I wrote a long posts regarding AF's claims to uniqueness. I then left to walk the dog and realized that AF is, in fact, very different from Buddhism. However, I still think the AF technique is identical to mindfulness. Here is most of that previous post re-formatted to fit the new subject line.

Most of these quotes come from the Commonly Raised Objections index which can be found at the very bottom of the page of the Library and Glossary section . They are all within the category "Actualism in not new."




Is his "total withdrawal of self from the sensate-world" a reference to the samatha jhannas? Is this not taking those ASC out of context? Or am I ignorant?

In the following, he disparages the term 'surrender' which I believe is used by the Mahayanists to describe living within the sensate-world either with identity transcended or without it altogether.




I see little between surrendering to the world as it is and self-immolation since it is the self that always wants to change the world to it's own liking. Here Peter further shows that self-immolation is desirable.





The only thing left to do is demonstrate that Buddhist believe in surrender and show that surrender and self-immolation are the same. But in order to do that, I'd have to research some Zen websites and/or Kenneth Folks dharma page. I've spent too much time on this post already. And, personally, I think it's self-evident, if you'll excuse the pun.



Here is more on mindfulness verses HAIETMOBA.




I am arguing that "full understanding" is surrendering to the here and now which includes the sensate-world but may also include the world of the self and dependent co-arising as it happens without judgement and with total awareness. If there is a state where dependent co-arising does not occur and that state is identical to a PCE then so be it. But that doesn't mean that mindfulness can't also occur without the process of dependent co-arising.


In the following, the respondent is making my argument. He is saying that the state of AF has been reached and identified by called by different names e.g. Non-dualism, Timelessness, Vipassana Consciousness.




Richard is fundamentally adamant that no self-aggrandizement be allowed to enter the mind. And the zen teachers say stuff like, "I am tree." I don't see the difference.


Furthermore, Peter writes in the AF glossary,




If the path to enlightenment can lead to self-aggrandizement (which it surely can) than so can AF (as demonstrated by Peter's semantic inconsistency). Given all this, I really don't understand why Richard insists that perfect mindfulness and a PCE are completely different.

I don't know about Richard and I don't focus on af verus xyz.

My two cents:

a) self: mindfulness/noting/very-rigorous-awareness-of-mind-arising/mind-staying-on/getting-off-task-at-hand are disciplining the mind to at least see itself, its busy ways, its own conditioning (i lift the bucket, i fill with water, i walk back to the cabin, i...what am i going to do tomorrow, what is the meaning of living here in the boonies, does anyone care...oh! back to mindfulness: I walk with the bucket, bucket breaks!). This is a practice that trains for the "accident" to trip the mind into seeing its own illusory nature, all conditioned thoughts' illusory nature (see classic zen stories of sudden enlightenment, i.e., Sister Chiyono) and experience no-mind.

b) no self, pure consciousness: no self-mind processor (i.e., nothing can even say, "ah sunshine") , fully intimate. My impression -- and it may be completely wrong -- is that pure consciousness has no interest in creating outcomes and advancing now towards some future. It is exactly whatever now is, indivisible.


c) no self, being but not immersed in pure consciousness: I am not advanced here in the slightest, but one's egoic thoughts can fly up yet have no forces or personal steering aspect, just bits of whirling matter which redundant thoughts not only lose their former force (illusory though they were) but can cease completely. Yet, such a no self person still may have work to do, studies to complete, posts to reply to threads.


I am interested in the answers your thread receives, because I think it will help in getting out of the mind, help me understand a practical component of your query.

***update***
i recall that daniel has described being told he has(d) better bedside manner in PCE so my above thoughts must have little bearing on af

****update again****
actually, the definition in b) necessarily results in better bedside manner, cubicle work, posting etc, therefore what my c) is describing is greatly-reduced-self-without-conditioned-personality (witness), whereas b) is describing no perception of separation whatsoever.

Hey Jon T,

Let me do my best to answer your questions, but keep in mind I don't know everything about AF or Buddhism.


We are all ignorant =P. Well, most of us...

I don't think he refers to samatha jhanas, though. Mindfulness also doesn't refer to those, does it? To me it's more a quality you have when going about your daily life. I think by "total withdrawal of self from the sensate world," he may mean pointing to all sensations going "that's not me... that's not me... that's not me..." pretty much what we do when noting.


You have a good point there. Indeed without the self there is nothing there to resist anything, so maybe by total surrender the same thing is meant as self-immolation, but I'm not sure.



Now you're saying something else... if total surrender is equivalent to self-immolation, how can you have the world of the self in a state of total surrender? There'd be no self. This also may be the key difference between mindfulness and AF techniques - mindfulness you see everything as being impermanent, stressful, and not-you, and you leave it at that. With HAIETMOBA you aim to actively change the world that you can (your own world) for the better, to eliminate things that cause stress, to identify what causes suffering at the root and extirpate it. (Oo I like that word - it means "to uproot" literally).


A clarification.. mindfulness is a different kind of thing than a PCE. A PCE is a state of consciousness where the self is at bay. Mindfulness is a quality you can apply as you walk about. Mindfulness is closer to asking HAIETMOBA often.

Also the simplest answer to your question might be - HAIETMOBA leads to PCEs, while mindfulness does not.


No Actualist would say "I am tree." as that's just not true. They don't say "I am this flesh and bloody body" to eliminate self-aggrandizement (as far as I can tell), but to point out what is actually here.



In a previous iteration of this message you added an emphasis:



A more correct emphasis would be:



That is, Peter is not saying the path of AF is to "be the universe," as that is also not true. Someone more well-versed in AF should elucidate what exactly is meant by that phrase - I think I kind of forgot - but you are part of the universe, made up of the same stuff everything else is, you have a gift of consciousness, that is, an ability to experience other parts of the universe, as a flesh and blood human being having all the sensory organs being such entails.

Or, perhaps, you could follow the practices, attain the results and then know from your first hand experience what the differences are or are not. This forum is a great place to get guidance on exactly this kind of experiential exploration.



Why argue, when you could be practicing?

Ok but that is still just one practice within mindfulness.






One can mindfully surrender to the process of self observing itself unravel and then be in a PCE. (total speculation)





True but is it fair to completely rule out the possibility of mindfulness sans identity?



The tree is also here. The 'I' isn't. If I am the body and the body sees the tree and the mind sees itself with the body seeing the tree, What am I? Or rather what is 'my' consciousness?

I am the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood human being and the flesh and blood human being sees a tree. What is the universe when at this moment nothing else can be shown to exist except that tree? There is no mind, there is only tree. I am the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood human being except at this moment there is no awareness of flesh or blood only tree, what am I?

Who am I? Whatever the consciousness is aware of at that moment. So during a PCE one is aware of being the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood human being. Does that mean a PCE an awareness of awareness + object + body?

Do you come to the battleground and post that reply in every thread?



FWIW, There is a fear that denying the emotions will be counter-productive. I am trying to practice mindfulness while writing these posts. (premise being that mindfulness and HAIETMOBA are similar with mindfulness accepting all emotions) So I'm trying to figure out should I practice HAIETMOBA or mindfulness. Richards unnecessary insistence leads me to choose mindfulness. I'm conditioned to believe that belligerence and/or insistence = deceit.

Frankly, I should be working.

Mindfulness: Attentiveness applied to the ongoing experience.
HAIETMOBA: Attentiveness applied to the ongoing experience as perceived by the self.

Try and be aware of yourself being aware of this moment, to spot the difference.

If you have not yet cultivated a PCE I would recommend it as the experience itself answers a lot of questions.

(my terminology might be off, check out this thread for a better explanation)

Perhaps, but it seems most people don't get into PCEs as a result of being mindful as traditionally instructed.

About the rest... ah I don't know how to reply, really. I'm not sure the direction this is going. I'm interested to see other replies.

Oh, woops. I didn't see that it was in the "battleground" forum. doh! That's kinda funny.

By the way, I don't think actualism has anything to do with denying the emotions.

Enjoy the arguement.

FWIW, There is a fear that denying the emotions will be counter-productive. I am trying to practice mindfulness while writing these posts. (premise being that mindfulness and HAIETMOBA are similar with mindfulness accepting all emotions) So I'm trying to figure out should I practice HAIETMOBA or mindfulness. Richards unnecessary insistence leads me to choose mindfulness. I'm conditioned to believe that belligerence and/or insistence = deceit.

Grant: The way to eliminate your 'fear' that 'denying the emotions will be counter-productive' is to:
1: pragmatically look at the premise that you should continue, 'accepting all emotions'.
2: pragmatically look your conditioned belief that, '... insistence = deceit'.
3: pragmatically look at the premise, that Richards insistence is 'unnecessary'.
4: pragmatically look at the premise, 'denying the emotions' is necessary or required.

For good reason, too, as denying the emotions will get you nowhere fast.

So where does choosing to be happy and harmless come into play here?

I really recommend re-reading the whole essay. The "Who and How" section in particular talks about being happy and harmless more.