Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

i'm beginning this thread by reposting what was split off from the 'non-dual safe space' discussion at kenneth's direction. i will reproduce the correspondence between myself and the OP of that thread, ThePoorMan (beth) in its entirety here, as well as the conversation between her and daniel ingram which is referred to several times in our own conversation.

edit: except that daniel's posts seem to be missing too. i will repost them here if anyone has them saved. otherwise, daniel is talking about the vipassana path he took to arahatship, which was that of examining sensations one by one until it was clear to him that nothing about any of them could be an insight problem (thus ending that particular problem, the case of mis-identification as a separate self).

below begins the discussion thus far:

Wednesday, 9:33 PM EDT
Hi Beth,

Can you see the difference between these lines of questioning: 'who is
afraid?/who is having this experience of i am afraid?' and 'what is
fear?/what is this i that am afraid?' and if so, can you see that just
as the inquiry is different, so might the findings and result be
different?

Tarin

--

[as ThePoorMan]
Wednesday, 10:34 PM EDT
Hi Tarin,

Yes, I can see the difference between the two lines of questioning. And yes, I can see that just as the inquiry is different, so might the result be different.

Why do you ask?

Beth

Yesterday, 8:40 AM EDT | Post edited: Yesterday, 8:41 AM EDT
because as instructive and important as the former line of inquiry has been to me, i find the results of the latter far more sensible and thus preferable.

what the former has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid - there is only Awareness itself, manifesting as this world, this human, this situation, this fear.

what the latter has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid, because no fear.

i am contributing this distinction to this thread because i consider both to be non-dualistic approaches, in that the question only makes sense beyond the subject/object duality, but i find, from my own experience, that the similarity ends there. anyone who wants to take 'the direct path' might be interested that this difference between the two investigations exists, and that the difference isn't merely semantic, but leads to vastly different results. have you ever checked out this one for yourself?

tarin

Yesterday, 1:26 PM EDT | Post edited: Yesterday, 1:28 PM EDT

Hi Tarin,

I think that my reply to Daniel may cover my perspective on the issue that you raised. Investigating fear has been useful to me in my practice too. I don't agree that it's results are "more sensible" than looking at "who am I." I would say that both can be useful and powerful, and that there is a time for both.

Be well,
Beth

Today, 7:16 AM EDT | Post edited: Today, 7:16 AM EDT

beth,

no, the line of inquiry i propose is not the same as the vipassana one, the one you addressed in your response to daniel. it is not merely the examination of the sensory experience of a feeling, in this case, fear (as in 'what is this fear that i am afraid of?'), that i am proposing; rather, it is the examination of the very being of fear itself (as in 'what is this i that is afraid?'). can you see the difference?

if so, let me point out how this leads to wholly different results, and therefore, why it is a distinction worth making and why i called the line of inquiry i propose 'more sensible' (than inquiring into 'who is afraid?' or, for that matter, inquiring sensately into 'what is this fear that i am afraid of?'):

examining the matter of what it is, exactly, that is this 'i' that is afraid, sheds light on how 'i' am 'my fear' and 'my fear' is 'me' .. the clear seeing of which cancels out the entire matter. end, finish, no being and no fear (as different from the transcendence of fear - that is, the experience of a spontaneous, natural, free-flowing fear that arises from the ground of being).

examining the 'who' who is afraid, on the other hand, causes one to become aware of an Awareness that includes, but is not limited to, the fear (that is experienced by this Awareness, or as this Awareness, etc), but does nothing to end the fear.. only the concern with whether there is fear or not.

(cont.)

Today, 7:18 AM EDT | Post edited: Today, 7:18 AM EDT

and on another hand still, examining the sensory experience of fear by breaking it down into sensations leads to a clear experience of how all things, including fear, are sensations that are experienced as awareness, or by an awareness which is merely an aspect of those sensations, etc.. yet also does nothing to end the fear (fear still arises and passes, albiet now 'spontaneously').

essentially, this third way leads to the same result as the second way, which is to produce a transcendent state of being (or Being, for those who prefer) that is untouched by fear and is thus unconcerned it. these two inquiries are certainly not going to lead to the end of it. of the three ways i mention above, only the first one ends the fear and the being that is implied in the feeling's very existence.

the absence of this singular phenomenon, of both being and feelings, is a freedom i find preferable to the condition of transcendental freedom that either of the other two inquiries (self-inquiry on one hand and sensation-analysis on the other) leads to.

(cont.)

Today, 7:23 AM EDT | Post edited: Today, 7:23 AM EDT

to be clear, i am only using fear as an example, and though it is a particularly poignant one, what i say about fear actually holds true for any other feeling or experience of being, be it anger or sorrow or compassion or jealousy or love, etc. the examination of how 'i' am 'my feelings' and 'my feelings' are 'me' ends both being and feelings.

with regard to preference or sensibility, what one would find preferable or more sensible depends on one's agenda (the implied reason for one's practice). my agenda is to be deeply and irrefutably at ease all the time, and to do nothing to encourage others to be ill at ease ever (which is already implied by being at ease myself, as i cannot be happy while i am being harmful), which i accomplish, both gradually and immediately, by paying attention to the very 'me' that exists *as* (as opposed to both *having* or *not having*) 'my feelings', and *not* by looking at Awareness, or the ground from which all things arise (or the same by any other name). when carefully considered, which line of inquiry makes sense to you will depend on what yours (your agenda) is.

if i put it this way: is your agenda to be unconcerned with fear, or is it to not be afraid ever again? or put another way: is your agenda to stop being concerned with how you may harm others with harmful intentions and feelings, or to stop having or being those intentions and feelings entirely?

the me, the latter is true heaven on earth.. the former, an incomplete solution.

tarin

Hi Tarin,

Let’s start at the end of your note, which I think may get to the heart of the matter.

“If i put it this way: is your agenda to be unconcerned with fear, or is it to not be afraid ever
again? or put another way: is your agenda to stop being concerned with how you may harm others with harmful intentions and feelings, or to stop having or being those intentions and feelings entirely?”-Tarin

I don’t have an agenda because I see that the only self that exists is pure awareness itself, which truly has no agenda and transcends all conditioned phenomena. At the same time, all conditioned things are the play of pure awareness, arising out of that awareness, dissolving back into that awareness, and never, for a moment being other than that awareness. Part of the awesomeness of pure awareness is that it can create the experience of separation (which we are all familiar with) even though it is the only game in town.

I am that pure awareness. I am all things. I am the only game in town. (By the way, this isn’t about the personal me; this isn’t about Beth! Beth is just an insubstantial display). As pure awareness, why would I want to get rid of any aspect of experience, including fear and including being concerned with how my feelings, intentions, and actions impact people? I am creating every experience. As the infinite, I am showing what I can become.

When this body-mind display understands the truth of it’s being, it is freed from trying to find peace of mind in the arena of the false self. This is very fortunate for this body-mind because peace cannot be found in that arena (samsara). As Adyashanti says, the small (false) self can never find lasting peace because it knows (on some level) that it is a fake. On some level, it knows that it is the infinite pretending to be limited. It is only when we stop pretending to be other then we are that we can rest as the peace that is our true nature.

cont

Today, 9:15 AM EDT

I (Beth) forget and remember my true nature many times throughout a day. Lately, the forgetting doesn’t last very long and there is a lot of peace and joy. My agenda, however, is not to have peace and joy. My agenda is to be my authentic self, to be just as I am. Since this is already the case, you could say that I have no agenda.

So that’s where I’m coming from, Tarin. Since we have different agendas, it may not be helpful for us to evaluate and compare different types of investigation for their usefulness. Do you agree?

Wishing you well,
Beth

Today, 11:12 AM EDT

A few more thoughts. . .

If what I wrote in the last post doesn't make sense to you (not just Tarin but anyone), maybe this will help.

From the perspective of my small self experience, my agenda is and has always been peace of mind. It seems that the desire for peace of mind is at of root of of my striving, whether that striving to be liked, to be successful, to find love, to find emotional healing, to find the right profession, to feel good physically, to be comfortable, to have financial security, to keep my loved ones healthy, and of course--the big one--to get enlightened.

For those who want peace of mind and cannot, for the life of them, understand what I am saying when I say things like, "You are already at peace,"
the most direct way to find peace of mind is to simply find out the truth. You don't need to have a special experience to know the truth. You can just earnestly look at your experience and find out who it's happening to. Our minds often make this very simple exploration complicated. Indeed, the truth is so simple that its easy to overlook. Having a friend or a guide to help point us in the right direction and keep us honest can be helpful. This is a new role for me, but I am willing to have a go at being that friend for people who are interested.

Warm regards,
Beth

the deleted replies written by cmarti and me (posts 56-59 from the 'non-dual safe-space' thread) follow:

"I (Beth) forget and remember my true nature many times throughout a day. Lately, the forgetting doesn’t last very long and there is a lot of peace and joy. My agenda, however, is not to have peace and joy. My agenda is to be my authentic self, to be just as I am. Since this is already the case, you could say that I have no agenda."

yes, your reply is exactly what i mean by the Transcendent Awareness that both the practice of self-inquiry as well as the practice of sensation-analysis leads to. they also led me here/there, by the way - 'tarin' as an ego-identity is gone; what 'i' (though you may prefer 'I') am is what-was-'tarin''s Original Face.

but remaining as such is not my agenda, no, because remaining As I Am does nothing to change the lot of:
-all the felt-as-real personalities of the unenlightened (who toil in the belief they are the small self, and so suffer malice and sorrow as a personality);
-all the felt-as-Real dissociated feeling-selves of the enlightened (who have largely transcended malice and sorrow through an identity shift and so remain largely unconcerned with the plight of others and with the actual matter of addressing malice and sorrow directly, and who therefore still suffer malice and sorrow indirectly, that is, as Awareness Knowing Itself);
-all the actual flesh-and-blood humans that are living on this planet, breathing this air, and bearing the brunt of all the conflict that being a self entails and Being the Self perpetuates.

i charge that just as the small self's existence is an illusion, the True Self's identity is a delusion. the identity shift that makes the world all a play of Pure Awareness, the Great Identity, serves perfectly as a dissociated escape from the world of people and things, and feelings, and sorrow and harm, both inflicted and inflicted upon.

but just as when 'the body-mind display' understands the truth of its being it is freed from being a false self, when the Pure Awareness understands the consequences of Its Being it is freed from being a True Self, from being an Authentic Self.

for following the agenda of remaining As I Am, as this Authentic Self, does not improve the lives of actual people and does not solve the problems of war and domestic violence and grief and suicide on this planet, as being so does not eliminate malice and sorrow. what remaining as this 'I', by any name, no matter how primordial, does, however, is keep the passions going, the instinctual urges going, of which the very Ground of Being is composed. and so remaining as this 'I' still contributes to our practical problems and keeps the wars going, the genocides going, the murders going, the suicides going, the rapes going, the violence going, the abuse going, the bullying going, the manipulation going, the domestic conflict between men and women going, the battle of the sexes going, the prejudices going, the racism going, the religious strife going.. in seeing this fact, 'I' can be willing to die - so that 'I' do not continue to hold this house of cards up. just as 'i' am seen through when I am Known as the True Self, so too when this house of cards comes down, 'I' will not be there, because thus absent will also be my feelings, no matter how spontaneous and divine; for as just as 'i' (small self) had discovered that 'I' (Awareness) am not something that can be caught in 'my' human tragedy, 'I' (Awareness) discover that 'My' existence necessarily perpetuates it nevertheless.. and the end of 'My' existence also ends it.

and so just as the dissolution of 'i' reveals the Truth of I, so the death of I ends malice and sorrow for one human being in this very lifetime, lessens the burden to others of dealing with 'him' or 'Him' in their lifetimes, and makes a living example of him (the peaceable creature that is left) so that others who wish to do the same may do so with confidence and with information about how.

tell me: would you still rather have your non-agenda when the alternative might really mean peace on earth as this very body (what Beth actually is), in this very lifetime?

cmarti (chris) wrote:

Hello, Tarin. When you end sorrow and malice do you also end love and compassion? Is the life you now have entirely without feeling? Do you feel pain? Do you love your family? Do you have a desire to save other beings?

hi chris,

when i am not experiencing being, out of which malice and sorrow arise, then neither am i experiencing love or compassion, as either exists only as the transmutation of malice and sorrow (or their transcendence, in the case of the enlightened forms of Love and Compassion).

the life i live now is not without feeling, as aside from the occasional malice sorrow love compassion etc i experience, i also spend a lot of time feeling felicitous - feelings established in a sincerity and well-wishing in my intentions and naivete in outlook (which approximate the conditions of a pure consciousness experience - the absence of being and feelings - as closely as 'i' can come to them).

i dont really love my family, no, as i dont see it loving them as necessary to caring for them and having regard for them as individuals and fellow human beings (as opposed to extensions of, and objects for, 'me' and my feelings).

i occasionally experience a desire to save other beings, yes, but examining it, i find that the content of the desire is based on a false premise (namely, that there are 'other beings' that can be saved*), and that direct inspection of that desire/urge reveals it to be a way in which 'I' myself am being propped up.. the discovery of which causes it to end. this desire, like all other experiences of identity that do not lead toward or to pure consciousness (in which there is no being, and thus no feelings of malice nor sorrow, nor blissful feelings of love and compassion), can be dismantled by such inquiry as started this conversation: 'what is this i that am afraid?'

*that there are no actual 'other beings' who must be saved does not mean that there are no actual people who would benefit from me ending being and thus malice and sorrow.. a large part of what motivates me in this way, i am discovering, is a deep regard for them. i do care.

Author: sokyu

My favorite postings on the "other" thread were Daniel's and Beth's and yours and Beth's. Ah well, seems like some heat is getting generated around here. So be it.
I have questions of you Tarin, similar to Chris. Most of the people I know deeply into the non-dual approach as presented by Beth are very involved in working to make the world a better place. My goodness, Beth herself is a student of social work, and has offered herself as guide and friend to others who wish to discover something very real. So in what ways would a person that manifests as the "peaceable creature that is left" leave the suffering world any different than the really good social worker and guide for others to awaken?
And i am very intrigued by what you are presenting here. i do not know the experience you are pointing to. I grok vipassana and being of primordial awareness but what you are pointing to is unknown to me. I sat with all four of the questions you originally asked in post 1 above and only arrive at primordial awareness...the OKness of all that is, no seperate I. But not no i, nor no fear. So is there another way in?
Even if I do not experience what you are pointing to, the discussion itself has revealed a lot of clinging I have to this view! That in itself makes this a brilliant worthwhile discussion. Thankyou! Sincerely Shoshana

Sokyu and Tarin, I've been reading "Small Boat, Great Mountain" by Ajahn Amaro, and I've been reading it very, very carefully as it touches on many of the discussions we're having here. At no point in that book do I get the impression that Amaro believes that vipassana and non-dual approaches end up in different "places." It's assumed - and this is stated very plainly - that both lead to the same "end." In fact, Amaro is quite clear at one point in saying that his single minded focus on vipassana qua vipassana was a hindrance to him because it caused him to miss the very simple and plain truth that was right in front of his eyes, and that it at times has caused him to be less "human" - have less tolerance, compassion, and caring for others, than his teachers felt he should. Amaro also makes it clear that Ajahn Cha and Ajan Mun were of the same opinion, as was Ahjan Sumedo, Amaro's friend and teacher. Amaro describes at great length Ajan Chah's actually pushing Sumedo NOT TO PRACTICE at times, as his single pointed focus on practice/investigation using vipassana was interfering with his being able to experience a more non-dual approach IN ADDITION TO vipassana.

Thus, I'm quite interested in what you, Tarin, are saying as it doesn't seem to match up very well with what I hear and read from all of these rather well known and well respected viapssana teachers. (Titmuss, Chah, Mun, Sumedo, Amaro). They seem to be saying that a practitioner should be aiming at, yes, reaching an "end" but that once achieved that end doesn't appear to resemble the radical eradication of feeling and being that you describe here. The sense I get from your description is serene but also sterile. The sense I get from those others is also serene, but still rich in human terms. Maybe, of course, I'm misreading your comments. That's possible.

so much for avoiding intellectual and emotional controversy and sticking to the nuts and bolts of what this investigation is and what its direct, actual application does. ^_^

i'm just dropping in to say i've read all this but, as yet, dont have time to reply to the questions shoshana's raised, nor to address chris' implicit concerns, and maya's questions. but i do want to quickly respond to the matter of whether 'the discussion of realising actual freedom really belongs here' or not, as i really think it does, if only in practical terms. for while i have learnt, from my own experience, how discussing actualism from the armchair easily descends into bickering noise (and wish to avoid it here), i have also found, from my own experience (as well as the recent experience of a few others), that the practice of actualism is so compatible with the skillset i have learnt via both hardcore insight practice and self-inquiry (but goes just a little further)... and i have been repeatedly requested to post the practical methods i have learnt and found personally useful on this site by this site's founder. so i object to the implication that the actualism method(s) has/have no place for discussion here, but cheerfully agree (in general) that if people want to 'battle it out' about its emotional/ethical/intellectual implications, they take it to the unofficial actual freedom yahoo group linked to above.

tarin

Tarin, I really am quite interested in how you reply to my last post, but I know that I may have to wait until you have more time. I do, however, believe the issues I've raised are absolutely critical to people who aspire to become enlightened. I believe that the purpose of spirituality and the enlightenment that is described by the teachers I mentioned in that post is somewhat different than that which you are describing here, and I suspect the differences are larger than what we've explored so far -- so I'll wait patiently until you can elaborate from your end of things.

Thanks again!

I've taken a similar approach from the start. Something approximating a merger of Theravada and Dzogchen. It has been organic and it has continually occurred spontaneously in response to an abundance of internal and external stress owing to great sensitivity. Immense stress yet at heart still an entirely 'common as clay' human internal and external stress. I was very young at the time I was compelled to notice this going on and I had neither a teacher nor teachings to guide me. The result was and is a minute dissection of the compound present moment and it's causal links together with the ongoing observation of it's conscious emptiness.

It was and is a common experience to arrive at the end of one or another rabbit hole like this and coast for a time in the relatively expansive non-being therein. What ultimately proved useful, in contemplating if this or that was an actual 'end of the line' was either again the precise examination of that 'end' to determine if there was truly nothing left to discern as separable and or nothing more to let go of. Frequently, this revealed and reveals ever more subtlety. Language has typically failed to serve, either before or at this kind of a point in the process. Continued investigation by means of the dissection of a given non-duality did not and has not ever failed to serve. That a non-duality presents as indivisible doesn't ever prevent it's dismemberment.

cont. ->

Thus far, the only absolute and consistent end to report, is the total end, wherein every specific and individual condition and thereby the all as well have entirely vanished. There is nothing this side of that which is ultimately proven satisfying, substantial or eternal, either in whole or in part. Only complete cessation is complete cessation. Only this is sanctuary. Only this is perfect peace.

A Bodhisattva's statecraft, balanced equitably in this signless doorway to cessation, the only marker for peace and sanctuary, gazes out upon creation. All else arises and passes as is, presenting the all, as expressions of causally compounded cyclic being and becoming. By this art what once was only a wasting of experience, a suffering of it, is thus the fuel for the endurance of a coursing, a schooling. A schooling in the Great Perfection of Wisdom in regards to the All in harmony with the Great Perfection of Compassion for the All to the Greater End of the Liberation of the All.

To all of those who boldly stay, I salute you.

Hi Chris

You mentioned the purpose of spirituality/enlightenment vs the purpose of what Tarin is describing (actualism). I hope you don't mind me jumping in as I have some familiarity with actualism.

I don't know that I would be able to pinpoint a singlar purpose of spirituality/enlightenment. It seems to differ based on tradition. But common themes seem to be:

Realising Truth / Seeing clearly
Mystical union with the divine
Realising non-duality or no-self

Whereas the purpose of actualism tends to be described along the lines of:

Spending 100% of every day happy and harmless, which is freedom from the typical human condition of malice and sorrow

I don't see the two goals as mutually exclusive or opposed in any way.

It seems to me that development in the dimensions of being more happy / less sorrowful, and more harmless / less malicious, are sometimes described as "horizontal" development, and then partly dismissed on the basis of being infinite ie providing no clear developmental goal or endpoint.

On the other hand the founder of actualism maintains that there is a clear goal / endpoint, which he calls actual freedom, and teaches that it is a final (permanent) solution to the "human condition".

Was that helpful?
Craig

Author: Adam_West

Hi Craig and all!

Thanks guys and girls for bringing this site to my attention - most interesting! I haven't the time to read through it yet, but will soon - just a cursory glance so far. In the mean time, I wonder if anyone would like to give a summery paragraph or two on actualism and its founder? Craig, you mention the end goal is "happy / less sorrowful, and more harmless / less malicious". What is the mechanism by which one realizes this goal? It appears to be some form of inquiry. What is the context by which this goal is seen to be valuable?

Many thanks!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Spending 100% of every day happy and harmless, which is freedom from the typical human condition of malice and sorrow."

I read through the website on AF. Based on what I read AF appears to differ substantially from the major traditions of Buddhism in several areas. The web site criticizes eastern religions (all religions, actually), including Buddhism, It may or may not be complimentary to Buddhism. I don't know enough to judge. Thus, I'm still anxious to hear from Tarin from his first hand experience perspective.

Hi again

Tarin certainly has more experience than me with buddhism but I've been practicing actualism off and on for the past 8 years.

I should correct my earlier statement that it's not opposed to spirituality at all. Obviously it's opposed in the sense that the author is against it but as a practicing actualist I felt it was worthwhile to spend the past year practicing buddhism and have felt that the two practices were actually very complimentary. The final condition of Actual Freedom is an end to spirituality, but so have I heard enlightenment described.

Craig

Are you free, Craig, in the sense meant by the AF movement?

No I'm not "actually free".

Up until two years I was able to trigger PCEs and made good progress ridding myself of the social identity, but my PCEs started being followed by experiences of emptiness and what felt like the start of the dark night and it was all pretty clumsy. I never got very far investigating the instinctual passions.

I put actualism down after that to explore vipassana/MCTB, dzogchen, mahamudra, Jed McKenna, Adyashanti in the past year.

Since talking with Tarin about actualism occasionally in the past few months I've started returning to it, and I have a much clearer understanding and stronger ability to practice actualism as a result of my past years development. The instinctual passions are much more apparent to me now that I have peeled back the social identity.

This past week I have been really embracing the actualist view and feel that virtual freedom is available to me if I choose to pursue it.

Craig

Hi Adam

I suggest you check out the following links initially to get a good overview:

http://actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm and the three subsequent pages
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aprecisofactualfreedom.htm

Craig

Author: Adam_West

Hi Craig!

Thanks for the links buddy, will do.

In kind regards,

Adam.

hi shoshana,

what beth, or anyone else presenting a non-dual/primordial awareness approach, is offering is a way to not suffer suffering, rather than an end to the suffering of malice and sorrow itself. it's one solution, sure, and beats identifying with the illusory small self, but leaves the root problem intact and is ultimately no solution at all at that level. what i'm presenting here is a way to cut at this root, that of the ground of being itself.. that which, when identification shifts to it, presents itself as being prior to everything else and therefore is itself 'uncuttable'. while there is a grain of truth to a statement like 'awareness is aware of itself', i find a vast difference between, on one hand, awareness aware of itself as a feeling being, fraught with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and desire and nurture, and on the other, awareness aware of itself as a sensately and apperceptively aware human being when such feeling being (and the instinctual passions of which it is composed) is absent. it's a difference that simply 'dwelling as awareness' itself does not penetrate, whether in the intermediate stage of dwelling as the 'i am', or in primordial awareness (that which is prior to and inclusive of that which is taken to be 'i am'). the presence or absence of this feeling being in question, which is the ground of being itself, makes all the difference, and should not be overlooked for the following reasons:

(cont.)

1- a feeling being is one that experiences, or is always prone to experiencing, malice and sorrow. whether 'i' take myself to be that being or not (indeed, whether i consider there to even be a being at all), the fact is that fear does occur, aggression does occur, etc.. and that those things only occur when there is a 'me' for them to occur for. in short, malice and sorrow do continue. with the approach i present, they do not have to.
2- other feeling beings suffer. whether 'i' consider the world of people and things to be real or not, or in which way they are real or not, etc, is irrelevant.. for in very concrete, practical, and down-to-earth terms, other people do exist, 'they' do feel themselves to be feeling beings, and 'they' suffer malice and sorrow. 'their' malicious and sorrowful feelings are implicitly supported by 'my' malicious and sorrowful feelings (which 'i' am).. and the ground of 'their' being (composed of the passions out of which malice and sorrow arise) is implicitly strengthened and supported by dwelling as 'my' ground of being - primordial awareness.
3- qualitatively speaking, the 'pure consciousness experience' of being a flesh and blood human being in the absence of any feeling of being whatsoever (the absence of identity as an 'i' *or* 'I'), completely free of (and not just 'from', in a transcendental manner) the ground of being (in which is rooted malice and sorrow), reveals a pristine perfection inherent in experience itself.. of which the so-called primordial awareness, born of a simultaneous dissolution of a separate self and dissociation from the feeling self, is a being-based imitation.

(cont.)

4- practically speaking, in such a pure consciousness experience (PCE), i find no fault with how i am, nor how i am unto the world, nor for that matter how the world is unto me - not even subconsciously or briefly. i am beyond all hurt and hurting, petty or deep. as such, i know the experience of a PCE, both in itself and in the way i interact with others, to be vastly superior to anything 'i' could ever accomplish (or 'I' could ever be). when not obstructed by the 'selves' and the feelings that 'we' are, the regard that humans innately have for one another is tremendous, and easily conduces to total peace and utter harmony. unperturbed goodwill is the essential characteristic of behaviour in a perfect existence, both of which the PCE reveals in no uncertain terms.

i've seen all this for myself, and in light of a feedom from malice and sorrow as an actual, living possibility, arguments or perspectives to the extent of 'why would i want to get rid of any experience, such as fear or aggression, as it's all part of pure awareness anyway?' (such as the one made by beth above) seem not just silly, but downright harmful. such approaches perpetuate essentially more of the same, and as such, cause fear and aggression and nurture and desire to continue to go on, to borrow a phrase, 'forever and a day'.

what i've been proposing here is something entirely different.

tarin

the latter two questions ('what is fear?' and 'what is this 'i' that am afraid?') are a different line of inquiry from the former two ('who is afraid?' and 'who is having this experience of i am afraid?'), and they lead to experientially finding out the cause of fear itself.

to understand these questions properly, it is essential to see for yourself how 'i' am 'fear', and 'fear' is 'me'. do you see this?

tarin

the clinging to this view (of being the OKness of all that is, no separate i) is, like all other beliefs and constituents of identity (whether a personal identity or an impersonal Identity), feeling-based and as such is centred around a sense of presence. carefully feel into this presence itself, no matter how inchoate or clearly-defined it seems, no matter how local or non-local it seems, and find out what feelings there are stirring at its root. 'i' am 'that'.

Just how does AF differ from Vipassana based Buddhism? What's the difference in method and what's the difference in objective? Why does the AF movement feel the need to criticize Buddhism? Why would practitioners of AF congregate on a web site dedicated to Vipassana practice?

Truly curious!

"The Dharma Overground is a resource for the support of hardcore meditation practice. It is a place where everything related to the support of practice may flourish, including where to go on retreats, what techniques may lead to what, an in depth look at the maps of possible states and stages, discussions about how to determine what experience was what, and in general anything that has to do with actually practicing rather than what typically occurs in standard meditation circles.

In general our basic principles and attitudes favor pragmatism over dogmatism, diligent practice over blind faith, openness regarding what the techniques may lead to, a lack of taboos surrounding talking about attainments, and the spirit of mutual, supportive adventurers on the path rather than rigid student-teacher relationships." - (edit for smiley face:-)

Author: sokyu

dear Tarin,
I had originally misunderstood how to ask the questions. But spending this day now contemplating these this is what arises.

I also changed the questions to ones that are more real for me. What is pain? and what is this i that is(has) pain? Versus who has pain? and who is having this experience of i am (have) pain. The question of what is pain takes me to just the sensations that arise and pass. The question of what is this I that is pain takes me to the sensations that arise when the word i is invoked . They come and go.

To go directly to the inquiry of "I am pain" led to a very strong sad sense of a me with pain--a very complex set of sensations all mixed together.
The inquiry of "Pain is me" led to a rather unpleasant set of complex sensations.

In the thread "Realization and Development" Hokai talked about the difference between 1st person awareness/mind perpective--much of non-dual inquiry and third person awareness--event perspective--vippassana approaches. It seems that who questions go to the former and what questions go the latter for me. So I do see a difference now between the two sets of questions. And between those and the two statements you suggest are essential to see for myself.

Author: sokyu

above quote from triplethink.

While waiting for a response from Tarin, I went to the actual freedom website. Not the easiest to embrace. Make this site here feel like "miss manners"!
Tarin you said the following in the Realization and Development thread-post #37
"advantages to thinking of enlightenment as diverse and varying
1.you don't go nuts (and drive the people around you nuts) trying to fit square pegs into your round holes.
2.its conducive to an ever-deepening exploration of the vastness of the range of experience (much more vast than the range of language)
3. it leaves more room to perceive stuff when you're not making connections that don't really need to be made.
4. you don't risk pissing off people whose vision of enlightenment is significantly different than your own...."

this inquiry and pure consciousness experience pointing out is for me a new exploration of the vastness of the range of experience. For that I am thankful. But it would perhaps be wiser to present it in less _________ways. Sincerely shoshana

hi chris,

'I've been reading "Small Boat, Great Mountain" by Ajahn Amaro, and I've been reading it very, very carefully as it touches on many of the discussions we're having here. At no point in that book do I get the impression that Amaro believes that vipassana and non-dual approaches end up in different "places." It's assumed - and this is stated very plainly - that both lead to the same "end."'

-i agree, they clearly do, as it was the practice of both over the years, leading to eventually just maintaining an 'open awareness', then eventually leading to not even maintaining that 'open awareness', that got me to that same 'end' ajahn amaro is talking about.

'Thus, I'm quite interested in what you, Tarin, are saying as it doesn't seem to match up very well with what I hear and read from all of these rather well known and well respected viapssana teachers. (Titmuss, Chah, Mun, Sumedo, Amaro). They seem to be saying that a practitioner should be aiming at, yes, reaching an "end" but that once achieved that end doesn't appear to resemble the radical eradication of feeling and being that you describe here.'

-that's because the radical eradication of being and feeling that i describe here doesnt seem to be the aim of vipassana (as im most familiar with it) either. im not drawing a distinction between vipassana and non-dual approaches in this thread, but (thus far) between the non-dual approach and actualism.

'The sense I get from your description is serene but also sterile. The sense I get from those others is also serene, but still rich in human terms. Maybe, of course, I'm misreading your comments. That's possible.'

-no, its not sterile, except maybe in the hospital sense of 'pure and uninfected'. what of my comments gives you that misreading?

hi maya,

what im laying out here i first learnt from the actual freedom trust website, yes. i didnt link the site because understanding what im saying here does not require reading the millions of words that are on offer there. the founder of the actualism approach is not enlightened in the way its usually meant here, but, by his account, was so for a number of years, a claim i have no reason to dispute due to his thorough understanding of what it is like to be enlightened. he also claims to have gone beyond it, which, given his account of life now, i think is the case - he's certainly beyond where im at, and where anybody else i know is at.

i dont agree with him that enlightenment is an obstacle to the kind of freedom he describes because my experience is to the contrary; getting enlightened has helped me tremendously so far in that regard. however, i can understand why he thinks so and why it might be so for many others, as he did, and they do, regard what is revealed by enlightenment as a kind of end-all and be-all in ways that i dont. ultimately, my push for enlightenment was not for it as an ends in itself, but a means toward a happy and harmless existence free of malice and sorrow, a condition i knew to be possible from the memory of a pure consciousness experience (defined above). i took insight practice (vipassana) to the end of the line on that front (as defined by dan ingram in MTCB and with which i agree) in order to get the dualistic misperception noise (think escher drawings) out of the way, and it worked. vipassana has benefitted my actualism practice by improving my focus and concentration, giving me insight into how experience happens, and by (through attaining its goal) simplifying what is left to be done.

how's your experimenting going? what have you found?

the desire for oblivion leads to the end of being, and the cessation (or abeyance) of being results in a pure consciousness experience, manifesting pure peace-on-earth, here and now (as it occurs).

physical death is the end of brain activity and bodily function (and thus the end of sentience and conscious experience), and such cessation (of experience entirely) is unnecessary for peace, as the perfect peace revealed by pure consciousness is already available without first dying (and is only meaningful as a living, breathing body anyway).

regardless, the body will, of course, die eventually, and the universe, and everybody else, will go on.

hi adam,

here's a summary paragraph on actualism:

the practice of actualism is intended to orient one towards a condition that is increasingly happy and harmless and incrementally free of malice and sorrow. the recommended way to conduct this practice is to ask oneself, each moment again, 'how am i experiencing this moment of being alive?' with the utmost sincerity and dedication, as a vital interest in the 'how' of experience (in addition to the 'what') is what allows one to take charge of one's life to the extent that one, by virtue of choice moment and moment again, can cease being harmful and unhappy entirely, delight in one's own existence and in one's surroundings continuously, and sometimes pop through to a condition in which one's being ceases (or is in abeyance) completely, and malice and sorrow, far from having no foothold, simply cannot arise. knowing this condition, called a pure consciousness experience, is important because not only does it reveal the end goal, but its memory also orients one very automatically, as well as reveals something relevant to one's endeavour in the here and now. keeping at the brink of this condition of purity, as closely as one can while still remaining a feeling being, is 1- considered to be the most likely way to induce it permanently, and 2- a really cool way to live life and experience this moment of it, one that i find i never quite tire of. kind of like an eternal twilight.

tarin

in addition to the 'precis of actual freedom' page craig linked to, i recommend:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/thismomentofbeingalive.htm

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

some info about the founder directly relevant to what he's espousing can be found at his mini auto-bio:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm

hi shoshana,

' I also changed the questions to ones that are more real for me.'

-i didnt mean to try to conjure up fear, i meant fear (as i say in the first line of post 6 above) only as an example. you can take any feeling (or intuition of presence) and regard it in the same manner: 'what is this i that is the experience of x?'

'To go directly to the inquiry of "I am pain" led to a very strong sad sense of a me with pain--a very complex set of sensations all mixed together.'

-you could try 'what is this i that am sad?', for instance, the next time you experience 'a very strong sad sense of me'.

'The inquiry of "Pain is me" led to a rather unpleasant set of complex sensations.'

could you please describe further?

'In the thread "Realization and Development" Hokai talked about the difference between 1st person awareness/mind perpective--much of non-dual inquiry and third person awareness--event perspective--vippassana approaches. It seems that who questions go to the former and what questions go the latter for me. So I do see a difference now between the two sets of questions. And between those and the two statements you suggest are essential to see for myself.'

-to be clear, im not advocating either a 1st person non-dual inquiry in the manner that beth (apoorman) presented it in the thread this thread started as a response to ('who is afraid?') nor a 3rd person awareness. im advocating seeing that 'i' am 'my feelings' and that 'my feelings' are 'me', that the experience of both happen together and are fundamentally inseparable ... and seeing what happens when you see this continuously from moment to moment, to their very end (or abeyance), revealing, to borrow a phrase, an already-existing veritable paradise.

(cont.)

'While waiting for a response from Tarin, I went to the actual freedom website. Not the easiest to embrace. Make this site here feel like "miss manners"!'

-it is partly due to the controversial presentation of the actual freedom trust homepage, and common unpleasant reactions to it (some of which i have known firsthand), that i opted to present here what i do without necessary reference to the site.. this stuff im recommending should be possible to understand by anyone willing to make the experiment without the elaboration presented there (though it is clearly available there if one wants to read it).

(cont.)

'Tarin you said the following in the Realization and Development thread-post #37
"advantages to thinking of enlightenment as diverse and varying
1.you don't go nuts (and drive the people around you nuts) trying to fit square pegs into your round holes.
2.its conducive to an ever-deepening exploration of the vastness of the range of experience (much more vast than the range of language)
3. it leaves more room to perceive stuff when you're not making connections that don't really need to be made.
4. you don't risk pissing off people whose vision of enlightenment is significantly different than your own...."

-i wrote that when such issues of language and experience were vitally important to me. i was starting to see the dualistic misperception for what it really was, and to see how its not ever possible to be entirely, fundamentally, sure we're talking about the same thing. while i can still appreciate the essence of what i was saying (that full enlightenment - the permanent cut of identification with 'the small self' - can show up differently for different people, and thus be expressed in different ways), and it has its applications (that we shouldnt be so quick to assume we know that two enlightened people are talking about the same thing), that issue of radical scepticism faded away gradually and was resolved when i got arahantship myself.

but may i ask, why do you bring that quote up? what bearing does it have on this discussion?

'this inquiry and pure consciousness experience pointing out is for me a new exploration of the vastness of the range of experience. For that I am thankful. But it would perhaps be wiser to present it in less _________ways. Sincerely shoshana'

-what '_________ways' are those?

tarin

I must say I am engrossed by this thread, amazing stuff. The little that I've read about actualism and people's thoughts on it has been really inspiring. Thanks!

In response to your instruction above Tarin: I found it a little difficult. You see, I'm working a lot with no-self (disidentifying) at the moment. In my practice I've been slowly reconciling 1) no-self (withdrawal/not-me not-mine etc), 2) emptiness (un-findability) and 3) just letting go. Emptiness and no-self seem to get along well (and are merging), but I find that when I practice really "letting go" its almost trance like, and I sometimes worry that I'm solidifying something. So I go back to no-selfing. So right now, letting go and exploring emptiness/no-self seem to be giving different results, and I can't quite integrate what both are telling me.

When I try to practice your instruction, I find the same "solidifying" issue that I get when practicing letting go/resting in awareness; the worry that I'm not "seeing through it all", and that I'm stabilising some jhana-like state, leading me to return to the emptiness angle again. I guess this is probably something that will resolve through further practice (lots of stuff happening recently!) but if you have any tips, I'd be glad to hear them.

And I'd love hear what the other resident arahats have to say about the actualism approach.

Author: sokyu

Tarin,
Thankyou for your reply. Today I would describe as a day with a lot of tiredness and a backache. So as I say to myself...Oie, I am so tired, there is smiling. Smiling---that set of sensations in the head and some pleasant vibrations in the heart area arising from the thought form that there is no I here that is anything. Tiredness, that fleeting and moving set of sensations around the eyes, heaviness in the limbs. Oh, now noticing that there is a waiting for 'it" to be gone. A sense of I am waiting for it to be gone. Thats a clump of sensations with a feel of fixity for a few moments recognized as the frequently arising and passing "I clump." "Waiting" is a bunch of recognizable sensations often noticed in the lungs as a change in pace of breathing. My difficulty with the questioning after years of vippassana is that the question doesn't seem useful. There is no I nor me nor feelings other than passing sensations. And I work on seeing this more and more in every moment. It makes no sense to add an I or me back into this unfolding.
This same dilemma arises with 'who am I" questioning. There is already no witness separate from the knowing and not separate from the known. Best I could say is that happening is happening. Resting in this makes today gently happy while tired with a bachache. But an already-existing veritable paradise? Maybe I need to move to Hawaii for the paradise part!

Author: sokyu

Dear Tarin,
I quoted you above as I was so impressed by the tone of your posts in that Realization and Development thread. I felt the tone earlier in this thread had a less friendly one to it. I recently read Alan Chapman talking about the 10 things he has learned post his attaining arahantship in March and one is the furthur up the "spiral" on enlightenment one gets the more arrogance he observes. Being right has its wise ways of presentation or not so wise. So I tried the more obscure approach first but since you asked, this is why I did that. Just an opinion from somebody who does respect and admire you. Sincerely Shoshana

"With the end of ‘me’, the distance or separation between ‘me’ and ‘my’ senses – and thus the external world – disappears. To be the senses as a bare awareness is apperception, a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as an observer – a little person inside one’s head – to have sensations, I am the sensations. There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not to ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To be the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release."
- http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm


Hi Tarin, this sounds extremely similar to Daniel's description of Arahatship - is it?


"Actual Freedom from the human condition
Richard: The day finally dawns when something irrevocable happens inside the skull. In an ecstatic moment of being present, ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul expire … the entire identity ceases to exist, permanently. There is a sensation inside the top of the brain-stem that is experienced as a physical ‘turning over’ of some kind ... something that can never, ever, turn back."
- http://actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom5.htm

I think it was Kenneth who described the feeling of something 'turning over' on top of the head happening at arahatship? Isn't this a classic description?

hi shoshona,

try this one then: what is this knowing that there are only passing sensations?

given your account above, it does sound like there is no 'i' in the passing sensations... but there is clearly a 'me' hiding in the knowing of it. this 'me' sometimes surfaces quite clearly.. two examples of such surfacing, drawn from your own writing, would be 1- as the pleasant sensations in the heart area arising from the thought form that there is no i here that is anything', and 2- as 'the frequently arising and passing 'i clump'.

understanding how the knowing itself is that 'me' allows it to be investigated, rather than ignored or passed over, which sets the stage for its ('your') demise.. and its absence, however temporary, does reveal the paradise i was referring to... no need to move to hawaii.

sorry to hear that you found an arrogant tone in my writing above.. though would you please point to the selection(s) of my writing you found to be so? its easy to misunderstand and misinterpret each other when only relying on senses, or intuitions, of things, and for this reason, i prefer talking about specifics directly.

perhaps arahatship makes some people (such as alan chapman's arahats) more arrogant, but it definitely does not do that for everyone. i've become less prone to arrogance myself.. i'm far less adamant, for example, that others could not possibly know something for certain (an arrogance i remember feeling around the time i wrote the passage from the 'realization and development' thread you cited).

hi martin,

what the author of those quotes is describing in the first one is not daniel's description of arahatship, no.

what he is describing in the second quote is an experience at the top of the brain-stem - at the back of the head where the spine joins the skull - and not at the crown at the top of the head (with which latter i'm intimately familiar).

just so its clear, i know both daniel and kenneth in person (daniel pretty well, and kenneth only somewhat from having spent a few very enjoyable days with him), and neither of them are 'actually free' as richard, the author of both those quotes from the actual freedom trust website, describes it, nor would either of them claim to be.

dan,

i dont have any tips about that actually.. i remember feeling those concerns too, but slugging through them anyway and looking back, it just doesnt seem to matter so much which of those results come up. that's just my take on the matter though.

the inquiry i've presented in this thread is for the purpose of discovering what this 'i' (or 'me') really is, and what it really feels like to be 'me'.. its *not* for trying to force its absence, or hide the sense of being anywhere (like in/as Awareness or Emptiness, for example). 'i' *am* 'my feelings .. 'my feelings' *are* me. so the inquiry is about 'what is all this.. what's really going on here?' .. and not for the purpose of finding a transcendent, 'greater reality' kind of solution.

helpful?

Author: Adam_West

Hey guys,

I had a brief look at 'actual freedom'. Interesting stuff. There is a lot of good and a lot of bad. Many of his interpretations are terribly flawed. What's more, he offers a classic limited emotional range and action model; nothing new there. Further more, his actual freedom IS enlightenment in the classical sense of absolute emptiness which is is nothing other than actual reality here and now, and NOT some 'divine god' pure awareness, or altered state of consciousness. The later being merely a stage of realization on the way to enlightenment which Aziz Kristof and others have previously spoken of. The guy has some interesting things to say. If you can get past the wordiness and the above described confused arrogance of his 'original' insight/realization of actual freedom which is different from all the previously "wrong masters", then there is much of interest there. Personally, for said reasons, I find him quite painful to read. He seems to be located near me, so perhaps I will find the time to go see him, or his people.

Edit: if you want real (actual) freedom, surrender the socially constructed "me" by just sitting and 'doing' nothing. Realize that-which-is right now. That's what you'll get. Those confused enlightened guys have been saying it for eons. Easy. Drop all the verbiage. It detracts from the simpleness of it. :-)

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi Adam

I understand why you see similarities between enlightenment and actual freedom. When you get to the level of practice where you can readily access that-which-is, I have found it extremely subtle and difficult to see the difference between what's on offer with actual freedom vs that-which-is. Both speak of this moment in time/the now, this place in space/just this. Both involve dissolving beliefs and the social identity, and the PCE even sounds a lot like non-dual awareness - because it is a form of non-dual awareness.

Having spent the past few months struggling with it, the points of differentiation I have found in my practice which can be investigated in a very practical way are:

1. what AF describes as the instinctual passions (fear/aggression/nurture/desire) constitute the felt sense of being which seems to originate in the heart region, and those heart region sensations are nowhere to be found in a PCE.

2. in a PCE the world is experienced sensately in a non-dual way, and there are no problems and there is no suffering to be found.

3. the instinctual passions and heat region sensations are found in the experience of that-which-is.

4. in the experience of that-which-is, while there is a feeling that everything is ok just the way it is, so there are no problems, there is still suffering that awareness rises above and takes itself as a refuge - which is a form of dissociation.

5. having seen the dissociation first hand (likely after having been shocked by the prospect that one so aware could be dissociating and not knowing it), if you tackle the issues dissociated from head-on*, then by paying exclusive attention to the senses and delighting in the experience, a PCE can result.

* by seeing the facts rather than your beliefs about the situation, and/or consider whether you're being silly or sensible, you can get back to feeling good rather than suffering.

[cont'd] [edited to clarify my statement on nondual awareness]

In my life the most free I have ever felt is during PCEs over the years. Nondual awareness is a pale imitation as far as freedom (from the human condiition) is concerned. But don't take my word for it.

Craig

What was your experience of non-dual awareness like?

Thanks!

Hi Chris

Having first posed a question ("what is a subject and what is an object") and then understood the question over a couple years I came to see that I take myself as a subject and then relate to the world as objects. Eventually I realised/saw "I am THAT". After that (the experience of me as) subject fell away and merged into the object. It was a down to earth awakening, so subtle I never really paid much attention to it except as I began to notice how I related to the world differently over time.

As an example, I no longer got upset when people referred to me in speech without being visibly upset. What they're referring to doesn't exist. I find people occasionally say something they think might offend me and look at me concerned, stumble out an apology while I gaze back bemused and untouched.

To me there are 4 aspects to freedom in experience
a. Am I free to think
b. Are others free to think?
c. Am I free to feel?
d. Are others free to feel?

Prior to realising I am THAT, a-d all caused me to suffer. Since realising I am THAT, a & b no longer seemed to cause me suffering.
c&d, the affective feelings and the instinctual passions still cause me to suffer when they are in play.

My experience of non-dual awareness does not divide the world into me and other with thought. The field of experience becomes unbroken, complete, whole. Feelings continue to arise and heart region sensations are just part of that complete field of sensation. There are no fabrications(formations) when I am accessing non-dual awareness. If I am troubled by fabrications I must see through them/drop them before I can access what I label non-dual awareness.

Is that what you refer to as non-dual awareness? Is your experience much like this?

Best regards
Craig

Thanks, Craig. No, my experience was not like that. It was more like the Big Bang. I wouldn't use terms like "It was a down to earth awakening, so subtle I never really paid much attention to it except as I began to notice how I related to the world differently over time" to describe it. I can see why you call yours a non-dual experience, though.

And hey, there are lots of ways to get to where we all want to go.

Regards!