry indifference all the way.  If you are indifferent about one thing, and you enjoy another thing, then there is a comparison there.  The thing you are indifferent to will be "in the way", so to speak.  In the PCE, you are indifferent to all things, so, by extension, everything is equally interesting.  The mind has no need to move anywhere, look for anything, want anything, need anything.  Simply existing is finally enough - and you will be existing as long as you exist, so it really does advertise itself as a "final resting place" so to speak.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:40 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:37 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao has the right idea. It really is as simple as that. It's not a definition game. Emotions are intuitively felt. Just about every single human being knows what it's like to feel an emotion. That is precisely what is gone in a PCE. It's really obvious in the experience. It's also obvious how one might misconstrue "emotionless" as gray/dull/etc., which is not the experience at all. It really is a pleasurable, enjoyable experience wherein the pleasure and enjoyment is simply not of the same nature as those intuitively felt emotions.

In any case, the wiki definition of emotions you gave serves well enough, and I don't see why according to that definition, one couldn't be "emotionless".
It is that subjective, conscious experience which does not occur in a PCE.
Emotion is often associated and considered reciprocally influential with mood, temperamentpersonalitydisposition, and motivation.[1] It also is influenced by hormones and neurotransmitters such as dopamine,noradrenalineserotoninoxytocincortisol and GABA.
Sure, and with no emotion, those other things are also either absent or no longer influenced by emotions.
Emotion is often the driving force behind motivation, positive or negative.[2] 
Right-o, so your motivation to do anything in a PCE is not emotional in nature.
An alternative definition of emotion is a "positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity."[3] The physiology of emotion is closely linked to arousal of the nervous system with various states and strengths of arousal relating, apparently, to particular emotions.
Right, and it's those particular patterns of physiological activity that no longer occur. In particular...
Emotions are a complex state of feeling that results in physical and psychological changes that influence our behaviour.
Note how emotions are the complex state of feeling, and that complex state of feelings *results in* physical and psychological changes. I would like to point out that the emotion itself is separate from the physiological changes it causes. So the emotion is not the elevated heart beat or the sweaty palms or the palpitating heart - it is that which causes the heart beat to elevate, etc. The emotion itself is actually not picked up by any of the five senses - you don't see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it. You sense the physiological changes with your senses, sure - you sense that your heart is elevated - but the fear itself is non-sensory. When the complex state of feeling no longer occurs, then neither do those physical and psychological changes. Nor do the emotions influence your behavior any longer.

As to Alexithymia, it's different from a PCE, for reasons I alluded to earlier:
Alexithymia /ˌlɛksəˈθmiə/ is a personality construct characterized by the sub-clinical inability to identify and describe emotions in the self.[1] 
It's not an absence of emotions - it's a presence of emotions, yet an inability to identify and describe those emotions. Of course with the absence of emotions there would be an inability to identify and describe emotions in the self, seeing as how there are none.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:57 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:49 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Of course with the absence of emotions there would be an inability to identify and describe emotions in the self, seeing as how there are none.


I think in practice this is different though. People who have Alexithmia and depersonalization will report that the experience is negative - which means negative emotions are still operating, they've just been buried away.

Actually, there is a way you can induce an alexithmic state - pay exclusive attention to the physical representations of emotions and ignore their content. I was doing this for a while thinking it would lead me to a PCE, but it actually led to the bizarre feeling of having no emotions but still suffering from the contractions associated with them. The state came on with a feeling like the brain fell over (if that makes any sense...). The mixture of anger and worry I was feeling at the time felt like a really bad case of heartburn. I had to intentionally get myself back to an emotional state before I could sort it all out.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:58 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 2:58 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Of course with the absence of emotions there would be an inability to identify and describe emotions in the self, seeing as how there are none.


I think in practice this is different though. People who have Alexerithmia and depersonalization will report that the experience is negative - which means negative emotions are still operating, they've just been buried away.

Right. I meant that in a PCE, you don't have any emotions in the self, so you can't describe them since there's nothing to describe. But you do have the ability to detect that there are no emotions anywhere. Maybe it's just a pedantic point.

Not Tao:
Actually, there is a way you can induce an alexerithic state - pay exclusive attention to the physical representations of emotions and ignore their content. I was doing this for a while thinking it would lead me to a PCE, but it actually led to the bizarre feeling of having no emotions but still suffering from the contractions associated with them. The mixture of anger and worry I was feeling at the time felt like a really bad case of heartburn. I had to intentionally get myself back to an emotional state before I could sort it all out.

Lol damn, sometimes it's like you are writing about my own experiences! Similar things happened to me. For me it was because of a misconstrual of the actualism method being "to pay attention to the senses", which is quite far from what it actually is. I noticed the same: I had a habit, when reacting emotionally, to shut down and focus on the physical aspects of it, which led to it manifesting as annoying tensions in the body that I couldn't figure out what to do with yet which I kept paying attention to. I had to figure out how to stop doing this, actually feel the emotion without reducing it to non-specific tensions, before being able to go any further.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 3:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 3:06 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Lol damn, sometimes it's like you are writing about my own experiences! Similar things happened to me. For me it was because of a misconstrual of the actualism method being "to pay attention to the senses", which is quite far from what it actually is. I noticed the same: I had a habit, when reacting emotionally, to shut down and focus on the physical aspects of it, which led to it manifesting as annoying tensions in the body that I couldn't figure out what to do with yet which I kept paying attention to. I had to figure out how to stop doing this, actually feel the emotion without reducing it to non-specific tensions, before being able to go any further.


Haha, exactly! It's actually a pretty terrible experience (IMHO). My personal theory is that this is the cause of the Dark Night.

I also remember reading a lot about "shadow being" on here back when I was browsing all the actualism threads. I wonder if this isn't what's being referred to.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 4:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 4:54 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Not Tao has the right idea. It really is as simple as that. It's not a definition game. Emotions are intuitively felt. Just about every single human being knows what it's like to feel an emotion. That is precisely what is gone in a PCE. It's really obvious in the experience. It's also obvious how one might misconstrue "emotionless" as gray/dull/etc., which is not the experience at all. It really is a pleasurable, enjoyable experience wherein the pleasure and enjoyment is simply not of the same nature as those intuitively felt emotions.

In any case, the wiki definition of emotions you gave serves well enough, and I don't see why according to that definition, one couldn't be "emotionless".
It is that subjective, conscious experience which does not occur in a PCE.
Emotion is often associated and considered reciprocally influential with mood, temperamentpersonalitydisposition, and motivation.[1] It also is influenced by hormones and neurotransmitters such as dopamine,noradrenalineserotoninoxytocincortisol and GABA.
Sure, and with no emotion, those other things are also either absent or no longer influenced by emotions.
Emotion is often the driving force behind motivation, positive or negative.[2] 
Right-o, so your motivation to do anything in a PCE is not emotional in nature.
An alternative definition of emotion is a "positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity."[3] The physiology of emotion is closely linked to arousal of the nervous system with various states and strengths of arousal relating, apparently, to particular emotions.
Right, and it's those particular patterns of physiological activity that no longer occur. In particular...
Emotions are a complex state of feeling that results in physical and psychological changes that influence our behaviour.
Note how emotions are the complex state of feeling, and that complex state of feelings *results in* physical and psychological changes. I would like to point out that the emotion itself is separate from the physiological changes it causes. So the emotion is not the elevated heart beat or the sweaty palms or the palpitating heart - it is that which causes the heart beat to elevate, etc. The emotion itself is actually not picked up by any of the five senses - you don't see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it. You sense the physiological changes with your senses, sure - you sense that your heart is elevated - but the fear itself is non-sensory. When the complex state of feeling no longer occurs, then neither do those physical and psychological changes. Nor do the emotions influence your behavior any longer.

As to Alexithymia, it's different from a PCE, for reasons I alluded to earlier:
Alexithymia /ˌlɛksəˈθmiə/ is a personality construct characterized by the sub-clinical inability to identify and describe emotions in the self.[1] 
It's not an absence of emotions - it's a presence of emotions, yet an inability to identify and describe those emotions. Of course with the absence of emotions there would be an inability to identify and describe emotions in the self, seeing as how there are none.

Oh, okay so a PCE is a pleasurable enjoyable state that is emotionless, unless it's negative emotions of which the consciousness just ignores, but it registers the changes in body chemistry, but by not having an emotional reaction because which don't actually happen even though the changes in body chemistry occur.

So, it's not an absence of emotions but rather a presence of emotions, but even though one knows the emotion are there, they really don't know they are there, seeing as how they aren't really there not there, in an unidentifiable type of way.  

And also, emotions don't influence behavior any more that one is aware of, because they are not aware of emotions, as emotions, but aware of them as a physical reaction, but not affected by them physically, though the realm of consciousness does reside "in" the senses, which do not register the emotions, just the reactions of the emotional response, which actually doesn't happen.

Plus, one can get rid of english and throw out dictionaries, they simply aren't needed anymore.  Definitions will mean whatever one wants them to mean, cause one doesn't have to be held accountable because there's no empathetic or sympathetic reaction anymore, one can care without the emotion of caring, and feel love and compassion, but not get tangled up in the warm hearted sensations, because even though one is aware of the physical changes , it's just an illusion.

My heart goes out to you guys, you win, I concede, There is a  feeling of great joy in my heart area now, (Perhaps relief knowing this thread is on the passing away moments, Anicca, I will be sending Metta your way, even though it will be below your levels of awareness, well, I mean you'll feel it, you just won't feel it feel it.  

Live Long and Prosper

Psi Phi

P.S.  Hopefully there are no hard feelings that you don't feel, I have enjoyed the show, and somehow feel more connected, There is Peace
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 5:27 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 5:25 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Psi Phi, I have no idea how you got to those conclusions from what I wrote. Maybe this last paragraph was confusing? I have re-worded it:

As to Alexithymia, it's different from a PCE, for reasons I alluded to earlier:
Alexithymia /ˌeɪlɛksəˈθaɪmiə/ is a personality construct characterized by the sub-clinical inability to identify and describe emotions in the self.[1]

*Alexithymia* is not an absence of emotions - *Alexithymia* is a presence of emotions, yet an inability to identify and describe those emotions. Of course with the absence of emotions *in a PCE* there would be an inability to identify and describe emotions in the self, seeing as how there are *no emotions in the self in a PCE*.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:05 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Maybe I'll try one last time, because you guys are actually nice and respectful, good people, but I have to use my definitions, my experience, and maybe we'll never agree that it is a match.

My view, you have a method that allows you to drop the ego within the present moment, and by connecting those moments it adds up to longer and longer periods of non-egoic awareness, Pure Awareness.  By dropping the ego, what I mean is there is the registering of sensations as pleasurable and/or unpleasurable, BUT nothing else added, no Emotional layer added.  There is no Craving i.e. the emotions of wanting or not-wanting (insert full range of emotional responses here).  So you have abandoned the illusion of the Ego, the "I", the "reactionist", and by doing so the Craving level does not arise, i.e. the emotional response system is not triggered.  Yet, there is still the awareness of pleasure and pain, just not the habitual emotional reaction.

So, for example, I might spill water on my shirt, and feel the water, but have absolutley no emotional response, not get mad or anything.

Another example, while driving my truck, someone might swerve into my lane unexpectedly, I simply react and move aside, BUT, heart rate does not elevate and I don't get mad or fearful.

I might stub my toe, and feel the pain as pain, but not react emotionally, by getting mad at someone for "leaving things lying around" or whatever, or feel remorse for banging my toe, and let it ruin my day by feeling negative emotions for hours.

Someone might drop something , and create a loud "BANG", and not even flinch, maybe not even bother to turn around and gawk, as the event has already passed, and everyhing was considered safe, no reaction (it wasn't needed), no heart rate elevation, etc

One might see something in a store, yet the eyes scan on by without clinging and emotionally wanting and longing for the item.

Does any of this sound about right?

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:35 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:16 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Sounds good to me so far.  I'd say how you got there, and whether the state needs to be maintained is important as well.

EDIT: What I mean by this is, if pure awareness arrives by staying in the present moment, there will be a tension there to try maintaining the state.  If it's arrived at through enjoyment and appreciation, the only thing that will cause it to go will be a trigger that was previously overlooked.  So maybe the car swerving causes you to slip out of the state.  The next step in the Actualist method is to examine why and let go of the belief that caused it to happen so it won't happen again (in this case, that anger or fear will help deal with these kinds of situations).  Someone who practiced staying in the present moment would try to let go of the memory of the event and coming back to the senses.

Which of these do you think is closest to your practice?
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:27 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:27 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Maybe then it is best to look at the actual experiences, and not all of the definitions, and the methods used, for the benefit of all.  But for now, I am really really tired, sorry about the smarta** post earlier, it just seemed everyone was going round in circles.  It is true that once the practice gets going, and maintained, that at a point it kind of rolls along on its own effortlessly, and if it stops, just keep nudging, keep dropping the emotional reactions if they do arise asap, but without using more emotions, then glide along as long as possible, wash , rinse, repeat.  I have other terms for this stuff that may or not make sense, just my view.  Now, I need sleep...

Thanks for your patience

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:38 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 6:37 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Hey, sorry, I added an edit on there.  I'm just curious how this applies to what you do:

What I mean by this is, if pure awareness arrives by staying in the present moment, there will be a tension there to try maintaining the state. If it's arrived at through enjoyment and appreciation, the only thing that will cause it to go will be a trigger that was previously overlooked. So maybe the car swerving causes you to slip out of the state. The next step in the Actualist method is to examine why and let go of the belief that caused it to happen so it won't happen again (in this case, that anger or fear will help deal with these kinds of situations). Someone who practiced staying in the present moment would try to let go of the memory of the event by coming back to the senses.

Which of these do you think is closest to your practice?
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 7:53 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 7:06 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
Hey Not Tao!

I couldn't exactly pinpoint where the discussion regarding the impersonality of feelings was, but as much as I can elaborate it goes something like this:

Prior to any form of awakening for me there was a "sensation of being" that was synonymous with "being itself", this sensation was manifest as a pain in my chest, it was a thorn, and I sought to annihilate it. Post-awakening (or some form of awakening) there is no longer a thorn, it is difficult to describe, I still an experience of emotions (or at least evidence of their existence, I hold grudges for example) but there is no "thorny friction", in other words they don't seem to be "apart from me", like an "external object".

The thorn is not "pulled out", it's not "dissolved", there is no "absence", it's like that sutta in the Udana, not here or there



thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 8:56 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 8:56 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Felipe: You're trying too hard, bruh. The difference between you and me  is if I find out tomorrow all my ideas are wrong it won't change a thing. Life keeps arriving. You built a house with someone else's thoughts and now you hide inside, cursing the wind.
            I do not answer your questions because it feels like in doing so I would be in someway denigrating to the integrity of the conversation. Also, they're boring to me. Also, who still listens to Lenny Kravitz?

Bill
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:15 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:15 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Hey, sorry, I added an edit on there.  I'm just curious how this applies to what you do:

What I mean by this is, if pure awareness arrives by staying in the present moment, there will be a tension there to try maintaining the state. If it's arrived at through enjoyment and appreciation, the only thing that will cause it to go will be a trigger that was previously overlooked. So maybe the car swerving causes you to slip out of the state. The next step in the Actualist method is to examine why and let go of the belief that caused it to happen so it won't happen again (in this case, that anger or fear will help deal with these kinds of situations). Someone who practiced staying in the present moment would try to let go of the memory of the event by coming back to the senses.

Which of these do you think is closest to your practice?
I am tired , so here Ven Khema,from Missouri,  explains this better than I anyway, she's awesome.  Just set aside any predjudices and read as if it was entirley new, jamais vu

http://library.dhammasukha.org/identifying-the-key-to-freedom.html
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:24 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:24 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
I am tired , so here Ven Khema,from Missouri,  explains this better than I anyway, she's awesome.  Just set aside any predjudices and read as if it was entirley new, jamais vu

http://library.dhammasukha.org/identifying-the-key-to-freedom.html

Take a break, get some rest! This stuff is best discussed with a fresh mind and while in a good mood =).
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:45 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 9:43 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
James Yen:
Hey Not Tao!

I couldn't exactly pinpoint where the discussion regarding the impersonality of feelings was


We've been posting a lot today, haha. Here's what I was talking about:

Not Tao:
Of course with the absence of emotions there would be an inability to identify and describe emotions in the self, seeing as how there are none.


I think in practice this is different though. People who have Alexithmia and depersonalization will report that the experience is negative - which means negative emotions are still operating, they've just been buried away.

Actually, there is a way you can induce an alexithmic state - pay exclusive attention to the physical representations of emotions and ignore their content. I was doing this for a while thinking it would lead me to a PCE, but it actually led to the bizarre feeling of having no emotions but still suffering from the contractions associated with them. The state came on with a feeling like the brain fell over (if that makes any sense...). The mixture of anger and worry I was feeling at the time felt like a really bad case of heartburn. I had to intentionally get myself back to an emotional state before I could sort it all out.


Not Tao:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Lol damn, sometimes it's like you are writing about my own experiences! Similar things happened to me. For me it was because of a misconstrual of the actualism method being "to pay attention to the senses", which is quite far from what it actually is. I noticed the same: I had a habit, when reacting emotionally, to shut down and focus on the physical aspects of it, which led to it manifesting as annoying tensions in the body that I couldn't figure out what to do with yet which I kept paying attention to. I had to figure out how to stop doing this, actually feel the emotion without reducing it to non-specific tensions, before being able to go any further.


Haha, exactly! It's actually a pretty terrible experience (IMHO). My personal theory is that this is the cause of the Dark Night.

I also remember reading a lot about "shadow being" on here back when I was browsing all the actualism threads. I wonder if this isn't what's being referred to.


Would you say this is related to your experience at all? From your description, it almost sounds like the opposite - the physical feelings are gone, but the emotional qualities are still there.
J J, modified 9 Years ago at 9/24/14 2:34 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/23/14 10:59 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
I experience nirvana, which is the absence of greed, hatred and delusion. The troublesome aspect was craving, which manifested as pain. Emotions are not a "thing", they don't exist in and of themselves, they exist dependent on constituents, for example "to be angry" depends on the anger-object, the perception of the anger object, the craving to destroy the anger-object.

I do not experience anger because the causes of anger are uprooted, it is difficult to explain, and attempting to explain it vexes me.

Daniel et al are very good at describing this phenomenologically, however I don't think they are entirely honest, there is something very subtle about this that is hard to capture.

Firstly: I don't suffer, I don't experience pain, there is no pain here, and thus there is no further becoming, birth, death or speculation. It's like a full-stop.

The whole thing comes to an end, you may say that you are trying to remove emotions, but who is doing the removing? Who is left when you have removed everything? That's a big koan.


Edit: I mean I do suffer, there are still influxes left, there is still doubt, worry etc. Eh... there are no "problems", it's difficult to explain. Post-SE things are completely impersonal, in a sense your comment is actually spot on, a good chunk of suffering is taken away, primarily because there is no bodily tension, or very little of it, yet still defilements arise.

Yeah, that's a good recap of it actually.

Edit 2: Ignore the whole long rant, yes the physical tensions or somatic manifestations of emotions are now "smoothed out", so there is an absence of bodily tension, lots of passadhi. I wouldn't say this is awakening though.

Cheers.
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/24/14 12:57 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/24/14 12:57 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Felipe: You're trying too hard, bruh. The difference between you and me  is if I find out tomorrow all my ideas are wrong it won't change a thing. Life keeps arriving. You built a house with someone else's thoughts and now you hide inside, cursing the wind.
            I do not answer your questions because it feels like in doing so I would be in someway denigrating to the integrity of the conversation. Also, they're boring to me. Also, who still listens to Lenny Kravitz?

Oh damn, I guess you refuted my 'pernicious lies', once again, with assumptions and {nonemotional, of course} feelings of boredom. 

But mama let me be, I guess! ;)
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/24/14 10:57 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/24/14 10:57 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
Not Tao:
Hey, sorry, I added an edit on there.  I'm just curious how this applies to what you do:

What I mean by this is, if pure awareness arrives by staying in the present moment, there will be a tension there to try maintaining the state. If it's arrived at through enjoyment and appreciation, the only thing that will cause it to go will be a trigger that was previously overlooked. So maybe the car swerving causes you to slip out of the state. The next step in the Actualist method is to examine why and let go of the belief that caused it to happen so it won't happen again (in this case, that anger or fear will help deal with these kinds of situations). Someone who practiced staying in the present moment would try to let go of the memory of the event by coming back to the senses.

Which of these do you think is closest to your practice?
I am tired , so here Ven Khema,from Missouri,  explains this better than I anyway, she's awesome.  Just set aside any predjudices and read as if it was entirley new, jamais vu

http://library.dhammasukha.org/identifying-the-key-to-freedom.html
Pure awareness, no there is no tension in this state, tension either physical or mental is what stops the state.  When there is tension one then releases the tension , one also reviews ad contemplates what was the cause of the tension?  Answering this question has two paths:
Path one, One narrates a story and thinks, " I felt this way because of so and so, or such and such occurred and it caused me to feel this or that.  To me that path is not very helpful, it is like psychotherapy, "talking it out".  Path two, The tension was cause by, the emotional feelings arising, and the Pure Awareness is caused by the release of the tension.  There really is no need to go into storytelling, though this might be what most do before they access the more subtle level of release, there are layers to work through, and it takes time and persistence.

The real progress starts when one starts to recognize and release at the core physical tension level and the core emotional reaction level, the rest is just verbal storytelling and tends to support the Ego Mental Formation, the "i", "I" am the emotions, etc.

Examining why something happens is important, as only the understood experience brings wisdom, and wisdom brings with it the effortless Pure Awareness, for what one has wisdom of , one has dealt with.  That being said, it usually happens gradually and through repetition, a little understanding of cause and effect, brings a little purification, a little purification bring a little more time in Pure Awareness.  

For insights, i.e. from examining why emotions arose (fear, anger, greed, jealousy, etc), understanding it, understanding their cause and how to release them, so it will not happen again, or at least make progress so the emotional reaction arises less and less.  


Psi Phi

P.S.

The link above explains most of this rather well, in fact much better than I do, I am not so much interested anymore about Buddhism or Actualism , or Yoga, or who, Pantanjali, or Buddha,  Jesus, or Shankara, or the verbal definitions, that is all also clinging,

Phenomenon is Phenomenon  Dhamma is Dhamma

Call it new or old, either way that is incorrect, there is only the present moment, just because something is new doesn't make it right, just because something is old doesn't make it right,  It boils down to practice, and eventually practice at the pre-verbal stage of consciousness, the pure sensate level Daniel Ingram keeps trying to point people to, for it is from this that this whole mass of delusion arises.

Perhaps there is a final one destination pinnacle humans can aspire to, but there are as many paths as there are individuals, as we all have to walk the walk ourselves, no-one to carry us.
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 9/28/14 2:30 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/28/14 2:30 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


1) I am actually describing something that has nothing to do with emotions.
2) I am not really describing something that has nothing to do with emotions, I choose to use this inaccurate description for whatever reason, and thus it is the same as experiences you have had which do not match up with the description.

How have you concluded that it's #2 that is the case, and not #1? That is, why do you doubt my ability to discern what is an emotion and what is not?

To put it differently, it seems strange to say: I have experienced what you are describing, but you're describing it wrong. Why are you so sure that you weren't just experiencing something other than what I am accurately describing?

-----
* And just to drive the point home, "emotion" includes William's "non self-referential" love and compassion.
I don't think you are seeing my point, I am not saying your labels are accurate or inaccurate or that they are wrong or that they are right.  At no point did I say that.   What I am saying is you might be using different labels than others would that were not trained in actualism.  I am saying that they are labels and labels are attempts at descriptions that are created and interpreted differently from one person to another.  So that one person has potentially a different description of 'emotions' from another.  Even if two people experience the exact same thing, they often describe it differently, we see that a lot with eyewitness testimony in trail cases or whatnot.  And thoughts and descriptions of things are strongly influenced by pre existing belief and training.  I'll never know for sure if my PCE is 'exactly' the same as another person's PCE or even super similar.  I can only know that after listening to the actualist definition of 'emotionless' I think you are describing a similar thing to what I experienced, except I did not think of it as being 'emotionless' I think of it as being very different from regular emotions.  Not saying one label is right and one is wrong, I'm saying the choice in labels is different.  There is not one almight perfect exactly correct definition of 'emotionless' anywhere on any great and might stone tablet, there is only how actualists might choose to define it with may be different than how nonactualists might choose to define it, hence potentially breeding more confusion and apparent difference than might really be there.  The experience can be the same but labeled differently by different people.  Just because labels are different does not automatically mean the experience is different. 
-Eva
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 11:38 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 11:31 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Eva M Nie:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


1) I am actually describing something that has nothing to do with emotions.
2) I am not really describing something that has nothing to do with emotions, I choose to use this inaccurate description for whatever reason, and thus it is the same as experiences you have had which do not match up with the description.

How have you concluded that it's #2 that is the case, and not #1? That is, why do you doubt my ability to discern what is an emotion and what is not?

To put it differently, it seems strange to say: I have experienced what you are describing, but you're describing it wrong. Why are you so sure that you weren't just experiencing something other than what I am accurately describing?

-----
* And just to drive the point home, "emotion" includes William's "non self-referential" love and compassion.
I don't think you are seeing my point, I am not saying your labels are accurate or inaccurate or that they are wrong or that they are right.  At no point did I say that.
Whether you realize it or not, you are saying that either my labels are inaccurate/wrong, or that other people's labels are inaccurate/wrong. You said:
Your label of 'emotionless' sounds similar other poeple's description of higher or different or evolved emotions.
Here you are saying that there are two labels describing the same thing: one label is "emotionless" while another label is "higher emotion". Emotionless is a word with a very specific meaning - namely, "lacking emotion" - and as such is incompatible with the label "higher emotion". That is, if something is emotionless, then there is no way it can be a higher emotion - and if something is a higher emotion, there is no way it can be emotionless. The only possibilities are:
1) We (other people and I) are both accurately describing different things (me an emotionless state, others a state with higher/different/evolved emotions).
2) We are both attempting to describe the same thing, but one of us is failing (either I inaccurately call the state emotionless when in fact it's a higher emotion, or they inaccurately call the state a higher emotion whereas it's actually emotionless).
3) Both of us are failing to describe it - that is, neither label is correct.

This is simply because of the way language works. Words have particular meanings. That's how we're able to communicate with each other. Apple means one thing, while banana means another. Two people can't both experience the same thing, one calls it apple while the other calls it banana, and both are right. There are facts in this world, and there are accurate ways to describe those facts, and inaccurate ways. That is the standard which the truth and falsity of statements is measured by. You have no problem with this when going about your daily life, but this comes up when discussing actualism, I suspect it's because it is unsettling to consider the implications of what I'm saying.

The only way meaningful conversation can happen is if two people share a common experience, and then they use language to describe it and compare notes. If you had never tasted a banana before, and I have, it would be nonsensical for me to attempt to compare notes with you as to the taste of a banana, how sweet or not-sweet it is, its texture, etc., because you wouldn't have the experience of it. You have tasted other things, so I could draw analogies and say, oh the texture of a banana is similar to this thing you've eaten, the sweetness is like this other thing you've eaten, etc.

But if you start saying, no I have tasted a banana! It's like red on the outside, it has a very thin skin that you can either eat or peel off, it's sort of round-shaped, there's inedible seeds on the inside, the taste is quite sweet but a bit sour, and it's sort of crunchy. Then I say no, actually you're describing an apple, a banana is yellow on the outside, it has a thick skin that you can't eat, it's elongated, the seeds are not significant and can just be eaten, there's no sour taste at all, and it's sort of soft. Then it would be quite silly for you to say,
Your label of 'banana' sounds similar other poeple's description of 'apple'. [...] What I am saying is you might be using different labels than others would. I am saying that they are labels and labels are attempts at descriptions that are created and interpreted differently from one person to another.  So that one person has potentially a different description of 'banana' from another.  Even if two people experience the exact same thing, they often describe it differently, we see that a lot with eyewitness testimony in trail cases or whatnot.  And thoughts and descriptions of things are strongly influenced by pre existing belief and training.  I'll never know for sure if my banana is 'exactly' the same as another person's banana or even super similar.  I can only know that after listening to your definition of 'banana' I think you are describing a similar thing to what I experienced, except I did not think of it as being 'banana' I think of it as being 'apple'.  Not saying one label is right and one is wrong, I'm saying the choice in labels is different.  There is not one almight perfect exactly correct definition of 'banana' anywhere on any great and might stone tablet, there is only how you might choose to define it with may be different than how others might choose to define it, hence potentially breeding more confusion and apparent difference than might really be there.  The experience can be the same but labeled differently by different people.  Just because labels are different does not automatically mean the experience is different.
It's true that just because labels are different, it doesn't automatically mean the experience is different. I can call something a "bloorg", and it might take you some time to figure out that I'm describing an apple. Just because I called it a bloorg, didn't mean that it was different from an apple. But based on our common experiences, we'd be able to talk more and ascertain what the facts are - what is this thing I'm calling a bloorg? - and then we can agree on terminology (either keep calling it an apple, or start calling it a bloorg). But this is impossible if you maintain the belief that words don't have specific meanings, and that it's possible to interpret an experience as its complete opposite and yet have both labels be accurate.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 1:04 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 1:04 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I have to agree here.  My main draw to actualism is the fact that it describes my experiences and goals perfectly.  Some parts of buddhism seemed to be talking about the PCE, namely equanimity, or possibly rigpa, so that was my main draw to buddhism for a while.  After I read into the actualist stuff, though, it was like a hand and a glove (maybe not OJ's glove).  It was all quite slap-you-in-the-face obvious to me - which is what I liked most about it.  Here's someone describing that emotionless state I keep hitting!  Oh and he's saying to do the same things I've been doing! emoticon
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 5:40 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 5:40 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
 Emotionless is a word with a very specific meaning - namely, "lacking emotion" - and as such is incompatible with the label "higher emotion". That is, if something is emotionless, then there is no way it can be a higher emotion - and if something is a higher emotion, there is no way it can be emotionless

Actual Freedom seems to be about being  100% emotionless, as you seem to be describing above. And while being 100% completely emotionless, by the very definiton of emotionlessness,  one would not have Compassion, Joy, Equanimity, or Metta.  One may then think they  were harmless, but they would not know if they had hurt someone, as they would have no Compassion. They could also not be happy, as happiness is an emotion, hence they could not be both emotionless and happy and harmless.  

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 6:27 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 6:26 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Ah now we're getting somewhere!
Psi Phi:
Actual Freedom seems to be about being 100% emotionless, as you seem to be describing above. And while being 100% completely emotionless, by the very definiton of emotionlessness,  one would not have Compassion, Joy, Equanimity, or Metta.
Correct! Are you beginning to see how actual freedom is different from what you initially thought?
Psi Phi:
One may then think they  were harmless, but they would not know if they had hurt someone, as they would have no Compassion.
This presumes that the only way it's possible to know whether you hurt somebody is by feeling the emotion called "Compassion". This is not true, however. It's possible to know whether you hurt someone based on physical cues: by making pained noises, or by crying, or by simply telling you.
Psi Phi:
They could also not be happy, as happiness is an emotion [...]
This is true, in that there was no emotion of happiness in the PCEs I've had. Further, Richard's reports verify that he does not feel happy:
RESPONDENT: For you, it definitely is not [a feeling]. So what is it? Can it be sensed by physical senses? Do you see, smell, hear or touch happiness?
RICHARD: I have not felt happy for years and years ... here lies perfection. Living here in this actual world there is a seeing, smelling, touching, tasting and hearing of the purity of the infinitude of this material universe for the twenty four hours of the day. It is a sensate experiencing – apperceptive awareness – and cannot be felt affectively.
The felicitous emotions (which are affective) are what one uses in order to get to that apperceptive awareness (which is not affective):
RICHARD: If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained above) and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness, then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. [link]
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 6:30 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/29/14 6:30 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
These conversations have always been circular. I am complicit in this as well, though I lack the stamina of others.  Everythign is reduced to it's lowest common denominator and participants while claiming to enjoy discussion/debate are just sitting at the altar of their belief systems, afraid of what it would mean to give it up. If one is already interested in actualism spend time in person with a practicing actualist. I believe beoman has done this (and reports fondly), and I think maybe John Wilde did as well if I remember a previous thread where he described what he pereceived to be the mentally unstable nature of its founder. If not possible look at the experience of those who took up Actual Freedom before and those who have been undertaking it for years. Here is where Beoman chimes in repeatedly to say that Tarin and all those others did not understand it, and that he does, but Tarin met with Richard as well, and believed he understood it just as Beoman does (until he believed he didn't). Having been in this scene for years I am amazed that we are still having these conversations, as it has proven such a fruitless enterprise for so many and so many after years realized that they were only running, but I understand the difficulty of letting go of a belief system one has staked one's happiness on it. It happened to me years back with meditation when I thought meditation was what it was all about. I really have no interest in debating at this point, but for those who really are curious, look at the experiences of those who seriously have taken up AF in the past, look at the presentation of those who are taking it up now to see how it lines up.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 12:47 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 12:47 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
These conversations have always been circular.

Well, sometimes there is progress. But usually they're not too fruitful. Richard has taken the hint and has retired from writing. Perhaps I should learn from his experience and not engage. Really after a post or two I more or less know how the conversation will go.

William Golden Finch:
Everything is reduced to it's lowest common denominator and participants while claiming to enjoy discussion/debate are just sitting at the altar of their belief systems, afraid of what it would mean to give it up.

Is this a falsifiable assessment? As in, is there any sequence or course of events that would lead you to conclude that one or the other party is not ascribing to a belief system but is describing something factual, i.e. something that doesn't need to be believed?

William Golden Finch:
If one is already interested in actualism spend time in person with a practicing actualist. I believe beoman has done this (and reports fondly), and I think maybe John Wilde did as well if I remember a previous thread where he described what he pereceived to be the mentally unstable nature of its founder.

Sound advice.

William Golden Finch:
If not possible look at the experience of those who took up Actual Freedom before and those who have been undertaking it for years. Here is where Beoman chimes in repeatedly to say that Tarin and all those others did not understand it, and that he does, but Tarin met with Richard as well, and believed he understood it just as Beoman does (until he believed he didn't).

Right, but my understanding differs from Tarin's - as one would expect. He didn't know what pure intent was, for example.

William Golden Finch:
Having been in this scene for years I am amazed that we are still having these conversations, as it has proven such a fruitless enterprise for so many and so many after years realized that they were only running, but I understand the difficulty of letting go of a belief system one has staked one's happiness on it.

For me every few months I get the energy to try again. Once in a while I find a like-minded soul, like Not Tao for example, and it's a delightful surprise when I do.

William Golden Finch:
It happened to me years back with meditation when I thought meditation was what it was all about. I really have no interest in debating at this point, but for those who really are curious, look at the experiences of those who seriously have taken up AF in the past, look at the presentation of those who are taking it up now to see how it lines up.

Also solid advice!
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 10:38 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 10:38 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
These conversations have always been circular. I am complicit in this as well, though I lack the stamina of others.  Everythign is reduced to it's lowest common denominator and participants while claiming to enjoy discussion/debate are just sitting at the altar of their belief systems, afraid of what it would mean to give it up. If one is already interested in actualism spend time in person with a practicing actualist. I believe beoman has done this (and reports fondly), and I think maybe John Wilde did as well if I remember a previous thread where he described what he pereceived to be the mentally unstable nature of its founder. If not possible look at the experience of those who took up Actual Freedom before and those who have been undertaking it for years. Here is where Beoman chimes in repeatedly to say that Tarin and all those others did not understand it, and that he does, but Tarin met with Richard as well, and believed he understood it just as Beoman does (until he believed he didn't). Having been in this scene for years I am amazed that we are still having these conversations, as it has proven such a fruitless enterprise for so many and so many after years realized that they were only running, but I understand the difficulty of letting go of a belief system one has staked one's happiness on it. It happened to me years back with meditation when I thought meditation was what it was all about. I really have no interest in debating at this point, but for those who really are curious, look at the experiences of those who seriously have taken up AF in the past, look at the presentation of those who are taking it up now to see how it lines up.


Indeed, Round and Round the Mulberry bush, 


@ ALL
For now, it seems the same as what I would call Bare Attention or Pure Mindfulness Practice.  If that is all that is devloped, and it leads to a "permanent" emotionless state, then, In my opinion, Actual Freedom is not a path for full development of Human Capabilites, it is not a complete path.  It does seem to lead people to a personal freedom, or , in the meantime a sense of "virtual" freedom.  It does seem to resemble Alexythemia, and after researching this, scientists are finding that people with Alexythemia have physical changes in the brain that seems to "cut' awareness from being aware of emotions, even though they are still occurring.  So, if this is same or similar to the result of Actual Freedom practices, one is not Free from emotions, or even "emotionless" , they are just unaware of emotions, which leaves the sense of freedom.  But, of course, one practicing Actual Freedom will say this is not so, but have they had the Fmri scan to prove it, or is it just subjective opinion?  This is also borderline to being in a state of Pure Indifference, which is the near enemy of Equanimity.  So, these are just my opinions, and with more investigation I might change my mind.  But, to train the mind to be emotionless, seems unskillful, unwholesome and will leave one unaware of entire sections of the human organism and the sensations and signals sent by the glands.  Actual Freedom seems not to integrate the functions of the glands and various other nerves centers, but rather isolates awareness, or perhaps even intentionally atrophies entire sections with indiscrimination, regardless of whether product is wholesome or unwholesome.  I am sure these opinions could arouse frustration in some minds, as this will activate the typical Ego Defense mechanism response, but this is NOT my intention.  My intention is to investigate and evaluate with objective reasoning with what capabilities that are currently within my realm, and to provide an open , honest Opinion, that is all.


I still remain open to all teachings, though they are all subject to be investigated.  Indeed, I have not found within any teaching, that there are not some parts of that, I either disagree with, don't understand, or am even diametrically  opposed to.

So, here we are , all breathing, and the rest is just stories.....

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 11:37 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 11:30 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Hi Psi Phi,
Psi Phi:
This is also borderline to being in a state of Pure Indifference [...] to train the mind to be emotionless, seems unskillful, unwholesome [...] Actual Freedom [...] isolates awareness, or perhaps even intentionally atrophies entire sections with indiscrimination, regardless of whether product is wholesome or unwholesome
You are free to have your own opinion, of course, and it's good that you write your honest opinion. If you are interested in having a well-informed opinion, though, then I suggest you read a selection of descriptions of apperception - that which you call "borderline to being in a state of Pure Indifference", that which you say it is "unskillful", "unwholesome", etc., to cultivate:
I remember the first time I experienced being the senses only during a PCE. There was no identity as ‘I’ thinking or ‘me’ feeling ... simply this body ambling across a grassy field in the early-morning light. A million dew-drenched spider-webs danced a sparkling delight over the verdant vista and a question that had been running for some weeks became experientially answered: without the senses I would not know that I exist as this flesh and blood body. And further to this: I was the senses and the senses were me. With this came an awareness of being conscious – apperception – rather than ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. [link]
I was sitting on the porch at the front of my parents’ house just enjoying the morning sun and contemplating things that I can’t recall now. Thinking and contemplation lead me to a ‘pop’ and for a few seconds the world seemed absolutely perfect. Everything was perfectly ordered and as it should be, nothing was lacking, not even my presence. If I can recall correctly, the world seemed very harmless and every object was a pleasure to the eye, most probably because ‘I’ wasn’t there. ...
What I do remember is the pure and utter benign perfection of that few seconds. I vaguely remember smiling at this experience, at the wonder of the actual, physical world, and the intimacy betwixt my body and the world. [link]
[...] to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity.
All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array. [link]
[...] Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore. ‘Being’ ceases – it was only a psychic apparition anyway – and war is over, forever, in one human being.
Then there is something precious in living itself ... something ultimately precious. Something beyond compare. It is the essential character of the universe – which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. That something precious is me as-I-am ... me as I actually am as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am. I am the universe experiencing itself. The perfection and purity of being here, as-I-am, is akin to the perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the dew-drop with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with has experienced this purity and perfection in some way or another at varying stages in their life. It is not difficult to conceive – just impossible to imagine – that this is one’s essential character. One has to dare to live it – for it is both one’s birth-right and destiny.
When one lives the magical perfection of this purity twenty-four-hours-a-day; when one has ceased being ‘I’ and is being genuine, one can see clearly that there is no separation between me as this body and that something which is precious. The perfection of life emerges from the purity that wells up constantly due to the immense stillness of the infinity of the universe which is limitless in its scope and magnitude. This stillness is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me as this body. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its source. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being. [link]
Cheers,
- Claudiu
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 12:09 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 12:09 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Hey there, 

Yeah, I "get all that", to me there is just more to practice than the "pure sensation only without emotions and/or ego entanglement clouding the picture state of being".

So, let me propose a simple thought experiment, if you are willing.

Question, "Does on smile while in PCE.?" If yes, as read below, and yet one does not register the emotion of being happy, then they are having emotions, yet completely oblivious to them, this is from ignoring, one is simply ignorant of their emotions.  And one is bound only to the external sense realm, while magical and fascinating, they are ignoring the magical and fascinating inner exploration of the inner sense world.  I fail to see descriptions of the senses describing the expansive sensation of immeasurable joy in the heart area, yet I see descriptions of sparky dew drops.  I fail to see descriptions of the pure emotion of complete contentment with the present moment as felt from the inner awareness within the body and its signals.  In short, the experience of the human universe seems to be shortened and taken for all that is , the end game, the final judgement.  And to be sure, there is more.

So if one does smile, then one has emotions, whether they are aware of them , or not.  emoticon  Round and Round, this is silliness, and you are the best

Psi Phi
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 1:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 1:34 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi,

Not Tao:
The absence of malice really is indifference.  You just have to carry indifference all the way.  If you are indifferent about one thing, and you enjoy another thing, then there is a comparison there.  The thing you are indifferent to will be "in the way", so to speak.  In the PCE, you are indifferent to all things, so, by extension, everything is equally interesting.  The mind has no need to move anywhere, look for anything, want anything, need anything.  Simply existing is finally enough - and you will be existing as long as you exist, so it really does advertise itself as a "final resting place" so to speak.

Not Tao, this is one of the things that I'd say I don't fully agree with the ways you are presenting things, and, at the same time, it curiously reminds me of myself and my poor/incomplete/not useful explanations of actualism to my friends in real life! I'm the guiltest of all in this regard!

I'm talking about focusing on the "emotionless" aspect of actualism without complementing it (enough, at least) with others aspects such as pure intent, wonderment, curiosity, enjoyment, appreciation, peace, meaning, etc. Specifically: in characterizing the PCE as an "indifferent" mode gives rise to incorrect ideas/misinterpretations of it such as:

Psi Phi:
This is also borderline to being in a state of Pure Indifference, which is the near enemy of Equanimity.  So, these are just my opinions, and with more investigation I might change my mind.  But, to train the mind to be emotionless, seems unskillful, unwholesome and will leave one unaware of entire sections of the human organism and the sensations and signals sent by the glands.

Here, Psi Phi has his own right reasons to think of this dichotomy indifference/equanimity. "Indifference", indeed, can have different denotations and connotations and therefore its usage resulting prone to ambiguities and miscommunications. For instance, from the Merriam Webster:
1 : the quality, state, or fact of being indifferent (indifferent: not interested in or concerned about something)
2 a archaic : lack of difference or distinction between two or more things
   b : absence of compulsion to or toward one thing or another

I'm sure that you were talking from the second definition, specifically 2 b, to convey that absence of compulsion as in no drives, no strong agendas, no sudden distractions, etc. However, as the first is the most common one, I understand how the aspect of "not interested" is very dominant in the meaning of the expression, and that way gives rise to the almost inevitable association with callousness, coldness, barrenness and psychotic/zombie/robotic nature. 

In experience, the PCE is actually the opposite of that: everything becomes interesting in its own way as the senses operate with no obstructions and the actual world reveals itself as pristine, pure, perfect, marvelous, still and yet dynamic.

So, there is indeed an engaging element in perception (as in "
very attractive or pleasing in a way that holds your attention") that is sensate and not affective in any way, and here it's how it differs from equanimity, which is the antidotal, affective, solution to indifference (in its first MW's definition).

This is the reason why actual freedom is called "the third alternative" to spirituality and materialism, as both have in common the affective results and solutions, be them "positive" relations with reality (via equanimity, compassion, empathy, sympathy) or "negative" ones (via indifference, nihilism, cynicism, resentment, etc). 

Cheers!
Felipe
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 2:49 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 2:39 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Psi Phi:
Actual Freedom seems not to integrate the functions of the glands and various other nerves centers, but rather isolates awareness, or perhaps even intentionally atrophies entire sections with indiscrimination, regardless of whether product is wholesome or unwholesome.


It's interesting you say this because this is my opinion on noting practice. If you spend a lot of time dissociating from emotions (all phenomena are impermanent/not-self/stressful) and you end up in a state where everything is dissociated from - this sounds much closer to Alexythemia to me. I'm sure vipassana practitioners would argue that insight isn't a state, and that it isn't dissociation - but then what exactly is it? Right now I'm in a state where I see myself as separate from other things. If this changed, I would be in a state where I felt I was a part of everything, or I felt that all phenomena were part of a field and I emerged from it, or however you'd like to explain it. If something changes in the way you experience the world, that is a "state change" so to speak. Noting practice, specifically, seems aimed to dissolve the "central feeling" of agency. I am not angry, there is just anger in the field of experience.

In Actual Freedom practice, you simply remove the triggers that cause emotions. Personally, I don't see it as a one way street. I'm not looking to change my brain's functioning in a fundamental way, I'm simply looking to remove the causes of emotions until there are no causes. This is a lifestyle decision rather than a mental discipline - do you see the difference? I think what happens is, when a person chooses to live in a virtual freedom for a long period of time, the emotional center steadily loses its significance in the brain, and AF happens when the emotional center atrophies from disuse. A person living a virtual freedom is not incapable of feeling emotions, they just make a simple choice not to. It is the mind deciding not to indulge in the passions because it has seen that these passions aren't as pleasant as being calm. This is a very wholesome way of living in the world, IMHO. It's just as wholesome as learning to love someone you previously hated by taking on their point of view, or learning to let go of sadness over the death of a close friend. The Actualist just decides to treat all emotions this way because they have seen that the emotionless state is the most wholesome experience they can have.

Psi Phi:
Question, "Does on smile while in PCE?"


A person can smile for lots of reasons, not just when they're happy. I understand your point though. I don't feel like smiling in particular while in the PCE. Do you smile when you're comfortable, or do you just relax?

Psi Phi:
And one is bound only to the external sense realm, while magical and fascinating, they are ignoring the magical and fascinating inner exploration of the inner sense world.


Because of the method, being in a PCE is not being "bound in the senses" but rather only the senses are left because the inner world has been fully resolved.

You know, I think the main problem might be that you see the PCE as a state that is gained - either through suppression or some other means. The PCE is actually just the resolution of emotional conflict. Consider your experience as it is right now, examining all the emotions you have, and imagine for a moment that they are all resolved (as in, you've sorted their causes and let go of them). What's left is the PCE. It isn't an addition to experience. It's a "bare awareness", sure, but it's not bare in that the emotional center is removed or ignored or because it goes off line. It's bare because everything is resolved and at peace. The perfection comes from the lack of emotional judgements, specifically.

It isn't really meditative or mind altering, it's simply a resolution. It works the same way that "time heals all wounds" or finishing a project allows you to forget about it. It works in the same way that, when you suddenly realize a mistake you made didn't do any harm, you can let go of your worries.

Psi Phi:
I fail to see descriptions of the senses describing the expansive sensation of immeasurable joy in the heart area, yet I see descriptions of sparky dew drops


Then maybe a good experiment for you would be to see what happens if you allow that immeasurable joy to fade. I think the state you're describing here is a precursor to naivete, which leads into the PCE. Maybe consider how the Buddha described the 4 jhanas - first there is effort to stabilize, then there is bliss, then there is calm joy, then there is equanimity. The progression into the PCE often goes just like this for me - which is why I enjoyed reading the suttas a while back. There is something better than joy out there, no matter how immeasurable it may seen. A bursting heart can never feel as good as one that is completely at rest. This is just my opinion from what I've experienced, too, so don't take offense if it seems like I'm stating facts here.


@Felipe: I understand what you're saying. emoticon

EDIT: Actually, this is how my face looks in a PCE: emoticon Mildly pleasant expression of physical ease and comfort.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 3:29 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 3:27 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Hi Not Tao,
Not Tao:
In Actual Freedom practice, you simply remove the triggers that cause emotions. Personally, I don't see it as a one way street. I'm not looking to change my brain's functioning in a fundamental way, I'm simply looking to remove the causes of emotions until there are no causes.
Hmm well it's quite fundamental to eliminate the self entirely isn't it? Consider how fundamental the self and emotions are to all aspects of waking life. Maybe you aren't looking to change your brain fundamentally at this moment, but it's something you'll have to look into down the line, I think. 
Not Tao:
I think what happens is, when a person chooses to live in a virtual freedom for a long period of time, the emotional center steadily loses its significance in the brain, and AF happens when the emotional center atrophies from disuse. A person living a virtual freedom is not incapable of feeling emotions, they just make a simple choice not to.
This isn't true per se. They make the choice not to feel 'good' and 'bad' emotions - to neither express nor repress them - but rather to *express* the felicitous emotions. This is actually pretty important so I highly recommend you read about this and contemplate it sooner rather than later. Here's a helpful quote to start:
Richard:
Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’). In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. [link]
This is another reason why it's dangerous to think of actualism as the practice of becoming emotionless. Actually the method is to become felicitous with all of your 'being', because felicitous feelings are the closest affective imitation to pure intent - which is what you are when you are actually free:
Here again is what pure intent actually is ... with that all-important sentence stripped of its context purely for effect:
• : ‘Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/thismomentofbeingalive.htm).
[...] to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*.
Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that). [link]
---
Not Tao:
It is the mind deciding not to indulge in the passions because it has seen that these passions aren't as pleasant as being calm.
For me it's rather that they aren't as pleasant as being felicitous. I have come to appreciate calm as well, of course, but felicity is even better than calm. Actually this was a big difference from when I was meditating to now: back then I was placing peace and calm and, essentially, equanimity, above all else, whereas now it's felicity I am looking for.
Not Tao:
This is a very wholesome way of living in the world, IMHO. It's just as wholesome as learning to love someone you previously hated by taking on their point of view, or learning to let go of sadness over the death of a close friend.
Yea, another word I like that describes it is "salubrious", as in, "health-giving; healthy".
Not Tao:
The Actualist just decides to treat all emotions this way because they have seen that the emotionless state is the most wholesome experience they can have.
Again I'd recommend looking into the above. While it's true that the PCE is an emotionless state and it is the most wholesome experience you can have, the way to get there is to express the felicitous feelings, not to minimize *all* feelings.
Not Tao:
A person can smile for lots of reasons, not just when they're happy. I understand your point though. I don't feel like smiling in particular while in the PCE. Do you smile when you're comfortable, or do you just relax?
There was much laughter when I was hanging out with Richard & Vineeto. And smiling too, if I recall correctly! Richard tried faking being upset once to demonstrate a point but he didn't do a very good job of it =P.

Cheers,
- Claudiu
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 4:56 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 4:56 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Well, what you are now describing is , for the most part , the same as the spiritual path as I have been on, what you describe as felicity, I describe as contentment/pleasantness,  a natural resting state.  As a golf ball rest on a tee, just there, aware.  Yet, I would be able to arouse joy and feel compassion, as a choice.  I do have instinctive reactions form time to time, but they have a hard time "taking hold" and gaining footing to grow into a full blown emotional state.  And many other things you , and Richard describe resonate with my experiences, but not all, of course, as I am not fully actualized/enlightened.  But, as it always seems to be the case, there will be disagreement that anyone outside actualism can experience PCE, or remain in such a state for any length of time, especially if they use other words to describe their experience.  So I will take solace for now, knowing that everyone that has posted on this board so far has been fortunate enough to experience the indescribable to varying degrees of intensity, and that most disagreements have been due to the poverty of the English language, and "ism" identification (though not all have "ismness"), and not due to our experiences in common.

So, again, as in my first post on this board, I do again see commonality in these experiences.

Round and round we go....  Weeeee!!!!  emoticon

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 8:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/30/14 8:20 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Hmm well it's quite fundamental to eliminate the self entirely isn't it? Consider how fundamental the self and emotions are to all aspects of waking life. Maybe you aren't looking to change your brain fundamentally at this moment, but it's something you'll have to look into down the line, I think. 


"Eliminate the self" is inevitably going to cause confusion on a Buddhist board. The self, as you're referring to it here, isn't anything more than the emotions and their triggers. I haven't seen Richard say anything about consciousness or awareness being "not-self" and all the other things Buddhism puts into the word (essentially anything you can identify with). In fact, like you say below, the PCE is about being a flesh-and-blood body, which I would still call "being" in the Buddhist context.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
This isn't true per se. They make the choice not to feel 'good' and 'bad' emotions - to neither express nor repress them - but rather to *express* the felicitous emotions. This is actually pretty important so I highly recommend you read about this and contemplate it sooner rather than later.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
This is another reason why it's dangerous to think of actualism as the practice of becoming emotionless. Actually the method is to become felicitous with all of your 'being', because felicitous feelings are the closest affective imitation to pure intent - which is what you are when you are actually free:


This is interesting. Could you try defining pure intent and felicity a few different ways in your own words for me? I still don't think I'm clear what you mean, and I feel like there's something here I might have missed.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Again I'd recommend looking into the above. While it's true that the PCE is an emotionless state and it is the most wholesome experience you can have, the way to get there is to express the felicitous feelings, not to minimize *all* feelings.


This makes me think of trying to conjure up specific feelings, which, when I've tried it in the past, was either frustrating of unsuccessful. Sometimes the lead in to the PCE has a pleasant emotional quality, but letting it pass by usually results in the PCE rather than trying to express it.

I can understand this perfectly: "an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself." But I don't understand how it could translate into a feeling. The benevolence seems to come from the lack of feelings.
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 1:43 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 1:32 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Eva M Nie[quote=]
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


1) I am actually describing something that has nothing to do with emotions.
2) I am not really describing something that has nothing to do with emotions, I choose to use this inaccurate description for whatever reason, and thus it is the same as experiences you have had which do not match up with the description.

How have you concluded that it's #2 that is the case, and not #1? That is, why do you doubt my ability to discern what is an emotion and what is not?

To put it differently, it seems strange to say: I have experienced what you are describing, but you're describing it wrong. Why are you so sure that you weren't just experiencing something other than what I am accurately describing?

-----
* And just to drive the point home, "emotion" includes William's "non self-referential" love and compassion.
I don't think you are seeing my point, I am not saying your labels are accurate or inaccurate or that they are wrong or that they are right.  At no point did I say that.
Whether you realize it or not, you are saying that either my labels are inaccurate/wrong, or that other people's labels are inaccurate/wrong.

--If you want to think of it that way, I can't stop you.  IMO, words are just sounds made with the mouth to try to indicate certain ideas.  Words change across languages, meanings and nuances change with time.  A word that means one thing in one industry may mean something totally different in another age group or industry.  Which one is right which is wrong?  Is it not hot to be cool or cool to be hot?  Does the majority always rule?  What if it's a niche industry that has it's own terminology?  What is if use an old meaning and that 16 year old uses a new meaning?  There is now tablet inscribed by God with the exact and only correct meaning of each singular word.  (unless you are the French government vainly attempt to prevent inevitable language shifts..)  In the end there is only sound waves and attempted understanding and communication.  If you want to tell me that you have the only correct pattern of sound waves acceptable for a given situation, that's your choice. 

You said:
Your label of 'emotionless' sounds similar other poeple's description of higher or different or evolved emotions.
Here you are saying that there are two labels describing the same thing: one label is "emotionless" while another label is "higher emotion". Emotionless is a word with a very specific meaning - namely, "lacking emotion" - and as such is incompatible with the label "higher emotion". That is, if something is emotionless, then there is no way it can be a higher emotion - and if something is a higher emotion, there is no way it can be emotionless. The only possibilities are:
1) We (other people and I) are both accurately describing different things (me an emotionless state, others a state with higher/different/evolved emotions).
2) We are both attempting to describe the same thing, but one of us is failing (either I inaccurately call the state emotionless when in fact it's a higher emotion, or they inaccurately call the state a higher emotion whereas it's actually emotionless).
3) Both of us are failing to describe it - that is, neither label is correct.
I guess you are saying those are the only options you see from your perspective assuming as you apparently do that there is only one valid and correct definition of 'emotionless.' (and apparently it is not a robot computer kind of emotionless but something else..)
This is simply because of the way language works. Words have particular meanings.
IMO, word meanings are often quite vague and subject to interpretation, that's why dictionaries have long explanations and don't always agree with eachother. 

That's how we're able to communicate with each other.
Humans are often miscommunicating.

Apple means one thing, while banana means another. Two people can't both experience the same thing, one calls it apple while the other calls it banana, and both are right.
Those are very simple words with much less wiggle room than the more complex concepts that we were previously discussing.  Obviously, people will argue less about simple concepts like very tangeable items instead of less tangeable concepts.  However, you will often find botanists arguing over which plants fit into what categories and trying to sort out which listing of morphological characterics should and should not be used. 
There are facts in this world, and there are accurate ways to describe those facts, and inaccurate ways. That is the standard which the truth and falsity of statements is measured by. You have no problem with this when going about your daily life, but this comes up when discussing actualism, I suspect it's because it is unsettling to consider the implications of what I'm saying.
YOu are reading a lot of assumptions into my statements.  But it's not just me who does not easily see why you can say something is enjoyable and you want it, but it's emotionless, it goes against many people's definitions of 'emotionless.'  Which is why I suggest that if you define your terms more clearly, you might get better understanding from others.  However, if you wish to assume that I am instead simply threatened by your concept and in some kind of denial, that's your choice. 
It's true that just because labels are different, it doesn't automatically mean the experience is different. I can call something a "bloorg", and it might take you some time to figure out that I'm describing an apple. Just because I called it a bloorg, didn't mean that it was different from an apple. But based on our common experiences, we'd be able to talk more and ascertain what the facts are - what is this thing I'm calling a bloorg? - and then we can agree on terminology (either keep calling it an apple, or start calling it a bloorg). But this is impossible if you maintain the belief that words don't have specific meanings, and that it's possible to interpret an experience as its complete opposite and yet have both labels be accurate.
I noticed you have many times repeated things I supposedly said that i did not say.  For instance, I did not say other people had a definition that was 'complete opposite.'  I think it's different but not complete opposite.  Nor did I say that I thought you were wrong.  That was an assumption you made on your own. If you are going to say that someone is incorrect, and you also hope to convince them they are incorrect, it's always a good idea if you show that you have remembered their position accurately in the first place.  ;-P

Anyway, that's all based on your perspective of how things are.  I don't have the same perspective as you it seems.  
-Eva
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 11:34 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 11:26 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Hmm well it's quite fundamental to eliminate the self entirely isn't it? Consider how fundamental the self and emotions are to all aspects of waking life. Maybe you aren't looking to change your brain fundamentally at this moment, but it's something you'll have to look into down the line, I think. 


"Eliminate the self" is inevitably going to cause confusion on a Buddhist board. The self, as you're referring to it here, isn't anything more than the emotions and their triggers. I haven't seen Richard say anything about consciousness or awareness being "not-self" and all the other things Buddhism puts into the word (essentially anything you can identify with). In fact, like you say below, the PCE is about being a flesh-and-blood body, which I would still call "being" in the Buddhist context.

Well, that's not central to the point I was making in that quote. I can rephrase: "Hmm well it's quite fundamental to eliminate affect/feelings/moods/emotions entirely isn't it? Consider how fundamental affect/feelings/moods/emotions are to all aspects of waking life. Maybe you aren't looking to change your brain fundamentally at this moment, but it's something you'll have to look into down the line, I think."

But yes, the experience of being the flesh and blood body, would be considered an illusory/delusory/ignorant experience in Buddhist terms, it would be considered to be or to lead to dukkha, because the body is impermanent and that which is impermanent is dukkha, etc. Actualism is delusory in Buddhist terms, and Buddhism is delusory in actualist terms.

Not Tao:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
This isn't true per se. They make the choice not to feel 'good' and 'bad' emotions - to neither express nor repress them - but rather to *express* the felicitous emotions. This is actually pretty important so I highly recommend you read about this and contemplate it sooner rather than later.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
This is another reason why it's dangerous to think of actualism as the practice of becoming emotionless. Actually the method is to become felicitous with all of your 'being', because felicitous feelings are the closest affective imitation to pure intent - which is what you are when you are actually free:


This is interesting. Could you try defining pure intent and felicity a few different ways in your own words for me? I still don't think I'm clear what you mean, and I feel like there's something here I might have missed.

Sure. Actually, I think answering the next part should resolve this issue.

Not Tao:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Again I'd recommend looking into the above. While it's true that the PCE is an emotionless state and it is the most wholesome experience you can have, the way to get there is to express the felicitous feelings, not to minimize *all* feelings.


This makes me think of trying to conjure up specific feelings, which, when I've tried it in the past, was either frustrating of unsuccessful. Sometimes the lead in to the PCE has a pleasant emotional quality, but letting it pass by usually results in the PCE rather than trying to express it.

I can understand this perfectly: "an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself." But I don't understand how it could translate into a feeling. The benevolence seems to come from the lack of feelings.

It doesn't translate into a feeling. That which you quoted there is pure intent, which is not a feeling. It does precisely come from the lack of feeling, as you said. So it's not like felicitous feelings somehow turn into pure intent. However, they are the closest imitation (though one that is far from the thing it's imitating), so if you have to feel some sort of feelings - as you do whenever you're not in a PCE - then the best choice of feelings to feel are the felicitous ones.

So, when 'being' is present (not a PCE): maximize the felicitous feelings, minimize the 'good' and 'bad' feelings. The felicitous feelings make it the easiest to allow pure intent to be noticed more and more. Then you follow that pure intent into the PCE, which is when there are no longer any feelings - not even the felicitous ones - but where there's just pure intent, essentially - where that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity is incredibly obvious.

Also, I have observed that noticing pure intent/allowing myself to notice pure intent, does tend to lead 'me' to be felicitous, along with various other effects like increased sensory clarity and pleasantness.

Does that help to clarify?
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 12:19 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 12:19 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
What's the difference between a good feeling and a felicitous feeling as you see it?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 12:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 12:35 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
What's the difference between a good feeling and a felicitous feeling as you see it?
'Good' feelings are feelings like: love, compassion, pride.

'Felicitous' feelings are feelings like: happiness, joy, being well-disposed.

The important distinction is that 'good' feelings re-inforce the self (in actualist terms), while 'felicitous' feelings do not. For example, love is a bond between two identities that re-inforces both identities; compassion requires one identity feeling compassion for another, worse-off identity; pride is an identity being proud of itself, valuing itself, and thus re-inforcing itself. Happiness and joy, and being generally well-disposed, do not depend on any aspect of identity in particular (besides it not getting in the way of itself being happy), or on any particular circumstance (you feel pride at something you do, but if you're just in a good mood then that good mood perpetuates itself and affects everything you do). 

So my understanding is, the more felicitous you are, the less you are re-inforcing your identity, so the easier it is to allow the identity to disappear temporarily (like in a PCE), and the easier it is to "let go of the controls" which ultimately leads to actual freedom.

I wrote the above without reference to the AFT, but I've found a FAQ that I'm reading through now, it might help you as well: The Difference between Good Feelings and Feeling Good?
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 1:04 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 12:56 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Actually, that was very helpful, thank you. emoticon

I like this idea of "being" as the central focus.  Is there any self-referencing in an emotion or not.  I've had a hard time sorting through things sometimes, so this should make it a lot easier.

Actually, I think this describes the PCE pretty well too.  That's one of the reasons I thought it might have been a non-dual state or rigpa back when I was first researching these things.  The "self" disappears completely.  The self was only ever the feelings, though, IME, so the other parts of rigpa - like universal emptiness and luminosity - were just very confusing to me.

@Eva and Psi: I think the horse is pretty dead at this point.  Thank you for the good conversation, though!  If you think these things are all the same, that just gives me encouragement that I'm on the right track.  Buddhist terminology just confused me, and Actualist terminology is crystal clear, so that's the reason I stay with it.  Feel free to translate me into your own terms if you like.  If it seems like I'm doing something wrong, though, that may be one of the differences I've found so useful, so maybe it's worth looking into. emoticon
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 5:45 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 5:45 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
The following are taken from DHO user and actualist (or ex actualist) John Wilde in the DHO discussion "hormonal reactions, as a subset of physical sensations". They are particularly genius and seems relevant because it is without many of the that current AF practicioners like Beoman, not tao and Felipe have on. Bolding is mine:


John Wilde: "[Edit: but who cares anyway? It has become very clear to me in recent years, both from experience and from observing others, that people aren't really that interested in figuring out what's true. It's more about getting something, avoiding something, using reason to bolster a decision that's already being made for some other reason and to some other end. Seemingly no one is immune to this. Just the way it goes, I guess].

 To clarify what I was getting at: Your question centered on precisely what happens in so-called "actual freedom from the human condition" (hereafter AF): specifically, whether AF precludes affective reactions in toto or whether it merely precludes the subjective experience of instinctual-passionate influences at some fairly basic level while still leaving them functionally operating. I believe you are right to question these things; it is by no means a certainty that Richard has got it right, and/or that he tells it like it is.

- It's reasonable to question not only whether AF is blindness to affect (which it may or may not be), but also whether it constitutes a blindness to self-centered instinctual-passionate-driven behaviour in toto, regardless of whether affect is subjectively experienced. It's reasonable to ask whether, for example, the will to power and primacy still operates at the heart of a person's motivation in life, despite them having no subjective experience of any associated affective pushes and pulls. It's definitely an open question in my opinion. 

Even more fundamentally: it's reasonable to ask whether there's anything more here than an idiosyncratic psychotic condition and set of supporting world views.

If people are interested in AF for its supposed altruistic value -- rather than "just give me something, anything, to get me out of my own suffering forever" -- these things shouldn't be taken as given. The claim that AF is the answer to all the ills of humankind, the best thing you can do not only for yourself but for your fellow human being, should definitely not be taken for granted based on a person's possibly self-serving and possibly highly deluded testimony. But it often is.

And I think we both know the reason why. That's what the rest of my comment was about. People want release from suffering, and they want it so badly that they'll willingly overlook a great deal, no matter how starkly obviously bizarre it might be to an outsider, when it undermines the result they're seeking.

Even if we limit this discussion to stuff that's already entirely on the public record (which I myself cannot, but you must), it should be pretty clear to any reasonable minded person that AF leads to some questionable psychological results. To take just a handful of examples:

- Look at the bizarre magical thinking, ideas of reference, delusions of grandeur that have shown up in Richard's writings since late 2009 (and obviously featured in his thinking long before that). Richard believes that when he first became AF he was so vulnerable and defenseless that his then-wife Irene/Devika put up a protective psychic force field around him, a force field so powerful that nobody could get to him. But when Devika later turned against him and repudiated AF, the protective force field no longer served to protect Richard from others; rather, it served to protect them from him! Devika --- (sorry, by then she had become transmogrified into 'Irene') --- had become a psychic obstacle to peace-on-earth, a veil or a buffer that prevented people from seeing Richard as he actually is. But upon her death in late 2009, world rejoice! the veil is lifted, and behold, people can now see Richard in all his magical-prodigious splendour. And as a consequence, we're on the cusp of a global change the likes of which the world has never seen before.

(Heard that one before? No, you can't have. This is all new to human history, remember).

Such magical thinking, ideas of reference and delusions of grandeur are classic features of psychosis. It's by no means certain that he has been diagnosed that way by two psychiatrists because they fail to understand "an actual freedom from the human condition"; there's every possibility that he 
is incurably psychotic, and lacks insight into it. (And as is pretty common in such cases, that lack of insight is reinforced by a shitload of deluded ideation casting that person as having a unique role in a situation of global significance that no one understands, except him and a handful of enablers). 

- Richard believes that when he became AF, the Absolute ('Love Agape', 'Divine Compassion') died. That's why, according to his bizarrely self-centred world view, there aren't any genuinely enlightened masters any more. (There are only pale imitations of the "just add water and stir" variety, as he calls them). So there you have it: what happens in Richard's life, in Richard's mind, determines what happens, what can happen, to other people for all eternity. Ideas of reference, delusions of grandeur, Richard as a magical figure playing a pivotal role in world history, Richard as the primary determinant of other people's psychic potential, even people who haven't been born yet. That's quite a mythological role he's playing there, isn't it?

- Magical prodigies. Perhaps we could ask Claudiu if he managed to take a photograph of the 'actual' 'caloric energy', the fine golden energy emanating from Richard that Justine experiences on the other side of the world when Richard is having his magical prodigies. I doubt it though. I was on-site in December '09 and February '10, and the only thing I saw that remotely resembled a golden glow in Richard was a slight jaundice. (In February he looked tired and ill compared with when I'd seen him in December). And it wasn't because I wasn't in a so-called PCE. I was. 

- I have it on good authority that while in India Richard experienced a certain mall as a "toy town" with people as robots, and children as toy dolls. (Quite common among trippers and psychotics). I'm told he was staring transfixed by the sight of two porters who were glowing with golden energy. Too much coffee that morning, apparently. Add hallucinations to the list of classic psychotic symptoms.

- And socially: If you'd known five years ago -- or however long ago it was that you were first introduced to AF -- that the relationship between Peter and Vineeto, which was portrayed as a demonstration of and a template for a new kind of human relationship -- would turn out to be a relationship with Richard instead, would that have mattered? Maybe, maybe not.

- And who in their right mind could believe that Justine, who weeps at the sight of Richard's portrait and experiences his magical (supposedly "actual", "caloric") energetic emanations on the other side of the globe, exemplifies a post-psychic, post-spiritual condition that is entirely new to human history? Come on now.

- And that Justine's daughter became AF within a few hours of touching down at Coolangatta airport, but you people who have faithfully read his every word and practiced his methods for years (including people like Tarin and Trent, the latter of whom does a passing good imitation of orthodox AF advocacy despite not being endorsed by Richard) are not only nowhere near, they're 180 degrees opposite.

I could go on and on... but there wouldn't be much point, would there? Anybody who's willing to see this stuff has already seen it. For that vast majority, what matters more is a favourable result for themselves, and if contemplation of these things isn't conducive to that result, they'll turn a blind eye. And hang anybody out to dry in the process.

So be it.

As for me, I'm between a rock and a hard place on this subject: if I engage with anyone at all on the subject of AF, it requires me to drag in a whole lot of stuff that I don't really want to talk about in order to fully justify my views. The alternative is silence. Neither is a great option. The latter is the smarter choice, but sometimes clearly I'm not that smart.



-To my mind, it's by no means certain that the term AF means anything other than either (a) being Richard, or (b) being so utterly devoted to him and his teachings as to be virtually indistinguishable from him. (A new twist on having no identity whatsoever) ;-). 

I'm actually pretty doubtful that there's any common objective change that could be observed in all the people who have claimed AF... or even any two of them, frankly. I suspect there's been a huge mindfuck going on, and that there is no common underlying physico-chemical basis for this so-called "actual freedom".

It'd be interesting to see what's going on under the hood. For me it would no longer be of personal interest because, regardless of what's going on in the brain of an AF person, I've seen enough of how it operates to not want to emulate it. Still, for those who are interested in doing so, it would be interesting to know what's really going on.


 One of the reasons I've been so perplexed and upset by my involvement with actualism over the years is that some of my best experiences, which seemed wholly innocent and excellent, now seem -- in my mind if not in reality -- corrupted by association with the whole AF trip. I'm trying to "take them back", as it were. Part of that involves no longer talking about them in AF terms. Another part involves subjecting them to honest scrutiny, and being receptive to feedback from other people, without the assumption that subjective innocence equals optimum mode of interaction for them as well as for me. (The arrogance of it!)

Everything I've been trying to say about AF can be summed up quite simply. My suggestion is: Don't believe anything; don't assume that what you read is true or accurate; don't even assume that there is such a thing as AF. Consider the possibility that Richard is mentally unsound (and not just insane/'unsane' in the way that he openly admits to being). And treat the affirming / confirming testimonies of others in the AF scene with due skepticism, in full knowledge that even highly intelligent people can and do believe all kinds of implausible things as a result of their own inner need being met by a persuasive other. 

And if after bearing all those possibilities in mind you're still satisfied that what you're striving for and practising has genuine merit for yourself and others, regardless of whether any of the above is true, then go for it, test it out in real life, and test its effect on your own well-being and that of others. 

I have written about these things not because I think Richard is some sort of monster. I definitely don't, although I do think he's flaky and ruthless in some ways. I've written about these things because my personal view is that AF has acquired a legitimacy in this forum that it does not deserve (mainly due to the well-deserved good reputation of some of its early adopters). And many people are staking so much on it based on very little reliable data, possibly to their serious detriment."




thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 6:01 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 6:01 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
A prediction: Beoman will enter to say in some way or other that John did not understand, but he (Beoman) has the correct understanding. 
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 6:40 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 6:40 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
They are particularly genius and seems relevant because it is without many of the that current AF practicioners like Beoman, not tao and Felipe have on.

I think you left out some words in this sentence, care to fill them in?
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 8:00 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 7:59 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I think this psychosis angle makes the whole thing more interesting. emoticon

Really, though, I came to use AF terminology after I'd already been practicing it for a while.  I've read a lot of Richards advice to people, and everything I've seen not only matches the advice I've written to myself over the years in journals, it adds a few things that led me into PCEs more easily.

Here's a theory - maybe Richard is both completely crazy and also actually free as he describes it.

As for Justine, I can't judge his current experience since I'm not him, but it's clear from his writings that he isn't talking about the same thing as Richard. I've never read anything by those other people so I can't judge them.

None of this is very important, IMO. I'm more interested in discussing practice.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 11:01 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/1/14 10:58 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Really, though, I came to use AF terminology after I'd already been practicing it for a while.  I've read a lot of Richards advice to people, and everything I've seen not only matches the advice I've written to myself over the years in journals, it adds a few things that led me into PCEs more easily.

That's always a good sign! It's almost like there is factually a particular experience called a PCE, and then when people who have had one describe it you can recognize it and realize it's the same thing, and when other people describe other things you can recognize they're different things =P.
Not Tao:
I think this psychosis angle makes the whole thing more interesting. emoticon [...] Here's a theory - maybe Richard is both completely crazy and also actually free as he describes it.

Hehe, this certainly is in line with some of the ways he chooses to describe things. I find it quite amusing:

RESPONDENT: I wonder what the ‘insane world’ is doing tonight?
RICHARD: I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists and have been officially classified as suffering from a pronounced and severe mental disorder. My symptoms are:
1. Depersonalisation.
2. Derealisation.
3. Alexithymia.
4. Anhedonia.
Also, I have the most classic indication of insanity. That is: everyone else is mad but me.
I just thought I might share that with you, as I consider that it may be important for you to know that you are currently engaged in a correspondence with a madman.
Ain’t life grand! [link]

Besides, I am a certified madman! [link]

Please, continue to check it out. Do not worry about being doubtful. Question everything. Be utterly scrupulous in your enquiry, for this is your life we are talking about. You, and only you, have to live your life. It is you that must suffer the consequences – or reap the rewards – of any step you take. You have to find out for yourself whether I am utterly deluded or not. Remember, you are talking to a madman ... I am officially insane, don’t forget. [link]

And just to be clear, what Richard is saying is that he is officially insane, not that he is actually insane, to wit:

When ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becomes extinct all its states of being, ranging from sanity through to insanity, also cease to be ... there is no ‘presence’ whatsoever here in this actual world to be either sane or insane. I just find it cute that the solution to all the ills of humankind be considered insanity by sane people (most of whom live by, or aspire to become, the model provided by the insanity of the altered states of consciousness which have become institutionalised over the aeons by being universally accepted as the summum bonum of human existence anyway).
I kid you not: for just one example many years ago I went to see an accredited psychiatrist and established right from the beginning that he be an atheistic materialist – he said emphatically upon being questioned rather rigorously in this regard that everything was molecular (material) and modifications of same including consciousness itself – because another psychiatrist I had previously seen was exigently talking about guardian angels looking after me within the first five minutes of our discussion ... yet when regaling this second psychiatrist of my on-going experiencing of life in this actual world his eyes opened in awe as the full import (of what he heard) struck home and he said ‘you may very well be the next buddha we have all been waiting for’.
Such is the grip that the ‘Tried and True’ has on people. [link]
---
Not Tao:
None of this is very important, IMO. I'm more interested in discussing practice.

Agreed. I think I'm done with these debates, at least for now, maybe forever. It only takes a message or two to figure out whether it'd be fruitful, anyway.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/2/14 6:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/2/14 6:08 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
The following is taken from facebook group Dharma Connection and are excerpts written by Tom McNally, formerly a practitioner of AF and a long time practitioner of buddhism. Beoman has claimed previously that Tom did not understand, but that he (Beoman) does. It's a pattern repeated endlessly, and numerous times in the discussion upstream. Notice that whenever someone offers a different perspective it is a misperception, and the only valid perspective is to agree completely with him/Richard. This is not to degrade Beoman. I am sure he is a nice man. I bet he is a fast runner and says "thank you" when people hold the door for him. Rather it illustrates those interested in AF have a strong need for a blief system, the opposition of which -no matter how concise, clear headed or transparent- must be dismissed as a misperception, lest the house of cards be shown to be only that:

"

If you break Actualism down to a basic set of techniques and cut away all the verbiage of the website, you’re left with bare attentiveness to immediate sensate experience. At its most fundamental level, and regardless of what the self-proclaimed progenitor says, the entire practice leading to “an actual freedom from the human condition” is based on paying attention to what’s happening in the sensate field right now, but with a focus on the aggregate of feeling.

 At root, Actualism is just another method of development but its view is wrong on so many levels that I can’t begin to list them. This is simply my opinion on the matter, having practiced it with utter sincerity for quite some time I can speak from experience but, to this day, I still can’t see how people haven’t figured out that Richard is batshit insane and that his entire model collapses under scrutiny. Not only that, if one continues to apply those same techniques once so-called Actual Freedom happens, the entire thread unravels and the very foundation of it is seen to be empty! It becomes impossible to posit the existence of a physical body beyond its imputation, so to continue to think that an “actual world”, existing “out there” and apart from the rest of experience is seen to be complete ballocks."

thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 1:33 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 1:31 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Bill,

If you'd like a conversation, could you address my earlier post? It'd be useful to actually understand each other.

William Golden Finch:
The following is taken from facebook group Dharma Connection and are excerpts written by Tom McNally, formerly a practitioner of AF and a long time practitioner of buddhism. Beoman has claimed previously that Tom did not understand, but that he (Beoman) does.
Hmm... I'll point you to something Tommy had written just eight months prior to that which you quoted:
Tommy:
Contrary to my previous claims, I do indeed still experience affective emotion; in the last four or five weeks, I had been lower than I can recall at any time in my life and actually ended up hospitalized with chest pains brought about by the stress of my current situation.
[...]
As I’ve contemplated what’s gone on over the last four to six months of my life, it’s occurred to me that I used the whole AF/no affective emotion idea as a way to avoid facing up to the stressful and genuinely difficult situation I found myself in. Not that I didn’t pursue that outcome with complete sincerity, but my overwhelming desire to not have to feel the way I did led to me deluding myself and, through strong intent, creating a reality-tunnel for myself where I basically stopped registering emotions…temporarily.
Does he really sound like someone who would have any credibility with regards to their understanding of actualism and how to properly put the actualism method into effect?

William Golden Finch:
Rather it illustrates those interested in AF have a strong need for a blief system, the opposition of which -no matter how concise, clear headed or transparent- must be dismissed as a misperception, lest the house of cards be shown to be only that:
I'll repeat what I said earlier: Is this a falsifiable assessment? As in, is there any sequence or course of events that would lead you to conclude that one or the other party does not have a strong need for a belief system but is describing something factual, i.e. something that doesn't need to be believed?

To clarify: you don't have to believe that you are reading words on a screen, you just know it to be the case. If someone denies that you are reading words on a screen, and you point out that no, you are in fact reading words on a screen, so they must be getting something wrong, and then they say that you replying in that way "illustrates you have a strong need for a belief system, the opposition of which must be dismissed as a misperception", that would be nonsensical would it not?
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 6:05 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 6:05 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
The moment you decided in your head to reply (after previously claiming you were done) you lost your own argument and my point was proven. To respond to most of your questions would not be fruitful for either of us.
Tom's response is that of someone who was where you, Felipe, and Not Tao are now, but has come through the delusion you are under and is now at the other end. Rather than using that, it bolsters my case. You should read his words slowly, and carefully.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 7:11 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 7:11 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Hi William,

Maybe you don't realize this, but you're being very rude and hostile.  If your only interest in posting here is to prove points or to deligitimize actual freedom, you've missed my original intention for this thread.  If you are interested in debating actual freedom practice itself, or the goal of actual freedom - the PCE - then please try to direct your posts that way, okay?  I think this thread has had some good posts and debate in it, so it would be nice to see it continue that way.  Please feel free to start another thread if you're interested in trying to prove Actual Freedom is a cult run by a deranged lunatic. emoticon
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 8:42 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 8:42 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, William,

William:
Tom's response is that of someone who was where you, Felipe, and Not Tao are now, but has come through the delusion you are under and is now at the other end. 

Please note that Tom never let go of his Buddhist practice to give actualism {as it is described in the AFT website} a wholehearted chance. Those were times where actualism landed here via Tarin and Trent, and the novelty of it caused a lot of people to play with it or experiment with it, but not everyone took it fully on board.

If you are sincerely interested in where some of us are now, you should take a look at those who actually kept going with this actualist thing exclusively. Curiously, most of them, after practicing actualism sincerely and exclusively for a while, did notice how this thing is different from spirituality, and how it's been really beneficial to their lives.

And they are not a few, so, for a better understanding, instead of looking at hybrid practitioners or keeping with the assumptions, you could actually ask or read people like Adam, #1-0, Aaron, Gabriel, Jon, Claudiu, Andrew, Srid, Ole, Shashank, Jayson, Srinath, and others. Some of them still post in the Actualism Yahoo list.

Regards,

Felipe

 
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 10:32 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/3/14 10:32 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Good evening gentleman:

Not tao,

       Relax, bruh. It's just the internet and it's just my opinion. If you are interested in becoming emotionless think of your emotional reaction to my words as more grist for the mill. You're welcome. 
        I realize my direct writing style is not for everyone, but I harbor no hostility for you, Beoman, or Felipe. For better or worse, I am the same in real life, but I smile frequently as well. Transparency is good. I do believe that you, Beoman, and Not tao are under certain delusions pertaining to AF and believe it is fear of life that has landed you here.
       I love life. I have no idea what it means, but I love it none-the-less for its sweetness, beauty and sense of humor.
       I do not think you are bad people. I have not threatened any of you. I even said above Beoman is probably a nice guy. His grandma probably loves him. But there is a certain corrosive combination of willful ignorance and arrogance that seems to be a common thread.
     Most of what I do anyways is just hold up a mirror: however you feel about what you see is yours and yours alone. The same applies to me. In your responses to me your (you, Beoman, n Felipe) previous declarations about yourself, your beliefs and your models fall to ash. It's as though you would like to stop yourself, but can't.
     The risk of publishing information on an internet forum is that people are free to respond with opinions you may not like. If this is an affront to your belief system, you could create a website and not allow comments. 
      I am going to continue submitting to this thread. For better or worse, I have only just begun. You will see. It will be good. And relevant to the earlier discussion. My goal is not to tear down, but to educate.
      Be well. Sleep well.

Bill


Felipe,

       Thank you for your mostly courteous and balanced response.  AF is not new to me. I have seen it before. Even if you and Claduiu are the examples I do not think it is for me, and I find the belief systems within irreconcilable with my personal experiences. There was a time when it made half sense, but that time passed long ago. Be well. Sleep well.

Bill
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 10/4/14 12:02 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/4/14 12:02 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Actually, that was very helpful, thank you. emoticon

I like this idea of "being" as the central focus.  Is there any self-referencing in an emotion or not.  I've had a hard time sorting through things sometimes, so this should make it a lot easier.

Actually, I think this describes the PCE pretty well too.  That's one of the reasons I thought it might have been a non-dual state or rigpa back when I was first researching these things.  The "self" disappears completely.  The self was only ever the feelings, though, IME, so the other parts of rigpa - like universal emptiness and luminosity - were just very confusing to me.

@Eva and Psi: I think the horse is pretty dead at this point.  Thank you for the good conversation, though!  If you think these things are all the same, that just gives me encouragement that I'm on the right track.  Buddhist terminology just confused me, and Actualist terminology is crystal clear, so that's the reason I stay with it.  Feel free to translate me into your own terms if you like.  If it seems like I'm doing something wrong, though, that may be one of the differences I've found so useful, so maybe it's worth looking into. emoticon
Human tendency to simplify and generalize is amazing sometimes.  I never said 'all the same' and I don't think anyone did either that I saw. I was pointing out similarities, that's not the not at all the same as 'all the same.'  ;-P  You say Actualism is crystal clear but that opinion does not appear to be universal, many have expressed confusion. 

However speaking of going down the path of generalization, I'd expect actualism to be much more cohesive than Buddhism simply because it was only recently invented by just one guy and even now has only one leader.  Similar to when Buddha was alive and teaching his, at that time,  apparently new way of thinking.  If actualism were to last for thousands of years with thousands of leaders and split into hundred of sects, each with their own interpretation, which is what happens to all long lived popular groups (I can think of no exceptions), then it will likely become just as much of a morass of conflict, argument and confusion as Buddhism.   Although from what I've seen, the divisions and splits and arguments will likely start even before the first leader is dead, with various groups trying to gain the most official of approval of the original leader even before he dies and then arguing even more about who succeeded after he dies.  Not sure why but if you look at the history of any long lived group, religion, political group, martial art, etc, this is how it always goes. 

Maybe it's these kind of arguments that can help force at least some people to think of new things and new ways of thinking.  I remember in high school, my speech and debate teacher would randomly assign students to debate sides such that people often  had to argue for the opposite side than they currently believed in, such that republicans would have to argue as democrats, etc.  You were graded on quality of arguments so even if you didn't believe in what you were saying, you were expected to do a good job for the duration of the debate.  There was not one person that I recall, that after having to research and argue opposite their usual beliefs for a few weeks, did not have their previous opinions strongly affected.   Many became much more moderate or understanding of both sides.  A few even switched sides.  There are many advantages to being able to see things from more than one perspective.  The very thing that makes for a nice good long lived controversy is when both sides have lots of pretty good arguments on their side but refuse to see any validity of those on the other side.  For some reason, humans love taking sides.  Neighboring schools immediately become on opposite sides, states go against other states, countries against countries, poor against rich, one sport team against another, one tv channel against another, brothers against sisters, my way is always better than yours.  I think sometimes it does get a bit old though doesn't it? 
Felipe C, modified 9 Years ago at 10/4/14 3:04 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/4/14 2:54 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hiya, William,

William:
Felipe,

       Thank you for your mostly courteous and balanced response.  AF is not new to me. I have seen it before. Even if you and Claduiu are the examples I do not think it is for me, and I find the belief systems within irreconcilable with my personal experiences. There was a time when it made half sense, but that time passed long ago. Be well. Sleep well.

You misunderstood. I understand how AF is not new for you and how it's not the right practice for you. However, my message wasn't addressing your own preferences and history in regards to actualism but, rather, your assumptions that we {Claudiu, Not Tao and me} are in the same case of or that we are as deluded as Tom, here:

William:
Tom's response is that of someone who was where you, Felipe, and Not Tao are now, but has come through the delusion you are under and is now at the other end.

Not even speaking of your own assumptions that we are deluded and that we are in need of a belief system {which doesn't make sense from the actualism method when sincerely practiced, by the way}, I was only asking you to, at least, compare apples to apples {actualists to actualists} —not apples to oranges {actualists to hybrid practitioners such as Tom}— and to take a look at their current words and results, and how they do differ from those of such hybrid practitioners.

I hope you are well too.

Regards,

Felipe
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 12:28 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 12:28 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Haha, you forgot to mention my vanity and stubborness, William. I'm sure those are also preventing me from understanding your point of view. emoticon

@Eva: Psi was the one saying actualism was the same as bare awareness (at least, that was my impression of his arguments), and of course I can only say that Actualism is crystal clear to me - you can safely assume I'm only ever talking about my own experience of things.  I agree that, because actualism was created by a single person, it will have more cohesion that a 2000 year old religion.  This is particularly what I like about it.  In fact, I think if I were to attempt to teach anyone, I'd call my methods "sensualism" and say it was a completely new and original system for mental improvement.  That way people wouldn't try to tell me I'm interpreting things incorrectly.  (I also particularly like the word "sensualism" - it makes me think of oil paintings and chamber music.)
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 7:58 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 1:27 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Hey all, 
Kind of tired, probably shouldn't be writing in this mind state, but....

This thread, crazy, PCE has so many similarities as results of so many other paths, Non-duality, Buddhism, True Christianity, Yoga, Taoism, Dianetics, the list could go on.  I just can't agree with the 180 degree statement, the idea that this is different,  and have come to realise it is most likely just a meme, a thought formation.  It seems that the practice of Actualism is okay, But....

Question:  If one is in PCE, what is suggested by Actualism do do with one's life?  Does one just float around in PCE like a happy jellyfish, floating from one sensuous experience to another, does one become goalless?  If one does not become goalless, then is one's goal to only focus on Actualism?  What about other mental endeavors?  Can one still study science?  Or is science discredited by Actualism?  Is science seen as delusion?  

Question:  Is it true that in Actualism one feels that they are the body?  The flesh and blood body only...  And not the "who I think or feel I am"  Which I get, thoughts are thoughts, feelings are feelings.  But, to think we are the flesh and blood?  Let us investigate.
Am I a blood cell?  What about blood transfusions?  Then whose blood is it?  What about skin cells, what happens to my reality of being skin cells when they slough off and become dust on the intable?  Am I now existing on the intable? That skin on the in table is/was flesh that was once part of the body it came off of.  What about the water inside the body?  What about when he body sweats and evaporates into the atmosphere, am I now part of the cloud?  Of course there is no "I" in the thoughts, but neither is there the being of being the flesh and blood body, that is another delusion.

Question:  In Actualism, everything is seen as perfect, surely this is not taken as face value, I would hope that what is meant by this is that everything exists as it actually is, like poo is perfect at being poo, But poo isn't "perfect and beautiful"  and neither is it "ugly and gross"  It is just poo.  So, in a PCE is poo really seen as it is, or is it a sensuous sparkly manifestation of this wonderful existence?

Question:  If one is only the fesh and blood body, what about the non human DNA components of the bodies microbiome?  What about the bacteria, and God forbid, intestinal worms, and other parasites, surely they are not considered to be part of this flesh and blood body.

Question:  And why is there an attitude being preached that everyone else that is not practicing Actualism is wrong, and deluded?  Yet , when delusions of Actualism are pointed out they are vehemently defended (in a nice way) under the guise of innocence, and then proclaimed as "Well, you poor ole chap, you just don't get it, and here is how it really is.  This just goes round and round.

Question:  Isn't mosty Actualism about the ending of "me" and existing in PCE?  And what exactly is new about this?  The discovery of the God Delusion isn't exactly new.  Neither is the dropping of the "me" delusion.  And along with the dropping of the "me" delusion, comes with it , the "PCE".  Not new, not different, I would say reality has always been there,, how can it be new?
Religious teaching brainwashes people into believing nonsense instead of observing facts and actuality. For most people seeing a fact means betraying their belief ... thus they are rendered incapable of seeing it. One of the ways of ascertaining whether a ‘truth’ is a belief or a fact is that a belief demands loyalty; you give allegiance to it and to the group that espouses it. If you have more than one belief it causes difficulty, as your loyalties can be torn apart. You can feel chaotic, not knowing which belief is ‘true’. It makes you very insecure ... at moments like that you wish that there were one person who could tell you what to do and what not to do ... what to believe and what not to believe. You desire some Big Daddy or Big Mummy to tell you what is ‘Right’ and what is ‘Wrong’.
"I" Believe in nothing, knowing comes from experiencing
Most people try to resolve their different beliefs through compromise. Two people, holding on to their own beliefs, will get into an argument, a fight. They are separate. One is always trying to get the other to believe in their own belief through manipulation and persuasion ... and by giving or withholding love. The one who is stronger, the most adept in this, wins the other over. As neither can stand separation, they will grab any means to come together – even if this means mutual concessions, or the swapping of one’s belief for the other’s. Seeing that both beliefs are irrelevant, by virtue of the fact that they are beliefs anyway, they can dissolve completely. Then there is nothing to resolve, the problem itself is eliminated. Hence a permanent lack of conflict. With the absence of belief there is no more power battles over whose belief is ‘Right’. Separation is no more ... equity prevails. The result is actual intimacy between autonomous individuals.
Perhaps "beliefs" require defense, as does any illusion, it needs support, for without support an illusion can not stand on its own,  just like the ego, or the "me"  the "I" am the thoughts and feelings.  When thoughts and feelings are seen as just the impersonally arising phenomenon they are the "me" falls away.  Yet when one identifies with the thoughts and feelings, the "me" springs back to life and up comes the human marionette show.
A discerning eye and ear is needed in order to ascertain what is fact and what is merely theory, postulation, concept, commonly agreed, belief, assumption, speculation, imagination, myth, wisdom, real or true. It is easy to see when one knows how to look. Without having to interpret through one’s own belief system – an otherwise intelligent person is thus blind to the obvious – all facts are self-evidently clear. Start with a fact – a verifiable, objective actuality – as the base. Use it as a touch-stone to test the actuality of whatever ‘truth’ one suspects to be a belief. Separate out facts from fiction; find out which part is demonstrably a fact. Anything else is fiction, an illusion.Any belief is nonsensical. By its very nature a belief is not factually true ... otherwise it would not need to be believed to be true. A fact is obvious; it is out in the open, freely available for all to see as being true. To believe something to be true is to accept on trust that it is so. A fact does not have to be accepted on trust – a fact is candidly so. A fact is patently true, manifestly clear.

So, we investigate, eh?

And of couse, as is usually the case, most of my questions are rhetorical, of course one can study science, not float around like a mindless jellyfish, and avoid stepping on sun sparkled poo.  But the point is, investigate.  Any belief is nonsensical.....

PCE is not clinging to actualism, Nirvana is not clinging to Buddhism, but the experience is in the here and now.  So what with the beliefs, all nonsense.  

Good Night, 

Psi Phi
“The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.” 
― Lao TzuTao Te Ching
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 2:59 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 2:41 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I think these are good questions actually.  They are easily answered by the PCE itself, since the questions are experiential in nature, but I don't know if that sort of answer will be satisfying for you.  I'll do my best though.

What a person does with one's life is up to the person, of course.  I mentioned this before, but from what I've seen, emotions aren't the driving force behind "doing."  As a proof, just consider how often emotions prevent us from doing things we want to do.  Maybe you want to write a novel, but your feelings about what you're creating are so distracting you are completely incapacitated and can't write.  In the PCE, those feelings about the content of the situation are gone, but the desire to write is still there.  This desire is not a feeling, it's intellectual, a kind of adventurous curiosity. Our will stays intact - it's the "I feel" that is dispursed. Like I said before, the PCE feels like a genuinely free will compared to emotional thinking.

I think the best way to look at Actualism is with a eye to practicality. Beoman said it well - to be emotionless is to be without "being" - or that feeling of an identity. The PCE feels distinctly like there is nothing to protect and there is nothing urgent. There is nothing left to "drive" you, you are just free to do whatever you normally would want to. You do lose the desire to do things that are driven by emotions - but those things are usually the things we wish we could change about ourselves!

In terms of feeling that you are the body - the goal of actualism is not to "see through delusion" as it is in Buddhism. The goal is practical - to feel perfect at all times. To say "I am this flesh and blood body sans identity" is just a description of the PCE. It's just like being a normal person without anything driving you back and forth - you're just free. It's best not to look at it in a Buddhist context because the goal of Buddhism is to transform your perspective - to see through the illusion of ownership. The PCE is very mundane in comparison, I think.

As to seeing things as perfect. The point to realize here is that, because there are no emotions, poo loses it's ick factor, and fireworks lose their wow factor. What's left is hard to explain. I spent an afternoon looking at my ceiling one day. I didn't find the ceiling particularly beautiful, I was just content to look at it. Just the process of seeing was itself enjoyable. If there had been poo on the ceiling, I probably would have said, "I enjoy looking at this poo." That's not because poo is an enjoyable thing to look at, it would be because there was no aversion to poo, and it felt good to be alive in that moment with eyes that could register color. Appreciaction seems to be a general factor of the PCE.

I personally don't take the attitude that other people are deluded. That may be a part of actualism, but it doesn't have any practical application so I'm not really interested in whether it's true or not. I do think it's wrong to say, definitively, "there is no self" though, because right now I am a self. If, someday, my experience was such where I experienced no-self, I would say, "I was a self, and now I'm not." The arguments you make about the self - such as, are you the blood cells, or the intestinal worms - are intellectual statements about the nature of the body and interconnectedness. They don't have any practical application to whether or not I am content (perhaps they would if I had a lot of existential angst). If, after living in a PCE for a number of years, I were to suddenly realize, "oh, hey, I'm actually not a self!" It wouldn't have any bearing on my understanding of actualism - it would be an unrelated event. Stated another way, the PCE is not without a sense of existence, it's without a sense of definitions. The self in actualism is a definition - like, "I am a man" - and the self in buddhism is existential - like "I am."

EDIT: Interestingly, it seems that the sense of identity can remain, even if the sense of "I am" goes away, considering the reports of 4th pathers in the DhO tradition.  I was always a bit confused how anger or sadness could arise in an impersonal field of awareness - but this might be another indication that I haven't experienced a non dual state and the PCE is something different.

EDIT2: Actually, I'm remembering an event a little over a year ago where I was experiencing intense anxiety but felt no connection to it.  It certainly was a relief!  Maybe this is more anatta related?  I made a post about it a while back.  I think I compared it to Daniel's description of the "no dog" state, though that offended someone because I hadn't been meditating at the time.
Eva Nie, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 10:45 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 10:45 AM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 831 Join Date: 3/23/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:


I personally don't take the attitude that other people are deluded.
These days, I tend to think of 'delusion' more as an issue of 'clinging.'  People tend to cling, myself included.  Once you let go of the clinging, the truth seems to become obvious automatically and you wonder why you didn't see it before.  I suspect this situation is more like on a continuum of how much clinging you have, not that there is any single group of humans that have no clinging/delusion and can easily point fingers at others with claims that they alone are not deluded. 
That may be a part of actualism, but it doesn't have any practical application so I'm not really interested in whether it's true or not. I do think it's wrong to say, definitively, "there is no self" though, because right now I am a self.
Yeah, confuses me too.  Seems like everyone walks around with a sense of self, saying "I am" when they talk about self.  Haven't seen anyone who starts talking like a Borg (other than trekkie fans) and compelled to say "we are" instead.  A sense of individual identity does not seem to leave completely, even if perspective can shift around.  Like once when sleeping, I felt like I floated into our pet dog and experienced existence from his perspective, felt his strange heart beat, etc.  So for those monents, it was like I was the dog.  But when I came back, I did not assume my true nature was that dog even if I did feel the dog was a true thing itself.  If you experience yourself as something other than you as if you were it, does that mean you can't also have your own unique nature?  Even if I am a conglomeration of other influences, body cells, reptile brain, energy from various aspects of the field around me, etc (which I suspect is likely the case), whatever the influences are that combine to create an feeling of identity of self, that feeling seems to stay present in both me and in others as well.  So actualism assigns the label 'self' to the body and Buddhism likes to say to not assign it anywhere (no self), but I am not sure it matters where you do or do not assign the label of 'self' as much as what matters is the investigation itself. 


If, someday, my experience was such where I experienced no-self, I would say, "I was a self, and now I'm not." The arguments you make about the self - such as, are you the blood cells, or the intestinal worms - are intellectual statements about the nature of the body and interconnectedness.
It seems to me (could be wrong), that some find in their Buddhist path that the source of self is not any one thing that can be pointed at, so therefore the Buddhist assumptoin is there is no self.  Not sure if I agree there though.  Like the body is made of many cells, the cells are made of molecules, that does not mean there is no body.  It just means the body is a kind of organized conglomeration.  So IMO it comes down to labels.  I suspect the Buddhist decision on label is meant to lead the mind in certain directions, but I don't think any of the labels can really stand in for these complex concepts decently.  Hence for those few who really really dig into the concepts and labels, you start to see that the story is not complete.  I suspect a lot of it is because most Buddhists themselves do not know a more complete picture and those few that do can't really explain it well so they tend to instead just try  to tell you how to get it yourself. 
They don't have any practical application to whether or not I am content (perhaps they would if I had a lot of existential angst). If, after living in a PCE for a number of years, I were to suddenly realize, "oh, hey, I'm actually not a self!" It wouldn't have any bearing on my understanding of actualism - it would be an unrelated event. Stated another way, the PCE is not without a sense of existence, it's without a sense of definitions. The self in actualism is a definition - like, "I am a man" - and the self in buddhism is existential - like "I am."
That sounds like what I was saying about labels and definitions being different but maybe the experience not so much.  I am not sure if matters SO much how you end up labeling things.  I suspect that by it's nature, the sense of self is going to end up coming from a conglomeration of influences.  If you want to label that 'no self' or whatever, I am not sure that it matters as much as the various groups are making it out to matter.  I suspect what may matter more is the letting go of pre existing assumptions that get in the way.  The buddhist method of thinking of  no self may well work to help sweep away a lot of thought processes that get in the way for some people especially since it kind of slams opposite of the usual thought processes.  But for others, it may just sound confusing.  But for everyone, if you let go of the clinging to definitions and things that block you, I think then things get interesting. 
EDIT: Interestingly, it seems that the sense of identity can remain, even if the sense of "I am" goes away, considering the reports of 4th pathers in the DhO tradition.  I was always a bit confused how anger or sadness could arise in an impersonal field of awareness - but this might be another indication that I haven't experienced a non dual state and the PCE is something different.
I can't find any decent concensus.  I've read some accounts of Theruveda enlightenment that sound just like PCE to me and others like Daniel's that don't sound so much like it.  Maybe it's kind of a thing that when someone reaches some amazing state, that person tends to assume that must be the thing everyone was talking about!  
EDIT2: Actually, I'm remembering an event a little over a year ago where I was experiencing intense anxiety but felt no connection to it.  It certainly was a relief!  Maybe this is more anatta related?  I made a post about it a while back.  I think I compared it to Daniel's description of the "no dog" state, though that offended someone because I hadn't been meditating at the time.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more that part confuses me.  If I feel more separate from my emotions, they seem to say that is like an anatta thing, and yes, the emotoins are less bothersome then.  But I can still feel them, they still effect me, and I don't feel they are COMPLETELY separate.  If they were completely separate, how would I feel thems so easily?  Like if my fingers hurts, at first I don't pay attention to finger, then it hurts and I notice it.  I don't think that my whole existence is finger, but I do think the hurt of the finger effects me, it is one part of me.  Same with emotions.  I don't think emotions are all that I am, but I don't think they are none of what I am.  If the emotions and the way they express change, then the sense of self also changes.  If you want to say they are gone or if you want to say they are no longer expressing through the body, either way, change those and the sense of self and behaviors of self change.  

Ironically, this whole 'emotionless' thing kind of reminds me of the 'anatta' thing.  If something is supposed to be gone or not exist, then we does some sense of it still remain?  If there is no self, why does one still experience some kind of sense of self at times (assuming they do?)  If emotions are gone, then why does one still want things even if said emotions do not seem to express through the body?  If there is no emotions, then why do you care if there is PCE?  Why do you care if others do Actualism or not?  It's as if Richard has swapped out the 'no self' argument with a 'no emotions' argument.  ;-)
-Eva 
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 2:55 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 2:55 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
The following are taken from KFD forum. These were taken shortly after AF gained popularity, before those who were actually free acknowleged that they were not actually free. The quotes belong to Theravadan meditation master Kenneth Folk, and reflect his thinking at the time. They are offered in the hopes of giving a broader perspective, to provide some balance to the small. but extremely vocal minority who propagate AF as the one true way.

"It is the belief in the cultivation of the PCE to the exclusion of all other perspectives that is unique to AF. The state itself is perfectly benign, and is as delightful as its advocates say it is. I would suggest that they are perhaps overzealous in their rhetoric about it; after all, they readily admit that it is not unusual or unique to their system. My teacher, Bill Hamilton, called the state of delighting in the simple, unadorned pleasure of the senses "vipassana consciousness." He urged me to cultivate it along with a number of other states.

I believe that much of the confusion, even hysteria, around AF has arisen because the founder talks about it in opaque, cult-like terms, singing the praises of the PCE while actively deriding more established contemplative traditions. But the smoke clears very quickly once we put the PCE in context. To put it simply, the PCE is just another perspective. The fact that the AF advocates claim it is better or more valid than other experience is neither here nor there; it is an opinion. It is not uncommon for the adherents of a particular system to loudly proclaim its superiority. Think of any religion. Seen in this way, each of us can try out the PCE and decide whether we want to attempt to cultivate it to the exclusion of all other perspectives."


I promise not to let this forum become a pulpit for AF apologists. AF is a religion, and this is not the place for religion.

My reason for bringing it up at all is to throw a monkey wrench in the AF agenda to co-opt one aspect of human experience as their own. Human experience belongs to no one and each of us is free to view our experience through whatever conceptual lens makes sense to us. When Richard gives a fancy name (PCE) to a simple experience and forms a religion to promote it, I call foul. This must be seen in a larger context. I created the 3 Speed Transmission because I wanted a model big enough and flexible enough to include all contemplative experience (including things I don't know about yet). The model includes subject, objects, and awareness, in any combination, and from both the time-bound and timeless points of view. So although there is no place in the 3 Speed Transmission for religion, there is plenty of room for experience. The perspective that Bill Hamilton called vipassana consciousness and that Richard of Actual Freedom calls the pure consciousness experience is a beautiful state that is part of the collective treasure of humankind. We must not cede to Richard and the AF advocates the exclusive right to talk about it. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As soon as we view vipassana consciousness/PCE within the larger framework of contemplative practice, we can allow the hysteria to die down. It's not a big deal. We don't have to be afraid that we are missing out on some special thing that only the members of a particular sect have access to. Whenever you feel the pull to some kind of 'special, today only' offer or 'drink our Koolaid and accept our world view or forever miss out on the ONE GOOD THING' sales pitch, it's time to look for a larger context. We humans are hardwired to fall for that sort of approach, which explains why even the most intelligent and streetwise among us can be lured into this religion or that if we aren't paying attention to the red flags. And breathless talk about how 'ours is the only way' is one of the most glaring of red flags.

My aim with this thread is to let the air out of the balloon of AF hysteria. There really isn't much going on there. It is the opacity of the AF teachings and the hoo-hah surrounding them that is confusing to people. As soon as people understand what AF is, they can take a deep breath. AF is neither an an evil boogeyman nor the answer to everyone's problems; it's just a peculiar worldview along with an ordinary human experience.

At the core of AF is the "pure consciousness experience." It is easy to imagine that this experience is something beyond ordinary mortals. But AF founder Richard says no. He has written that he's never spoken to anyone about this who had not already had the PCE.

So let us first of all understand that we are not talking about anything extraordinary. As I pointed out upthread, Bill H. called this experience "vipassana consciousness" long before any of us had heard of Actual Freedom. Insight meditation teachers teach this experience at nearly every retreat (e.g., mindfully eating a raisin).

Can everyone hear the air leaking out of the balloon? The PCE is most definitely not a big deal. It's just another pleasant perspective of consciousness.

Now, put this nice but ordinary state together with the peculiar AF worldview that every state other than the PCE is pathological and should be eradicated. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. The AF nugget in two brief paragraphs. Pssssss... (The sound of air escaping.)

AF does not own vipassana consciousness. They did not discover it, nor do they claim to have done so. They just singled the state out for special attention and gave it a fancy name. Their only unique claim is to have cultivated the PCE to the point where it is the only perspective available to them. And this, they believe is freedom. Pssssss... (The sound of air escaping.)

Just yesterday, I learned that there is a group in Colorado who believe that the 4th jhana is the most important of all states and should be cultivated to the exclusion of all else. The group members attempt to stay in 4th jhana all the time, whether sitting, eating, walking around, working, whatever. It is a truism to those of us familiar with basic Buddhist theory that attempting to stay in jhana is "wrong view." What may not be so well understood is that attempting to maintain *any* perspective to the exclusion of others is a mistake and leads only to stagnation.

The problem with AF is not the PCE, which is, after all, just another state. The problem is fixating on that state as the ONE TRUE EXPERIENCE.

As Alex points out, we do not have to succumb to the post-modern fallacy that every idea is as good as every other. We can apply our common sense. Some ideas are more helpful than others. Some ideas are not helpful at all. Some ideas are counterproductive. Any theory of practice that seeks to cultivate one perspective over all others is counterproductive. We can say that clearly without fear of being intolerant, unkind or narrow-minded.


To bring it closer to home, you are in love with the PCE. I have a friend who is a devotee of Meher Baba. Another friend is a born-again Christian. Another is an orthodox Jew. How would any reasonable person choose between you? All of you have something to believe in and some experience or idea you value above all."
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 3:30 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 3:24 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
The following are taken from KFD forum. These were taken shortly after AF gained popularity, before those who were actually free acknowleged that they were not actually free. The quotes belong to Theravadan meditation master Kenneth Folk, and reflect his thinking at the time. They are offered in the hopes of giving a broader perspective, to provide some balance to the small. but extremely vocal minority who propagate AF as the one true way.

"It is the belief in the cultivation of the PCE to the exclusion of all other perspectives that is unique to AF. The state itself is perfectly benign, and is as delightful as its advocates say it is. I would suggest that they are perhaps overzealous in their rhetoric about it; after all, they readily admit that it is not unusual or unique to their system. My teacher, Bill Hamilton, called the state of delighting in the simple, unadorned pleasure of the senses "vipassana consciousness." He urged me to cultivate it along with a number of other states.

I believe that much of the confusion, even hysteria, around AF has arisen because the founder talks about it in opaque, cult-like terms, singing the praises of the PCE while actively deriding more established contemplative traditions. But the smoke clears very quickly once we put the PCE in context. To put it simply, the PCE is just another perspective. The fact that the AF advocates claim it is better or more valid than other experience is neither here nor there; it is an opinion. It is not uncommon for the adherents of a particular system to loudly proclaim its superiority. Think of any religion. Seen in this way, each of us can try out the PCE and decide whether we want to attempt to cultivate it to the exclusion of all other perspectives."


I promise not to let this forum become a pulpit for AF apologists. AF is a religion, and this is not the place for religion.

My reason for bringing it up at all is to throw a monkey wrench in the AF agenda to co-opt one aspect of human experience as their own. Human experience belongs to no one and each of us is free to view our experience through whatever conceptual lens makes sense to us. When Richard gives a fancy name (PCE) to a simple experience and forms a religion to promote it, I call foul. This must be seen in a larger context. I created the 3 Speed Transmission because I wanted a model big enough and flexible enough to include all contemplative experience (including things I don't know about yet). The model includes subject, objects, and awareness, in any combination, and from both the time-bound and timeless points of view. So although there is no place in the 3 Speed Transmission for religion, there is plenty of room for experience. The perspective that Bill Hamilton called vipassana consciousness and that Richard of Actual Freedom calls the pure consciousness experience is a beautiful state that is part of the collective treasure of humankind. We must not cede to Richard and the AF advocates the exclusive right to talk about it. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As soon as we view vipassana consciousness/PCE within the larger framework of contemplative practice, we can allow the hysteria to die down. It's not a big deal. We don't have to be afraid that we are missing out on some special thing that only the members of a particular sect have access to. Whenever you feel the pull to some kind of 'special, today only' offer or 'drink our Koolaid and accept our world view or forever miss out on the ONE GOOD THING' sales pitch, it's time to look for a larger context. We humans are hardwired to fall for that sort of approach, which explains why even the most intelligent and streetwise among us can be lured into this religion or that if we aren't paying attention to the red flags. And breathless talk about how 'ours is the only way' is one of the most glaring of red flags.

My aim with this thread is to let the air out of the balloon of AF hysteria. There really isn't much going on there. It is the opacity of the AF teachings and the hoo-hah surrounding them that is confusing to people. As soon as people understand what AF is, they can take a deep breath. AF is neither an an evil boogeyman nor the answer to everyone's problems; it's just a peculiar worldview along with an ordinary human experience.

At the core of AF is the "pure consciousness experience." It is easy to imagine that this experience is something beyond ordinary mortals. But AF founder Richard says no. He has written that he's never spoken to anyone about this who had not already had the PCE.

So let us first of all understand that we are not talking about anything extraordinary. As I pointed out upthread, Bill H. called this experience "vipassana consciousness" long before any of us had heard of Actual Freedom. Insight meditation teachers teach this experience at nearly every retreat (e.g., mindfully eating a raisin).

Can everyone hear the air leaking out of the balloon? The PCE is most definitely not a big deal. It's just another pleasant perspective of consciousness.

Now, put this nice but ordinary state together with the peculiar AF worldview that every state other than the PCE is pathological and should be eradicated. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. The AF nugget in two brief paragraphs. Pssssss... (The sound of air escaping.)

AF does not own vipassana consciousness. They did not discover it, nor do they claim to have done so. They just singled the state out for special attention and gave it a fancy name. Their only unique claim is to have cultivated the PCE to the point where it is the only perspective available to them. And this, they believe is freedom. Pssssss... (The sound of air escaping.)

Just yesterday, I learned that there is a group in Colorado who believe that the 4th jhana is the most important of all states and should be cultivated to the exclusion of all else. The group members attempt to stay in 4th jhana all the time, whether sitting, eating, walking around, working, whatever. It is a truism to those of us familiar with basic Buddhist theory that attempting to stay in jhana is "wrong view." What may not be so well understood is that attempting to maintain *any* perspective to the exclusion of others is a mistake and leads only to stagnation.

The problem with AF is not the PCE, which is, after all, just another state. The problem is fixating on that state as the ONE TRUE EXPERIENCE.

As Alex points out, we do not have to succumb to the post-modern fallacy that every idea is as good as every other. We can apply our common sense. Some ideas are more helpful than others. Some ideas are not helpful at all. Some ideas are counterproductive. Any theory of practice that seeks to cultivate one perspective over all others is counterproductive. We can say that clearly without fear of being intolerant, unkind or narrow-minded.


To bring it closer to home, you are in love with the PCE. I have a friend who is a devotee of Meher Baba. Another friend is a born-again Christian. Another is an orthodox Jew. How would any reasonable person choose between you? All of you have something to believe in and some experience or idea you value above all."


 
Pro-Buddhist calenture
Actualist calenture
Anti-actualist calenture
Anti-buddhist calenture
Mod calenture
(Whatever cause) calenture
Ice-cream calenture
Trekkie calenture
Raw foods calenture
Dungeon and Dragons calenture
(Sport's team) calenture (Go the Rabbitohs!!!!)
Apple product fan boy calenture
I am this, I am that calenture
Attempting to be funny on a Dharma forum calenture
Dog calenture
Cat calenture
I'm right and you are wrong calenture
You get my point calenture
Maybe not calenture
Calenture calenture.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 3:27 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 3:27 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Haha, had to look that one up.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 6:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 6:08 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Nikolai: Good evening. Hope you are well.

As one who previously claimed Actual Freedom -and spoke often about how your affect free mode of being was superior-  and then said they were actually not free at a later time, your thoughts here would be appreciated should you have anything further to add. If I am remembering any of this wrong feel free to correct.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 8:06 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 10/5/14 8:06 PM

RE: A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Synchronicity, I feel kind of feverish, not kidding, and I used to be a Dungeon Master with a Cleric NPC,  is this magick?  Must spend some Psi points and put up a Tower of Iron Will, Gauntlets of Ogre Power won't do much in situations such as these.

Must meditate to get my spells back, should have taken along a Cure Disease, and me, all out of potions....

Be well

Psi Phi

Breadcrumb