steve g:
Im just wondering if anyone here practising AF has an opinion on richards claim that the universe is infinite and eternal? How can he possibly know this? Does anyone here hold to this view? I know a PCE is wonderful but it is still a subjective experience none the less. How can it possibly give any indication of the character and origin of the physical universe. Most respected scientists who have devoted their life to the study of physics claim that the universe had a beginning in the big bang and will have an end (big crunch?) Richards claim seems to be just another belief claim to me...
Could anyone shed light on this?
I have absolutely no opinion about Richard's claims on the universe. Nor do I have an opinion about respected physicist's claims about the universe either.
For me, the practice of actualism is outside of "truth." For once again, the self is the intellectualizing force that seeks to either embrace or disqualify an object on the basis of a valid or invalid argument. There is a location, outside of either valid or invalid, where one can live in relation to practice.
In the context of Buddhism, I never really believed in reincarnation in the way the suttas talk about it. I believed in it scientifically--in that, matter is neither destroyed or created, the elements that we are will break down to become something else as we decompose--but did I believe I was Marie Antionette before or a goat herder or a blacksmith or whatever, that some invisible part of me was moving body to body? No. Furthermore, did I dismiss Buddhism because Ananda had to beg to the Buddha to admit women to the sangha? No.
Why not? In Buddhism too, there is a place beyond "right" and "wrong" ideology; there is something much more important to the teaching than the argumentative details. And that, of course, is the practice. The practice of meditation, regardless of whether one holds the ecumenical view on reincarnation or one approves or disapproves of the historical gender practices in Buddhism, is invaluable and life-changing. This I can verify firsthand and for a fact.
Likewise with actualism, I have not really put emphasis on examining every claim Richard makes about the universe or anything else related to matters not relevant to securing actual freedom...rather, I've put my emphasis on trying to remain in PCE's for as long as possible. I actually do not care at all about either the beginning or the end of the universe; I do, however, see the suffering everywhere that is going on, right here and right now , and I want to secure an actual freedom, as soon as possible, so as to be harmless and happy, and to contribute to peace, here on earth, at this moment, in this universe as it currently exists.
Is that too naive? Well, for those who think yes--I ask you, what is at stake? What are the consequences of practicing actualism that suggest harm?
The beauty of actualism is that it doesn't ask you to go on a hunger strike for peace, or the go to war for peace, or to torture yourself in small and large ways for peace; it doesn't suggest that to be happy that you must have discipline of body; it doesn't require you to believe any particular thing about gender, sexual identity, dietary restriction, the consumption of alcohol... (and I suppose here I should say that I am a vegetarian and I do not drink; actualism also doesn't require you to have the opposite view to the crude renunciate ideal i deconstruct elsewhere about those things, either.) you musn't believe in one true savior in order to get to heaven; you needn't produce aversion to your perhaps fortunate life circumstances nor must you blindly accept unsatisfactory life circumstances, though if you become actually free you will cease to see your circumstances in this polarized way.
What I can tell you, with my limited experience of actualism, is this: here, in the actual world, whatever I think about any given idea or concept, pales in importance to the fact that I am this body, right here, right now. There is no belief there, nothing to add, or embellish. And none of that is necessary because right now everything is excellent, perfect, a complete experience all its own. Right now I don't "know" anything much except that it is a lovely gray day outside, gray like a cat's eyes, shiny and wet...and the air is cool, so the windows are open, no A/C. I can smell the lingering wetness from the early morning rain...and everything is green, heavy, quiet, and here I am, hearing the whir of the fan, a distant barking dog, the occasional car drive by...
For anyone who has sat one of Goenka's courses, there is an apt story here. It's the story of the stone in the kheer. A mother prepares a lovely dessert for her son, kheer, and in it, he sees (or thinks he sees) a stone. His mother tells him it is not a stone, but rather a cardamon. He refuses to believe her; so she takes out the cardamon and he then eats the rest of the kheer. Goenka uses this story to argue that even if one doesn't "believe" everything about the teaching, one can do the practice of meditation and derive benefit from it.
I think that argument applies here as well; one need not have any relationship to ideology to practice actualism. One only needs to work on living in the actual world, as much as possible, regardless of whatever one "believes" about anything. I am not saying that any theory of the universe is either right or wrong; instead, I'm suggesting that figuring that out is really beside the point if what you want is to be happy.
So here is a question for you: do you need to understand the nature of the universe, exactly when it began and how, and if and when it will end, and how, in order to be happy or in order to move towards a practice that might enable you to become happy and harmless? And, to what extent are you interested in harmlessness?