This is how i understand things for the last 4-5 years.

simple, suffering in life is this:

-------------------sub-conscious mind and it's role----------------------------------

baby see dog, baby is just curious and joyful, have no reaction other than going forward because of curiosity.
dog bite baby.
for the rest of his life unless this person reprogram himself consciously or not, every time this person will see a dog, this person will feel fear.
baby see/think/hear dog = fear.

the role of the subconscious mind is to do exactly this.
Make our life easier by making theses automatic.
We decide that this situation requires fear, so the subconscious mind program this for us so it will be automatic.
So we can move forward and we don't have to memorize every reactions we want to have in life.
So whenever we see a dog in life, we don't have to go: "okay here's a dog... how was it that i wanted to react? what should i do again when there is a dog?".

Some of theses programs are instinctual. Like reproduction.

If we nurture theses automatic emotional reactions,
keep thinking about it, keep thinking of horrible scenarios, then what we are concretely doing is looking at the feeling, and telling the unconscious mind: "this reaction isn't strong enough. Make it bigger".
Hence all of the phobias and panic attacks etc...

But if we look at the feeling with equanimity, what we are concretely doing is looking at the feeling, and telling the unconscious mind: "this reaction is not necessary. delete it".

The ego is a (big) collection of these automatic emotional reactions.
I remember one time i could "see" the ego.
Like a cabinet with many little drawers, i could open a drawer, see the formula (situation A = fear), reprogram it and close the drawer. Move on to the next one.

Happiness, joy is our natural state. Our Buddha nature.
Remove everything thing that covers it and we are left with only be happy and joyful always.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see no difference between AF and Insight.

in AF, we realize the absurdity of wasting our only moment of being alive with the emotions by remembering an experience where we did not have any negative emotional reaction active (an experience where we were only enjoying ourself, being happy and joyful, no taxes worries ;)
In Insight, we realize the absurdity of wasting our only moment of being alive with the emotions by realizing what an emotion is. (It's just the unconscious mind communicating with us with a vibrating thing like a gong bell. not worth wasting this moment for this).

Both result in us putting our attention on the emotion, and looking at it with equanimity.
When we do this, it result in us pointing to the emotion to the subconscious mind and telling it "this emotional response is unnecessary, delete it.".

Buddhist Insights into the nature of reality just allow us to see the silliness of getting upset more easily.
seeing the silliness of getting upset more easily = returning to being happy more easily in AF.
Eventually having the insight that they are all very silly, all at once.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have any experience with AF, to me it just sound like anything i've ever heard about Buddhism, yoga etc...
I don't have that much experience with Vipassana either, on 10 day course and a few years being familiar with it.
(i have no idea where i am on the map, i seem to not fit at all in there. And worse, after reading some AF, I now realize that i may have confused PCE's with Arising and passing away.)

One thing that shocked me a while ago, the first time i came to this website was this.
I read some post about a guy claiming to be an Anrhant.
This guy said he lived with his GF/wife and still felt anger, annoyance and frustrations etc...
In my mind, the way i understand things, if you are enlighten you cannot be angry ever.
Im not enlighten and already rarely feel angry/agitated etc...
How can you feel angry in you have freed your Buddha nature? makes no sence to me.
I thought this guy was a joke.

But i never felt this was a Buddhist problem. I thought it was an individual misunderstanding problem.
People like Brahm always says things like: If you are enlighten, you cannot feel angry. It's impossible. If someone claim to be enlighten and is angry, this person is simply not enlighten.

Matthieu Riccard speaks of PCE's experiences, stating them as a preview of enlightenment.
Keeping a state similar to a PCE, but constant and much better quality as the result of meditation.


So this is why i don't understand or see any difference between AF and Buddhism.





This is a pretty messy post, hope it make sense somehow.

Initially, I didn't see a difference either but upon practicing on the AF path, after a decade of hardcore insight practice, I see a definite difference in approach.

Insight practice aims to dis-identify all phenomena as "I", "me" and "mine" as well as generate dispassion for all phenomena of the mind and body.

AF practice is aimed at realising that "I" am my feelings and my feelings are "me". Via this angle, one cultivates felicitous feelings (a sense of well-being) as "I" am those very same feelings. Felicitous feelings are like the bridge separating the feeling "me" from the experience of the actual world. It is easier to become attentive to the actual world from this happy and harmless state. One on the AF path does this to trigger apperception (PCE). Upon triggering apperception, the feeling "me" (felicitous feelings) drops away to reveal just the actual world--> objects coming in contact with the senses without any sense of being arising (affective feelings). Thus no feeling "me" or affective filter at all in the experience (PCE and finally AF)

For me the big difference is, rather than dis-identifying and stepping back from phenomena to look at it from a disenchanted dispassionate angle (insight practice), one who is practicing on the AF path claims and accepts those feelings (not dis-identifying them) as "I" (regardless of whether it is seen to be illusory or not). This is in order to use those feelings as a vehicle to finally give them up and at the same time give up a feeling "me" (what remains at MCTB 4th path) as they are one and the same thing.

On both the insight and AF path, the self is seen as illusory. On the insight path, you see this via the 3 characteristics. On the AF path, you see this via the PCE.



I had the same initial reaction. But I was still curious, so I put the instructions into action. I went and got what is referred as 1st path here (stream entry in these circles). I changed my brain and suffering levels dropped considerably. After some time I finally got to what is called 4th path here, (some call it arhatship but I dont) and perception and suffering levels changed even more profoundly. Yet, 4th path was seen to be some what wanting (which is why I dont consider it arhatship). And upon experiencing enough PCEs, I took to the AF path, as IMO the end of all suffering seems to be very reachable.



Best way to remedy this lack of knowledge is to see for yourself. Rather than speculating about what Daniel or someone else or some text conveys, see what all the fuss is about yourself. You will not get passed those doubts, confusion and speculation without more of your own experience.

:-)

Nick

Hi Nick, thanks for your reply.

Will take my time to think about it properly.


This was one of my point.

I believe that I did practice AF for many years, without realizing it, and i did manage to have a few PCE's.

I don't really have doubts, only questions.


if it it is really the same thing that i understand.
I don't get the millions words either.

Why not just say:
Emotions are automatic programs that are preventing you from being happy.
Emotions are connected with thoughts.
Theses programs are stored in your subconscious mind, the sum of them give the illusion that this is an entity.
As long as you have negative emotional reactions, you will have thoughts about them and about the situations triggering them.
Remove all of theses programs and you are just really happy all the time, being really present since there are no thoughts about negative emotional reactions or situations triggering them.

Now the only challenge that remains would be what are the most efficient ways to remove theses programs.

By asking HAIETMOBA, we can identify them really easily.
Going back in time allow us to really look at the trigger. But to realize the absurdity of getting upset so we can look at it with equanimity will require an ability to not identify yourself with the feelings. Which is not the easiest thing to do, or the most familiar thing to do for non meditators.


And there is all that fuss about AF doesn't include meditation.
If I try to focus my mind on a object and do some concentration, my mind will be constantly interrupted with problems and thoughts about negative emotional reactions and their situations.
Wouldn't it be ideal to identify a whole bunch of them really quickly?
Basical what we do is sit down and try to be peacefull and happy. - Things come and interrupt the happiness and peace - HAIETMOBA to identify them - reprogram them - go back to just trying to be happy.

Are you talking about all the stuff written on the AF website? If so, I agree. I ranted about how you don't have to take everything on board that Richard says here: http://nickdowntherabbithole.blogspot.com/2011/05/opinions.html



It does seem like those with meditation backgrounds have an easier time practicing on the AF path. Thus we have this thread and its advice by Tarin: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1114402

:-)

Nick

Nick,
Thank you very much for the clear and precise explanation of AF. I think one of the reasons there is as much negativity towards the practice as there is are the incredibly poor explanations of the practice that abound. That and personality clashes. I've been following your blog and really enjoy it. I've tried commenting on it but it never seems to work, so I'm glad to be able to pass on my thanks here.
Brian.