AF: "STSTS-sense good, mind-sense bad"?

, modified 13 Years ago at 10/4/10 9:11 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 9/28/10 8:19 PM

AF: "STSTS-sense good, mind-sense bad"?

Posts: 385 Join Date: 8/11/10 Recent Posts
Trent , modified 13 Years ago at 9/29/10 12:00 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 9/29/10 12:00 AM

RE: AF: "STSTS-sense good, mind-sense bad"?

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Hi Katy,

k a steger:
1. Why doesn't AF appreciate mind's trips to mindville (i.e., jhanas)? Mind has a mind-only sense 'objects' that should be just as spectacularly 'actual' as the STSTS-actuality 'objects'? ("Objects" can also be said as 'experiences' - I.d., mind-only sense experience, STSTS-sense experience)

I can only speak for myself here, but I do not value delusion (mind trips to mindville) at all unless it somehow has something to do with more efficiently eradicating suffering / the identity in toto; and that is the case whether said delusion feels "good" (i.e., jhanas) or feels "bad."

k a steger:
a) Are you curious about the mind's mind-only sense?

If by 'mind-only sense' you mean the delusional subjective world 'I' saw fit to extirpate, then no.

k a steger:
b) Are you concerned that you cannot retrieve this ability to explore this mind-only sense ('cannot go back') in the same way as if you had amputated your tongue or nose to rid yourself of nose or tongue discernment?

No, what I am concerned with is helping others to lose that ability permanently.

k a steger:
c) are you bothered by AF people of jhanic-descent who know the mind-only sense and know to what they "cannot go back?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this doesn't seem like a question I can answer in any way, as it does not seem to pertain to me.

k a steger:
d) if you could do it again, would you run through the mind-only sense studies in order to know what sense you were amputating?

I cannot do it again so I will refrain from answering such an open ended hypothetical-- is there some reason you are asking (or can you ask your question in another way)?

k a steger:
e) do you think you can 'actually' come back to non-AF being? (I am thinking of an Oliver Sachs short essay on a neurosurgeon who willed himself back into conscious self-hood after a stroke left him in no self territory (he repeated his name again and again one day when name came into mind).

No, there is nothing to come back to-- it was only a delusion after all.

k a steger:
a) since the mind's mind-only sense (not STSTS) is also a sense why can't AF/actualist experience this mind-only sense objects with the same naive, vivid, surprising actual beingitude (AF) or apperceptiveness (actualist)?

The self or "mind" ("mind only sense") referred to is not a material sense such as the eyes, ears, skin, etc. It is a delusion which can be intelligently known, true enough; but it is a delusion which stands diametrically opposite to the vividness apparent when perceiving apperceptively. Perhaps it would be useful to think of the two as competing for "attention" or "bandwidth," hence why meditators often attempt to shut out the senses and why an actualist does the opposite.

k a steger:
b) why can't you 'go back' to Selfhood after AF?

For the same reason a person cannot resurrect the dead (the end really is the end)...and that is fantastic! Plus, it turns out that I have always been here, in this actual world, and so there's nothing being missed out on anyway.

k a steger:
5. AF/Actualists: are you as attached to "no self" just like other people cling to "self"? If not, please try going back (then return to AF) and report on it.

Okay. I tried for a couple of minutes and nothing happened (I don't even know where to find the doorway to "back").

k a steger:
6. Pursuant to #5, AF/Actualists: how do you know if you do not cling to no self if you cannot go back to self and mind's only self to examine this state?

It is because I cannot go back that I know there is no clinging (no aversion / desire faculty at all). Also, it is not really possible to accurately examine the actual world from the perspective of a self. Do you realize that you are inquiring as to why one does not reinstate a fundamentally delusional state of mind so as to view a fundamentally sensible state of mind?

k a steger:
7. Are there other questions people have for AF people about the AF view of mind's mind-only sense?

I have a final mention that is on topic: one does not lose the sense of one's mind just because one loses the self. Apperception-- the mind's perception of itself-- is still fundamentally the perception of one's mind. Further, the experience of the mind apprehending itself does have various characteristics which the ability to perceive of are unique unto it (just as a jhana is unique perception unto the affective self).

Lastly, may I inquire as to why you are asking these questions? Is there something specifically that you are attempting to figure out?

Jeff Grove, modified 13 Years ago at 9/29/10 5:31 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 9/29/10 5:31 PM

RE: AF: "STSTS-sense good, mind-sense bad"?

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
Hi Katy,

I have nothing additional to add to Trents excellent response to your questions except for his last statement:

"Lastly, may I inquire as to why you are asking these questions? Is there something specifically that you are attempting to figure out?"

Trent has asked a very practical question which would be beneficial to contemplate.

It is a good exercise to go back and look at your questions and identify the intent behind them.

There is a tendency for people to answer their own questions within their questions.

How would you respond to these questions?

Is there a fear of loosing something behind them?

Is this preventing (waivering in) your investigation?