Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Daniel Leffler:
But they sure have the same cock suredness and zeal that you do. It's the religious aspect of Actualism I am referring to (and you are demostrating).
[...]
I think the answer is possibly simpler. Re-define words like happiness (to felicity) and equanimity (to fearless, or whatever) and compassion (to harmlessness) and there you have it. Poof! No emotions and a new religion is born. But you will need pamphlets. Pamphlets are important, that website just isn't cutting it ;)
Daniel could you go into exactly in what sense you are using "religious" and "religion"? I generally see the term thrown around as a way to denigrate something - much like the word "cult" - but often without the term being accurate. In what way specifically do you see it applying to actualism? Religion generally deals with divinity, aka Gods, which is clearly incompatible with actualism.
Thank you Claudiu, it seems (much like Actualists) I have my own personal definition for the word religion, and I am happy to explain
A religion as far as I am concerned is a belief system that is rigidly adhered to - this encompasses both the traditional religions of Buddhism and Christianity as well as cults, but also (very much so in fact) of Atheists (see Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' for an especially arrogant portrayal of religion, as defined by Me).
In my definition, someone has a religion when they cannot see validity in other possibilities and they don't actually talk and listen to people, they try to prove their points, and they produce data that satisifies the results of their foregone conclusions and dismiss data that doens't. There is a lot of it on these boards
An Agnostic can be religious - example. Someone says a heavenly being did not create heaven and earth. Really, is that intellectual honesty, do you know that's true? Personally, I'm 99% sure a being didn't create everything, but it could very well be true, (this is just an example) we are beings, we create things, how do we know we weren't created by a much higher intelligence?
On a more personal level, you (or actually Richard but you seem to agree 100%) says we are the emotions, we are the body and brain - that's it. Wow, millenium of mystery solved, next! This is what I call arrogance and a lack of introspection and intellectual honesty. It's different from believing that the earth is round (which I'm 99.99% sure of, not 100%). Since I don't have personal experience of the earth being round it's not pure, but pretty F-ing close. Now, when you say things like there is an objective world out there that creates consciousness and not the other way around (the materialist viewpoint as another example) you may have lots of hard data to say that - but you really don't know that's true, we can't say that with the same conviction that we can that the earth is round for example
I clearly delineate the philosophy of the Actualists (things are permanent, you are your emotions, etc) from the practice. You seem to buy in hook line and sinker and defend those philosphies with religious fervor. Do you know if any of that philosophy is true, and does buying into that particular (Richard created) Actualist philosophy have anything to do with experiencing a pure conscious experience? Is a PCE so different from other experiences described by people from many faiths and many backgrounds? Is any of this new in fact? Isn't the whole philosophy that Richard made up totally disctinct from the PCE expereince and ultimately not necessary or maybe even important? Do you have to believe it and how do you know it's true with the confidence that you display? Is there only one way to experience a PCE and why (as Eva suggested) is that not a ASC like every other state of consciousness? Why do you think a PCE is more real or pure or true than a dream or a jhana? Do you really know that's true? How do you know that? I know it's Richard's teaching, but maybe he's nuts. Do you know he isn't crazy? 100%? Do you know that you aren't developing deep subtle sankaras by having a practice that is based around achieving a state when all states are temporary (IME)?
There is a certain flavor of intellectual dishonesty and giving up your own power, critical thinking and common sense that goes along with all this - that's what I am reacting to. It's something religious people are very good at, people do it here with Buddhism all the time too. A certain level of Enlightenment is meant to do away with attachments to rites and rituals (and I would add religion, according to my definition) but apparently that's not always the case. According to Buddhists you have entered the stream correct? How do you know what you believe now is any more true than what you used to believe, because it's more effective? How do you know you aren't viering off course into very subtle ego-based teachings that disregards compassion and attainment of higher spiritual wisdom for your own selfish desires of non-emotional reaction? Does a very small part of you think, wait, no emotional reaction, no compassion, is that the highest teaching? Is there any doubt there in all of this? IMO doubt is healthy, I would say culitvate and explore it
Another philosophy: Nothing you can say in words will ever be 100% true, no philosophical structure will ever be true, you are trying to wrap your head around life and it's always going to be bigger than you, and a few steps ahead
Or, much more artfully with a lot less words (Emily Dickinson)
Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —
take care and practice well, Daniel