[firstly, apologies for a poor question. I've been doing a lot of reading and am a little overwhelemed)]

I've just started reading about actualism (hard to avoid on DhO).

I like the general idea a lot; focusing on the moment, why aren't I happy/why am I unsatisfied right now, pure conciousness and so on.

Reminds me a lot of what I get from reading the Tao Te Ching (and what little I know of Zen).

Is there a connection? Is Richard a Taoist Sage? Am I barking up the wrong tree? How can he believe tobacco isn't harmful and be actually free? Is it some sort of Zen thing? His FAQ reads alternately like someone one twig short of a bonfire and a careless troll. But other parts of his site are lucid, engaging, and moving. It is confusing.

Sooooo... what is the deal there, why do so many advanced people here dig this stuff, how much do ya'll buy into the dude, and in what way? Is it just the refreshing simplicity contrasted with the dogma of buddhism?

Can you explain what actualism means to you, and how it relates to your other beliefs and practices?

[edited for as much clarity as I can muster]

i suggest listening to this http://www.interactivebuddha.com/files/01%20TandDonAF1.mp3
and this (part 2) http://www.interactivebuddha.com/files/02%20TandDonAF2.mp3 to get an idea of the beginning of the entrance of actualism into this community

the relationship has changed somewhat and people put even less stock in the opinion that buddhism and everything else is deluded and only actual freedom is truly worthwhile. people have begun getting the same attainments (actual freedom) from a buddhist or buddhist/actualist hybrid paradigm and considering that the previous ideas of what sotappana, sakadagami, anagami, and arahantship are were either watered down versions or preliminaries to the real 4 paths, starting with "early" actual freedom as sotappana.

Richard himself would probably disavow any connection to Buddhism or Taoism or any "spiritual" religions.

But as for the goal of Taoism being the same as Actualism, I don't know.

Quick facts: The Daoists were never in any sense an organized religion, many practiced magick (alchemy, talismans, astrology, divination etc.), many legends tell of significant figures being alcoholics, many attempted to reach physical immortality, some were more philosophical, they wanted to become... sages?

So it wasn't like the Pali Canon that possessed a clear cut goal, Arahatship. Rather Daoism seemed to be the random ideas of many different people over the course of some time.

From what little I know, the goal of Taoism was more or less: "immortality", but "what" that was I don't know. It seems some people (like Ge Hong) took it very literally and tried to make "pills of immortality", others (like Zhuangzi) who never actually identified as being Daoist were big time societal trolls.

You might try searching "Mind of Clarity" and daoism, or perhaps inner alchemy.

Best of luck.

Edit:

I think this book is relatively good: Book

Other Daoist legends are not as... standard. Like the 8 Immortals, there was one Lan Cai He who was like a transexual that frequently drank alcohol. Then there were the masters of Huainan who possessed certain magical powers.

Some facts: Theravada Buddhism does not mention physical exercise (except a certain incident where Jivaka recommended it), Taoists are fond of physical exercise, in TB all formated things are impermanent, Daoists wanted immortality, according to TB, rituals would not work, but according to Daoism one could take a pill and reach the "end goal", acc. Buddhism magick and alcohol violate sila, magick and alcohol play a large role in daoism.

DhO was initially primarily about dry Burmese Vipassana, which is a very good way of gaining insight, but doesn't emphasize the direct non-dual experience at all.

And I suspect the non-dual experiences of other traditions were dismissed as being similar to the experiences gained from the Burmese Vipassana, due to a lack of clarity in language in discussing these things.

AF by contrast is purely about the non-dual experience, and not about an insight into no-self. So it makes a good complement to the Burmese Vipassana practices.

After a while people started looking again at the non-dual experiences of other traditions and seeing them as being similar to a PCE.

see the following analysis on the similarities between AF and other practices...

http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/3rd+Gear%2C+The+Direct+Path%2C+Eckhart+Tolle%2C+and+the+PCE


But still, not everyone is convinced, some still see AF as being unique and completely different from everything else, as asserted by its founder.

For better or for worse everyone here basically still uses the vocabulary of AF because it gets across the meaning most easily. Even if the practices and beliefs are way different.

Hi, Adam

Adam M:


Yeah. Seems to be some similarities. For example: The Taoist non-intervention ideal and the Zen beginners mind may be related to the ideas of innocence and sensuousness. There are intersections like those but also big differences like Zen's Big Mind and others practices and ideas that seem more esoteric and in conflict with the Richard's method (although it may be that those are merely a matter of semantics, I am no expert).

Adam M:


I think the AFT site is great, but there is also some intellectual dishonesty in its relation to other practices. I don't know about the 180 degrees of opposition. What I know is that the majority of the Actualists on correspondence with the directors and the directors themselves were practitioners of some kind of Eastern methodologies before Actualism, so they must have at least some foundations from those.

Personally, I started with Tibetan Buddhism and then Alan Watts, Krishnamurti, a little bit of Zen and finally some Western Vipassana influenced my thought. Then came Actualism.

What I am trying to say is that, despite I sometimes think that with Actualism I achieved more in 4 months than with 2 years of Buddhism and other Eastern practices, for me is really more like climbing the same mountain with the help of different tools; more like a continuum than a radical change of paradigms. For example, it would a lot more difficult for me to practice attentiveness to sensuousness without the talks about mindfulness (of the body, of the mind, of the emotions) that I heard on Audiodharma; or see the social conditioning more clearly without the ideas of Krishnamurti; or take distance to investigate (and not blindly react and not even being aware of) my feelings without cultivate the sense of the Watcher; etc.

Now, I dropped almost entirely the meditation thing but I can't deny the foundations that it gave me. To continue with the metaphor, I guess I encountered, in a higher level of the same mountain, a diverging path that I am following right now (but, in the same way, others kept walking the Buddhist path and got AF too).

So, I would suggest to drop the antagonism between methods because that brings a lot of doubt and better use the tools that prove useful at the moment; and, also, be aware of the major differences (even if conserving some Buddhist foundations) if you want to pursue AF. For example, this thread results illuminating.

Could you elaborate on this a little more? How are people combining Buddhism and Actualism in their practice?

Also, it was my understanding that Mahasi Sayadaw style vipassana enlightenment is basically extinguished by entrance into AF, for one no longer cycles or has the ability to enter jhana, so, how is AF a continuation of the Buddhist path? Also, since one can just practice AF and access PCEs without having made progress on the Buddhist insight path, then why would someone interested in obtaining AF also practice insight?

How have people altered MCToB style practice so as to gain some of the "same attainments" of Actual Freedom from either 1) straight up Buddhist practice, or 2) a hybrid of Buddhism and Actualism? What does this combination of attainments (insight and Actualism) produce?

This is the first I've heard about this and I'm really interested to know what people have to say about this...