- Huge volume of back and forth between people who believe that what they're doing is actualism and others who believe it isn't.... all of which would be completely unnecessary if they were not using actualist terms. (And all of which will be repeated every time a newcomer joins the discussion).
I think this problem can be avoided by creating a system with unique terms that is centered more within the context of vipassana and Buddhism. Using my Zen/Chan example -- I've never heard of Taoists charging into Zen temples accusing them of misrepresenting Taoism. Most people are unaware that Zen/Chan is even a combination of the two separate systems.
- If those who say that actualism is profoundly different in aim and method from "Buddh-actualism" are right, then what actualism really is gets buried underneath layers of well-meaning and authoritative-seeming misrepresentations and distortion.... all of which is unnecessary and not helpful to anyone.
I'm not convinced that actualism is profoundly different in aim, though it definitely is in method. Richard claims he was enlightened before he became "actually free," but his enlightenment was not the same enlightenment of MCTB or the dharmaoverground. His previous enlightenment wasn't actually enlightenment, but only a very early form of it. I don't really see much of a difference between apperception and the Buddhist notion of "in the seeing just the seen, in the feeling just the felt, etc." There is only a subtle difference, if any difference at all, between the very refined selfless-sensations-only, no controller/agent of complete enlightenment and the apperception and "out-from-control" in actualism. You might say that actualists are eliminating affect, but very few actualists have claimed to have removed all affect just as very few enlightened people have.
- When that happens, actualism loses its intended status as a "third alternative"... for better or worse. For those who believe actualism has something profoundly different to offer -- which is the unanimous verdict of those who know it best -- it's a really inconsiderate thing to do. For those who favour actualism, this distorts both the aims and the methods. For those who don't favour actualism, it gives actualism air time and respectability on false grounds (ie. that it's just another variant of {whatever}, and {such and such respected person in the community} practices and advocates it).
It is notable that of the few people that claimed "actual freedom,' many were enlightened in the four path model, and reached an "actual freedom" at the fastest rate. Many of these people were not even practicing "actual freedom" like they were supposed to. Trent fused actualist practices with some unique method involving the jhanas, Tarin wasn't convinced that the two needed to be completely separated, and Daniel called his experiments with Actualism an "actualist-inspired practice" instead of "pure actualism."
Some people may not be interested in eliminating all affect and some may not consider it realistic to completely eliminate affect. Some people may not be interested in a complete "actual freedom" because their memory may fall apart too much in such a state, but may still be interested in cultivating the PCE or an EE (or whatever new name would be used). People who are 3rd path may be able to reach 4th from fusing actualist-type practice methods with vipassana (or obtaining other paths with the persistence of maintaing bare sensate perception).
There are advantages in obtaining paths since they are permanent shifts that do not need to be maintained with practice. The only permanent shift Richard mentions is the state of "actual freedom" itself, and this is a shift very few seem to have obtained, if any people have obtained it at all. Other people may fully believe in re-birth and are interested in ending it and permanent path realizations may facilitate that aim for them.
Daniel himself also encourages doing these practices outside of the Richard-Actualist context in his article,
Daniel Ingram: "
Screw the fanaticism of the die-hard Actualism-is-the-only-true-way converts. Enjoy the empowerment, experiences and insights that come from just experimenting with being present and tuning in to this wondrous world instead.Screw what any of these practices have to do (or not do) with anything else, including "Buddhism" and "Actualism", and finally Screw anyone who says these basic practices are a bad idea, as points 1) to 6) above all make perfect sense and are based on sound meditative principles, and it is your journey, your life and your attention to it that finally will make the difference."
This creates a conflicting notion: The owner of the forum encourages combining the practices, but the current consensus of the forum is that it's taboo to combine them. Creating a new system would be a way to resolve this conflict.
I'm sure I could think of more if they're needed... but isn't it enough to suggest that if there is a "huge distinction" -- your own words -- then the first step in respecting that distinction is not using the same words for things that may well be completely different (both in intention and outcome)?
Sure, completely change all the words and all the terminology. I have no problem with that.