Having read some topics this forum and the website actualfreedom.com.au (obviously not all of it, because it is freakin huge!) I still don't understand what this is all about. It all seems to be hugely vague and weird.

What I have read on it does not impress me however, my spider senses are tingling, I think I smell a certain type of well known excrement. It sounds like a cult or worse something like a fantasy.

Still for some reason it draws my interest, but having already wasted time on trying to understand something about this the conventional way (reading and researching) I would like to hear someone give a clear explanation.

I would thank you in advance, but I have come to believe it only discourages people from responding, having already received their
"thanks" for free. ;)

Try reading this. Feel free to post specifics on how you find it cultish or something like a fantasy, and perhaps someone could discuss those issues with you. My first reaction was similar, but since then I've found that it makes a lot of sense.

Hi Robert M E



What is drawing your interest? Query tarin greco's name for numerous posts regarding AF. That will lead you to other posts. Stefanie KD, Trent . who have spoken of actual freedom from their direct experience of it. Several people have posted useful method summaries in their own words (i.e., Daniel Ingram).

I don't know anything about your background/practice, but I would say "extirpation of self" is what stood out in my mind about the actually free people posting on the DhO and carried me past hurdles of logic. If you look at the Ten Ox Herding pictures (classic buddhist images, easily googleable), then AF is (to me) zooming in on the "taming the ox" and "the empty circle" images. What you're expressing (the draw of your interest) would be like the picture of seeing ox tracks.


I find it interesting that total extirpation of self is not a new concept, that it runs through human history in the first place. We humans have some interest in "extirpating all self" which carries through time and which does not necessarily arise from self-loathing (an obvious front-runner guess).


Bottom line from what I've gathered from Tarin: one would be seriously interested in the uncovering to no self (no identity, no arising generic self: actual total extirpation) to practice actualism with the intent of "Actual Freedom" (aka freedom in actuality, which observes, like other traditions, that there is no actual self whatsoever). I have no idea personally if that is actually possible, but I accept that Tarin, Stefanie, Trent have achieved what they claim.

Are you interested in this? You can jump into this intention of extirpation of self and practice and learn (from your self) where you actually are on the spectrum of this intention, anyway. Your experimentation with it, if any, can show what self-nesses rise up to squash/foster the intention.

the practice: (a) the actualism practitioner, with this intention to extirpate any/all self, queries themselves at each moment of arising feelings with the "How am I experiencing this moment of being alive" observation and recognizes that only an "I" can color the experience of being alive with "how"-ness (good, bad, stinky, sweet, etc) - otherwise, there is just being without an observer self/an arising generic selfhood.

the practice: (b) when not "nipping feelings in the bud", actualists are practicing what I consider identical to zen (see the zen parable "when my master sleeps, he sleeps"); this is called pure consciousness experience in actualism. I have never asked the question: are they different (PCE, zen)? I just describe what is happening and have asked AFer is this is what they mean by PCE. Actualism does really direct one to no self very quickly and without any Awareness/Observer confusion. Initial PCE can be "zingy" because there's a little shock/shivers coming out (or back into selfness) at first. There are other threads on this that can describe "PCE" outside of any zen context, which I admit, I cling to.

Anyway, I understand that the AF website may be a put-off. To a logician the AF-site can pose a constant stream of nonsense vis-a-vis logic. This "problem" is also available in other traditions (where faith may be recommended, for example) and in day-to-day reality. In some regard, any putting-off tone of the site (subjective opinion) is superb for preventing the later-occurrence of Great Doubt. You get your Great Doubt now.

Even without the site there is plenty for the logic mind to chew on/present (i.e., am I trying to go back to some primordial animal state and is that so cool in light of our having put a man on the moon?) This is just mind-chew its cud. From what i can see Tarin and Stefanie, for examples, did not lose their brains. Nor do they seem persistently "happy", nor persistently anything.

I have yet to perceive that anyone (the three claimants on DhO) wants to be guru'd in their AF; guruism (even if a teacher does not want to be revered in the slightest, it is very easy that they become the object of the student's aspiration versus the actual intention) and mystery can land a person into massive Great Doubt years later (i.e., "Why did I give up my youth to hermit away with ole beardy-boogers? This is absurd!")

That said, AF and other traditions do not need to be at any loggerheads. The intent of no self appears to be universal enough to appear throughout written human history. Instead of considering AF something separate, consider it as another view on the same subject, different car/same highway...

the key is: why are you interested?
This directs any intention.

You might skip the zillions of words on the AF site if they put you off.
Ask your questions here - there are very helpful people on the DhO - a tremendous body of experience; there are a few actually free people or practising actualists who may also help.

It's very simple really: first you realize that (1) there is no other moment than right now, and (2) feeling great is the best way to live this moment (3) you don't always feel great. So then, rather than "accepting" anything, as a typical spiritual tradition might have you do, you actively work towards living your only moment of being alive the best possible way.

At first it is hard, then you get better at it, and are soon able to feel excellent most of the time. By doing this practice, you eventually come to a state of mind, a mode of experiencing, called "pure consciousness experience," or PCE for short, which is almost the pinacle of the practice --- during a PCE you are pretty much making the most out of being alive right now, you feel "perfect," so to speak. However at first the PCE is not sustainable, you keep returning to the previous mode of experience.

With further practice, eventually the processes in your mind which caused you to fall back from a PCE, the processes which caused you to live sub-optimally, are eradicated. Then you arrive at a permanent and irreversible mode of experiencing, called "actual freedom," which is like a PCE but with nothing to fall back to.

Whether it was done in the past or not, this australian dude Richard has recently come across this way of changing one's brain, and it does seem that no-one else that is widely known in the spiritual scene is talking about this (I've looked for it quite a bit). Since he did it himself, others have replicated the feat.

There are written methodologies available if you would like to pursuit the same goal.

Pronto, that simple.



Interesting that the very fabric of those tingling spider senses, those imaginary reeking scents, and those approximative judgements, is actually what is being put into question in the AF trust website.

I had exactly the same reaction as you did (I could point you to some forum posts where I write something similar to what you are writing). I was also very scared, because believed it would lead to my eventual demise as a feeling being. When I finally dropped such defenses, and read the AF website without such bagage, I found it to be quite reasonable.

In particular:



I am a logician, and I found the AF-site to be utterly logically consistent. On the other hand, I find stuff like dogmatic buddhism, hinduism, mystical christianity, zen, tao, etc, etc, all very illogical.

The only "problem" I found with the AF website was based on reading the content of said website with a feeling-based judgmental eye. On that occasion I did think that the words where written with a putting-off tone. This is a VERY common occurrence among people who read the site for the first time.

When I just read it with an open mind, I realized that it was my own feelings that where being projected onto the words I was reading. Since then my feelings towards the website have changed, and presto I now find no putting-off tone whatsoever. Funny how that works heh?

Bruno

I doubt I do this enough. Typically, I just pay attention to the environment without trying to feel good about it. While doing this I frame the experience as the life of yet another human being doing what human beings do. At it's best, the experience is totally mundane yet stress free. At it's worse, it's impossible to maintain though the stresses that keep popping up do seem to be mitigated.

Today I will try harder to actually enjoy the moment. Starting now - I'm already feeling good. It's like I'm continually pushing a button that automatically elevates my mood. It's kind of artificial but it does feel good and I can still concentrate on the sounds of the keyboard, tactile sensations of typing, cars roaring past my apartment, etc. I wonder if I can experience the perspective of only being a human being and nothing more while maintaining this high.




Do you mean 'perfect' as in knowing that there is nothing to be improved upon? Because it reads like you feel utter joy.

Hey people,

Sorry for not being in touch, but I thought I lost interest in this. It seems not.

I have read some of what you pointed to, as much as I could before I got bored with it and a few observations and questions.

1) This sounds a lot like non-dualism in which the self made of concepts is seen to be an illusion and by seeing through this illusion one comes to "rest" in Absolute Consciousness which is prior to everything and also the stuff of everything.

In advaita (non-dualism as tradition) one follows the appearances (feeling, sight etc) back to the source I AM and abide there. I don't know how the next part works exactly (does anyone? even the sages do not go into detail), but this should lead to the disillusion of the wrong understanding of self (small, weak, bound to body) and the knowledge of self as non-dual (no separation between this or that)

AF would be easy to believe if it was just another take on non-duality explained with different terms. Does this make sense?

2) Why are people who have reported 4th path doing this? I'm talking specifically about Daniel, but maybe there are others. It doesn't make sense to me, I would expect that after 4th path there would be no more wrong understanding of the self (no-self is realized) and no further effort needed to dissolve wrong understanding with any practice. What are they trying to get out of it?

Eagerly awaiting answers,

Robert

In actualism the Absolute Consciousness made of feelings is seen to be a delusion, and by coming to one's senses one comes to "rest" in what one actually is: one's own flesh and blood body, which is neither prior to anything in particular, nor is it the stuff everything is made out of.



In actualism, one works towards the anihilation of that very sense of "I AM." This feature of the mind, one realizes, is completely fueled by, and in fact indistinguishable from, feelings. Anihilation should eventually follow from doing the procedure I explained above, of actively working towards living one's only moment of being alive in the best possible way.



There is a lot of information on the AF trust web-site comparing actualism with non-dual "I am everything" or "I am that" or "I am emptiness" or "I am god" or etc traditions. The answer is no.



The end of their own suffering.

Take care,
Bruno

This is not non-dualism you are talking about. I have seen Richard do this as well. What exactly? Grossly misinterpreting other traditions, making straw-man.

No one said Absolute Consciousness is made of feelings. Only you just now. Not me, not other teachers. Just you and Richard.



I AM in non-duality tradition is focused upon to realize it is limited. The purpose is to see it not you. You are not limited or conceptual. So this is not unique to AF. Richard is not the first to discover this. He is not the only proponent of it either.



Yes, his critique is these traditions is unclear and vague. Worse is that he completely misrepresents these traditions and make straw-man out of them.



I was under the impression that 4th path already did that. If not, what a waste of time. Besides, if Daniel didn't end his suffering than his opinion is of limited value and why did he write a whole book about it? The fact that he now practices AF is disappointing, because the more I hear and read about it the more I get convinced it's a lot of hot air or worse complete bogus.

Maybe you don't like to hear this. It may be a bit harsh, but it's my honest opinion, no sugarcoating.

EDIT: straw-man, yes, English is not my native language, sometimes a mistake slips through the spell-checker.

When you keep saying stray men I assume you mean that he is "straw-manning" the other traditions? Here's my take, whatever the case, AF leads to not only an end of suffering but a constant happiness. Arahants do not suffer anymore but they do have the "attention wave" and so have some minuscule remnant of identity and ego. Those who are AFs have lost this last vestige of ego. Don't get all caught up in who said what, try the practice of HAIETMOBA diligently, try to experience the perfection of the moment.

AF is seeing perfection in all conditions, Arahantship is simply being O.K. with whatever the conditions are. One is better than the other. Certainly the idea of not-self is not original to actualism, but the extent to which it is taken, and the practice used to take it that far, to the total obliteration of feeling tone and identity, is.

Have you experienced a PCE? When you do I think you will realize that the prospect of experiencing the perfection of reality in this mode is the most lucrative thing in the universe, and the practice to achieve that is the constant inquiry of what is keeping you from PCE experiencing, and the uprooting of those barriers.

Listen to this, a discussion between an arahant, Daniel Ingram, and a past arahant turned AF, Tarin Greco.

The two links at the bottom of this page are of that conversation.

http://www.interactivebuddha.com/podcasts.shtml

Some of us don't think 4th path is what the term "arahant" was meant to describe.

http://bit.ly/gAAT8B

Nikolai, I believe you are 4th path, are you trying for AF? (sorry if I'm breaking away from thread topic)

Hi Adam,

I have yet to make my mind up if what people are calling AF is what the buddha originally meant by the term arahat. I'm following the Buddha's teachings, seeing the 3 C's in the 5 aggregates generating dispassion for them to see if this will result in progress. So far, 7 months after 4th path, there are seems to be progress and a great significant reduction in suffering. So i'm going to see if it goes all the way. If it doesn't and AF is seen as a different end result of a totally different approach, then its always there to go for. I'm exploring. ;)

Nick

good luck, maybe you should test out actualism, you are clearly very very far along the Buddhist path, perhaps already at the end, maybe actualism leads to the 'real' arahantship, or if you have already gotten arahantship, maybe it goes further. maybe try it out? I'd love to hear what someone who has either reached the end of the Buddhist path, or is very far along it, has to say about reaching virtual freedom or actual freedom, I feel like I've hit somewhat of a block.

as I understand it, tarin reached the end of the path laid out in MCTB, then went on to become actually free, and i believe he has many good things to say about the latter.

yes, him and trent both achieved fourth path then AF in 10 months after.

AF is enjoying your conditions as total perfection, not mere equanimity towards them. This is because the element within you that distinguishes between perfection and imperfection, and creates the existence of supposed imperfection is the self, something which still exists in 4th path via the attention wave. So if you really don't want to use AF methods at least focus on ending the attention wave via Buddhist teachings after 4th path.

Source: Daniel/Tarin's conversation at Hurricane ranch, anyone who hasn't listened to it should.

Hey Adam,

Be wary of the whole stinking of AF calenture. It's good to be enthusiastic about such things. But don't overdo it. You haven't gotten there yet. Most people coming to it for the first time embrace it very religiously and really "identify" with it. Be wary of that. How do you end the attention wave after 4th path via the Buddhist teachings?

http://bit.ly/gAAT8B

also soem helpful tarin advice:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1114402

Maybe it is not what non-dualism is talking about, but it is what you are talking about:



I have frankly never came across any tradition where it is made crystal clear that there is no "beyond," or "absolute consciousness," or "higher self," or "the source". At best, there are some practitioners within the tradition who don't talk about these things. In AF this is clearly exposed for what it is: just some imaginary-like mental phenomena (did you know neurologists nowadays can detect the part of the brain that is activated during mystical experiences?).

E.g. check out www.aypsite.org, or hear Shinzen Young talking about "the source."

I have also never come across a tradition that debunks all morality. You only need to hear the Dalai Lama talk about homosexuality, and how it is "unnatural," and whatnot, to know there's some weird aversion going on. And all that talk about boddhisatva and compassion, the whole sainthood trip... Not to mention the whole concept of paranirvana, or reincarnation. Not to mention that many masters from every main tradition are known to get angry, sad, impatient, procrastinating, etc.

The examples are numerous.



Not exactly true: in many places, absolute consciousness is often referred to as "pure being" (take Tolle for instance). Hence a feeling, called the "feeling of being." As I have explained previously, it is this very feeling of being which is extirpated when one becomes actually free.



Now I'm not saying that Richard was the first doing this (although he does), but he's the first person I know of, and everyone I know of who's done it, was a practicing actualist at one point. But I would be happy to know of a counter-example (and, for my part, I'm talking about people I have contacted with, not some obscure past master whose words I interpret as it suits me).

Whether what Richard is talking about is actually how [the mahamudra, the i ching, the kamasutra, the art of war, ...] should be interpreted or not, it is certainly different from what the people in the respective traditions are talking about, and hence, I guess, doing.

The fact is that what actualism aims to bring about can be put into such plain terms as Richard did, and that no-one that I know of has done it: either they speak in unclear terms (mystical-schmystical), or they speak in clear terms about something which is obviously different (e.g. Shinzen Young).

Again, I welcome a counter-example. Heck, if someone else out there knows of what Richard is talking about, and has actually written it in an equally clear way, I would love to read it!



I think his critique is clear and to the point. But I do think his critique is limited; for instance mahasi style practice seems to have a different flavor than any tradition criticized by the AF trust.



(1) As defined by the hardcore dharma movement in recent years, 4th path does not end suffering. One is still liable to be sad, angry, fearful, etc. Of course, different people have different definitions of enlightenment et al.
(2) Have you had the experience yourself in order to dismiss it as a waste of time?
(3) Proabably because he didn't think of it as a waste of time.
(4) Hah Of course one needs to do the practice in order to see for oneself whether it is hot air or complete or partial bogus.



I personally had severe aversion to the AF trust website for quite a few months, until I realized that I was filtering the content with various emotions, which of course didn't quite work, the actualist proposal being what it is. Try to distinguish how much of your opinion is based on fact, direct experience and indirect experience (factual stuff you read etc), and how much is just feeling-based prejudice.

After having behaved in this fashion myself, I have now several times encountered other people who believe actualism is bogus or worst, without having absolutely any direct experience of it. Maybe it's karma? ;-) If you have a PCE (as I have), and still think it is bogus, then I will be really surprised!

So what is your interest in this? Are you aiming to eliminate your own suffering? Whom do you know that has done this completely and unequivocally, other than the AF people? Whom else claims to have, in no unclear terms, eliminated sadness, fear, malice, etc, so that they do not ever never arise? [1]

Take care,
Bruno


[1] You should look at how Shinzen Young needs to complexify and contort his teaching with the notion of "ordinary happiness" and "extraordinary happiness," only to make up for the fact that he actually hasn't gotten rid of his suffering. "Extraordinary happiness," of course, is when he zones out and believes he is god. (link)

I'm not talking about mystical experiences. Just as I said: it's not about feeling. You keep mis-presenting my position. Of course I use certain words like "rest" and "prior to everything", it is because I'm pointing to something that is not a time-bound phenomena. Your however are misunderstanding this as some state the individual enters into. This is not the case.

It is simply existence that can't be separated from itself. Existence itself appears as many things. That why I say prior to everything, which means prior to appearances, which means: not bound up in appearances. Can you somehow dispute this: can you show me there are little patches of existence here or there?

As for neurologists detecting mystical experiences in the brain: so what?



Why would I want to do that? I'm not into yoga.



What has this to do with anything? But okay, non-duality is not about morality.



In many places what you say may happen, but you are talking to me, so what do these other places matter? However: "pure being" may not refer to a feeling. That is just your interpretation of the term, based on what you read about Tolle. As for the "feeling of being" being extirpated in AF, I don't know anything about that. Maybe you can explain.



You can never know for sure about people's own realizations, but there are plenty of teachers/people out there who in the tradition of advaita/non-duality have realized that they are not some "feeling of being" or some thought or appearance. There are probably some nearby where you live. And of course on the internet there are plenty of websites about it. I personally met 2 of these people, and they didn't look that different to me, but they wouldn't need to be.

Look here then: www.nonduality.com/



Sure, but that doesn't necessarily speak in richard's favor.



Personally I don't think Richard is clear at all!

And yes, there may be differences, which at best might mean that Richard has found another way, and at worst that he is talking out of his ass. He gives off a vibe of being the latter.



Okay, I really like this guy Sailor Bob (he is not my teacher or anything, to be clear):
http://www.sailorbobadamson.com





1) This doesn't make any sense. If 4th path doesn't end suffering then what is the point?
2) Do I need to jump of a bridge to know it is dangerous? Not everything has to tested by me personally. Especially if it is now common knowledge that it doesn't end suffering. Again: what is the point then?
3) Yes, poor him then.
4) Not really, see point 2.



The experience may not be bogus, but the theory about it may!



Why would you want to eliminate emotions? This is not my aim. I want to eliminate suffering. Suffering is not an emotion. Besides they claim to have eliminated these emotions, but who knows if it is true?

Also I have no interest in Shinzen Young. I don't care about the teachings of Shinzen Young.

HI Robert M E,



If you take "how am I experiencing this moment of being alive" out of the context of anything, what is happening with "you" right now?

I find there can be an ongoing responding "I" - that which is taking in its surroundings (the physical realities - trees, driving, eating; the social world - conversations, interactions) and interpreting.

I find also there can be an ongoing creating "I" - that which is trying to narrate/conduct its existence.

If I answered the first question last August, I would have said, "yes, I can see the river, the leaves, the "beautiful" things of life, but why is there this suffering everywhere? Why are we here with these tremendous and needless interpersonal abuses?" The why part of my thinking was huge. My ability to be at peace was limited.

And, the ability to be at peace is still outrageously overthrown by myself from time to time.

Are you sincerely practicing any method(s) right now?

I think the above threads posts are really useful for exercising cognition and self-awareness (finding the useful limits) and getting to sincere practice.

I do not (directly) use the AF site: various writers here (DhO) also usefully explain a way to live in actuality.

[edit: "(directly)"]