I'm airing my thoughts here before I post this on the less AF-friendly KFD.

---

In what has been called the pragmatic dharma movement, I see generally two ideals that correlate with ancient views of enlightenment. The first ideal strives for enlightenment with reservation and the second ideal strives for enlightenment without reservation - an uncompromising enlightenment.

The reservation of the first ideal is to delay permanent ultimate liberation[1] at the expense of the individual, for the sake of all other unenlightened individuals. It is believed that after ultimate liberation, ones capacity for enlightening other beings is effectively and permanently disabled, and permanent ultimate liberation is therefor considered wrongful until all other beings have been liberated.


The preferred state of the first ideal is to be enlightened up until the point of no return, but no further [2].

To cope with the inherent suffering of such a state, one is equipped with a plethora of tools of the mind, of most importance an ability to temporarily dissociate from the little self, the individual, and associate/identify with the big Self, which has been called many things (e.g. God, Awareness, That). In such a state, one is said not to suffer.

This ideal can be said to be a dissociation from narcissistic tendencies.


The preferred state of the second ideal is one in which the biological patterns of the human body that make up the little self, the individual, has been completely removed[3]. In the pragmatic dharma movement, this removal has sometimes been equated with removing from the human body its “humanity”[4].

This ideal can be said to be an eradication of all narcissistic behavior.

Whether or not this state actually entails the removing of ones “humanity” is of outmost importance to consider.

Whether or not this state actually disables ones capacity for enlightening other beings is of outmost importance to consider.

What the implications of a complete eradication of all narcissistic behavior (a complete elimination of the individual) are is of outmost importance to consider[5].


Which of these ideals you think is the “right one” I urge you not to impose onto others. This is an individual choice, even though it’s consequences might be outside of the individual. This choice should be fueled by ones own reflection, but it should be an informed reflection. This post is meant to inform as such, not to judge or impose or preach. I intended to objectively present the case of each of these ideals, so that instead of having a knee-jerk reaction when introduced to any of the differences one can weigh the differences and decide which is the most appropriate choice for oneself.

Not to say that this post cannot contain false views - of course I am prone to false views.


[1] Going by reports by other people and my own understanding, it seems that there is absolutely no experience of suffering in what has been called an actual freedom. For the purposes of this post, I consider that to be ultimate liberation - a state in which there is absolutely no suffering.

[2] I submit that this point of no return is the absolute and complete extinction of suffering.

[3] Consider what behavior would be left if the biological programming of the little self was deleted. Would actual altruistic behavior be left? That is a sincere question. I believe that this is the actual intention of the doctrine of “no self”.

[4] I submit that this is a play of the little self, for which this state is literal death. On resisting the idea of Actual Freedom as presented by Richard and speculating that it entails the removal of “humanity” from a human body, I would urge you to consider the sheer frequency of which Richard uses the word “benevolent” and “benevolence”, both being actual synonyms used in the definition of the words “humanity” and “humanness”.

[5] Have you ever wondered why Richard goes on and on, in such a megalomanic way, about how this planet would be paradise if only everyone became actually free? Consider a society in which there is no individual. See [3].

---

Thoughts?

Wasn't the Buddha fully enlightened? He seemed to be able to teach people just fine.

Yes, definitely.

Isn't ignorance the root of suffering?

According to the Buddha (and also what I currently believe), indeed!

So this is my reasoning: if one is still suffering, one is ignorant in some way. Why would more ignorance make it easier to teach, vs. less ignorance?

when deciding between which of these states to shoot for, i can think of only two legitimate criteria. 1, how much suffering will remain and 2, what will one's impact on the world of people and things be.

the only people who can answer number 1 are those who have experienced both, and they are unanimous in their opinion that the second state has less suffering (no suffering at all rather than some suffering)

the answer to 2 can only be speculated about, but there are two criteria here as well in terms of deciding which state is most conducive to helping others gain awakening. firstly, there is the question of capability, who is better able to help others end suffering? then there is the question of inclination, who will make more effort to help others?

because people in the second state have made a full end to suffering, they can help others eradicate more suffering than those in the first state. also, as their actions don't have selfish goals, they will be acting in ways that help only the other rather than the other and themselves. people who feel compassion have some degree of personal investment in helping others because their own enjoyment is at stake, this is where we get people helping others who do not wish to be "helped."

as for who is more inclined to help others, it would be the people in the first state, as they have personal investment in the other person's welfare. (actually i don't really have any idea about the inclinations of actually free people, so i might be wrong)

all in all however, i would say that people in the second state will have a stronger positive impact, as they are the ones who can lead others to a full end of suffering rather than just a partial one. and in the case in which the person is willing to be helped the second state people will always have the upper hand. in the case in which the person in question is not willing, it's unlikely either side could do anything useful.

so that's my opinion, i dismiss any other criteria such as the "loss of humanity" i don't see any reason to assign value to things that do not help to reduce or end suffering. how inhuman of me, i know.

edit: i'm not sure if you are bringing rebirth in here or not. if rebirth exists, than the person not coming back to samsara will doubtlessly have no ability to help others come out. (my experience with parinibbana is limited so i can't be sure)

so, in that case, yes i suppose the first state people would be better able to help, i think even in that case i would still go all the way however.

edit 2: to be totally honest, i actually only really care about my own suffering right now. i think my previous points still stand though.

What a great analysis! It's apparent that you are sympathetic of AF. Your reasoning is spot on in my opinion and doesn't seem to be motivated by anything but curiosity and sincerity.

Of the two sub-criteria used to gauge the criteria of "what ones's impact on the world of people and things will be", especially the second stands out:


(Emphasis added by me)

And your speculation:



That is exactly the issue I was first and foremost aiming at to bring into light with my post.

Is this so? My personal speculation is no.

And it seems to me that it is either the (in my opinion deeply misunderstood) prospect of losing ones "humanity" or the above issue that almost anyone who has taken issue with AF is bothered by. And it concerns me that people would choose some suffering rather than no suffering. So a clarifying of this issue might do some good

I don't know. Lately I've been reflecting on this from the point of view of neuroplasticity, rather than from the point of view of a metaphysic of awakening. From this point of view it may be possible, through various means of directed attention and shifting cognitive/perceptual habits, to re-wire the brain-mind to produce many many sorts of currently atypical baseline modes of experiencing. The literal "end of all suffering" could itself be an abstraction, and in the concrete (i.e. as realized by a given individual) it could take a variety of phenomenal forms with different losses and different gains in terms of experiential capacity than we're currently prone to believe in our little community.

Also, I'm not sure that the Mahayana ideal is to remain somewhat ignorant forever in order to benefit beings :-P In fact, I'm sure it isn't! A literal interpretation of Mahayana doctrine is a tricky thing. I've heard it expressed in many ways, but never by a contemporary mahayana teacher in terms of retaining a remainder of ignorance and suffering. Generally the Mahayanist makes the distinction in a different way from what you've outlined here, although I grant that what you've outlined is a valid if literal interpretation of then mahayana ideal as seen through the lens of the Theravada ideal.

I don't know though I'm just thinking as I type :-)

Worthwhile to have a conversation about different views of the ultimate point of practice and then nature of realization though, thanks for the thread Stian.

--Jake

ha, i've been thinking about the exact same thing recently, i think i'm going to try to study this when i go to college. for now i'm going to read some books about it.

Hi Jake!

I feel this was worth mentioning again:


(Emphasis added by me)

I don't actually know how much of my current understanding of "ultimate liberation" has been learned by looking through a Theravadin lens. Definitely worth pondering.


Of course not! Only until all other beings have been liberated


It would be interesting to see how the distinction between the Bodhisattvayāna and the Śrāvakayāna would have been made by both sides. Actually, this thread intends to explore that.

Regarding the speculation on neuroplasticity: I have also thought about this, and it is scary, albeit probable.

Same here, though I think of it more as re-directing blood flow in the brain, through skillful use of attention. When the blood flow shuts down in certain parts that direct identity/self, an individual can experience dissolution of self boundaries or loss of self altogether. If repeated often enough, certain neural pathways atrophy through lack of nutrition, and the state becomes semi-permanent. Spinning yourself in a powerful centrifugal machine will do it, or taking psychedelics, directing a magnetic pulse towards parts of the brain (Koren helmet), or meditation. I think the future is in artificially induced states, using technology or drugs. I can imagine clinics where you attend, get your dose of drug X, hook up to a God helmet once a week, then you go home and do your own meditation practice to fine tune and solidify the changes. The drugs would be generations more advanced than the currently popular hallucinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

Without endorsing or rejecting it, I offer this as interesting reading on the subject: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html