my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/19/12 9:27 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Yadid dee 1/19/12 5:46 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/19/12 10:13 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 1/19/12 6:32 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Bruno Loff 1/19/12 7:04 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 1/19/12 7:11 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Yadid dee 1/19/12 7:14 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 1/19/12 7:19 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Yadid dee 1/19/12 7:23 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Yadid dee 1/19/12 7:24 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 1/19/12 9:53 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 1/19/12 8:07 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 7/15/12 12:56 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho End in Sight 1/19/12 8:09 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 1/19/12 9:09 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Bruno Loff 1/20/12 5:24 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho John Wilde 1/19/12 7:05 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/19/12 10:53 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 1/19/12 11:25 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/19/12 11:44 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 1/19/12 11:54 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/19/12 12:01 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 1/19/12 12:02 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 1/19/12 12:44 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 2/10/12 2:36 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Steph S 1/19/12 12:26 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 1/19/12 1:53 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 1/19/12 2:37 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 1/19/12 3:43 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho End in Sight 1/19/12 4:04 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 1/19/12 4:06 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho John Wilde 1/19/12 4:11 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 1/19/12 4:59 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 1/19/12 5:55 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jeff Grove 1/20/12 2:00 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/30/12 2:24 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 1/30/12 6:40 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 2/2/12 11:25 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Daniel Johnson 1/30/12 5:18 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 2/2/12 11:44 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/2/12 1:40 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 1/31/12 6:00 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 2/2/12 11:53 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/2/12 1:22 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 2/8/12 11:50 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 11:11 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jasmine Marie Engler 7/22/12 5:35 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 7/22/12 6:54 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jasmine Marie Engler 7/25/12 2:53 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho George Campbell 1/19/12 4:15 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 1/20/12 5:20 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Florian 1/20/12 8:19 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Oliver Myth 1/21/12 2:36 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Alan Smithee 1/23/12 12:09 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Oliver Myth 1/23/12 4:35 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Oliver Myth 1/23/12 4:17 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Alan Smithee 1/23/12 5:34 PM
Meditation Terms and Describing Attainments Daniel M. Ingram 1/24/12 3:18 AM
RE: Meditation Terms and Describing Attainments katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 1/24/12 2:00 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho tarin greco 1/30/12 3:50 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Daniel Johnson 1/23/12 5:03 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 1/23/12 5:26 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/1/12 7:01 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 2/1/12 10:55 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 2/1/12 10:43 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/1/12 11:59 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 2/2/12 5:31 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Simon Ekstrand 2/2/12 1:06 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/2/12 1:24 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Craig N 2/5/12 9:35 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Pål S. 2/6/12 4:34 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Yadid dee 2/6/12 4:59 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Craig N 2/6/12 3:52 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 2/6/12 7:28 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/6/12 8:56 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/6/12 10:44 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 6:48 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/7/12 6:57 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 9:29 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 2/7/12 6:32 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 6:54 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 6:56 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 2/7/12 7:33 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 7:45 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 2/7/12 8:00 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/7/12 7:48 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 8:08 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/7/12 8:15 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/8/12 8:26 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/8/12 9:21 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/8/12 8:30 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jon T 2/8/12 10:09 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/8/12 10:46 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jon T 2/9/12 5:09 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 7/15/12 2:32 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/8/12 10:29 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/8/12 11:18 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 7:59 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/9/12 8:32 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 10:04 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 11:03 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 11:11 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 12:39 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 1:10 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 1:41 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 2:05 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 2:18 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 2:30 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 2:49 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/10/12 2:21 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/9/12 7:23 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 8:59 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/9/12 9:35 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/9/12 11:16 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/10/12 1:21 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/10/12 8:03 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/10/12 8:43 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 2/10/12 9:27 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 2/10/12 2:12 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 2/10/12 8:21 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 2/10/12 8:13 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 2/6/12 11:03 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho josh r s 2/7/12 6:54 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho End in Sight 2/7/12 6:55 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho End in Sight 2/6/12 9:39 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Vas A 2/9/12 3:30 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 7/15/12 1:09 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/15/12 2:40 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/18/12 1:28 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/18/12 2:01 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/18/12 3:27 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Adam . . 7/18/12 2:36 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tom Tom 7/18/12 5:01 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/25/12 11:31 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 7/25/12 1:41 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/25/12 2:48 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jasmine Marie Engler 7/25/12 3:02 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho . Jake . 7/25/12 3:55 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Fred none 7/25/12 9:40 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tom Tom 7/25/12 10:13 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/26/12 11:19 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 7/26/12 11:25 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/26/12 12:38 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 7/26/12 1:45 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/26/12 2:43 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Yadid dee 7/26/12 5:12 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jon T 7/27/12 9:16 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/28/12 10:21 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jon T 7/28/12 11:02 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/31/12 2:03 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 7/31/12 8:32 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 7/31/12 4:20 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho . Jake . 7/31/12 8:14 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 7/31/12 8:48 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jill Morana 8/1/12 9:00 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 7/31/12 8:35 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 7/19/12 7:03 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/19/12 7:26 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 7/20/12 2:30 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 7/20/12 4:10 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Simon Ekstrand 7/20/12 4:19 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Simon Ekstrand 7/20/12 4:49 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 7/20/12 5:12 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Simon Ekstrand 7/20/12 5:42 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 7/20/12 5:44 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 2/28/13 12:27 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 3/2/13 8:22 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Pål S. 7/23/12 4:16 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tom Tom 7/23/12 1:48 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 7/20/12 5:37 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/20/12 10:11 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 7/20/12 8:34 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho End in Sight 7/20/12 8:22 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/20/12 8:38 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 7/20/12 8:51 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/20/12 9:16 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Nikolai . 7/20/12 10:01 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 7/20/12 10:11 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho End in Sight 7/21/12 5:31 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho An Eternal Now 7/22/12 11:21 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho An Eternal Now 7/22/12 11:23 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 7/22/12 7:57 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jeff Grove 7/23/12 9:05 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Andrew . 7/24/12 3:31 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 7/24/12 9:30 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Jeff Grove 7/24/12 4:56 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Tommy M 7/24/12 7:50 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho . Jake . 7/24/12 7:58 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 3/1/13 9:21 AM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 3/2/13 7:59 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 2/27/13 10:47 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 3/1/13 1:22 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Felipe C. 3/2/13 7:30 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Change A. 3/2/13 4:26 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Trent . 7/24/12 12:53 PM
RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho Omega Point 3/1/13 1:39 AM
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 9:27 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:51 AM

my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
there has been, over the past two years on the dho, far more than merely the asking of questions about the relations between the actualism method and practices found in buddhism, or complaints about actualism's influence on a supposedly-buddhist online community; there have also been individual, independent investigations into the practices themselves, enabling understandings of possible relations, and there have also been skilful adapations and uses of whatever resources have happened to exist in order to further practical inquiries and develop their results. this has been very much in the spirit of the dho's stated purposes.

yet during this time, no consensus has been reached on the topic of actualism's relation to buddhism. this is immediately understandable: there are numerous differing yet each strongly-justified ways of reading buddhism's foundational discourses. there are even numerous ways of valuing and validating readings of buddhism that don't make use of those foundational texts or which use them to demonstrate the texts' shortcomings. these differing readings and purposes make cooperative comparison difficult, because differing assumptions and divergent emphases continually arise. but the difficulty in agreeing on the meaning of buddhist texts is not the only reason no consensus has been reached. for as precisely delineated and clear as the founder of actualism has attempted to make his presentation of it, readers have still come away with many varieties of ideas. to entirely attribute this diversity to 'imaginings' or 'distortions' or 'careless reading' on the parts of various readers would be to overlook a contributing circumstance not addressed by that attribution: that idiosyncratic readings are produced by idiosyncratic individuals, with idiosyncratic faculties of memory and language, and so, to a notable extent, diversity is inevitable. differing readings and understandings can result in opposition, however, and in this way can cause purposes to cross, which may preclude consensus. a lack of consensus, though, need not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the individual practices reported to, and informing discussions at, the dho community. it has seemed to me, rather, that the plurality of understandings which have been put forth has introduced elements and emphases which have very likely fostered these individual practices, aiming them towards greater goals. this too seems to have been in keeping with the dho's purpose.

however, the endorsement of this plurality is not everybody's purpose, nor is it compatible with everybody's purpose. it is not the purpose of the actual freedom trust, for example, to have practitioners of the actualism method simultaneously experimenting with buddhist methods. this is understandable, for they hold that the aims of actualism are entirely inconsistent with and unsupported by whatever can be gained from practising buddhist methods. on the other hand, i am not convinced of this, for i have seen, for quite a while, quite a few buddhist practitioners make further advances in their practices aided by the actualism method, and also have seen quite a few practitioners of the actualism method enabled to apply it more fully by having made progress in buddhist meditation.. and so i have valued the confluences and cross-pollinations that have occurred on the dho these past two years.

owing to this, i have also been attentive to the possibility that buddhist practices, when guided by the pce, may produce similar or identical types of results as those produced by the actualism method. the claims of accomplishment made by other participants here are strong evidence for the case. i cannot also but have noted, during this time, strong resemblances between many of the things other practitioners here, and elsewhere, have said of their practices, results, and reflections and the practices, results, and reflections that i have known. further, i have observed, in person, the conduct of several other practitioners, and have noted strong consistencies between their conduct and what they have said about their practices, results, and reflections. i have taken these similarities to be significantly indicative of the likelihood that they and i have achieved similar or identical types of accomplishments.

the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.

this invalidity raises two questions interesting to me: firstly, about my suitability for facilitating or guiding practitioners of the actualism method when i cannot tell whether or not they actually achieve its purpose; and secondly, about the suitability of my making a claim to a condition which i cannot recognise for myself.

the answer to the first question is complex, but put concisely involves perhaps not guiding practitioners of the method who seek guidance with any authority, not even that of technical expertise; for anything i ever knew, i knew not as fundamentally correct knowledge but simply that it happened to work to know it.

the answer to the second question is simple: i do not find it suitable for me to make a claim of a condition which i cannot recognise. for this reason, i am relinquishing any claim of an actual freedom, whether on my behalf or the behalf of any other.

this is not to say that i am renouncing my claim of being free of malice and sorrow (which is what all this has been about for me anyway); i am not. what i am indicating is that i no longer have sufficient confidence that what i mean by this claim and what i find it to entail and imply is similar enough to what richard means and what that entails and implies to state any kind of equivalence. accordingly, i no longer find it suitable to use the terms that richard has put to his experiences and observations to describe my experiences or observations. without doing so, however, i find that i cannot participate very meaningfully in the conversations concerning actual freedom (which is essentially whatever richard says it is); as i cannot be sufficiently certain that what i have in mind is closely coherent with what richard does, i rarely find it purposeful to present my thoughts on these topics. conversely, it seems more appropriate for me to retire from any statement or claim of authority or authoritative understanding on these matters, so that it is understood that any further thoughts i may present on an actual freedom and related topics are to be understood in light of this retirement.

so that there is no unnecessary confusion, i have written to the af trust suggesting that my announcement be removed from their website's 'annoucements' page. i previously renamed the 'actualism/actual freedom' forum category here, which i have been responsible for moderating, 'practices inspired by actualism', and so opened it up to discussion on the buddhist-actualist hybrid practices that have been innovated by dho participants. not only did this bring the category more in line with a use that dho forum participants have tended towards anyway, but it also spared moderators much of the task of keeping the category focused on discussion of the practice of the actualism method. further, as the renamed category is subtitled 'but not necessarily either approved or endorsed by the actual freedom trust', the category's discussions can be considered independently of the actual freedom trust and their statements, and as such, is now able to include a greater variety of approaches to practice than is directly conducive to retaining the methodological integrity insisted on by the af trust.. and, for that matter, is able to do so without relying on the authority of an actually free person to oversee the discussion (for example, to determine for anyone else whether or not the practices they are considering will lead them to their desired results).

i look forward to continuing to see what we all continue to come up with.

tarin
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 5:46 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 5:46 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
So, basically, Richard said you're wrong and that you cannot tell whether someone is AF or not, and so you will stop using this terminology ?

But being free from malice and sorrow (The Mental Defilements), you are sure about?
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 6:32 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 6:32 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10573

As per the above message from Richard, there was another step that Vineeto had to take to make it 'fully here in this actual world' or to gain "meaning-of-life" actual freedom. That means that there is just Richard and Vineeto who have made it fully to the actual world.
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:04 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:04 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.


Has Richard been verbally clear about what is the difference between AF1 (newly-freed from instinctual passions) and AF2 (after which you should be able to recognize AF(1?2?) ) ?

I thought it was just the "dust-on-the-lens" thing? (actually vineto's description of moving from AF1 to AF2 seems to suggest this)
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:11 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:11 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
I thought it was just the "dust-on-the-lens" thing? (actually vineto's description of moving from AF1 to AF2 seems to suggest this)


Vineeto 'interacted' intensively with Richard for 40 days. I don't think dust on the lens would require that much time to be removed.
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:14 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:13 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
Richard didn't interact with those people Tarin thought had attained AF, before concluding they didn't, right ?
So he was going by what Richard heard Tarin say about what they told him.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:19 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:19 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Yadid dee:
Richard didn't interact with those people Tarin thought had attained AF, before concluding they didn't, right ?
So he was going by what Richard heard Tarin say about what they told him.


I don't know if they did interact or not. I think there is a lot of behind-the-scene activity that goes on about AF.
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:23 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:23 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:


I don't know if they did interact or not. I think there is a lot of behind-the-scene activity that goes on about AF.


Behind-the-scene meaning interactions that go on outside this forum, about AF and other things, I agree.

Seeing that the most important thing (to me) is the condition of the permanent end of afflictions, I don't think Tarin's post changes much about that, more about the background baggage on the way there.
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:24 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:24 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
John Wilde:

You guys have no idea who/what you're dealing with here.

John


Could you elaborate please, that phrase is a bit vague to understand.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 8:07 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 8:07 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
John Wilde:
However, it didn't take as long as Richard expected. A woman (whom I'll call "P") was soon declared (by Richard) to be the first to have "come to completion", a mere couple of months after her initial AF event.

But then, a while later, when "P" had moved away with her husband, Vineeto was declared to be ... you guessed it ... the first to have "come to completion".

Other ways of phrasing this: she had "become the universe". Alternatively: she had "become Richard".

You guys have no idea who/what you're dealing with here.

John


Where was it declared that "P" had come to completion? As far as I'm aware, it was only declared that she had become actually free.

If "P" has moved away with her husband, is the MSV Actualis still in the pipeline as I think it was mostly P's husband who has deep pockets and was financing AF a lot?

How do you have an idea that who we are dealing with here? Have you met Richard in person?
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 8:09 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 8:09 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
John Wilde:
It took Richard 30 months. When other people became AF in late 2009 and early 2010, it was assumed that it might take a while for them to attain fully-fledged AF. However, it didn't take as long as Richard expected. A woman was soon declared (by Richard) to be the first to have "come to completion", a mere couple of months after attaining AF. But a while later, when this woman had moved away with her husband, another woman (Vineeto) was declared to be ... you guessed it ...the first to have "come to completion".


If this is true, it would shed light on something that came up in a conversation between us previously (the claim that one can enter or exit conditions such as in-control VF or out-from-control VF, implying that they are not permanent developmental attainments). If what you say is true, it seems that claims about who attained but subsequently exited some attainment should be discounted.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 9:09 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 9:09 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
John Wilde:
This was also described as: she had "become the universe" or "become Richard".

Could you provide links to these descriptions? I don't keep up with the actualfreedom yahoo group (though perhaps I should).
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 9:53 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 9:53 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Hi John:
The carefully constructed and maintained public facade of AF gives few clues as to how bizarre and ludicrous things can be behind the scenes.
The risk of public facade diverging with private actuality (e.g., (offline)) exists anywhere, including here.

The risks of behind-the-scenes communications in a forum like the DhO are:
[indent]- collusion of delusion (e.g., two or more opaque writers chat/skype privately and agree to agree on their language and sustain the obfuscation by tag-teaming and re-inforcing their agreement in the public forum which...

- ...promotes optative guru-ism: "you won't understand until you get there, therefore there is no need (for us) to explain or support (our) words" wherein the public participant has the option to ask questions and be ignorantly hushed/invited offline or the option to play along with the blind "believe me (us)/you don't understand" politics (anthropologically, this political organization is a kinship hierarchy common to organized religion, which in the DhO offline kinship may impute online teachers), which

- misleds/delays seekers from their simple, straight-forward, path of autonomy (essentially, an erosion of personal obstacles and their re-generation)[/indent]

Inherent to autonomy-seeking (aka: seeking nibbana) are admittedly obscurations and fetters, and these difficulties are often expressed in some Buddhist traditions vcia the Insight Stages of suffering 5-10 (often called in the DhO "the Dark Night", whereby MCTB borrows from the Christian carmelite John of the Cross, deemed a Christian saint by his community).

Anyone taking up the role of an enlightened teacher (or allowing such a role to be imputed) bears the responsibility of being clear and publicaly transparent (not privately coordinating) with their words. This responsibility occurs, because autonomy-seekers are quite vulnerable to being (mis)led away from their simple autonomy.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 10:13 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 10:08 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Yadid dee:
So, basically, Richard said you're wrong and that you cannot tell whether someone is AF or not, and so you will stop using this terminology ?

But being free from malice and sorrow (The Mental Defilements), you are sure about?

it's all up there in my original post, but short answers are yes (richard has told me that my assessments are not reliable; i will no longer make assessments dependent on terms he has defined) and yes (all that has changed is i no longer have grounds for determining how to relate my experiences or observations to those assessments).


Yadid dee:

Richard didn't interact with those people Tarin thought had attained AF, before concluding they didn't, right ?
So he was going by what Richard heard Tarin say about what they told him.

and going by things those people have written publicly.

*

regarding behind the scenes activity concerning AF: no idea.

*

Bruno Loff:
Has Richard been verbally clear about what is the difference between AF1 (newly-freed from instinctual passions) and AF2 (after which you should be able to recognize AF(1?2?) ) ?

dunno.
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 5:24 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 10:16 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Moved to this thread.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 10:53 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 10:53 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
it occurs to me that the aspects of my post beginning this thread which concern the ways in which the understandings and practices of both actualism and buddhism have developed over the previous two years on the dho may only stand to be properly understood by readers who are already familiar with 1- actualism and the af trust's writings, 2- canonical buddhist texts and their practical readings, and 3- daniel ingram's book 'mastering the core teachings of the buddha', the form of insight practice taught in the mahasi sayadaw tradition(s), and the history of the dho's discussions from at least mid-2009 onwards. for this reason, i would suggest that anyone who wishes to reply and contribute to this discussion yet is not informed by this background and context first endeavour to learn about the three things listed, and learn them well[1], so that any resulting discussion about these aspects which may ensue stays on-topic and high-level. this can be easily accomplished by:

1
(a) reading (at least the articles in richard's section of) the af trust website (for an understanding of what actual freedom and the path towards it are authoritatively described to be) and
(b) putting the actualism method into practice (for an understanding of how the experience of an actual freedom and/or the path towards it accord with the authoritative accounts);

2
(a) reading the canonical buddhist discourses,
(b) reading modern scholarship done on the those discourses (for various senses of which things can and cannot be known about those discourses),
(c) reading posts and articles written by practitioners who have declared that their models of practice and fruits reflect the contents of those early buddhist discourses, and have provided sources and citations (for various senses of what may be practised and achieved in accordance with the contents of those early discourses), and
(d) putting into practice instructions derived from a practical reading of those discourses; and

3
(a) reading MCTB,
(b) reading 'practical insight meditation' (both parts 1 and 2) by mahasi sayadaw and performing the exercises therein prescribed, and
(c) trawling thoroughly through the dho archives for discussions beginning in 2009 which concern the topics of actualism/actual freedom, differing models of practice and enlightenment, and realisations and development. many threads will contain replies seemingly posted by 'wet paint' (which indicates that the thread existed on and was moved over from the previous dho forum, which lived on a hosting platform called 'wet paint'); those threads are a good place to begin (or end, if you're reading in reverse chronology).

meanwhile, would all speculators and debaters on other matters please take those discussions elsewhere - at least, to a different thread? thank you.

tarin

[1] take your time with the research, as this thread isn't going anywhere, and threads in the 'dharma battleground' category (in which this thread is located, 'recent post' readers) have tended to be resurrected from the back pages again and again.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 11:25 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 11:23 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
what i am indicating is that i no longer have sufficient confidence that what i mean by this claim and what i find it to entail and imply is similar enough to what richard means and what that entails and implies to state any kind of equivalence.
...
so that there is no unnecessary confusion, i have written to the af trust suggesting that my announcement be removed from their website's 'annoucements' page.

I am a bit puzzled. Given that the announcement was on the af trust site, I assume that Richard verified that you had attained an actual freedom, if only 'newly free' and not the 'meaning-of-life' stage. Thus, your experience must match that stage of actualist development, at least according to Richard - and I assume he considers himself capable of judging who is free or not[1]. For what purpose are you relinquishing your claim to (at least a certain stage of) actual freedom? Is it a matter of erring on the side of safety?

[1] or at least, we are defining the attainments based on what he says they are, and (I assume) he said you were actually free of the instinctual passions
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 11:44 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 11:44 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
tarin greco:
what i am indicating is that i no longer have sufficient confidence that what i mean by this claim and what i find it to entail and imply is similar enough to what richard means and what that entails and implies to state any kind of equivalence.
...
so that there is no unnecessary confusion, i have written to the af trust suggesting that my announcement be removed from their website's 'annoucements' page.

I am a bit puzzled. Given that the announcement was on the af trust site, I assume that Richard verified that you had attained an actual freedom, if only 'newly free' and not the 'meaning-of-life' stage. Thus, your experience must match that stage of actualist development, at least according to Richard - and I assume he considers himself capable of judging who is free or not[1]. For what purpose are you relinquishing your claim to (at least a certain stage of) actual freedom? Is it a matter of erring on the side of safety?

note that the announcements on the site are worded such that it is the individuals who have confirmed their freedom from the instinctual passions (and the directors are merely announcing their confirmations, though they are also implicitly agreeing with the announcement). regardless of what anyone else may say, i am merely withdrawing my own contribution of that confirmation for the purposes of clarity and ending obfuscating entanglements in uncertain meanings and crossed purposes.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

[1] or at least, we are defining the attainments based on what he says they are ...

if you say so; i'm content to let others see to the definitions of these attainments.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 11:54 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 11:54 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
note that the announcements on the site are worded such that it is the individuals who have confirmed their freedom from the instinctual passions (and the directors are merely announcing their confirmations, though they are also implicitly agreeing with the announcement). regardless of what anyone else may say, i am merely withdrawing my own contribution of that confirmation for the purposes of clarity and ending obfuscating entanglements in uncertain meanings and crossed purposes.
Ah, ok, understood.

tarin greco:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

[1] or at least, we are defining the attainments based on what he says they are ...

if you say so; i'm content to let others see to the definitions of these attainments.

I am puzzled yet again:
tarin greco:
without doing so, however, i find that i cannot participate very meaningfully in the conversations concerning actual freedom (which is essentially whatever richard says it is)

Is it what Richard says it is? Or is it up to each person to define it? Or is it the latter yet a possible definition is "whatever richard says it is"?
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:01 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:01 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

tarin greco:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

[1] or at least, we are defining the attainments based on what he says they are ...

if you say so; i'm content to let others see to the definitions of these attainments.

I am puzzled yet again:
tarin greco:
without doing so, however, i find that i cannot participate very meaningfully in the conversations concerning actual freedom (which is essentially whatever richard says it is)

Is it what Richard says it is? Or is it up to each person to define it? Or is it the latter yet a possible definition is "whatever richard says it is"?

how about, 'it's up to each person to make sure they properly understand for themselves what richard says an actual freedom is'.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:02 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:02 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
how about, 'it's up to each person to make sure they properly understand for themselves what richard says an actual freedom is'.
ok, makes sense. that neatly resolves the increasingly-confused questions that were arising in my head.
thumbnail
Steph S, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:26 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:26 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 672 Join Date: 3/24/10 Recent Posts
in another thread recently i told a friend, hey remember when you told me...

hey tarin, remember when you told me.... a reasonable estimate for any sort of path = 95% a solo journey, about 4% feedback from others, about 1% having a cheerleader friend

i'm hoping any backlash regarding this thread is kept to a minimum and this can be a civil discussion. each person knows their own mind and can't know the mind of another. actually free, just damned happy, over the moon. we're all smart enough to forge our way through and know what's best for ourselves.

carrying on... emoticon
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 12:44 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
how about, 'it's up to each person to make sure they properly understand for themselves what richard says an actual freedom is'.


Could you tell us which phenomenological differences in peoples' experiences Richard has used to discount their claims to AF as being false, not the specific people but just the phenomenological issues and differences? or does he claim they are lying? or are his assertions based on the practices they used? or were the assertions made without any specific explanation?

also, I think it will be tough to make any progress in the theory until we get a definition of AF1 and AF2 are, as without any clear definition, it is a gaping hole which could easily be seen as Richard simply using his authority as founder of the AFT to discount anyone who's actions conflict with his perceived agenda.
Felipe C, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 1:53 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 1:49 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Steph S:
in another thread recently i told a friend, hey remember when you told me...

hey tarin, remember when you told me.... a reasonable estimate for any sort of path = 95% a solo journey, about 4% feedback from others, about 1% having a cheerleader friend

i'm hoping any backlash regarding this thread is kept to a minimum and this can be a civil discussion. each person knows their own mind and can't know the mind of another. actually free, just damned happy, over the moon. we're all smart enough to forge our way through and know what's best for ourselves.

carrying on...


Maybe Tarin could put it in probabilistic terms: if there is a list of what's expected as a result of AF (as indicated in the AFT site), which of those points are fulfilled by Tarin's experience (or at least almost sure fulfilled)?. If the majority of these points seem covered, he is at least super close to being in that state named "AF", but still he can not affirm that categorically because language conserves its ambiguity.

Anyway, I'm replying this to you because it's pretty interesting how the "I" reacts with doubt after reading threads like this, even tough they are discussing semantics.

If I practice Actualism, I must look at the facts: Tarin still claims that he's free of malice and sorrow, and I am experimenting vast results with my practice each day. The feelings that come to (as) "me" are just another affective experience to investigate: in this case, my relation to authorities and to the thinking of groups like DhO.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 2:37 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 2:37 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:

the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.
tarin


firstly, thanks for the fresh air you have given to the whole subject.

let me ask you a bold question... before you drop your ability to recognize (faultily or not) an 'actually free person', could you apply that ability one last time.. on the progenitor himself? in your extensive communication and interaction with the progenitor (of af), did you find anything puzzling that you could not account for? [this question is being asked in the light of various controversies that are occuring with new documents being circulated etc. a honest opinion, even if it is just that, will help me]. iow, freshly evaluating by your own experience, is he 'actually free' or not?
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 3:43 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 3:43 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Excellent. I would also like to take this opportunity to state that my ongoing experience does not resembles Tarin's. I still experience certain 'shadow' experiences (formerly gross affect) as explained a number of times (not very well) by myself mostly in my practice journal at the HP.

I have had two major shifts since what I was calling MCTB 4th (which matched Daniel's recent outlining of that attainment). I believe these last two shifts were more in line with the fetter model of the pali canon suttas and am ok with letting go of the whole AF or not titles/attainments. If I am not at the stage where Tarin is (perhaps a stage right before it), I am certainly not at what Richard considers 'Newly AF'. From now on, I will avoid (which I have been doing for awhile now) any talk of being AF. I am not by the AFT definitions. I will talk from now on more from the buddhist angle that has informed my practice at the same time as AF informed practices.

Nick
John Wilde, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 7:05 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 3:54 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:

John:
You guys have no idea who/what you're dealing with here.


It is absurd to make vague innuendos and unsupported statements, and expect (?) that we have a clear idea of what you are talking about. I would appreciate a more extensive, well-put-together account from your part, rather than this "erratic hinting" which is of help to no-one. Such as what is it exactly you know, and how exactly you have come to know what you have come to know.

You hint something shady is going on with Richard & friends, but you are starting to come off as having an agenda yourself. How is anyone to assess if your views are anything more than fluff and opinions, if you don't freely give out the factual data for everyone else to interpret?


To put together an extensive, well-documented account of all this would be a major undertaking, and would have all sorts of practical and legal ramifications that go beyond the scope of my intentions. To the extent that I have an agenda, it's this: (1) to participate in conversations about topics that interest me; (2) to make some observations about AF informed by details that few people know, with the aim of prompting people like you (people like me) not to take too much at face value.

I understand why you would ask me to - more or less - put up or shut up. But 'putting up' in the way that you desire is too much work for me, and has too many other inconveniences. It's not what I want to do with my life. On the other hand, 'shutting up' is not what I think best either. This isn't a court of law; I'm writing informally but truthfully, in accord with my own conscience.

Better this way: you're free to consider everything I write as "fluff and opinions", and I'm free to write informally but truthfully. My comments on AF are motivated by an intention to help people in the best way that I can / am prepared to do, given current constraints. As more information comes to light, the "fluff and opinions" may come to seem less 'fluffy' to you.. but only time will tell.

(Edit: Actually, in light of Tarin's recent remarks, I expect to see the DhO abandon the somewhat 'proprietary' lexicon of AF and develop its own language and culture surrounding these experiences and aspirations... which would be a good thing, IMO).

John

********* EDIT *******
In response to Tarin's request - up thread - to avoid cluttering up this thread with debate, I've deleted some earlier messages and will delete this one too, in a while. People who engaged with me might want delete their responses for the same reason. We can take that conversation elsewhere, if there's anything left to be said...
*************************
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:04 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:04 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
I believe these last two shifts were more in line with the fetter model of the pali canon suttas and am ok with letting go of the whole AF or not titles/attainments.


In many ways I regret ever talking about my experience in AFT terms, as I have never been involved in the actualist community, nor practiced actualism, nor accepted AFT dogma, nor had extensive and detailed familiarity with AFT writings (rather than a general knowledge)...and so, doing so was a kind of impulsiveness based on the fact that other models that were current in this community (MCTB's, Kenneth Folk's) were not speaking to my experience.

Sticking with Pali Buddhism would have been much more sensible given my practice and background and given the theory that makes most sense to me. So, I think I'll join you in this.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:06 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:06 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
In light of my recent change in approach, this post is really refreshing and encouraging as it confirms that there are lots of ways to go about this stuff depending on what works for you. I think that if people can drop all the ideas about getting to this goal or that path then this whole adventure can become much more enjoyable, and when we can talk about these things in simple, straightforwards phenomenological terms without fancy labels or terminology then all the bullshit can drop away. Don't get me wrong, it's useful to a point but can become troublesome if it's given too much importance, or not understood clearly enough.

Whether Tarin or anyone else is "AF" is of no concern to me, their practical advice and the verification, via direct experience, of the information they've provided speaks for itself. Richard's got his take on what's what and so has everyone else, it's what we do as human beings, with or without affect, so it'll be good to see if dropping the AF baggage and moving on will allow people to find the way that's most effective for them to make their lives happier and less stressful.

In the words of Al Crowley, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

The door's wide open, anyone fancy exploring outside? emoticon
John Wilde, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:11 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:11 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 501 Join Date: 10/26/10 Recent Posts
Tommy M:
In light of my recent change in approach, this post is really refreshing and encouraging as it confirms that there are lots of ways to go about this stuff depending on what works for you. I think that if people can drop all the ideas about getting to this goal or that path then this whole adventure can become much more enjoyable, and when we can talk about these things in simple, straightforwards phenomenological terms without fancy labels or terminology then all the bullshit can drop away. Don't get me wrong, it's useful to a point but can become troublesome if it's given too much importance, or not understood clearly enough.

Whether Tarin or anyone else is "AF" is of no concern to me, their practical advice and the verification, via direct experience, of the information they've provided speaks for itself. Richard's got his take on what's what and so has everyone else, it's what we do as human beings, with or without affect, so it'll be good to see if dropping the AF baggage and moving on will allow people to find the way that's most effective for them to make their lives happier and less stressful.


Yay.
George Campbell, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:15 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:15 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 12 Join Date: 10/19/11 Recent Posts
tarin greco:


the answer to the second question is simple: i do not find it suitable for me to make a claim of a condition which i cannot recognise. for this reason, i am relinquishing any claim of an actual freedom, whether on my behalf or the behalf of any other.


tarin


excellent and best of luck with your journey ahead!!

If you get around to building your boat, let me know, I will pay a visit ;)
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:59 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 4:59 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
I have had two major shifts since what I was calling MCTB 4th (which matched Daniel's recent outlining of that attainment).

Did it match it precisely? Daniel said:
Daniel Ingram:
To whoever is speculating about the thing fading or center reestablishing itself or subtle center point stuff or anything like that: simply no, not at all, not in 9 years, never, not even a little. There is this diffuse, open field of stuff doing its thing.

And, if I recall correctly, during the 'friendly chat' podcast with Owen that you both agreed that the center-point would re-arise sometimes. (Not sure of the exact time in the podcast or the precise wording - I will re-listen to it and point it out if necessary.)
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 5:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/19/12 5:30 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Nikolai .:
I have had two major shifts since what I was calling MCTB 4th (which matched Daniel's recent outlining of that attainment).

Did it match it precisely? Daniel said:
Daniel Ingram:
To whoever is speculating about the thing fading or center reestablishing itself or subtle center point stuff or anything like that: simply no, not at all, not in 9 years, never, not even a little. There is this diffuse, open field of stuff doing its thing.

And, if I recall correctly, during the 'friendly chat' podcast with Owen that you both agreed that the center-point would re-arise sometimes. (Not sure of the exact time in the podcast or the precise wording - I will re-listen to it and point it out if necessary.)


The experience that was experienced as a 'centrepoint' for most of my life lost that status of 'centrepoint' in July 2010 but the sensations that would be read as a 'centrepoint' were still occasionally read as the 'watcher' (which was seen to be a cluster of sensations with a mental overlay), as mentioned by End in the quote below, but without the 'centrepoint' status. Does that make sense?

There was no 're-establishing' of the 'centrepoint' as a status nor it fading in and out, or being sublte this or that. It lost the status of 'centrepoint' for ever, YET the sensations that implied 'centrepoint' previous to this shift would still be experienced from time to time as a transient impersonal 'selfing' experience sans the mental status of 'centrepoint'.

From what I remember, I think any sort of reference to a centre point for me usually was connected to the area in the head more than any other area. For my ongoing experience during pre- (what I consider) 4th path shift, that was the centre point of the selfing experience. Post shift, those sensations in the middle of the head occasionally would arise to be read as a mentally felt 'self' or 'me-ness' experience from time to time but appear extremely transient and very sticky-free and had lost all sense of being a 'centre'. They would arise and pass very quickly.

The sense of 'being' which became more predominant as the ongoing experience afterwards though felt quite diffuse and without a location. This took the centrepoint's place as the sort of default setting of the continuation of the 'selfing' process post shift. It was then seen to be any 'mood' that was arising, one and the same. Any notion of it being the agent went when the sense of centrepoint collapsed and ceased having 'status' in the mind as a 'centrepoint'.

Post shift, there was the immediate recognition that any arising of a felt 'me-ness' located as a cluster of sensations, was just that, a cluster of sensations with a mental overlay. Until I owned up to that sticky-free and centreless mental overlay as being the continuation of a 'selfing' process that was still inherently unsatisfactory, everything was pretty much how Daniel describes.

End asked:
Would you consider your 4th path experience in context of this state well characterized by a statement such as "if there is an experience of something that would be described as a super-pervading watcher, it is immediately known to be an experience that is empty of being a watcher, self, subject, witness, etc. despite the description being apt?"

(In other words, "watcher" would just be a label for some sensation or sensations that would previously have been called a watcher but are now just sensations, despite it being clear that "watcher" captures how those sensations would previously have been understood as well as describes them in some way currently.)


to which Daniel answered;
precisely.


Edited a few times for flow.
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 2:00 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 2:00 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
HAIETMOBA and the sweet spot are still excellent tools for creating conditions favorable to insight especially DO.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 5:20 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 5:20 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10555

"In this post he played his other favorite game of killing many birds with one stone: he re-established his control over the AF enterprise and reminded everyone that he is alive, active and engaged in exciting things - that the pied piper is doing rather well...setting many other people('kids') free. He has, of course, also given his personal opinion about the 'watered down " version of HIS enterprise and in the process shaken and stirred up things for those who were beginning to call curtain on AFT or Richardism!

So, he has not only reminded his 'followers' as to who is the skipper of the AF ship, also demonstrated to everyone how much his WORD matter."

Establishing control over the AF enterprise could be the reason as to what happened between Richard and Tarin. The above message was posted on Dec 24, 2011.
thumbnail
Florian, modified 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 8:19 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/20/12 8:17 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.

this invalidity raises two questions interesting to me: firstly, about my suitability for facilitating or guiding practitioners of the actualism method when i cannot tell whether or not they actually achieve its purpose; and secondly, about the suitability of my making a claim to a condition which i cannot recognise for myself.

the answer to the first question is complex, but put concisely involves perhaps not guiding practitioners of the method who seek guidance with any authority, not even that of technical expertise; for anything i ever knew, i knew not as fundamentally correct knowledge but simply that it happened to work to know it.

the answer to the second question is simple: i do not find it suitable for me to make a claim of a condition which i cannot recognise. for this reason, i am relinquishing any claim of an actual freedom, whether on my behalf or the behalf of any other.


The first one is actually not that complex, I think: you do what you do, regardless of what you or other people call it. As far as I am concerned, you are doing it well - i.e. those who request your guidance benefit from it, in pursuit of whatever it is they are pursuing. I count myself in, here.

The second seems more complex to me! Part of what makes the DhO such a good place to frequent is just this normalization of attainment: that "ordinary" people can and do get these results. So having a vocabulary or shorthand for these results ("titles" or attainments) is a useful thing. In my recent post about integration and my opinions about it, what resulted in the most reactions were the conveniently pithy "centerlessness" and "tape-loops" and "disconnect". All my other observations had no such nice handles, and were not scrutinized as closely. My bet is that the DhO will coin new terms to describe your and other's experience of freedom from malice and sorrow.

Anyway, that's a big homework assignment you suggest in your follow-up emoticon Good one, too.

Cheers,
Florian
thumbnail
Oliver Myth, modified 12 Years ago at 1/21/12 2:36 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/21/12 2:36 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 143 Join Date: 6/10/11 Recent Posts
I would like a thread with everyone's definition for the words they use to describe attainments. (so like, one person would describe what 1st path, AF, and whatever, ~each term in how they understand it). Of course, ONLY with things which they themselves have achieved (so everything is personal experience)....

Then we could go down the line with what all the major players here on DhO think each term means....

I know it is hard to write about something as ethereal as meditation attainments with exactitude.. but best efforts here might do a lot of good and increase clarity .
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 12:09 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 12:09 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Olyver Mith:
I would like a thread with everyone's definition for the words they use to describe attainments. (so like, one person would describe what 1st path, AF, and whatever, ~each term in how they understand it). Of course, ONLY with things which they themselves have achieved (so everything is personal experience)....

Then we could go down the line with what all the major players here on DhO think each term means....

I know it is hard to write about something as ethereal as meditation attainments with exactitude.. but best efforts here might do a lot of good and increase clarity .


If you would like to know this, then you should spend the next fifteen years doing the following. Afterward, if you still have questions, then you should PRACTICE and discover these things for yourself.

1
(a) reading (at least the articles in richard's section of) the af trust website (for an understanding of what actual freedom and the path towards it are authoritatively described to be) and
(b) putting the actualism method into practice (for an understanding of how the experience of an actual freedom and/or the path towards it accord with the authoritative accounts);

2
(a) reading the canonical buddhist discourses,
(b) reading modern scholarship done on the those discourses (for various senses of which things can and cannot be known about those discourses),
(c) reading posts and articles written by practitioners who have declared that their models of practice and fruits reflect the contents of those early buddhist discourses, and have provided sources and citations (for various senses of what may be practised and achieved in accordance with the contents of those early discourses), and
(d) putting into practice instructions derived from a practical reading of those discourses; and

3
(a) reading MCTB,
(b) reading 'practical insight meditation' (both parts 1 and 2) by mahasi sayadaw and performing the exercises therein prescribed, and
(c) trawling thoroughly through the dho archives for discussions beginning in 2009 which concern the topics of actualism/actual freedom, differing models of practice and enlightenment, and realisations and development. many threads will contain replies seemingly posted by 'wet paint' (which indicates that the thread existed on and was moved over from the previous dho forum, which lived on a hosting platform called 'wet paint'); those threads are a good place to begin (or end, if you're reading in reverse chronology).

If you trawl through every DhO post since 2009 (and before!), then you will discover this information. Gad, we are trying to keep these discussions high end here. Please don't inflict your ignorance on us. [I hope you are picking up on the fact I am being a lil' sarcastic...]
thumbnail
Oliver Myth, modified 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 4:35 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 3:51 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 143 Join Date: 6/10/11 Recent Posts
@ Allen,

Hello. Thanks for your response. I have asked for the definition because they frequently are not identical. The most obvious example of this is in This Thread where Nickolai and Trent all claim fourth path, but think that they may have experienced different phenomena. On that thread you will also find Daniels 'official' definition of 4th path in his terms. Likewise, Nickolai has pioneered what seems to be Anagami as it is referred to in the old suttas. Quite a variety of definitions for the same terms, yes? I likewise will explain what I mean by different things in a different post.

As far as your criteria goes... Do you mind if I respond to each credential?

1) I have read much of the actual freedom website. I am far from an expert but I have read much and clarified many questions I had about it thru some extensive reading. I also have my practice thread here. so you can see exactly the efforts I have been putting into the actualism method for the past 4-5 months.

2) I have read many, many of the suttas. My favorite ones being the pali cannon and the Vissudimagga. I have made comments on the Vissudhimagga and suggestions to certain chapters to certain people on other threads.

3) This is not your fault for not knowing, but I have been participating on the forums now and then since the old wetpaint days in 2009, but under other names (I would irritatingly lose my passwords and had to make new accounts). I have been TheQuestioner7, Jeff Stocks, and a few others. I apologized in email to Daniel for this a while ago. I have since got my crap together and now use this one account.


We are definitely trying to keep high end discussions here! I completely agree. The more advanced people become the more their posts start to sound like academic reports with citations and quotes everywhere! And I think this is right. The begining practitioner's threads will sound like elementary school level, with a lot of emotional support, etc. The more advanced practitioners will start to sound like college graduates. I think this is beautiful.

Why not take another step to help academize (aka sophisticate) the website by have a dictionary of terms by the people here who practice? You said it yourself that one would have to "trawl" thru thousands of posts since 2009 to find them all. Is that really reasonable? Cause I'm not about to do that! To make it worse, some useful information is frequently not in threads that fit with the thread title (my above link being an example).

I'm glad that was sarcasm at the end of your post, because I don't see how offering my want/idea to the DhO community is inflicting ignorance!


@Daniel

And thanks Daniel! That website is brilliant!

I was hoping we could have one lone thread dedicated to this. Could a moderator move it to another thread? I will post my official definitions here for now but in another post right after this (so that a mod could move it to an appropriate thread, should my idea be accepted and there won't be all this extra explanation to Alan emoticon )

Edit: Or, if we just want to forward people to the site (http://mindtrainingterms.org/), then we could do that. Is that site a 'wiki' or anything? That would make it useful. Once again, thanks!
thumbnail
Oliver Myth, modified 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 4:17 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 4:14 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 143 Join Date: 6/10/11 Recent Posts
Path Moment: A fruition, followed by a notable ability to see closer to the "source of suffering", a substantial and permanent dropping away of suffering, and the mind stops doing useless things it used to do before. Not every fruition will do this.

Fruition: Percieved as a short lapse of consciousness where there is no awareness. It is discernible by being aware of the moments before and after and realizing that there is a blinking out of consciousness. Frequently right before a fruition the mind naturally is calm, panoramic, and aware of the sense field (In other words, not lost in mental proliferation). The mind frequently feels refreshed and like a computer re-booting, and there may be a wave of bliss a few seconds after the fruition.

Nidhora Sampatti: A meditative state where consciousness will willingly allow itself to 'turn off' over a period of a few moments, followed by a fruition-like state of mind. When coming out of it it freqently leaves one wondering exactly how long they have been out. There is a Massive afterglow which will last for hours. There are many ways to enter this, myself using a dual attention on the third eye and the surface of my skin.
thumbnail
Daniel Johnson, modified 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 5:03 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 5:03 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/16/09 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
this is not to say that i am renouncing my claim of being free of malice and sorrow (which is what all this has been about for me anyway); i am not. what i am indicating is that i no longer have sufficient confidence that what i mean by this claim and what i find it to entail and imply is similar enough to what richard means and what that entails and implies to state any kind of equivalence.


Can we start a new forum section here about "being free of malice and sorrow", then? I don't care what you call it, but it may be that this "is what all this has been about" for others of us as well. And, I would think you could offer guidance with authority on that subject quite fine.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 5:26 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 5:26 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Can we start a new forum section here about "being free of malice and sorrow", then?

With a sub-category of "happiness". emoticon

Nice idea, the sentiment (even if I'm just interpreting it from the words on the screen) is really lovely.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 5:34 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/23/12 5:32 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
@Olyver: Actually, my post was a joke. I was not questioning your credentials in any way. I thought my "sarcasm" statement would make this clear, but it didn't, so, sorry!

@All: All kidding aside, I think the project of creating a secular, non-denominational, highly precise language of terms and measures, used to describe mind training, and the stages and states encountered therein, is an incredibly valuable one.

This would take mind training out of the realm of the religious, with all its passions, residues, connotations, fuzziness, dogmas, and complications, and make it more scientific, academic, measurable, and universal.

How many of the Buddhism vs Actual Freedom debates/wars were truly the result of bruised religious sensibilities? Would anybody have fought if some folks had simply proclaimed that they were going to try another style of mind training (in a way divorced from religious connotations and terminology?)

As a side note, there are similar debates going on now in far left political circles regarding the possibility and/or need to speak in post Marxist, post Communist terms and language, such that ideas can be presented and discussed and investigated which don't have long-standing, debilitating historical residues and connotations attached to them which stop conversations before they can begin.

To those of you with the direct expereince and knowledge necessary to perform such an undertaking -- to develop a post AF, post Buddhist language of terms and measures regarding the training of the mind -- this could be a very valuable contribution to the study and dissemination of these practices. I hope ya'll take up the challenge and I wish you the best of luck. I'll be lurking to see what you come up with. Maybe when I start nailing attainments, I'll contribute a thing or two myself.
thumbnail
Daniel M Ingram, modified 12 Years ago at 1/24/12 3:18 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/24/12 3:18 AM

Meditation Terms and Describing Attainments

Posts: 3268 Join Date: 4/20/09 Recent Posts
This thread was split off of RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 12 Years ago at 1/24/12 2:00 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/24/12 2:00 PM

RE: Meditation Terms and Describing Attainments

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Did you intend to call the thread "Meditation Terms and Describing Attainments" (the subject header you have in your lat post)?

You may be interested in the April Mind and Life Synposia (Denver, CO, this year). Here is the information:
http://contemplativeresearch.org/
with a little information here as well:
http://www.garrisoninstitute.org/index.php?option=com_civicrm&task=civicrm/event/info&reset=1&id=240&Itemid=998
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 2:24 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 2:24 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Vas A:
tarin greco:

the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.
tarin


firstly, thanks for the fresh air you have given to the whole subject.

you're welcome.


Vas A:

let me ask you a bold question... before you drop your ability to recognize (faultily or not) an 'actually free person',

while i appreciate the humour, i should make this clear: it's not that i dropped the ability, but rather that i realised that i could have no such ability to begin with.


Vas A:

could you apply that ability one last time.. on the progenitor himself?

while i'll do my best to accommodate what i understand you to be seeking by your request, bear in mind that my reply cannot actually answer the question as you have asked it (i have explained why above).


Vas A:

in your extensive communication and interaction with the progenitor (of af), did you find anything puzzling that you could not account for? [this question is being asked in the light of various controversies that are occuring with new documents being circulated etc. a honest opinion, even if it is just that, will help me].

no.. but i am also not in the habit of attempting to interpret every little detail in another person's speech or actions (i have met too many different people and lived in too many different cultures to regard that as a skilful endeavour), and so i would have had to have witnessed a transgression on his part against either my or another person's well-being for me to have had something to attempt to account for.. and i saw no such thing (in the week or so that i spent with him, on two separate occasions).


Vas A:

iow, freshly evaluating by your own experience, is he 'actually free' or not?

you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).

tarin
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 3:50 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 3:50 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Florian Weps:
tarin greco:
the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.

this invalidity raises two questions interesting to me: firstly, about my suitability for facilitating or guiding practitioners of the actualism method when i cannot tell whether or not they actually achieve its purpose; and secondly, about the suitability of my making a claim to a condition which i cannot recognise for myself.

the answer to the first question is complex, but put concisely involves perhaps not guiding practitioners of the method who seek guidance with any authority, not even that of technical expertise; for anything i ever knew, i knew not as fundamentally correct knowledge but simply that it happened to work to know it.

the answer to the second question is simple: i do not find it suitable for me to make a claim of a condition which i cannot recognise. for this reason, i am relinquishing any claim of an actual freedom, whether on my behalf or the behalf of any other.


The first one is actually not that complex, I think: you do what you do, regardless of what you or other people call it. As far as I am concerned, you are doing it well - i.e. those who request your guidance benefit from it, in pursuit of whatever it is they are pursuing. I count myself in, here.

refresh my memory sometime: have you requested my guidance in practising the actualism method, and i have i given any to you? while what i wrote could also apply (though more loosely) to other practices i have undertaken and in which i have given others guidance (and to which i'm assuming you were referring), i myself was referring to the actualism method specifically.


Florian Weps:

The second seems more complex to me! Part of what makes the DhO such a good place to frequent is just this normalization of attainment: that "ordinary" people can and do get these results. So having a vocabulary or shorthand for these results ("titles" or attainments) is a useful thing. In my recent post about integration and my opinions about it, what resulted in the most reactions were the conveniently pithy "centerlessness" and "tape-loops" and "disconnect". All my other observations had no such nice handles, and were not scrutinized as closely. My bet is that the DhO will coin new terms to describe your and other's experience of freedom from malice and sorrow.

something worth noting is that whether or not a person is regarded as 'ordinary' may, to some extent, depend on who it is doing the regarding and when they arrived to the scene. i have observed that people can lose their 'ordinary' status over time.. perhaps even to the extent that the fact that they were ever only 'ordinary' is lost on their later contemporaries. yet, there will be others in whose eyes this status remains intact; for example, i cannot conceive that gotama's father, or ex-wife, ever forgot his ordinariness. those persons' perspectives are not remembered in his towering hagiographies, of course. hopefully, no hagiographies will ever arise from the dho, despite all the heavy interest in attainments and having opinions about them. i like to think that a heavier interest in practice will limit the possible growth of any version of a new 'arahant cult' (or anti-arahant cult, for that matter).


Florian Weps:

Anyway, that's a big homework assignment you suggest in your follow-up emoticon Good one, too.

i think it may only seem big to folks who aren't already interested in these things.. otherwise it should be a breeze (though perhaps a lengthy one, taking a few weeks or more). i know you've done a lot of 2, and you've been around for 3, so most of what would remain for you would be 1. i look forward to reading your contributions if/when you have more to say on these subjects.

tarin
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 6:40 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 6:39 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:

no.. but i am also not in the habit of attempting to interpret every little detail in another person's speech or actions (i have met too many different people and lived in too many different cultures to regard that as a skilful endeavour), and so i would have had to have witnessed a transgression on his part against either my or another person's well-being for me to have had something to attempt to account for.. and i saw no such thing (in the week or so that i spent with him, on two separate occasions).


Did you ask one question that was critical of AF?
thumbnail
Daniel Johnson, modified 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 5:18 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/30/12 3:50 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/16/09 Recent Posts
Vas A:

iow, freshly evaluating by your own experience, is he 'actually free' or not?

tarin:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).


By your own experience, tarin, do you think he is free of malice and sorrow? Do you think you are able to asses if other people are free of malice and sorrow (in the sense that you mean by "free of malice and sorrow")?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 1/31/12 6:00 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/31/12 6:00 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).

Have you asked Richard what an actual freedom is? Or told him what you think an actual freedom is and asked him to clarify what differences he has in mind? Or told him the reasons you had for considering a person actually free, and asked him to give the reasons he had for considering that person to not be actually free? If not, do you have any interest in doing so? If not, why not?
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 7:01 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 7:01 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Response from the aft


http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm#Addendum6
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 10:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 9:41 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Message has been removed because message have special character which are not able to parse.Please contact to administrator
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 10:43 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 10:43 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
emoticon

He is a body, You are not.

Special.

Now we can finally drop all the AF terms yeah? thank christ for that. By the way, I would like to officially announce being Actually Free*

The whole episode has taught me what a 'view' is; a great way to get completely lost. Now back to my PSA training and Mindfulness in PLAIN English.



*(from what I haven't decided yet, more announcements coming soon)
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 11:59 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/1/12 11:59 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Tarin: how about, 'it's up to each person to make sure they properly understand for themselves what richard says an actual freedom is'.

Nik, as you have already claimed the 4th alternative, I hereby claim my path as 5th alternative.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 11:25 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 11:25 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
tarin greco:

no.. but i am also not in the habit of attempting to interpret every little detail in another person's speech or actions (i have met too many different people and lived in too many different cultures to regard that as a skilful endeavour), and so i would have had to have witnessed a transgression on his part against either my or another person's well-being for me to have had something to attempt to account for.. and i saw no such thing (in the week or so that i spent with him, on two separate occasions).


Did you ask one question that was critical of AF?

plenty.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 11:44 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 11:44 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Daniel Johnson:
Vas A:

iow, freshly evaluating by your own experience, is he 'actually free' or not?

tarin:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).


By your own experience, tarin, do you think he is free of malice and sorrow? Do you think you are able to asses if other people are free of malice and sorrow (in the sense that you mean by "free of malice and sorrow")?

in none of my interactions with richard did i think, or wonder if, richard was being malicious or sorrowful.

i don't think i am able to assess with any certainty if other people are free of malice and sorrow; as working hypotheses[1], however, tentative assessments can be made and updated as their conditions are. practically speaking, i have not found it difficult to tell that notable (and vastly beneficial) changes have come over people i have known - even those in whom i had noted other notable (and vastly beneficial) changes previously - and my thoughts there have not yet been contradicted.

tarin

[1] where i use 'hypothesis' to mean 'an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action'. (merriam-webster)
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 11:53 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 11:53 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
tarin greco:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).

Have you asked Richard what an actual freedom is? Or told him what you think an actual freedom is and asked him to clarify what differences he has in mind? Or told him the reasons you had for considering a person actually free, and asked him to give the reasons he had for considering that person to not be actually free? If not, do you have any interest in doing so? If not, why not?

not recently;
not recently (since understanding that there has been a difference);
no (owing to the course of correspondence, there was no point);
not at this time, as i currently have too much else to attend to to either initiate or be drawn into further correspondence on this matter, particularly as such correspondence tends to be very lengthy and very, very time-consuming.. suffice it to say that there are more (new) things under the sun than whether two people agree with one another (and this sun will not last forever..).
thumbnail
Simon Ekstrand, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:06 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:06 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 245 Join Date: 9/23/11 Recent Posts
Vas A:
Response from the aft


http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm#Addendum6


Is it just me or did that announcement come of as very passive-aggressive? Perhaps it's all just in my head.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:22 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:22 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
tarin greco:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).

Have you asked Richard what an actual freedom is? Or told him what you think an actual freedom is and asked him to clarify what differences he has in mind? Or told him the reasons you had for considering a person actually free, and asked him to give the reasons he had for considering that person to not be actually free? If not, do you have any interest in doing so? If not, why not?

not recently;
not recently (since understanding that there has been a difference);
no (owing to the course of correspondence, there was no point);
not at this time, as i currently have too much else to attend to to either initiate or be drawn into further correspondence on this matter, particularly as such correspondence tends to be very lengthy and very, very time-consuming.. suffice it to say that there are more (new) things under the sun than whether two people agree with one another (and this sun will not last forever..).


well said... and many of us do not have the time to meticulously sort out the whole thing (not sure if it is even fruitful to do so) though some of the things are nebulous for us (and we prefer it to be sorted out). if at any point you would have the time to explicate the new found wisdom/experience that you encountered in a language that is not restricted by the existing baseline, it would help some of us who think there is something in this but not quite sure what that something is.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:24 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:24 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Simon E:
Vas A:
Response from the aft


http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm#Addendum6


Is it just me or did that announcement come of as very passive-aggressive? Perhaps it's all just in my head.


a million $ question.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:40 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 1:40 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
Daniel Johnson:
Vas A:

iow, freshly evaluating by your own experience, is he 'actually free' or not?

tarin:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).


By your own experience, tarin, do you think he is free of malice and sorrow? Do you think you are able to asses if other people are free of malice and sorrow (in the sense that you mean by "free of malice and sorrow")?

in none of my interactions with richard did i think, or wonder if, richard was being malicious or sorrowful.



that is definitely helpful (not sure in what ways). but could you answer a small follow up query to make it more helpful - while during that time where you did not think or wonder if richard was being malicious or sorrowful, did you (at least as a working hypothesis) encounter in you or in some others (maybe a stranger) traces of 'malice or sorrow' ? if the reason i am asking is not clear, here it is: it is to ascertain if you had not moved to a total state of positiveness where you could not recognize the opposite (i am reminded of this story of yudhistara/duryodhana from indian epic mahabharata: where both were asked to find a bad person they encounter; the latter could not because everybody he encountered looked bad; and the former could not, too.. because everybody he encountered had some good in him).


tarin greco:

i don't think i am able to assess with any certainty if other people are free of malice and sorrow; as working hypotheses[1], however, tentative assessments can be made and updated as their conditions are. practically speaking, i have not found it difficult to tell that notable (and vastly beneficial) changes have come over people i have known - even those in whom i had noted other notable (and vastly beneficial) changes previously - and my thoughts there have not yet been contradicted.

tarin

[1] where i use 'hypothesis' to mean 'an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action'. (merriam-webster)
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 5:31 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/2/12 5:31 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Message has been removed because message have special character which are not able to parse.Please contact to administrator
Craig N, modified 12 Years ago at 2/5/12 9:35 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/5/12 9:35 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 134 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Vas A:
Simon E:
Vas A:
Response from the aft


http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm#Addendum6


Is it just me or did that announcement come of as very passive-aggressive? Perhaps it's all just in my head.


a million $ question.


But isn't that exactly how sticking to your guns would sound, if you had no aggression in you?

It's tough to interpret actions and words without corrupting/overlaying them with our own affective imagination.

I thought it came across passive-aggressive too until I realised that was me adding the passive-aggressive voice to it.

Craig
thumbnail
Pål S, modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 4:34 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 4:34 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 196 Join Date: 8/16/10 Recent Posts
And why did you add the passive-aggressive voice to it?
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 4:59 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 4:54 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
I gotta say that that long rant on the AFT website is weird and confusing to me, as it is written in a long, 'quote unquote' way..
Who do you think wrote it?

For example,
AFT:
And, speaking of which, the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby recommend, publicly, that Tarin taps into that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, because to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*.
Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that).

huh.. weird! emoticon
Craig N, modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 3:52 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 3:52 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 134 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Pål S.:
And why did you add the passive-aggressive voice to it?


Well my point was mainly that if you're not [actually] free [of malice and sorrow], this is the type of thing affect does. It is a false vineer added to sensual experience. It is patently false and untrustworthy, this can be easily seen by anyone with sufficient interest and integrity to look.

Obviously I'm not actually free of malice and sorrow or whatever we want to call it.

But I'm working on it emoticon

Why did *I* personally add it? I can tell you it happens at the time in a way that I experience as automatic.

I first read Tarin's account of the disagreement here before reading the update on the AF trust site. Having met Tarin (albeit briefly) since he became free of malice and sorrow my imaginative faculty is overruled by the clear memory of his affect-free behavior. Despite living fairly close to Richard I have unfortunately never met him (he never openly welcomed visitors so I never asked - silly, but I digress) so my imagination is free to run riot and posit conspiracy, unreliability, craziness, anything affect can muster up to scare me away from ending it forever. After my intellect returns to the drivers seat I can see what I posted above and then I feel foolish, and around it goes.

Describing it more closely, moment to moment, my own feelings (reactions to
previous sensory input) are mixed up with the realtime sense impressions being received so that clarity is lost as to the true source of the sensations. The senses perceive mere words on the screen, but an imagined speaker with impure motivations causes those words to be experienced as snide word play masking hidden (imagined) intent. My own feelings are thusly projected onto the imagined speaker.

It's downright scary to put words to the experience of this. Explaining the delusion of it so matter-of -actly. It is the self-same mechanism (pardon the pun) that causes all the wars etc that the Richard talks about on the AF trust site. I think I should journal this type of real time report more often to force myself to face up to the affect I am still living with, and still thinking is ok for the mean time. It's really not ok when I see the true face of it, and its real-world consequences.

Craig
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 7:28 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 7:28 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Craig N:
so my imagination is free to run riot and posit conspiracy, unreliability, craziness, anything affect can muster up to scare me away from ending it forever.....[imagination?]... It's really not ok when I see the true face of it, and its real-world consequences.

Craig


I can't see the functional difference between this type of 'demonization' and original sin. I bought into it, had a go, but most definitely let it alone. A little bit is good, too much is not safe. Safe for who? those around you.

Breaking down old beliefs then holding a new belief about the benevolent and benign universe and being an expression of the same is fine, but at least realise that that is what has happened. Old belief out, new belief in. Not that you said anything about that; that's me talking there about my own path. Contemplation will lead to beliefs being confronted, continued contemplation with result in them being replaced. The propensity to believe remains unchanged.

One may end up free of imagination, but one cannot end up free of 'faculty' of belief/ power to will/ operating system. It will continue to run a program of our 'choosing'.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 8:56 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 8:42 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
I disagree, if we are using the AFT's framework, here is how they define belief

To believe means ‘fervently wish to be true’. The action of believing is to emotionally imagine, or fervently wish, something to be real that is not actual – actual, as in tangible, corporeal, material, definitive, present, obvious, evident, current, substantial, physical and palpable. A belief is an assumption, a notion, a proposition, an idea that requires faith, trust or hope to sustain in the face of doubt, uncertainty and lack of factual evidence. Whereas a fact is a fact, demonstratively evident to all that it is actual and/or that it works.

http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-a.htm#b

The benevolence of the universe is something self-evident through experience, and the experience is not an affective (willed) one as the affective experience of unity with a God is usually reported to be, reported to be affective that is, usually the affect isn't clearly perceived as intended, but this is also self-evident with enough contemplation.

Actualism is realizing the nature of the universe, it is realizing the qualities of stillness and infinitude in which existence occurs (space, consciousness, time.) These things become self-evident directly as experiences, it might take some progress to do this, but try relaxing alot, paying attention to the background, consciousness itself, on which experience is happening and inclining towards the essence of this consciousness without taint, you might catch a glimpse of the utter stillness which is the essence of the universe, the quality which remains when everything is removed, the uncaused and undying, literally the lack of movement (the movement of space, time, and consciousness caused by the self)[1]. Images of opening, softening, calming, and removing are useful.

The lack of something is the default characteristic of the universe, there is a lack and then there is the addition of changing, fabricated (caused) things, but the essential nature of the universe is whatever is left beneath the caused stuff, the stillness, the infinitude. The stillness is a lack of sorrow and malice, it is the essential goodness of the universe, it is benevolence. It is pure intent because it, in and of itself, is the drive for its own realization.

I want to explain what i think this inherent benevolence is. It is the inherent, absolute drive towards this stillness, it isn't a choice because it is truly a matter of what is good for consciousness verse what isn't, there is no equivocating here, stillness is happiness, movement (affect, attention wave) is suffering, thus the pure intent happens without choice because as soon as the stillness is seen clearly there is no doubt, it is the meaning of life because it is the value in the world, not subjective because by definition a subject is conscious and this is positive for consciousness.

When there is no longer the instinctual self there is nothing to cause imaginary movement in space time and consciousness, the inherent nature of the universe is realized, the objective value is attained, the purpose of life completed.

I got a little poetic, but I am being very earnest, please challenge me on any points which you disagree with or don't understand, this seems self-evident to me at the moment after having an extremely strong experience.

[1] the self moves time by creating an identity that exists outside of the physical movement of objects, it moves space by creating a sense of center which thus creates edges that can also moves, it moves consciousness via craving and the attention wave. when i say "move" in these three cases i mean creates the illusion of movement (suffering). Also, I am starting to doubt my assumed separation of these three domains but it's hard to say why... do time, space, and consciousness really have separation if the three are all infinite... are they reducible into any other form? if there is no center or edges how can some "thing" be located in them? there are some vague thoughts I am trying to put to my experiences here, I will see if I understand more in "time."
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 9:39 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 9:39 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Andrew Jones:
Breaking down old beliefs then holding a new belief about the benevolent and benign universe and being an expression of the same is fine, but at least realise that that is what has happened. Old belief out, new belief in. Not that you said anything about that; that's me talking there about my own path. Contemplation will lead to beliefs being confronted, continued contemplation with result in them being replaced. The propensity to believe remains unchanged.


Just wanted to insert a quote I found interesting here (relevant but rather tangential):

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/b_roberts_interview.htm:
Stephan: How does the path to no-self in the Christian contemplative tradition differ from the path as laid out in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions?

Bernadette: I think it may be too late for me to ever have a good understanding of how other religions make this passage. If you are not surrendering your whole being, your very consciousness, to a loved and trusted personal God, then what are you surrendering it to? Or why surrender it at all? Loss of ego, loss of self, is just a by-product of this surrender; it is not the true goal, not an end in itself. Perhaps this is also the view of Mahayana Buddhism, where the goal is to save all sentient beings from suffering, and where loss of ego, loss of self, is seen as a means to a greater end. This view is very much in keeping with the Christian desire to save all souls. As I see it, without a personal God, the Buddhist must have a much stronger faith in the "unconditioned and unbegotten" than is required of the Christian contemplative, who experiences the passage as a divine doing, and in no way a self-doing.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 10:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 10:44 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
josh r s:
The benevolence of the universe is something self-evident through experience, and the experience is not an affective (willed) one as the affective experience of unity with a God is usually reported to be, reported to be affective that is, usually the affect isn't clearly perceived as intended, but this is also self-evident with enough contemplation.

Actualism is realizing the nature of the universe, it is realizing the qualities of stillness and infinitude in which existence occurs (space, consciousness, time.) These things become self-evident directly as experiences, it might take some progress to do this, but try relaxing alot, paying attention to the background, consciousness itself, on which experience is happening and inclining towards the essence of this consciousness without taint, you might catch a glimpse of the utter stillness which is the essence of the universe, the quality which remains when everything is removed, the uncaused and undying, literally the lack of movement (the movement of space, time, and consciousness caused by the self)[1]. Images of opening, softening, calming, and removing are useful.


The benevolence of the universe that is self-evident through experience is experienced by your consciousness. It is still your consciousness that experienced it as such, so it is a subjective experience though it can be replicated by others as well. What is happening here is that because this is an experience where there is no self/Self, one wrongly attributes it as a characteristic of the universe itself which is a flawed way to label your experience to the essence of universe. This is a fundamental flaw in Actual Freedom and even Richard is not aware of this. This is delusion and a condition of altered state of consciousness (ASC).
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 11:03 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/6/12 11:03 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
josh r s:


The benevolence of the universe is something self-evident through experience, and the experience is not an affective (willed) one as the affective experience of unity with a God is usually reported to be, reported to be affective that is, usually the affect isn't clearly perceived as intended, but this is also self-evident with enough contemplation.


I would not disagree that after periods of contemplation over the last 10 years, this sort of experience does come through. I would not say it was a common experience however, though the more free of a particular set of beliefs (blind faiths I would call them) a person is the more able they are to contemplate the experience of being 'pure intent'.

My recent experience is this, not only do you have to see the belief being confronted, but also the process by which they got there in the first place. The process of believing goes on. It will continue to accumulate assumptions.


Actualism is realizing the nature of the universe, it is realizing the qualities of stillness and infinitude in which existence occurs (space, consciousness, time.) These things become self-evident directly as experiences, it might take some progress to do this, but try relaxing alot, paying attention to the background, consciousness itself, on which experience is happening and inclining towards the essence of this consciousness without taint, you might catch a glimpse of the utter stillness which is the essence of the universe, the quality which remains when everything is removed, the uncaused and undying, literally the lack of movement (the movement of space, time, and consciousness caused by the self)[1]. Images of opening, softening, calming, and removing are useful.


Not a bad summing up, and some good stuff in there, thanks. I would say though that, actualism like buddhism before it and any other point of view, will quickly fill the void left in the thinking of the freshly swept 'hall of mirrors' that is our mind.



The lack of something is the default characteristic of the universe, there is a lack and then there is the addition of changing, fabricated (caused) things, but the essential nature of the universe is whatever is left beneath the caused stuff, the stillness, the infinitude. The stillness is a lack of sorrow and malice, it is the essential goodness of the universe, it is benevolence. It is pure intent because it, in and of itself, is the drive for its own realization.


We are well into a belief structure when we talk about 'essential natures'. Not that it is a bad thing at all, but we need to realise we have not arrived at some absolute, just an experience that we enjoy profoundly.

I want to explain what i think this inherent benevolence is. It is the inherent, absolute drive towards this stillness, it isn't a choice because it is truly a matter of what is good for consciousness verse what isn't, there is no equivocating here, stillness is happiness, movement (affect, attention wave) is suffering, thus the pure intent happens without choice because as soon as the stillness is seen clearly there is no doubt, it is the meaning of life because it is the value in the world, not subjective because by definition a subject is conscious and this is positive for consciousness.


Not going to disagree, but the method remains a mix of contemplation and meditation and common sense. As soon as it becomes a doctrine of faith we will start to look around wondering why others can't see it. At that point we are no more able to bring peace to a situation than before. We will be the chosen messengers of the Universe. Capital U.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:48 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:48 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
josh r s:
The benevolence of the universe is something self-evident through experience, and the experience is not an affective (willed) one as the affective experience of unity with a God is usually reported to be, reported to be affective that is, usually the affect isn't clearly perceived as intended, but this is also self-evident with enough contemplation.

Actualism is realizing the nature of the universe, it is realizing the qualities of stillness and infinitude in which existence occurs (space, consciousness, time.) These things become self-evident directly as experiences, it might take some progress to do this, but try relaxing alot, paying attention to the background, consciousness itself, on which experience is happening and inclining towards the essence of this consciousness without taint, you might catch a glimpse of the utter stillness which is the essence of the universe, the quality which remains when everything is removed, the uncaused and undying, literally the lack of movement (the movement of space, time, and consciousness caused by the self)[1]. Images of opening, softening, calming, and removing are useful.


The benevolence of the universe that is self-evident through experience is experienced by your consciousness. It is still your consciousness that experienced it as such, so it is a subjective experience though it can be replicated by others as well. What is happening here is that because this is an experience where there is no self/Self, one wrongly attributes it as a characteristic of the universe itself which is a flawed way to label your experience to the essence of universe. This is a fundamental flaw in Actual Freedom and even Richard is not aware of this. This is delusion and a condition of altered state of consciousness (ASC).


I disagree. I didn't mention no self, but still you very assuredly tell me that this was the cause of my experience. The question of self v. no self doesn't even make sense, it's just experience, what would something that is "self" be? There is only the label of self v. not-self. Since you are not going on my description but apparently looking at the corresponding descriptions Richard gives when talking about benevolence, you might notice that he doesn't say the universe is "no self" either.

What the focus of my post was was that the essence of the universe is what you get when you remove all the caused and decaying fabricated things, all the movement. What exactly is left when there is a lack of this stuff? stillness (simply a word for it that makes sense.) It isn't some phenomena generated by your mind, it is a lack of phenomena, if there are no phenomena then what are you experiencing? the essence of the universe.

You said that the characteristic of no self was what I was labeling my experience with, I wasn't, it wasn't necessary to do so and it still isn't, but on what basis would you suggest that this is a flawed way to label ones experience?
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:54 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:54 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
We are well into a belief structure when we talk about 'essential natures'. Not that it is a bad thing at all, but we need to realise we have not arrived at some absolute, just an experience that we enjoy profoundly.


Except that by definition this is the essence of the universe, as it is the lack of everything else, it is the default underlying character. It is an experience, the experience of the lack of phenomena, if we are experiencing this lack then we are experiencing the nature of the universe, the nature of experience/awareness itself.

Not going to disagree, but the method remains a mix of contemplation and meditation and common sense. As soon as it becomes a doctrine of faith we will start to look around wondering why others can't see it. At that point we are no more able to bring peace to a situation than before. We will be the chosen messengers of the Universe. Capital U.


Where did this become a doctrine of faith? It takes even less faith than believing that your body has physical existence separate from consciousness, it is simply saying that this quality of stillness exists and is the lack of other phenomena, it does exist, as an experience, it is experienced therefore it exists as an experience, self-evident for one who experiences it. As for methods, I don't think I mentioned anything about what one should/shouldn't do, but perhaps you were just warning me.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:57 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:57 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
josh r s:
What the focus of my post was was that the essence of the universe is what you get when you remove all the caused and decaying fabricated things, all the movement. What exactly is left when there is a lack of this stuff? stillness (simply a word for it that makes sense.) It isn't some phenomena generated by your mind, it is a lack of phenomena, if there are no phenomena then what are you experiencing? the essence of the universe.


Who removes all the caused and decaying fabricated things, all the movement? Isn't it mind?
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 9:29 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 9:25 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
josh r s:
What the focus of my post was was that the essence of the universe is what you get when you remove all the caused and decaying fabricated things, all the movement. What exactly is left when there is a lack of this stuff? stillness (simply a word for it that makes sense.) It isn't some phenomena generated by your mind, it is a lack of phenomena, if there are no phenomena then what are you experiencing? the essence of the universe.


Who removes all the caused and decaying fabricated things, all the movement? Isn't it mind?


No, the mind craved (the movement,) it can stop craving and then things are clarified. If you have a lens over your eye and you remove the lens, the world changes from your perspective, but did you change the world or did you just stop changing it?

I expect you might suggest that I could equally be adding a lens to create the appearance stillness on a moving world rather than taking a lens of movement away and revealing a still world, but the experience is clearly stopping intentions, letting go, letting things be as they are, relaxing, calming that which you control etc.

This is counterintuitive because we have been craving and creating the movement all our lives, it doesn't seem intentional.
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:32 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:32 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
You are making good points josh, certainly not disagreeing with you as much as making a philosophical statement which has some personal value. The point you make about;

letting go, letting things be as they are, relaxing, calming that which you control etc


Is where it is at for sure. i suppose I would simply say that one can do this without the framework of 'the universe this, or the universe that' and experience the same outcome. Admittedly I'm quite partial to the whole benevolent and benign universe thing, being raised a christian I find it comforting, like i know the territory already (God is good, self is bad, die to self, live in God etc)

What you are saying is more inline with the DhO version of being 'actually free', the AFT version is more like the territory i grew up in. That would be why I'm saying that the point I'm making is philosophical rather than whether it is true or not.

what if the essential nature of the universe wasn't so still and relaxing? Would it make any difference to you? Could you still relax, let go , enjoy the experience for it's own sake?
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:52 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
josh r s:
The lack of something is the default characteristic of the universe, there is a lack and then there is the addition of changing, fabricated (caused) things, but the essential nature of the universe is whatever is left beneath the caused stuff, the stillness, the infinitude. The stillness is a lack of sorrow and malice, it is the essential goodness of the universe, it is benevolence. It is pure intent because it, in and of itself, is the drive for its own realization.


Some fun pan-mystical whatever:

Bhagavad Gita, 9.4-6:
By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation. As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space, know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html:
All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless. All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.


Just food for thought.

In terms of whatever interpretation you may or may not come up with, it may be invaluable to bear this in mind:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html:
A monk who is a trainee...He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.



(EDIT: Just FYI, for whatever reason, I have found pondering this to be highly practical, somehow.)
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:54 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:54 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
certainly not disagreeing with you as much as making a philosophical statement which has some personal value.

ok, that's fine, I just think your philosophy isn't accurate, it is taken as assumption that things are good and bad by a chosen framework, which seems perfectly rational and is the basis for most people's thought, but I would actually go as far as to dispute this base assumption.

The basic nature of the domain in which we exist is that it is still. It is unchanging and seemingly independent upon anything. The experience of this domain in and of itself is an experience of stillness and constancy. I would say that this stillness is objectively valuable.

In the sense that it exists as an experience, it has inherent value because it is an always-good experience to consciousness. This stillness, this quality of consciousness itself is valuable to consciousness, it is valued by consciousness, thus it is inherently valuable (what else could value it other than consciousness?). This thought isn't quite complete in explaining my notion that it is objectively valuable and thus the meaning of life, because i have not resolved the issue of why it seems that the separation between the domains (space time consciousness) is an illusion, if I could understand that I could understand why the stillness is objectively valuable, for now it will simply be self-evident to me either to be understood or cast aside as delusion.

I am leaning towards the idea that all that exists, at least in this dimension (perhaps not the right word) is consciousness, i.e. space and time are not created by consciousness, but they are in fact simply happening within the domain of consciousness. If that was the case consciousness would stop being the right word for experience, because those words, experience and consciousness imply a reality which is being experienced rather than just a reality. This last paragraph though is simply a speculation/rationalization, whereas the sense of the objective value, meaning of life-ness, essence of universe-ness, and uncaused unchanging-ness are experiences.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:56 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 6:56 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
A monk who is a trainee...He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.


thanks for that one, I guess I read this after posting a post trying to conceive of unbinding...
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 7:33 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 7:33 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Contemplation is worthy of time spent on it, but it does come back to a moment by moment mindfulness of what is right infront of us, still or not. A 'working framework' is I suppose a fair assessment of what I see these things as, and certainly I'm expressing my belief here as much as anything.

Tarin made the point in the OP that he was all about 'ending malice and sorrow', and that is where he kept he focus, to the exclusion of much of the other intricacies of the AFT cosmology it would seem. It is quite a skill to do that. I can't. I get caught up in the whole story, and while I found that useful, in that I've grown (read: been hit upside the head and shaken out of my buddhistic malaise), it wasn't so I can go on to champion yet another view of the universe/life. Rather I've learnt to let another view of it go.

At the same time, i perceive that benevolence as being real to me, but maybe i just got a little less uptight over the last few months and breakfast is digesting properly today. Watching with a inner smile all the coming and going thoughts is becoming as much fun as diving into them used to be/is...I've learnt a new game maybe?
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 7:45 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 7:45 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
ok well thanks for at least reading my rambles ;)
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 7:48 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 7:48 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
josh r s:
No, the mind craved (the movement,) it can stop craving and then things are clarified.


The mind craved, the mind stopped craving, and then the 'mind minus the craving' started seeing things which are clarified. It is still mind, no?
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 8:00 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 8:00 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
josh r s:
ok well thanks for at least reading my rambles ;)


Likewise, yours are quite enjoyable. I'm reading quite a bit more carefully these days, and by extension enjoying the various point made more.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 8:08 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 8:08 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
The mind craved, the mind stopped craving, and then the 'mind minus the craving' started seeing things which are clarified. It is still mind, no?


The mind stopped craving which revealed the experience of mind without craving (temporarily) this state was more natural and thus its qualities were inherent of the mind, nothing was being added. there was sense experience but this didn't touch the quality of stillness inherent in the mind.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 8:15 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/7/12 8:15 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
josh r s:
The mind stopped craving which revealed the experience of mind without craving (temporarily) this state was more natural and thus its qualities were inherent of the mind, nothing was being added. there was sense experience but this didn't touch the quality of stillness inherent in the mind.


Because the mind stopped craving, the stillness inherent in the mind got revealed. But where and how does universe come into this picture?
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 8:26 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 8:26 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
Ok, I won't make any claims about the parts universe which are separate from consciousness(I wasn't really intending to do this, because at the time it seemed more obvious that the universe i was thinking about wasn't separate in this way)

as I said before this thought was incomplete because I couldn't understand why it seems to me that consciousness isn't separate from the actual universe in any way, maybe i will understand this more later.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 9:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 9:21 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
josh r s:
as I said before this thought was incomplete because I couldn't understand why it seems to me that consciousness isn't separate from the actual universe in any way, maybe i will understand this more later.

The way I see it is: any talk about 'the universe' objectively (not from the point of view of a human) doesn't have much purpose from the point of view of contemplative practice, as we are humans, after all, and not some other kind of being, and we observe the universe as a human.

Any talk about 'the universe' objectively (not from this particular flesh&blood body's experience) doesn't have much purpose from the point of view of contemplative practice, as I can only experience the universe through this body/mind/whatever.

Thus "the universe" really is "my" universe, not as a possessive, but as a combination of these 5 aggregates, or as this flesh&blood body, or <take your pick of descriptive style>. Thus the universe is indeed not separable from consciousness, as the universe is only experienced through this (human) consciousness.

When all is in accord (no 'being') it's just the universe, untainted, as it always was (as 'being' only ever distorted what was clear&clean&pure)... "the universe" here meaning, the universe as this flesh&blood body experiences it. It is indeed more "elemental"/"at the source" as you only ever take away to get to it.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 8:30 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 8:30 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Any talk about 'the universe' objectively (not from this particular flesh&blood body's experience) doesn't have much purpose from the point of view of contemplative practice, as I can only experience the universe through this body/mind/whatever.

.....................

It is indeed more "elemental"/"at the source" as you only ever take away to get to it.


If the objective of a contemplative practice is to make yourself "free of suffering/happy and harmless/free of malice and sorrow" even at the cost of making your delusions more "elemental"/"at the source" then yes, any talk about 'the universe' objectively doesn't have much purpose.
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 10:09 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 10:09 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
If the objective of a contemplative practice is to make yourself "free of suffering/happy and harmless/free of malice and sorrow" even at the cost of making your delusions more "elemental"/"at the source" then yes, any talk about 'the universe' objectively doesn't have much purpose.


I like this. at first glance, it seemed pointed and wise. but how can a human being ever come to the objective truth about the univese or anything? to the the best of our current knowledge, we live in 11 dimensions but we'll never understand more than 3. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists, even, admidt to being unable to think in 4 dimension let alone 11. Are we to refuse any choice because it doesn't take into account the 8 dimensions of which we have only a bare understanding, if that. We make do with what we have because we have no choice. We choose not to suffer because we see no merit in suffering. Maybe there is some theoretical merit in suffering but if isn't verifiable in our experience then such theory is worth about as much as those 8 extra dimensions. (sorry but i'm not going to labor over that analogy - if it smells like home cooked shit pie then so be it.)

Or to put it another way, in any conflict, does it matter who's wrong and who's right? Isn't the best thing to do, always the smartest thing to do? Isn't the smartest thing, always the thing which is most equitable to the most amount of people and least equitable to the least amount of people and completely unequitable to no-one, justice, morality, truth be damned? I don't want to suffer in the name of the truth or the good. I would like to be free from suffering in the name of my own well-being hoping that others may learn from the thousands of skillful examples set in my wake.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 10:29 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 10:29 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
If the objective of a contemplative practice is to make yourself "free of suffering/happy and harmless/free of malice and sorrow" even at the cost of making your delusions more "elemental"/"at the source" then yes, any talk about 'the universe' objectively doesn't have much purpose.

I don't think I follow. Making which delusions more "elemental"/"at the source"?
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 10:46 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 10:46 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Jon T:
I don't want to suffer in the name of the truth or the good. I would like to be free from suffering in the name of my own well-being hoping that others may learn from the thousands of skillful examples set in my wake.


As only "theoretical" physicists talk about it in that way, it is a theoretical explanation about the universe, nothing more. And those "theoretical" physicists won't say that what they have proposed about 11 dimensions is a fact. Only deluded people do.

Delusion may relieve for a while but it doesn't relieve suffering permanently. That is why delusions have been falling ever since they started appearing. One delusion falls, another springs up but it has to be more "elemental/at the source" if it has to have some hold over people who got free from the previous delusion that they were believing in.

One may try desperately to hold on to delusion but eventually, it is going to fail. One may become a recluse trying to keep the delusion from falling, but for how long? Some are lucky to have pensions but those who are not, they can't be as reclusive as one who gets a pension.

As you have chosen not to suffer in the name of delusion, I will say good luck to you!
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 11:18 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 11:18 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Making which delusions more "elemental"/"at the source"?


Those delusions which keep one apparently-not-really "free of suffering/happy and harmless/free of malice and sorrow" or at least which make suffering less so.

Those in the business of freeing people of suffering have to resort to ever more deluded ways which are more "elemental"/"at the source" so as to keep people in 'thralldom' of their making. They have to do so in order to attract people who have started to see that the delusions they have believed in till now don't work for them. For eg., if people who were following Buddhism don't see the benefits that were promised, they start looking for other available options. They will try the new option if it is beyond their current level of understanding or is more "elemental"/"at the source". The new option may not just stop at "no self", it may have to go beyond to "no Self" and even to the level of "being". Being is more elemental than Self which is more elemental than self.

Also the proponent of the new option will have to point out the shortcomings in all the other options so as to appear more alluring.
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 11:50 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/8/12 11:50 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
Vas A:
tarin greco:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
tarin greco:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).

Have you asked Richard what an actual freedom is? Or told him what you think an actual freedom is and asked him to clarify what differences he has in mind? Or told him the reasons you had for considering a person actually free, and asked him to give the reasons he had for considering that person to not be actually free? If not, do you have any interest in doing so? If not, why not?

not recently;
not recently (since understanding that there has been a difference);
no (owing to the course of correspondence, there was no point);
not at this time, as i currently have too much else to attend to to either initiate or be drawn into further correspondence on this matter, particularly as such correspondence tends to be very lengthy and very, very time-consuming.. suffice it to say that there are more (new) things under the sun than whether two people agree with one another (and this sun will not last forever..).


well said... and many of us do not have the time to meticulously sort out the whole thing (not sure if it is even fruitful to do so) though some of the things are nebulous for us (and we prefer it to be sorted out). if at any point you would have the time to explicate the new found wisdom/experience that you encountered in a language that is not restricted by the existing baseline, it would help some of us who think there is something in this but not quite sure what that something is.

encountered when?
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 5:09 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 4:51 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
As only "theoretical" physicists talk about it in that way, it is a theoretical explanation about the universe, nothing more. And those "theoretical" physicists won't say that what they have proposed about 11 dimensions is a fact. Only deluded people do.


this stung so i'll reply. first off, i said to the best of our knowledge, by which i meant, the best guess our best minds have come up with. secondly, the theoretical explanation is mathematically consistent giving it some credence or else i'd have used another analogy. third, it was just an analogy.

One may try desperately to hold on to delusion but eventually, it is going to fail.


i couldn't agree more. and since existence is not yet understood (at least by me), it makes no sense to have beliefs (at least for me). and as soon as existence was understood then beliefs would either be proved false or proved true (facts) through the use of precise and quantifiable measurement. I don't agree that beliefs are inevitable...working hypothesis may be (how else would i get to the grocery store without a testable hypothesis that the store is over there). But anything that isn't verifiable either through direct knowledge or a lot of circumstanial evidence is a delusion. believing that one person was the first to do this or that isn't verifiable. believing that the universe has this or that unquantifiable quality isn't verifiable. To say that this or that un-testable theory (eg. the universe is pure intent) seems to hold water due to my own perception which i have no reason to call unreliable is one thing, to absolutely insist upon it must be delusion.

As you have chosen not to suffer in the name of delusion, I will say good luck to you!


thank you.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 7:59 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 7:59 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Those delusions which keep one apparently-not-really "free of suffering/happy and harmless/free of malice and sorrow" or at least which make suffering less so.

Those in the business of freeing people of suffering have to resort to ever more deluded ways which are more "elemental"/"at the source" so as to keep people in 'thralldom' of their making. They have to do so in order to attract people who have started to see that the delusions they have believed in till now don't work for them. For eg., if people who were following Buddhism don't see the benefits that were promised, they start looking for other available options. They will try the new option if it is beyond their current level of understanding or is more "elemental"/"at the source". The new option may not just stop at "no self", it may have to go beyond to "no Self" and even to the level of "being". Being is more elemental than Self which is more elemental than self.

Also the proponent of the new option will have to point out the shortcomings in all the other options so as to appear more alluring.

Define "delusion", then. What would "no delusion" be?
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 8:32 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 8:32 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Define "delusion", then. What would "no delusion" be?


Total belief (while denying it as a belief) in what is experienced during a specific state of mind (a state which is reached after a lot of mental gymnastics and reading/listening about it from someone else) as a fact which has no experimental (just experiential) basis with the aim of such a belief to end all suffering. Eg. universe is infinite, eternal, benevolent etc.

When one gets out of such a state then it becomes clear that one was in an ASC.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 10:04 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 10:04 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Total belief (while denying it as a belief) in what is experienced during a specific state of mind (a state which is reached after a lot of mental gymnastics and reading/listening about it from someone else) as a fact which has no experimental (just experiential) basis with the aim of such a belief to end all suffering. Eg. universe is infinite, eternal, benevolent etc.

When one gets out of such a state then it becomes clear that one was in an ASC.

That is quite a specific definition. It also neatly excludes normality as being delusory, which I think is not the case - one can practice no meditation at all and be quite deluded, that is, believing in things that aren't there, acting in totally irrational ways, etc. My goal is to not be deluded. So what to do then, if I am already deluded (or at least ignorant of certain things I think it's important not to be ignorant of, which I have determined based on my practice)? Practice to find a way of experience that is less deluded. And once I'm there, am I free of delusion? No way to know for sure unless I find a way of existing (or hints at one) that seems less deluded. And, indeed, if I find a state that I think is not delusory, and then I find a way out of it (to a less delusory state), then it becomes clear (in hindsight) that that state was, indeed, delusory (an ASC).

Is there a state with no delusion? I'm not sure. You also never answered my question of what "no delusion" would be.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:03 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:01 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Aman A.:
Total belief (while denying it as a belief) in what is experienced during a specific state of mind (a state which is reached after a lot of mental gymnastics and reading/listening about it from someone else) as a fact which has no experimental (just experiential) basis with the aim of such a belief to end all suffering. Eg. universe is infinite, eternal, benevolent etc.

When one gets out of such a state then it becomes clear that one was in an ASC.

That is quite a specific definition. It also neatly excludes normality as being delusory, which I think is not the case - one can practice no meditation at all and be quite deluded, that is, believing in things that aren't there, acting in totally irrational ways, etc


i liked aman's definition as well as your observation that it neatly excludes 'normality'. normality, while containing all kinds of irrationalities, i think still escapes delusion - simply because of its social interconnection which keeps the simple irrationailities from devolving into a total delusion.

whereas the challenge for anybody involved in inquiring these matters is that when taking off from the crowd, the same ideas that were easily dismissed due to their inapplicability in a social context become monsters for oneself to tackle.

when i was normal, i shunned normality. and ended up with some not so normal experiences. and now i respect normality and don't mind submerging myself into normality. only that i would not lose my wisdom gained in this process, which is precisely required for appreciating the normality better. somewhat like
http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/The-Advantages-Of-Having-One-Leg-By-G-K-Chesterton.htm
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:11 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:11 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
tarin greco:
Vas A:
tarin greco:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
tarin greco:
you may have missed one of the points of my original post - i actually don't know what an actual freedom is (that is, i am not being evasive or engaging in wordplay).

Have you asked Richard what an actual freedom is? Or told him what you think an actual freedom is and asked him to clarify what differences he has in mind? Or told him the reasons you had for considering a person actually free, and asked him to give the reasons he had for considering that person to not be actually free? If not, do you have any interest in doing so? If not, why not?

not recently;
not recently (since understanding that there has been a difference);
no (owing to the course of correspondence, there was no point);
not at this time, as i currently have too much else to attend to to either initiate or be drawn into further correspondence on this matter, particularly as such correspondence tends to be very lengthy and very, very time-consuming.. suffice it to say that there are more (new) things under the sun than whether two people agree with one another (and this sun will not last forever..).


well said... and many of us do not have the time to meticulously sort out the whole thing (not sure if it is even fruitful to do so) though some of the things are nebulous for us (and we prefer it to be sorted out). if at any point you would have the time to explicate the new found wisdom/experience that you encountered in a language that is not restricted by the existing baseline, it would help some of us who think there is something in this but not quite sure what that something is.

encountered when?


that which you gained after encountering actualism.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:11 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:11 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Vas A:
i liked aman's definition as well as your observation that it neatly excludes 'normality'. normality, while containing all kinds of irrationalities, i think still escapes delusion - simply because of its social interconnection which keeps the simple irrationailities from devolving into a total delusion.

Here it seems to me that you're equating a lack of delusion with mass consensus, i.e. if everybody agrees on this, and strays not too far from the mass consensus, one is not delusional (even if there is irrationality). That is hardly an appealing definition, given the insanity masses of people can cause/participate in (see: wars).

Vas A:
when i was normal, i shunned normality. and ended up with some not so normal experiences. and now i respect normality and don't mind submerging myself into normality. only that i would not lose my wisdom gained in this process, which is precisely required for appreciating the normality better. somewhat like
http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/The-Advantages-Of-Having-One-Leg-By-G-K-Chesterton.htm

By 'normality' I mean the condition of being compelled to feel bad, again and again, reacting to what other people do to you and what happens to you by feeling bad about it/beating your breast, etc. I'll take peace/equanimity to that. But I agree that it is enjoyable to participate in the world without those burdens (feeling bad again and again), that is to say, "Entering the Marketplace with Arms Hanging Loose" does sound appealing to me - just need to loosen those arms first!
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 12:39 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 12:39 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Vas A:
i liked aman's definition as well as your observation that it neatly excludes 'normality'. normality, while containing all kinds of irrationalities, i think still escapes delusion - simply because of its social interconnection which keeps the simple irrationailities from devolving into a total delusion.

Here it seems to me that you're equating a lack of delusion with mass consensus, i.e. if everybody agrees on this, and strays not too far from the mass consensus, one is not delusional (even if there is irrationality).



i would like to save the word 'delusion' for those who have lost the plot.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

That is hardly an appealing definition, given the insanity masses of people can cause/participate in (see: wars).


yes the collective gets deluded due to this lack of understanding in the participants.
but when the collective is somewhat enlightened (a society which insists on global peace, equality, non-discrimination, politeness etc.), the participant, though being less than perfect, is still operating at a somewhat reasonable level than somebody who is in an asylum.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Vas A:
when i was normal, i shunned normality. and ended up with some not so normal experiences. and now i respect normality and don't mind submerging myself into normality. only that i would not lose my wisdom gained in this process, which is precisely required for appreciating the normality better. somewhat like
http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/The-Advantages-Of-Having-One-Leg-By-G-K-Chesterton.htm

By 'normality' I mean the condition of being compelled to feel bad, again and again, reacting to what other people do to you and what happens to you by feeling bad about it/beating your breast, etc.


though normal people are prone to such, not all normal people have to go through such fate as one can avoid extreme conditions such as this with practical wisdom and the help of social means, not necessarily requiring absolute clarity.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

I'll take peace/equanimity to that. But I agree that it is enjoyable to participate in the world without those burdens (feeling bad again and again), that is to say, "Entering the Marketplace with Arms Hanging Loose" does sound appealing to me - just need to loosen those arms first!


thanks for the link.. though i have read this many years ago, i enjoyed it much more this time.
yes, you are right that 'without those burdens' makes it much more enjoyable.
but what is the cost of achieving that?

A:normal man ----> 80% enjoyment (just as an example)

B:enlightened normal man ---> 99% enjoyment.

the path from A --> B is not affordable by many. for some it can mean that they have to go through hell, and is that worth it? for some others, like you maybe, there is no choice. once B is known, one has to go there. though it can be said that the path from A --> B can be enjoyable, often it is not, as one may have to work with the 'normalcy' as well. and for those who go to the forest to achieve B, they may end up in a different version with a 'smell of enlightenment'....
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 1:10 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 1:10 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
in summary*, though normalcy is prone to delusion (than the enlightened normal ones), equating** it with delusion has caused a lot of confusion for me. potential from actual. proneness from yielded.

similarly, i find the accusation that 'normal people harbor malice (and sorrow) in their bosom' is lacking such a discrimination - it doesn't distinguish the case where somebody's M.O has become this from somebody who works with morals and virtues and uses these productively. though we are prone to fall, we are able to counter it and balance it as well, and to segregate the falling tendencies from the balancing tendencies (essentially morality and conscience) and make it a bigger problem than it is - is as unenlightened as the original problem - though it works - which is by making the person not to exercise the balancing tendencies (morality), one is forced to suffer the serious consequences of the falling tendencies (the natural and raw and crude forces that one already is/has), in which he can either grow out and emerge perfect or fail even more pathetically.

* maybe i need to repost this as 'on defense of normalcy'

** such an equating forces one to totally reject normalcy, while on one hand making the goal more urgent, might cripple one's relationship with normalcy and normal people.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 1:41 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 1:40 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Vas A:
i would like to save the word 'delusion' for those who have lost the plot.

Ok. We should flesh out some of these terms a bit otherwise we might not be able to communicate effectively.

Vas A:
though normal people are prone to such, not all normal people have to go through such fate as one can avoid extreme conditions such as this with practical wisdom and the help of social means, not necessarily requiring absolute clarity.

I wasn't even speaking about extremes. It's just the course of 'normal' life in the 'real world'. Any couple I've seen will have little fights, seeds of discontent. People are always complaining about work, about how there isn't any time to get what they want done, about how they want peace, or about how they want excitement. On so many occasions, I've just met somebody and started talking to them, and they will totally unprompted start talking about some issue or other of theirs. I don't mind, not anymore anyway, I find it interesting to listen to them.. but it is clear everyone has problems.

Vas A:
but what is the cost of achieving that?

A:normal man ----> 80% enjoyment (just as an example)

B:enlightened normal man ---> 99% enjoyment.

the path from A --> B is not affordable by many. for some it can mean that they have to go through hell, and is that worth it? for some others, like you maybe, there is no choice. once B is known, one has to go there. though it can be said that the path from A --> B can be enjoyable, often it is not, as one may have to work with the 'normalcy' as well. and for those who go to the forest to achieve B, they may end up in a different version with a 'smell of enlightenment'....

I think it's far more than a 23.75% improvement in well-being. It's more like something totally unimaginable - in that, you simply cannot imagine what it is like, to not suffer at all (or at least drastically, drastically reduced from 'normal'). I've had glimpses, and if life was always like in those glimpses... it would be swell indeed. And even those glimpses weren't perfect.

About the path, I like to think of it this way: the path itself is safe. It's only reactions to things happening (things the path might reveal) that are painful. And yes, there can be many of those, such as to engender a hellish existence for a few months/years (few months in my case). But, cost-benefit-anaylsis-wise, I think it is worth it.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:05 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:05 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Vas A:
i would like to save the word 'delusion' for those who have lost the plot.

Ok. We should flesh out some of these terms a bit otherwise we might not be able to communicate effectively.

Vas A:
though normal people are prone to such, not all normal people have to go through such fate as one can avoid extreme conditions such as this with practical wisdom and the help of social means, not necessarily requiring absolute clarity.

I wasn't even speaking about extremes. It's just the course of 'normal' life in the 'real world'. Any couple I've seen will have little fights, seeds of discontent.


little fights, seeds of discontent ---> yes.
many good memories, happiness, ice creams, movies, romance, intimacy as well --->
what is the proportion of positive (happiness, harmony, relaxation) vs negative (little fights, seeds of discontent) we are talking about?
for the best, i think it can go up to 80% and for the worst it can drop to 20% (and less than that, they separate)
and summing over a bell curve, i would think average should be more than 50% happiness


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

People are always complaining about work,


though most do it sometime, "always" ?
not necessarily, i know a lot of people who are really excited about the work, they are so satisfied about the work,
and at the end of a tiring day, they may just want something else (just like even after a pleasurable meal, you want something else)...

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

about how there isn't any time to get what they want done,


the standard problem of having a lot of desires and not managing the time well.. all kids face this all the time (though they don't hang on to their failures), but thre are a lot of people who manage it quite well (since the world is full of temptations, there is always more to be done/experienced/achieved).. but there is satisfaction and enjoyment while doing work as well and we don't talk to people when they are enjoying their work because they are busy doing that


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

about how they want peace, or about how they want excitement.

yes, repetitive jobs might bore the people who want some challenge but they are forced to take some
such vocation due to security... though there is an undercurrent dissatisfaction due to this component, after having gotten to work, they do have some pleasures of a teamwork and other workplace excitements... all this never gets mentioned because of the underlying compromise and dissatisfaction


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

On so many occasions, I've just met somebody and started talking to them, and they will totally unprompted start talking about some issue or other of theirs. I don't mind, not anymore anyway, I find it interesting to listen to them.. but it is clear everyone has problems.

could it be because it is safe to discuss an issue with a stranger (rather than their achievements) and a good ice breaker?
it is clear that everyone has problems..
but only problems?
and nothing else?
i am not sure it is that dim.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

Vas A:
but what is the cost of achieving that?

A:normal man ----> 80% enjoyment (just as an example)

B:enlightened normal man ---> 99% enjoyment.

the path from A --> B is not affordable by many. for some it can mean that they have to go through hell, and is that worth it? for some others, like you maybe, there is no choice. once B is known, one has to go there. though it can be said that the path from A --> B can be enjoyable, often it is not, as one may have to work with the 'normalcy' as well. and for those who go to the forest to achieve B, they may end up in a different version with a 'smell of enlightenment'....

I think it's far more than a 23.75% improvement in well-being. It's more like something totally unimaginable - in that, you simply cannot imagine what it is like, to not suffer at all (or at least drastically, drastically reduced from 'normal'). I've had glimpses, and if life was always like in those glimpses... it would be swell indeed. And even those glimpses weren't perfect.

About the path, I like to think of it this way: the path itself is safe. It's only reactions to things happening (things the path might reveal) that are painful. And yes, there can be many of those, such as to engender a hellish existence for a few months/years (few months in my case). But, cost-benefit-anaylsis-wise, I think it is worth it.


i am not totally in disagreement.
but totally understanding all aspects of change allows me to sympathetically view myself when i choose not to go for it or those who don't go for it.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:18 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:18 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Yes, I agree, it's not all dreariness out in the 'real' world. There are good moments. But you agree there are bad moments. So, what about those bad moments? Why keep those around? Why compromise at 80%?

Vas A:
but totally understanding all aspects of change allows me to sympathetically view myself when i choose not to go for it or those who don't go for it.

I agree, it is quite silly when people don't view others sympathetically, regardless of what they do, and especially if it's cause they choose not to do something you are doing.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:30 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:30 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Yes, I agree, it's not all dreariness out in the 'real' world. There are good moments. But you agree there are bad moments. So, what about those bad moments? Why keep those around? Why compromise at 80%?


firstly, the case of 100% is quite nebulous.

secondly, as you agree here, 'cos 100% is 100%, it is not accurate to view 80% (or even those that are less) as 0%. something called 'all or nothing' or 'black and white' thinking. and cause of many issues. better good, imho, should come out of viewing x% as x% and not 0%, and make an informed decision of whether one can raise it now, or keep it constant, or go through a lower number in order to reach a bigger number in the near (or even far!) future.

iow, the methodlogy (say M) that - this is the only moment and you are wasting it if you are living sub-optimally -- is a viewpoint that may suit those that have made it. for those who are trying to achieve, it still can be appealing to think in this way (perfectionism) as it puts a demand on the self not to be satisfied with the intermediate solution.

all is well if there is continuous progress and one is getting somewhere.

but when one gets stuck, or things worsen, like it did for me, i saw that this M was too restrictive and letting that go helped.
and as a separate point M is not epistemologically accurate.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:49 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 2:49 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Vas A:
firstly, the case of 100% is quite nebulous.

I wasn't making a case for 100%. I just mean, if there is apparent suffering, and there is apparently a way to lessen that (whatever it is), why not do that (lessen that)?

Vas A:
secondly, as you agree here, 'cos 100% is 100%, it is not accurate to view 80% (or even those that are less) as 0%. something called 'all or nothing' or 'black and white' thinking. and cause of many issues. better good, imho, should come out of viewing x% as x% and not 0%, and make an informed decision of whether one can raise it now, or keep it constant, or go through a lower number in order to reach a bigger number in the near (or even far!) future.

I wasn't viewing 80% as 0%, I just mean, if there is apparent suffering (in this example, 20%), and there is apparently a way to lessen that (say to make it 15%), why not do that?

Vas A:
iow, the methodlogy (say M) that - this is the only moment and you are wasting it if you are living sub-optimally -- is a viewpoint that may suit those that have made it. for those who are trying to achieve, it still can be appealing to think in this way (perfectionism) as it puts a demand on the self not to be satisfied with the intermediate solution.

all is well if there is continuous progress and one is getting somewhere.

but when one gets stuck, or things worsen, like it did for me, i saw that this M was too restrictive and letting that go helped.
and as a separate point M is not epistemologically accurate.

It is not only possible but likely that the beneficial motivation of the past becomes the non-beneficial suffering of the present. One must be flexible in that sense, and know when to drop certain ways of mentally/physically acting and to adopt others.
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 3:30 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 3:30 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Craig N:
Vas A:
Simon E:
Vas A:
Response from the aft


http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm#Addendum6


Is it just me or did that announcement come of as very passive-aggressive? Perhaps it's all just in my head.


a million $ question.


But isn't that exactly how sticking to your guns would sound, if you had no aggression in you?

It's tough to interpret actions and words without corrupting/overlaying them with our own affective imagination.

I thought it came across passive-aggressive too until I realised that was me adding the passive-aggressive voice to it.

Craig


i had the same experience. but one needs to cover all the cases...
just because you detected the 'passive-aggressive voice' in your head does not mean that it is in your head alone.
it could be that you are adding to it... while something in the text is triggering it.

what is that in the text that is triggering it?

from my experience, i think we sense a certain rigidity from these phrasings, which verbosely expressed can read like an attitude like this:

this is how i see the world. this is it. take it or leave it. i don't want to negotiate. i am 100% sure about all this. i do not want to give any benefit of doubt about the inherent ambiguities in wording experiences, or any failings on your part will be attacked with loads of evidence and imperfection from your current and past and future wordings. if you don't see eye to eye with all these things, your malicious and sorrowful identity is the reason.

while there is a possibility that a person who sees the actual truths like one sees the sun and one breathes the air (absolute certainty) might adapt such an attitude, one who understands the struggles in all these, imho, may not. be that as it may, if there are some special reasons for such way of going about these things, this is what causes the passive-aggressive voice in us. giving all the benefit of doubt to the text, it is the pattern recognition part of our brain which reads such a pattern to mean passive aggression, and hence if these writers are an exception to that.. but it is very intriguing indeed emoticon.

whereas we like to dance, go for the intentions and meanings rather than dictionary standards, negotiate, discuss, flexible using the words as a means and not as an end. of course, everything has a pro and a con - the mathematicians prefer the rigid approach, but not when talking about the general idea (only when they do proofs). when human understanding and communication is the key, even mathematicians and scientists use natural language while keeping the baseline.

and in addition to this, the whole thing is radical. it calls for non-standard meanings of some basic words like real / actual / truth and redefines many things. so, when we try to use our regular language, we are bound to use the emotional / vague meanings and them correcting us, this causes a lot of friction. it is like the actualists are talking about non-eucledian geometry and we are using our eucledian intuition (which is true i am not going to judge.. at this point eucledian sounds fine). like hilbert used totally different words beer mugs / tables /chairs to denote points / lines / planes in order not to mistake (like all those fifth postulate derivers did), while using actualist terminology might serve actualist ends, it is sure a lot of hiccup for one's free thinking and informal stream of consciousness expressions, which one is accustomed to do. that's why i think somebody can tarin who understands this can come up with a better language for documenting such processes and experiences without causing so many frictions.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 7:23 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 7:23 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Aman A.:
(a state which is reached after a lot of mental gymnastics and reading/listening about it from someone else)

That is quite a specific definition. It also neatly excludes normality as being delusory, which I think is not the case - one can practice no meditation at all and be quite deluded, that is, believing in things that aren't there, acting in totally irrational ways, etc.


In the case of 'normality' where delusions get created, it is still a case of mind doing mental gymnastics on its own.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
My goal is to not be deluded. So what to do then, if I am already deluded (or at least ignorant of certain things I think it's important not to be ignorant of, which I have determined based on my practice)? Practice to find a way of experience that is less deluded. And once I'm there, am I free of delusion? No way to know for sure unless I find a way of existing (or hints at one) that seems less deluded. And, indeed, if I find a state that I think is not delusory, and then I find a way out of it (to a less delusory state), then it becomes clear (in hindsight) that that state was, indeed, delusory (an ASC).


One should practice to find a way of experience where mind is not doing mental gymnastics on its own. Practice should not increase the capacity of the mind to do mental gymnastics instead should decrease it and everyday normal experience of that would be that the awake state would increase and the dream state would decrease. When you think about the universe to be infinite and eternal, don't you think that there is some dreamy quality to it? Practice should increase the capacity to discern between the awake and dream state with an aim towards moving ever more awake state.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Is there a state with no delusion? I'm not sure. You also never answered my question of what "no delusion" would be.


No delusion would be being able to 'enter the marketplace with arms hanging loose' with no imaginary/mystical/dreamy quality attributed to nature which is helping one to be able to let arms hang loose.

Arms can hang loose in the marketplace only if the instincts are not reacting (mind not doing mental gymnastics on its own) to every sight/sound (which are plenty in marketplace) which would 'normally' be 'seen' as potentially harmful or would be 'seen' as competitive.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 8:59 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 8:58 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Practice should increase the capacity to discern between the awake and dream state with an aim towards moving ever more awake state.

We're in agreement here.

Aman A.:
When you think about the universe to be infinite and eternal, don't you think that there is some dreamy quality to it?

I won't presuppose to know what the fully awake state is like yet. My experiences of being close to actuality did not have a dreamy quality, but rather more like being hyper-awake.. so hyper-awake, though, that the senses definitely took on a quality that was not there (or not noticed) earlier.

I don't know whether the universe itself is really infinite or eternal, and I don't think it is necessary to know for practice. I do see benefit in assuming that it is while practicing, as those kinds of pointers seem to help, sometimes, but I don't think that gives me any knowledge about the objective universe itself, just my experiencing of it, which, from my (relative/subjective) point of view, is the universe itself, as the only universe for me is my experience of it.

Speaking idea-wise: if the laws of thermodynamics hold, then there cannot be a beginning to the universe, as matter+energy is always conserved and there is matter+energy now. Then there also cannot be an end to the universe, as matter+energy is always conserved. Thus it certainly seems eternal to me. Since it has no beginning & no end, then how can it have any edges?

Aman A.:
No delusion would be being able to 'enter the marketplace with arms hanging loose' with no imaginary/mystical/dreamy quality attributed to nature which is helping one to be able to let arms hang loose.

Well, depends what you mean by imaginary/mystical/dreamy, I suppose. In the course of looking, you might find something happening which you previously thought was imaginary/mystical/dreamy, but there it is, happening anyway. Assuming that you know, right now, what is imaginary/mystical/dreamy and what isn't might prevent open-minded investigation which might cause you to miss something.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 9:35 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 9:35 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
I don't know whether the universe itself is really infinite or eternal, and I don't think it is necessary to know for practice. I do see benefit in assuming that it is while practicing, as those kinds of pointers seem to help.......


Aman A.:
No delusion would be being able to 'enter the marketplace with arms hanging loose' with no imaginary/mystical/dreamy quality attributed to nature which is helping one to be able to let arms hang loose.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Well, depends what you mean by imaginary/mystical/dreamy, I suppose.


Imaginary is 'assuming' the universe to be infinite or eternal while practicing when you don't know whether it really is which in turn 'benefits' the practice not to make one more awake but to lead more towards an ASC where one starts to believe what at the start of practice was assumption as a fact at the end of the practice.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:16 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/9/12 11:16 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Imaginary is 'assuming' the universe to be infinite or eternal while practicing when you don't know whether it really is which in turn 'benefits' the practice not to make one more awake but to lead more towards an ASC where one starts to believe what at the start of practice was assumption as a fact at the end of the practice.

How do you distinguish between being awake and an ASC? That is to say, how do you know the pointer isn't leading to being awake, but is instead leading to an ASC?
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 1:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 1:21 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
How do you distinguish between being awake and an ASC? That is to say, how do you know the pointer isn't leading to being awake, but is instead leading to an ASC?


When you wake up from sleep, does anyone need to tell you that you are awake? When you come out of day-dreaming and become awake, does someone need to tell you that you are awake? Someone may say something to bring you out of day-dreaming but you will yourself realize that you were day-dreaming when you come out of it. Though other people may notice a change as to you being more aware/alert/awake/sharp. Can you notice difference in people when they are day-dreaming and when they are alert/awake? Can you notice difference in writing of people who are mystical/spiritual and those who are not?

In the same way, those who have come out of ASC created by practicing AF or some other practice, know that they were in an ASC. Also because of their experience, they can know if others who are still practicing or have achieved the result of their practice are in an ASC.

If and when you come out of the ASCs (not saying that you have any because I haven't read your messages describing your practice and its result), you will know yourself.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:03 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:03 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
When you wake up from sleep, does anyone need to tell you that you are awake? When you come out of day-dreaming and become awake, does someone need to tell you that you are awake? Someone may say something to bring you out of day-dreaming but you will yourself realize that you were day-dreaming when you come out of it. Though other people may notice a change as to you being more aware/alert/awake/sharp. Can you notice difference in people when they are day-dreaming and when they are alert/awake? Can you notice difference in writing of people who are mystical/spiritual and those who are not?

In the same way, those who have come out of ASC created by practicing AF or some other practice, know that they were in an ASC. Also because of their experience, they can know if others who are still practicing or have achieved the result of their practice are in an ASC.

If and when you come out of the ASCs (not saying that you have any because I haven't read your messages describing your practice and its result), you will know yourself.

So to paraphrase, you're saying that someone will just know what the difference between being awake and being in an ASC is. The hyper-awake states that I reach from practicing actualism seem more like awake states, making the non-hyper-aware states seem like a daydream. When I'm in the daydream (like right now mostly) it is easy to forget how hyper-awake those states were, so I figure the daydreaming is normal.. but when I chance into the hyper-awake state, I remember just how daydream-like 'normal' baseline is, and I wonder why I was doing anything else.

As the shift formerly known as an actual freedom from the human condition is permanent, much like the MCTB paths are permanent, it is impossible to 'come out' of it, except perhaps by further shifts in a deeper direction (e.g. "meaning-of-life" actual freedom). Where does that leave your theory of being able to 'come out' of an 'ASC' by practicing 'AF'?
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:13 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:04 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
How do you distinguish between being awake and [being in] an ASC? That is to say, how do you know the pointer isn't leading to being awake, but is instead leading to an ASC?


When you wake up from sleep, does anyone need to tell you that you are awake? When you come out of day-dreaming and become awake, does someone need to tell you that you are awake? Someone may say something to bring you out of day-dreaming but you will yourself realize that you were day-dreaming when you come out of it. Though other people may notice a change as to you being more aware/alert/awake/sharp.

In the same way, those who have come out of ASC created by practicing AF or some other practice, know that they were in an ASC.

If and when you come out of the ASCs (not saying that you have any because I haven't read your messages describing your practice and its result), you will know yourself.


Emphasis added by me.

BCDEFG is asking how you can know while in any state whether it is 'awake' or an 'ASC'. Sure, you'll know when you come out of an ASC that you were in an ASC, but how can you know while in an ASC?

And when you come out of one ASC, how do you know you didn't just enter another, maybe subtler ASC? Yeah, you'll know that you entered another ASC if you come out of even that. But how do you know you didn't just enter another ASC...

I don't find that way of thinking useful at all.
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:43 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:43 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
The hyper-awake states that I reach from practicing actualism seem more like awake states, making the non-hyper-aware states seem like a daydream.


One can know that one is in ASC when one starts to believe something like universe is infinite and eternal while in an awake state, it is clear that one can not know whether it is infinite and eternal or not.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 9:27 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 9:18 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Tumbling down the rabbit hole...

So when one (believes that one) knows something which (someone else says?) is unknowable, then one knows for sure whether one is awake or not.

Aman A.:
it is clear that one can not know whether [the universe] is infinite and eternal or not.

How is this clear? Are you sure you aren't in a ASC where you are only believing that one can not know whether the universe is infinite and eternal or not?

-

Epistemology
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 2:12 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 2:12 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:
Aman A.:
it is clear that one can not know whether [the universe] is infinite and eternal or not.

How is this clear? Are you sure you aren't in a ASC where you are only believing that one can not know whether the universe is infinite and eternal or not?

What Stian said. What if anything that makes it seem the universe is finite and temporally limited, or anything that makes it seem like it is impossible to know, is just something that is preventing you from being awake?
Vas A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 2:21 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 2:21 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 24 Join Date: 9/8/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Vas A:
firstly, the case of 100% is quite nebulous.

I wasn't making a case for 100%. I just mean, if there is apparent suffering, and there is apparently a way to lessen that (whatever it is), why not do that (lessen that)?


sure... just that:
what is the method?
what is the cost? what do you have to lose? what are the long term effects?
what is the fine-print? what is the hidden cost?
thumbnail
tarin greco, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 2:36 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 2:36 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
i missed this post.

josh r s:
how about, 'it's up to each person to make sure they properly understand for themselves what richard says an actual freedom is'.

Could you tell us which phenomenological differences in peoples' experiences Richard has used to discount their claims to AF as being false, not the specific people but just the phenomenological issues and differences? or does he claim they are lying? or are his assertions based on the practices they used? or were the assertions made without any specific explanation?

richard's take on the matter can be found, neatly framed, in the latest update (addendum 7) on the actual freedom trust's website.


josh r s:

also, I think it will be tough to make any progress in the theory until we get a definition of AF1 and AF2 are, as without any clear definition, it is a gaping hole which could easily be seen as Richard simply using his authority as founder of the AFT to discount anyone who's actions conflict with his perceived agenda.

if you see the gaping hole that way, it stands little chance of being filled. it may be worth considering that language is no less malleable than a mind and its memories. good luck with your theory project.

tarin
Change A, modified 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:21 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 2/10/12 8:21 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
"Life the Dream"

"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of following my fancies as a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly, I awoke, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming that I am now a man."

http://www.vibrationdata.com/tao.htm
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 12:56 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 12:56 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Though I have not met Richard, one can gather some points of data concerning his logical faculties. His explanation of him coming to the conclusion that everything is physical is the equivalent of irrationality. Further to claim physicality at all is rather silly, I am a trained physicist and and can tell you right now there isn't a single physicist in the whole world who could show you an iota of matter. He claims to be actually free, I claim he is free of coherent ontology.
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 1:09 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 1:09 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
In terms of methodology/soteriological axioms I am having trouble finding what exactly is unique about AF. I have been really involved in the tantras and atiyoga and totally don't see what is unique about how AF practices are presented or done. Besides the fluff of explaining how to posture the mind, the postures themselves seem identical. I think it was simply a re-branding, and accidental or intentional misrepresentation of the the 'apparent' novelty, reminiscent of Osho to some degree.
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 2:32 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 2:32 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Theories are higher than facts, they explain facts. There are different grades of theories and some are far superior than any particular fact, as they will accurately and coherently organize and explain 1000s of particular facts. In physics there are different types of evidence that are weighed in differing ways. String theory has no testable prediction but error correction codes have been found using some of the equations (an awesomely BIG deal). Other axioms are so accepted they are considered virtual fact, like the holographic principle and further it being applied to the whole universe. When I am speaking in physics circles, we speak with virtual certainty that space and time are emergent phenomena and most of us whisper with virtual certainty that Stephen Hawking is a good physicist but a terrible philosopher. So no, we are not deluded but we are mostly probabilists to some degree or another. We have so many fantastic reasons to believe what we do that it puts to shame any attempt to label them as 'mere' theories. So we don't claim fact, we claim an extremely high probability of what we believe being true or pretty damn close, to the degree of virtual certainty. We have particle accelerators on our side. emoticon
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 2:40 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/15/12 2:40 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Omega Point

In terms of methodology/soteriological axioms I am having trouble finding what exactly is unique about AF. I have been really involved in the tantras and atiyoga and totally don't see what is unique about how AF practices are presented or done. Besides the fluff of explaining how to posture the mind, the postures themselves seem identical. I think it was simply a re-branding, and accidental or intentional misrepresentation of the the 'apparent' novelty,


Have you practiced the actualism method? Have you had a PCE? Have you gathered your conclusions based on practice or just theoretical speculation?

reminiscent of Osho to some degree.


If I'm not mistaken, two of the Actual Freedom Trust directors, Vineeto and Peter, were practitioners of the Osho's methods for more than a decade, and after that they spent another decade or so practicing actualism. They clearly saw and experienced the differences empirically.

There are several, several posts in this and other forums arguing philosophically that what needs to be addressed experientially. The only way to know if something is different, valuable or deluded is trying it sincerely.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 1:28 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 1:25 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
According to the latest news, Peter has resigned as a director of the Actual Freedom Trust.

Also, some of the long-term practitioners who tried the AF method sincerely have gone away including one who was interested in AF to the point that she was planning to make a documentary and was co-authoring a book with Richard. She met Richard a couple of times and concluded that AF can not be attained unless one "ACTUALLY GET THOSE SAME
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS that will classify them as patients of PTSD".

Omega Point, it will save you a lot of your time and what not if you do not fall in the trap of "first try the method sincerely". This is an old ploy which has been utilized before in AF circles.

P.S. This is not for irrational individuals. They can disregard this message and keep moving towards their goal in a 'happy and harmless' way.
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 2:01 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 2:01 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Aman,

I'm sincerely curious... can you share a source in which the resignation of Peter is specified? What I know is that Peter's journal is back on online sale again.

Regards,

Felipe
Adam , modified 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 2:36 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 2:34 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
P.S. This is not for irrational individuals. They can disregard this message and keep moving towards their goal in a 'happy and harmless' way.


Ah, good. Thanks for specifying.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 3:27 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 3:27 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
I know that Peter's journal is back online. Peter's resignation was mentioned by Aloha in one of her messages on the yahoo forum.
Tom Tom, modified 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 5:01 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/18/12 5:01 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 466 Join Date: 9/19/09 Recent Posts
concluded that AF can not be attained unless one "ACTUALLY GET THOSE SAME
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS that will classify them as patients of PTSD".


Maybe this just means that it is very hard to obtain without some degree of progress in insight? (like at least A&P or stream entry). As "untreated" insight disease is likely to lead to various clinical diagnoses.
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 7/19/12 7:03 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/19/12 7:03 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Felipe,
You responded only to your assumptions and none of my points or you failed to comprehend the meaning. Why not give me the benefit of the doubt if you are going to assume anything?

Richard hints that everyone or a large portion of people experience PCEs, so why assume the poorer? Further are you sure you have experienced a PCE? As it is at the same time "This peak experience of one’s potentiality". If AF's goal is a benign identitylessness in which select instincts are dissolved then it appears I am as free or more free then Richard.

Further, how can anyone say he is actually free if he isn't free from delusion or pseudo-scientific thinking?
Nitrous acid mixing with nicotine creates cancer causing dust, which persists for several months and harms anyone it contacts. If being AF equates to being harmless, then how does that jive? Is that selflessness, volitionally carelessness? If it is careless is surely isn't benign, If it is selflessness then it's clearly an ethically neutral selflessness (as how could you justify that harm and claim non-neutrality, one eventually would be left admitting one was too careless to learn or that one is actually not free from ignorance and delusion) and therefor volitionally careless and ergo not benign. Does an ethically-neutral, non-benign, careless-selflessness share that much difference with an inflated sociopath who subtly reifies self and even self-identity as 'flesh and blood human being' in terms of a posteri results? If he is smoking because he is 'free' and not because he actually not-free, then does he intend on smoking? If he intends, what causes the mind to move leading to the smoking behavior? If you say it is because he thinks through and decides on principle, then what caused that thought to arise etc? One eventually sees that neurochemical impulses are to blame. Impulses in this case equates to saying it's cause is instinctual. So if he intends to smoke, he isn't free from instincts, no matter the rationalization proclaimed. If he doesn't intend to smoke then how can he be properly called free, as behavior without intent is tautologically identical to random behavior.

After practicing long enough to see how one is supposed to mentally posture, it appears clear to me they are rather simple postures that were derived using principles that would be known and practiced by any buddhist considered to be Arya by any higher schools. They are rather simplistic practices related to emptiness mostly with what is considered the course level of mind. Considering the goal of AF is achieving a type of mere identitylessness (nearly identical to lower schools); much more efficacious practices and principles have personally demonstrated themselves (even simplistic Tibetan practices related to subtle-mind/subtle-body coupled with a conceptual knowledge of emptiness are more effective).
I practiced AF long enough to realize I had already learned superior practices and principles. Heat yoga, bardo yoga, dream yoga, and applying emptiness to manifest and control fabrications (especially after heat yoga fruitions). I have experienced the clear light visions, suchness, both the ethically-neutral ground and the actual ground, as well as the emanation body in dream-yoga.

If you are saying it boils down to a priori evidence alone, How can AF make the claim of novelty? Further then how can AF present itself as generally superior to all other traditions and enlightened beings?

How could anyone want to delude themselves with a philosophy and practice coming from someone who thinks so highly of themselves they just simply disregard the most evidence based branch in ALL OF PHYSICS in ALL of human history because it doesn't jive with his opinion construct (which comes from an identity-complex...) that it's somehow 'mystical' and actually not science but "metaphysics". If these practices can cloud one's thinking to this degree than how can that be properly considered freedom? Is AF claiming delusion is freedom? It isn't even consistent internally, if physics of the last 70 years is just plain wrong and there is physicality then determinism must be true in such a way as to remove any notion of free will. How can one be properly called free if one even lacks free-will? If one tries to claim it's physical but only partially deterministic, then one is claiming random behavior and random behavior once again throws free-will out the window. The only way get around this to disregard the notion of physicality and instead embrace immateriality. It appears AF claims it's major differential between AF and buddhism is physicality, but if it embraces this, it refutes the notion of freedom all together, and further embraces pseudo-science. Again no physicist in the whole world can show you an iota of matter and instead agree in physics circles that all the evidence shows we live in a VR; how does AF have any room to stand and say they are physical flesh and blood humans? Since the flesh and blood is after all nothing but molecules and atoms which after all ONLY follow the laws of quantum mechanics and therefor in no way, shape, or form are physical at ALL. Imagining a three-dimensional physical space in all directions is mystical and plain wrong.

Further if AF'ers claim they are flesh and blood human, the most coherent claiming a self with the quality of identitylessness, yet reinforcing that the flesh and blood human complex is the self. If this is the case then why can you not properly control all that happens with the flesh and blood? If you cannot control it, can not change it's rules, do not have it at your beck and call, then how can one be properly called flesh and blood human? If one cannot be properly called a flesh and blood human then why do AF's constantly reify the label of flesh and blood human as replacement of identity or self? For those that say AF doesn't claim one is flesh and blood human but instead the 'the identity of oblivion', then why is oblivion pre-death spoken of in a positive sense and post-death in a negative...especially since speaking of oblivion like this begs the question as to what exactly is the change between the positive sense and negative sense if "nothing is lost". What causes something to come and disappear? Lastly how in the world is an oblivion physical? How is speaking of oblivion unlike speaking of atman or a mind-stream? AF seems to be actually free of logic.

In your case though, what evidence can you provide to the claimed uniqueness of any of the AF practices? AF's philosophy? How about coherent philosophy stemming from AF?

You completely misunderstood the comment in regards to Osho. Osho upon any mild investigation, appears to be a drug-addict fraud, who used his knowledge to straw-man the teachings of wiser men to make himself seem superior. Osho was the one saying he was the man that was going to unite eastern and western rationalism, though this is same fool who said that Einstein spoke of "three dimensions of time and one of space". Further, repeating a wise man's words doesn't make one wise(or worse, misquoting wise men's words makes one a fool). Further, re-printing the practices or philosophies of wise men doesn't necessarily give credence to one's wisdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho
"Uday Mehta, in summing up an appraisal of Osho's teachings, particularly errors regarding his interpretation of Zen, Mahayana Buddhism and how they relate to the proto-materialist nature of Tantric philosophy, suggests that: "It is not surprising to find that Rajneesh could get away with several gross contradictions and inconsistencies in his teachings. This was possible for the simple reason that an average Indian (or for that matter even western) listener knows so little about religious scriptures or various schools of thought that it hardly requires much effort to exploit his ignorance and gullibility."

I advise to read the whole wiki on him if you want a clearer picture, even watch the documentary with his bodyguard etc. As some rather morbid claims are leveled against the poor fool.
Beyond this I feel the above quote relates to some degree to what appears to me when understanding AF. Richard can talk plain non-sense about physicality and matter, he can re-brand simplistic practices constructed upon soteriological axioms that have been around for 1000s of years...and yet credence still emerges due to a lack of knowledge amongst Richard's peers concerning Mahayana buddhism and the penetrating depths of analysis achieved by the advanced schools as well as the last 80 years of physics.

Further, AF doesn't make purely soteriological or methodological claims. Which utterly refutes any attempt to say a purely experiential approach is needed to validate or invalidate all of AF's claims. AF makes claims against science, it posits ontology and further occasionally hints at it's epistemological leanings. Though most of these claims are mere lip service, as many are never backed with logic. The majority of pages I have read on the AF website are riddled with logical errors and incoherence, and often brutal straw-men, where AF misrepresents or assumes the poorer about basically all wise men of historical past.

"Despite all their rhetoric, peace-on-earth is not actually on their agenda." -AF's claim in reference to all sages, monks, masters, enlightened beings etc... except the AF crowd that is...this isn't a case of Jung's inflation at all...
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/19/12 7:26 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/19/12 7:14 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hiya, Omega,

Omega Point:
You responded only to your assumptions and none of my points or you failed to comprehend the meaning. Why not give me the benefit of the doubt if you are going to assume anything?


Fair enough. Could you tell me then for how much did you practice Actualism and how sincere/willing you were when doing that? Did you completely empty your bowl of any spirituality before you poured the actualism into it?

Omega Point:
Further, how can anyone say he is actually free if he isn't free from delusion or pseudo-scientific thinking?
Nitrous acid mixing with nicotine creates cancer causing dust, which persists for several months and harms anyone it contacts. If being AF equates to being harmless, then how does that jive? Is that selflessness, volitionally carelessness? If it is careless is surely isn't benign, If it is selflessness then it's clearly an ethically neutral selflessness (as how could you justify that harm and claim non-neutrality, one eventually would be left admitting one was too careless to learn or that one is actually not free from ignorance and delusion) and therefor volitionally careless and ergo not benign. Does an ethically-neutral, non-benign, careless-selflessness share that much difference with an inflated sociopath who subtly reifies self and even self-identity as 'flesh and blood human being' in terms of a posteri results? If he is smoking because he is 'free' and not because he actually not-free, then does he intend on smoking? If he intends, what causes the mind to move leading to the smoking behavior? If you say it is because he thinks through and decides on principle, then what caused that thought to arise etc? One eventually sees that neurochemical impulses are to blame. Impulses in this case equates to saying it's cause is instinctual. So if he intends to smoke, he isn't free from instincts, no matter the rationalization proclaimed. If he doesn't intend to smoke then how can he be properly called free, as behavior without intent is tautologically identical to random behavior.


I'm not concerned about the quirks and idiosyncratic aspects of Richard. What one thinks he should or shouldn't consume is a matter of personal preference. Could you point me to a completely harmless form of life? The pure act of breathing kills you slowly. Anyone could adopt a Paleolithic, organic or vegan diet thinking these trends are the answer to humanities health issues, just to discover other effects later (lack of proteins or whatever). The Buddha was enlightened and he wasn't having precisely the "more balanced diet". If Richard lived in a violent city, knowing that the probabilities of harm are higher going out than staying in home, should Richard stay in home forever then? To answer your question more precisely: I understand that smoking, for Richard, is a preference and not a need, but, again, I don't know and I don't care; what I care about is his advice on psychological and psychic aspects rather than the health-related ones.

Omega Point:
After practicing long enough to see how one is supposed to mentally posture, it appears clear to me they are rather simple postures that were derived using principles that would be known and practiced by any buddhist considered to be Arya by any higher schools. They are rather simplistic practices related to emptiness mostly with what is considered the course level of mind. Considering the goal of AF is achieving a type of mere identitylessness (nearly identical to lower schools); much more efficacious practices and principles have personally demonstrated themselves (even simplistic Tibetan practices related to subtle-mind/subtle-body coupled with a conceptual knowledge of emptiness are more effective).
I practiced AF long enough to realize I had already learned superior practices and principles. Heat yoga, bardo yoga, dream yoga, and applying emptiness to manifest and control fabrications (especially after heat yoga fruitions). I have experienced the clear light visions, suchness, both the ethically-neutral ground and the actual ground, as well as the emanation body in dream-yoga.


How much have you practiced each? What is "superior " to you? This seems to be a matter of agenda. What's your agenda in your practice and in your life? Mine is to completely eradicate any psychic/psychological disturbance, stress, dissatisfaction, suffering 24/7/365. Now, I practiced Tibetan Buddhism for a couple of years (although not so much Tantric stuff) and I can honestly tell you that the results in my everyday life are more satisfactory and effective (according to my said agenda) with one year of Actualism than those two years with Tibetan.

Omega Point:
How could anyone want to delude themselves with a philosophy and practice coming from someone who thinks so highly of themselves they just simply disregard the most evidence based branch in ALL OF PHYSICS in ALL of human history because it doesn't jive with his opinion construct (which comes from an identity-complex...) that it's somehow 'mystical' and actually not science but "metaphysics". If these practices can cloud one's thinking to this degree than how can that be properly considered freedom? Is AF claiming delusion is freedom? It isn't even consistent internally, if physics of the last 70 years is just plain wrong and there is physicality then determinism must be true in such a way as to remove any notion of free will. How can one be properly called free if one even lacks free-will? If one tries to claim it's physical but only partially deterministic, then one is claiming random behavior and random behavior once again throws free-will out the window. The only way get around this to disregard the notion of physicality and instead embrace immateriality. It appears AF claims it's major differential between AF and buddhism is physicality, but if it embraces this, it refutes the notion of freedom all together, and further embraces pseudo-science. Again no physicist in the whole world can show you an iota of matter and instead agree in physics circles that all the evidence shows we live in a VR; how does AF have any room to stand and say they are physical flesh and blood humans? Since the flesh and blood is after all nothing but molecules and atoms which after all ONLY follow the laws of quantum mechanics and therefor in no way, shape, or form are physical at ALL. Imagining a three-dimensional physical space in all directions is mystical and plain wrong.

[...]

You completely misunderstood the comment in regards to Osho. Osho upon any mild investigation, appears to be a drug-addict fraud, who used his knowledge to straw-man the teachings of wiser men to make himself seem superior. Osho was the one saying he was the man that was going to unite eastern and western rationalism, though this is same fool who said that Einstein spoke of "three dimensions of time and one of space". Further, repeating a wise man's words doesn't make one wise(or worse, misquoting wise men's words makes one a fool). Further, re-printing the practices or philosophies of wise men doesn't necessarily give credence to one's wisdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho
"Uday Mehta, in summing up an appraisal of Osho's teachings, particularly errors regarding his interpretation of Zen, Mahayana Buddhism and how they relate to the proto-materialist nature of Tantric philosophy, suggests that: "It is not surprising to find that Rajneesh could get away with several gross contradictions and inconsistencies in his teachings. This was possible for the simple reason that an average Indian (or for that matter even western) listener knows so little about religious scriptures or various schools of thought that it hardly requires much effort to exploit his ignorance and gullibility."

I advise to read the whole wiki on him if you want a clearer picture, even watch the documentary with his bodyguard etc. As some rather morbid claims are leveled against the poor fool.
Beyond this I feel the above quote relates to some degree to what appears to me when understanding AF. Richard can talk plain non-sense about physicality and matter, he can re-brand simplistic practices constructed upon soteriological axioms that have been around for 1000s of years...and yet credence still emerges due to a lack of knowledge amongst Richard's peers concerning Mahayana buddhism and the penetrating depths of analysis achieved by the advanced schools as well as the last 80 years of physics.

Further, AF doesn't make purely soteriological or methodological claims. Which utterly refutes any attempt to say a purely experiential approach is needed to validate or invalidate all of AF's claims. AF makes claims against science, it posits ontology and further occasionally hints at it's epistemological leanings. Though most of these claims are mere lip service, as many are never backed with logic. The majority of pages I have read on the AF website are riddled with logical errors and incoherence, and often brutal straw-men, where AF misrepresents or assumes the poorer about basically all wise men of historical past.


I don't care nor do I believe in the cosmological/astrophysical claims of Richard, the same way I didn't with those of the Buddha while I practiced Buddhism. Now, pardon my tu quoque, but you, as both a scientist and a practitioner of one of the most supernatural forms of Buddhism, should know that one can take whatever is useful from certain method and don't take those "truths" that seem scientifically questionable (infinite universe in Actualism, rebirth in Buddhism). I do this keeping in mind the agenda in this endeavor: I don't know about you, but mine is to be free of suffering, not understanding the nature of the universe. In summary, I can not respond to this personally as I haven't had any cosmological insights with this method, just psychological/psychic ones. In the latter ones, this method works beautifully. (Insert obligatory poisoned arrow metaphor)

Omega Point:
Further if AF'ers claim they are flesh and blood human, the most coherent claiming a self with the quality of identitylessness, yet reinforcing that the flesh and blood human complex is the self. If this is the case then why can you not properly control all that happens with the flesh and blood? If you cannot control it, can not change it's rules, do not have it at your beck and call, then how can one be properly called flesh and blood human? If one cannot be properly called a flesh and blood human then why do AF's constantly reify the label of flesh and blood human as replacement of identity or self? For those that say AF doesn't claim one is flesh and blood human but instead the 'the identity of oblivion', then why is oblivion pre-death spoken of in a positive sense and post-death in a negative...especially since speaking of oblivion like this begs the question as to what exactly is the change between the positive sense and negative sense if "nothing is lost". What causes something to come and disappear? Lastly how in the world is an oblivion physical? How is speaking of oblivion unlike speaking of atman or a mind-stream? AF seems to be actually free of logic.


You are playing with semantics and overestimating the scope of Actualism/Actual Freedom. It doesn't deal with the brainstem in order to control motor or automatic functions; it just deals with emotional and higher parts/functions. The term "flesh and blood human" is used because one does not experience the world psychically/psychological, only sensuously: in a pure consciousness experience, the only experience is the one of the senses and (not self-based) thought. Thus, the human being is just another object (a body) among other objects in the universe, because it doesn't subjectivize experience. In Richard's words:

I had been using for eleven years more specific and to regain the actual purity of the unadulterated sensuous experience of *consciousness without a subject* (a body sans identity) from the adulterated mystical experience of consciousness without an object (an identity sans body)’


Another explanation In Stephanie's words:

You might say that most people experience the world through a relationship between an object and its shadow. That object would be your flesh and blood body and the shadow would be your feelings (including unconditional love, which I'll say more about below). Most of us spend our time talking and interacting shadow to shadow, then don't understand why we can't connect. So, for example, there is driving (the mechanical act) and then there is what I think about driving (the affective charge, the shadow): what kind of car do I drive, memories of when I learned to drive, anger at the other people who drive so horribly, unlike myself, who is a perfect driver, and so on, as the affective charge which parallels the act of driving. There is sitting and what I think about sitting; there is walking and what I think about walking; there is eating and what I think about eating (not to mention the other things I am thinking and feeling not related to sitting, eating, walking, etc.). But what if there was simply driving, sitting, walking, eating, for what they are themselves with all that other stuff added on?


This is what is meant by "flesh and blood body", in the sense of perceiving physical reality through senses and unselfish thought, without the intervention of perceptual aspects of other kind. It's just a way to say that, without any identity, you are only your physical-related brain functions and materials (you are flesh and blood and their automatic management by the brain) receiving information from the physical world. Do you really need to "control" the flesh and blood in order to accept the fact that you are composed of flesh and blood, that you are a flesh and blood body only?

Oblivion is perceiving the physicality with this physical body only, without remembering or experiencing something emotionally. One achieves oblivion by wanting to be free of any malice and sorrow according to the PCE. "Oblivion" is used in a comparative way, for, before becoming AF, there is an I who decided to be oblivious of this psychological/psychic entity experiencing of the world, which is the cause of suffering. With this intent and objective, after the elimination of this entity which creates a subjective persona, one becomes the physicality that the universe has been, only that in the form of an aware and reflective human being. "Oblivion" is just a term for the fact that, in a PCE or AF, there is not a subject interpreting the object, just the objects themselves (universe).

As for the difference between this and atman or mindstream, from my undestanding, the quote I pasted by Richard illustrates the difference. Richard doesn't say that one realizes true self or achieve some kind of immortality. As we are just a body, and the mind depends entirely of the body ("a body sans identity"), there is no self who is infinite nor that will become infinite after some realization. Consciousness ceases with physical body death. Now, how does that relate to the following?

Thubten Chodron:

Each moment of mind is a continuation of the previous moment. Who we are and what we think and feel depends on who we were yesterday. Our present mind is a continuation of yesterday's mind. This is why we can remember what happened to us in the past. One moment of our mind was caused by the previous moment of mind. This continuity can be traced back to childhood and to being a fetus in out mother's womb. Even before the time of conception, our mindstream existed. Its previous moments were linked to another body.

Our mind has no beginning and its continuity is infinite. This may be difficult to grasp initially, but if we use the example of a number line, it becomes easier. From the "0" position. Looking left, there is no first negative number, and looking right, there is no last, highest number. One more can always be added. In the same way, our mindstream has no beginning and no end. We all have had an infinite number of past rebirths, and our mind will continue to exist infinitely.


And Paranirvana::

One of the main themes of the MMPS [Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] is that the Buddha is eternal ... The Mahayanists assert the eternity of the Buddha in two ways in the MMPS. They state that the Buddha is the dharmakaya, and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as mahaparinirvana possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity.


In other words, an "identity sans body".

Omega Point:
In your case though, what evidence can you provide to the claimed uniqueness of any of the AF practices? AF's philosophy? How about coherent philosophy stemming from AF?


I can only speak from the causes and effects from my practices. With Tibetan Buddhism, I remember the enhancement of feelings: for example, compassion and love for all the sentient beings through Mahayanist lamrim practices; and bliss with tantric visualizations of deities. In contrast, with Actualism, I'm experimenting a progressive reduction of feelings as well as specific moments where feelings cease completely.

I also haven't read a clear description from a 100% Buddhist practitioner where the complete eradication of being (feelings) is specified. Maybe you could share some as I am not closed to that possibility, I just haven't seen it yet.

Regards,

Felipe
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 2:30 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 2:30 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Felipe,
It appears you either are being facetious or you misapprehend or have completely ignored most of what I have written. I am going to respond as if you are not being facetious. I wish you had responded to some depth and actually addressed some of my postulates. Regardless thanks for you time.
Before I jump into this please understand that a premise that is anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific is not equal to a premise that conforms tautologically to science in it's present state. Thinking otherwise is just plain wrong, arguing with the fundamental validity of the most evidenced scientific fields (more evidence for quantum mechanics than for evolution, literally) is the absolute height of arrogance. Anyone that stands by AF claims against science are absolutely not free of arrogance or delusion. Though AF seems to have roots in anti-scientific pseudo-philosophies like objectivism so I am not surprised about this. AF would of been a great philosophy of the 18th century.

Felipe C.:
Could you tell me then for how much did you practice Actualism and how sincere/willing you were when doing that? Did you completely empty your bowl of any spirituality before you poured the actualism into it?


You should probably define actualism. As the more I read responses from AFers the more it seems muddled and inconsistently defined. You have gone out of your way to say you disagree with Richard, yet these claims are on the AF site and are presented as reflecting AF's views. Didn't Richard come to these conclusions in relation to his AF practices? Do you mean have I practiced your form of 'actualism'? Further, do you mean practice actualism stripped of anti-scientific rhetoric and claims? Or do you mean practice actualism where I just assume physics is false (which is the AF that is presented both on the AF website AND within your response here). Under no circumstances will I delude myself into thinking that I just didn't believe enough or have enough faith in the magic of the practices to compensate for making claims that are not opinions but just wrong.
If the practice actually requires a frame of belief, such as the irrationality of being a physical non-being...then one is clearly practicing the implementation of delusion.
So without the anti-logical faith based approach I practiced intensively for dozens of hours during retreat to identify the mental postures. After removing the AF fluff and paying attention solely to what the practice is asking in regards to posture, one can easily identify that NO new principles exist (in practice) from those principles that make any meditation a "dharma" practice. I am referring to soteriological/methodological principles. So if the philosophy is incoherent and anti-scientific, and the postures themselves are identical in principle with the category of 1000s of Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/etc called dharma practice, then how can AF be considered separate or novel?
If AF can't be shown to actually be novel in terms of practice/mental posture, how in the world can one speak of practicing actualism? Especially when I ask for specifics concerning the differences and all I am pointed to is various unbacked claims that have nothing to do with the practices themselves; then upon refuting those I am told it's just about the practices;yet when I mention there isn't any discovery or novelty in the practices or methodological principles I am referred to the unbacked claims unrelated with the practices themselves. I smell circularity.
The purpose is to eliminate all forms of unpleasantness and the postures are the same in principle. If it looks and quacks like a dharma, it probably is a dharma.

The only ones participating in 'mystical or spiritual' thinking are the AFers or anyone else who thinks that there is three-dimensional space in all directions.

Felipe C.:
I'm not concerned about the quirks and idiosyncratic aspects of Richard. What one thinks he should or shouldn't consume is a matter of personal preference. Could you point me to a completely harmless form of life? The pure act of breathing kills you slowly. Anyone could adopt a Paleolithic, organic or vegan diet thinking these trends are the answer to humanities health issues, just to discover other effects later (lack of proteins or whatever). The Buddha was enlightened and he wasn't having precisely the "more balanced diet". If Richard lived in a violent city, knowing that the probabilities of harm are higher going out than staying in home, should Richard stay in home forever then? To answer your question more precisely: I understand that smoking, for Richard, is a preference and not a need, but, again, I don't know and I don't care; what I care about is his advice on psychological and psychic aspects rather than the health-related ones.


Your response is muddled and barely touches anything I wrote. To the degree that I wonder if you even read it. You are ethically-neutral and careless concerning Richards behavior? You do understand what I was saying in regards to the compound emerging from nicotine and nitrous acid right? It has little to nothing to do with his health. The compound is toxic and hurts everyone the dust touches. So he smokes (there is nearly always nitrous acid in the air), the compound emerges and toxifies everything the smoke touches for several months. It is carried in the air and toxifies every surface,plant, human etc. These compounds are worse then second-hand smoke. How in the hell can one claim to be benign and harmless, but literally not give an ethical crap about hurting others? Or are you claiming to be actually free, one doesn't have to give a hoot about anyone else and can hurt them passively? If passive violence is allowed towards others then why not active violence?

I really want to emphasize I hope you simply didn't grasp the science and assumed I was saying it was ONLY harmful to his body. As being ethically-careless and harmful to others doesn't equal being 'harmless'. If you did understand and support his 'selfless' decision to harm others, then AF might be breeding sociopaths. As by definition it would mean that the progenitor of AF is literally pathological, as he directly and carelessly participates in the pathology of others.

I am not going to respond to much of the rest of the quote as it is you responding to points I didn't write. I will quickly say that psychological and psychic is redundant for one, for two are you claiming a dualism between mind and body? As smoking has been linked to Alzhemers, directly refuting your false distinction between "health-related ones" and "psychological and psychic aspects"



My agenda is to rid myself of all unpleasantness as you, but also to rid myself of as much delusion such as anti-logic or pseudo-science as possible including grasping at qualia as physical. For if your goal is simply the lack of unpleasantness, then after one is AF, there still is clearly so much left to perfect and master, as delusion (therefor ignorance) is still clearly present in every AF person. Therefor there is obviously a higher level of perfection/enlightenment. If this is the case then it could also be said that AF is no perfection or enlightenment at all. My agenda includes perfection to the degree to which I can catalyze the loss of delusion in others.

Felipe C.:
Now, I practiced Tibetan Buddhism for a couple of years (although not so much Tantric stuff) and I can honestly tell you that the results in my everyday life are more satisfactory and effective (according to my said agenda) with one year of Actualism than those two years with Tibetan.


If you were not practicing the tantric/dzogchen stuff then you were very likely practicing a way that equates to the very opposite of your agenda. Long-path of Bodhisattva is about heart perfection and renouncing enlightenment/nirvana throughout the duration of this life. Though you said you practiced deity yoga, which utilizes more than all the principles required to construct all the AF practices... Using only others' meditations rather than naturally constructing them using the principles derived out of rigorous logic is a much newer and less effective phenomena. Wisdom is far more critical then meditation.

Secondly, discounting the neuronal changes through two 'years' of meditation is simply confusing the issue. We have no idea what the outcome would of been if you had first spent a year 'doing AF' and then 2 doing the Tibetan practices etc.


Felipe C.:
I don't care nor do I believe in the cosmological/astrophysical claims of Richard, the same way I didn't with those of the Buddha while I practiced Buddhism. Now, pardon my tu quoque, but you, as both a scientist and a practitioner of one of the most supernatural forms of Buddhism, should know that one can take whatever is useful from certain method and don't take those "truths" that seem scientifically questionable (infinite universe in Actualism, rebirth in Buddhism). I do this keeping in mind the agenda in this endeavor: I don't know about you, but mine is to be free of suffering, not understanding the nature of the universe. In summary, I can not respond to this personally as I haven't had any cosmological insights with this method, just psychological/psychic ones. In the latter ones, this method works beautifully.


To say that there isn't truth is a literal contradiction in terms. Seeking the highest possible truth is my goal, that truth includes the knowledge of suffering and it's unreality. You say you don't care about the claims of Richard, yet claim later the same errors I had already refuted (without addressing my refutations beyond saying you don't care about Richard's claims).
Please do not use the word supernatural, as you are referring to the pop-culture use of the word that is used when referring to the occult. Beyond this it's irrational to refer to schools of thought I am referring to as supernatural without demonstrating an ignorance of the schools themselves or the use of the word. As you will have quite a lot of trouble actually postulating and backing up any particular as supernatural.
While I can simply point to literally one of the only premises in AF and literally and correctly refer to it as supernaturalist thinking. As physicality isn't in accords with the laws of nature. I don't know how many times AF will blatantly ignore this most critical fact of modern physics.

I would LOVE to hear how you think rebirth in Buddhism is somehow scientifically questionable. We know that the "it comes from bit", that information and information processing IS reality. We also know that information is NEVER lost. As the energy state of the universe is actually 0. I can go on and on, but lets just say one has to actually postulate and explain the cause for something to arise, exist, then dissolve and cease to exist. Though this violates physics and Buddhisms understanding of causality (so best of luck). Consider catching up on the last 80 years of physics before making bold claims about it. I comprehend Richard to be free from humility and like Osho, feels like he can discount and discuss science without knowing a damned thing about it.

The American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer made an analogy to Buddhism when describing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
"If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science. "

The Buddha made claims that agree or are parallel with physics 2500 years later(like the divisibility of the atom). AF has made claims that were known to be wrong BEFORE the creation of AF (too careless to actually learn quantum mechanics).


You are playing with semantics and overestimating the scope of Actualism/Actual Freedom. It doesn't deal with the brainstem in order to control motor or automatic functions; it just deals with emotional and higher parts/functions. The term "flesh and blood human" is used because one does not experience the world psychically/psychological, only sensuously: in a pure consciousness experience, the only experience is the one of the senses and (not self-based) thought. Thus, the human being is just another object (a body) among other objects in the universe, because it doesn't subjectivize experience. In Richard's words:


I had been using for eleven years more specific and to regain the actual purity of the unadulterated sensuous experience of *consciousness without a subject* (a body sans identity) from the adulterated mystical experience of consciousness without an object (an identity sans body)’


When Richard chooses to smoke and harms everyone around him, that isn't the brain-stem, that IS the emotional and higher parts/functions. Indicating he is either careless, and ethically neutral (not benign and harmless by definition then), not free from the instincts like he claims, or he has lost the ability to think clearly or he is not telling the truth.

I guess the use of logic,philosophy, and science is "playing with semantics". I suppose AF is fully involved in playing with semantics as you are saying "by harmless we really mean not-harmless; by actually-free we don't mean actually free; by flesh and blood human we don't really mean flesh and blood human; by one does not experience the world psychologically, we actually mean psychologically. etc etc"

Ceasing the I-maker doesn't inherently make the experience pure. It is playing with semantics to say so.
What do you mean by thus? That sentence is not derived from the prior in any way nor are they related.

Again stop reifying medieval concepts of how the universe is constructed please. There are no objects.
It is playing with semantics to say "it doesn't subjectivize experience". Experiences by definition are subjective. Objective perception is a contradiction in terms. Same with objective experiences, or objective senate. A body by definition lacks the capacity to be objective, same with a "flesh and blood human" or a mind.

The body doesn't exist inherently as a singularity or a multiplicity, therefor what sense does it make to say the body directly equals consciousness?
Richards quote is so muddled. Objective consciousness is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is subjective by definition. Saying "consciousness without a subject" is playing with semantics at the very best.
His relations don't make sense without semantically ripping everything to pieces:
Consciousness(a) without subject(b) = a body(a) sans identity(b) ; Consciousness(a?) without an object(b?) = an identity(a?) sans body(b?)
=
consciousness = body and identity
subject = identity and consciousness
body = consciousness and object
identity = subject and consciousness
object = body and consciousness
With the circularity how can things be different from themselves? How can adulteration lead to consciousness going from being the body to being identity and inverse?
If this adulteration doesn't actually exist then why isn't AF evident a priori. If it is evident a priori then why isn't everyone automatically AF? If it isn't a priori then it requires a view and faith in that view. As the view wouldn't be a view if it was available a priori. If the adulteration does exist then it cannot be evident a priori, which one requires a view and faith in that view.

The next quote sums it up as Stephanie objectifies and reifies the flesh and blood body on faith right off the bat(as none of that is derived a priori). Moving on...

[quote=]This is what is meant by "flesh and blood body", in the sense of perceiving physical reality through senses and unselfish thought, without the intervention of perceptual aspects of other kind. It's just a way to say that, without any identity, you are only your physical-related brain functions and materials (you are flesh and blood and their automatic management by the brain) receiving information from the physical world. Do you really need to "control" the flesh and blood in order to accept the fact that you are composed of flesh and blood, that you are a flesh and blood body only?


So the senses are capable of sensing physicality? How does qualia translate to physicality to your mind? You are saying that without 'subjective' identity one's 'objective' identity is the reductionism to the scale of "physical" brain functions and materials. Though this reductionism is based on old science and assumptions, to which you AFers advocate an unwavering faith in the claim that you are physical bodies. The brain isn't physical, matter has nothing to do with the brain. Blood isn't physical, matter has nothing to do with blood. Flesh isn't physical, matter has nothing to do with flesh. Remember the brain after all is merely molecules, where are merely atomic fields, where are merely subatomic fields, which further are merely emerging immaterial forces. So can you explain at what level the miracle occurs and matter and physicality just appear out of nowhere.
Perceived solidarity is NOTHING but qualia, which emerges from the immaterial (meaning NO MATTER) vacuum (not of space, as space emerges, it's more like a hyper-advanced n-space, which is like the exact opposite of anything physical or material.)

So physics demands a restructuring of AF's language as what the hell does it mean to say you are an immaterial flesh and blood human (as saying it's physical is invoking pseudoscience and religious type faith)? This would still be falling for the fallacy where one is 'objectively' (incorrectly) identifying with a differentiation from scale of emergence as being real in relation to totality.
One can get the same amount of information from a "physical world" as any other deluded mystical way of thinking. Repeating the mantra of positing matter will never make it true or any less anti-scientific.
Saying that one is composed of flesh and blood is reification based on a religious-like faith.
Don't misrepresent me, I said to invoke a identityless self (which is what AF is claiming, as if they were truly claiming no-self then they are denying they have a priori experience, which refutes itself as this could only be discerned from a priori experience) one should at least demonstrate a single reason why one should be claimed as a flesh and blood body. You don't seem to grasp the idea of a identityless self in relation to this claim. As if operational control isn't the deciding factor then why choose the body to begin with? Why stop there, why are you not me or all flesh and blood bodies? According to your thinking the answer can be derived from only a posteriori sources, best of luck.


I am starting to realize AF might contribute to muddled thinking so I am going to pick up the pace.

How does AF handle Chalmers hard problem?



Oblivion is perceiving the physicality with this physical body only, without remembering or experiencing something emotionally. One achieves oblivion by wanting to be free of any malice and sorrow according to the PCE. "Oblivion" is used in a comparative way, for, before becoming AF, there is an I who decided to be oblivious of this psychological/psychic entity experiencing of the world, which is the cause of suffering. With this intent and objective, after the elimination of this entity which creates a subjective persona, one becomes the physicality that the universe has been, only that in the form of an aware and reflective human being. "Oblivion" is just a term for the fact that, in a PCE or AF, there is not a subject interpreting the object, just the objects themselves (universe).


A lot of religious stuff about this physicality stuff, can you show me an iota of matter? You can't because everything is constructed from information and not matter. The universe has NEVER BEEN PHYSICAL. This isn't an axiomatic, opinionated divergence. AF is diverging with fact. If one truly eliminated the entity, it would make no sense to ever say one who is AF is a flesh and blood human being.

Consciousness ceases with physical body death


Again with the religious voodoo. I guess AF isn't being free from faith. On faith you say consciousness ceases? Why exactly? If you claim consciousness emerges from the brain, the brain emerges from moleculer fields, which emerge from atom fields, which emerge from subatomic fields, which emerge from emerging forces in relation. At what point does the miracle happen and a magic cause creates something out of nothing and experiences? If no information can be lost, how does consciousness become obliterated and cease to exist? This nothing that the consciousness comes from, is that physical? How? If it is physical it's self refuting as nothing cannot be physical. If it isn't physical then the universe is immaterial. Unless you postulate a dualism (dualism is irrational).


Thubten Chodren is way over-simplifying and presenting from a conventional point of view. The relevance of you bringing up the quote has already been entirely extinguished as you are once again attempting to reify differences that are anti-scientific or most recently, just plain based on religious faith. If you are really trying to solidify the claimed divergence, it totally backfired. You have only made my position much clearer and made AF appear that much more muddled.

Quote mining wiki for one of the most misunderstood sutras of all time doesn't exactly help your case. Also "In other words, an "identity sans body"." is a rather poor attempt to straw-man Padmasambhava's teachings and is blatantly wrong.


I also haven't read a clear description from a 100% Buddhist practitioner where the complete eradication of being (feelings) is specified.


Eradicating feelings isn't the "complete eradication of being". A complete eradication of being would permanently extinguish a priori, which is logically untenable for a variety of reasons (like its self-refuting as this knowledge could only known a priori, meaning if it were true that the being was eradicated, that-which-was-eradicated would have no way of knowing, so the claims or teachings couldn't possibly arise.)

Without even having to invoke the more advanced schools, feelings is said to arise due to dependent origination (in the first 10,000 suttas) and if any link is removed underneath feelings then feelings cease. Therefor by definition of the most fundamental/core/basic teachings that are buddhist (dependent origination are some of the few core & novel Buddhist themes) ALL claim that feeling would be completely eradicated by removing ignorance. Before even that far ALL by definition imply directly that feeling would be eradicated by ceasing the grasping of name and form.

Please AF, stop strawmanning Buddhism, for this is a trend directly paralleling Richards own rather futile attempts to strawman the traditions. Jung's inflation/Osho-syndrome...
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 4:10 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 4:10 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Omega Point,

Your last two posts on this are quite simply exceptional, a really outstanding breakdown of the entire thing and at a level way beyond any other analysis or criticism I have ever seen of Actualism. I really do hope you'll stick around to talk more.

Thanks.
thumbnail
Simon Ekstrand, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 4:19 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 4:19 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 245 Join Date: 9/23/11 Recent Posts
Omega Point:
So without the anti-logical faith based approach I practiced intensively for dozens of hours during retreat to identify the mental postures. After removing the AF fluff and paying attention solely to what the practice is asking in regards to posture, one can easily identify that NO new principles exist (in practice) from those principles that make any meditation a "dharma" practice. I am referring to soteriological/methodological principles. So if the philosophy is incoherent and anti-scientific, and the postures themselves are identical in principle with the category of 1000s of Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/etc called dharma practice, then how can AF be considered separate or novel?


Could you please describe the "mental postures" used in AF practice in more detail? It would also be great if you could cut down on the rhetoric a bit, I sometimes have a hard time getting to the point of what you're writing.

Thanks,
Simon
thumbnail
Simon Ekstrand, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 4:49 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 4:49 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 245 Join Date: 9/23/11 Recent Posts
Omega Point:
While I can simply point to literally one of the only premises in AF and literally and correctly refer to it as supernaturalist thinking. As physicality isn't in accords with the laws of nature. I don't know how many times AF will blatantly ignore this most critical fact of modern physics.


Really? Could you please explain what you mean in more detail?

In my day to day experience I personally have no problem distinguishing the physical from the mental/spiritual/social. I have no idea if physicality is or isn't in accords with the laws of nature, but do you really mean that you have trouble understand the meaning of the word physicality in an AF context as it relates to day to day experience?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physicality :
"intensely physical orientation : predominance of the physical usually at the expense of the mental, spiritual, or social"

Your whole message comes across as very nit-picky to me, which is a shame as I'm sure there are some great points in there.

Thanks,
Simon
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:12 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:12 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Simon, this guy is talking about stuff way beyond what you've experienced so far and I don't mean to be insulting or patronizing when I say that. I know what he's talking about with the physicality thing to some extent from my own experience of, what AEN described in terms of Thusness' map as, "mind and body drop", which I mentioned a while back, but what Omega Point is describing in the previous posts is so far beyond what the majority of people on here, or anywhere else in the pragmatic dharma community, as far as I can see, have experienced that any explanation will just lead to further confusion.

Again, I don't mean to be patronizing or imply that you "don't understand" for whatever reason, but I don't think your line of questioning will take you very far. This dude is either the 'real deal' and seriously knows his stuff, or is one of the finest bullshitters I've ever encountered online. emoticon
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:37 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:37 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Omega Point:

Without even having to invoke the more advanced schools, feelings is said to arise due to dependent origination (in the first 10,000 suttas) and if any link is removed underneath feelings then feelings cease. Therefor by definition of the most fundamental/core/basic teachings that are buddhist (dependent origination are some of the few core & novel Buddhist themes) ALL claim that feeling would be completely eradicated by removing ignorance. Before even that far ALL by definition imply directly that feeling would be eradicated by ceasing the grasping of name and form.


I agree.
thumbnail
Simon Ekstrand, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:42 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:38 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 245 Join Date: 9/23/11 Recent Posts
Tommy,

I don't doubt for a second that Omega Point knows more than I ever will on the subject of meditation and related disciplines.

However, words like physicality have a fairly simple and obvious day to day use that can't just be ignored or the whole discussion becomes pointless. The uses of the word physical/physicality that I have seen in the basic AF documents have followed this day to day definition of the word. What Omega Point is doing to some extent seems to me to be the equivalent of joining a car forum and arguing that cars don't exist at all from certain perspectives. While it may certainly be true, the spirit of the whole discussion has been lost.

I'm assuming that the definition for physicality in this case must come from an AF context, since AF is what is being discussed in this thread.

Simon
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:44 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 5:44 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
A fair point, hopefully O.P. will get a chance to say some more about this.
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 10:11 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 7:46 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Omega,

I can't argue with you in the physics/physiology area as I am no scientist like you, and I don't even know how to find you are right or wrong. I'm far from being an expert on those areas, so maybe someone else could enter in this debate if he prefers so. You seem to make a lot of good points that I will consider, as I am not closed minded like I said to you. However, before going forward, let me remind you to what exactly did I reply to you in the first place:

Omega Point:
In terms of methodology/soteriological axioms I am having trouble finding what exactly is unique about AF. I have been really involved in the tantras and atiyoga and totally don't see what is unique about how AF practices are presented or done. Besides the fluff of explaining how to posture the mind, the postures themselves seem identical. I think it was simply a re-branding, and accidental or intentional misrepresentation of the the 'apparent' novelty, reminiscent of Osho to some degree.


So I'll try to answer to methodological concepts and potential methodological differences between Actualism and Buddhism.

- Harmless: This has been a matter of debate here before. In the AFT this refers to the absence of malice (the desire to hurt another person; active ill will, spite or hatred; a deep resentment). Now, back to my point in the smoking debate, could a human being live without causing some kind of harm? Let's consider "harmless" just as an intention. Are you suggesting that Richard smoke with the (malicious) intention to cause harm? Should he stop walking because he potentially kill hundreds of insects? Should he stop talking because other people can interpret his words in some way and get offended? If the argument is that of level of necessity and that smoking is just a pleasure, should he stop going to the movies because he can contaminate with his car or should he stop turning on the TV because that consumes energy and the process of generation of that energy contaminates the planet? Perhaps you are seeing this in a more broader sense than the one it's specified by Richard.

- Physical body: Let's bring it down here, and let's discuss this in relative terms ("our daily experience of a concrete world") and not in absolute ones ("emptiness"). Or in traditional physics terms, if you may ("a physical body or physical object [sometimes simply called a body or object] is a collection of masses, taken to be one"). After all, I don't have to know quantum physics in order to avoid a (very physical) baseball directed at me.

You said "There are no objects" and "physicality isn't in accords with the laws of nature", so perhaps you won't see a baseball (an object) in a frank trajectory to you (another object), and that's gotta hurt. My body is some kind of object, a lion is a kind of object, a skyscraper is a kind of object, etc. Now, back to methods, from my understanding, Actualism enhances the receptors of physicality (senses) and leaves everything else behind ("soul" and "ego", which are interpretations of that physical inputs). Richard names that physical because physical objects (baseballs, skyscrapers, apples) are received by other physical objects (tongue, skin) which have nerves (physical objects) that are processed by another object (brain):

Richard on delight:
"In this context delight is the sensuous experience of the thrill that being a flesh and blood body automatically evokes: the delicious (physical) excitation of the senses ... all the senses tingling with utter enjoyment and exhilaration."


Now, Buddhism has a different relation to objects and their relation to human bodies. For example:

Buddhism both Theravada and Mahayana:

In the Hinayana tradition, mindfulness of body is also practiced using the method known as the “meditation on ugliness,” or the “meditation on that which is repulsive.” The object of one’s meditation, in this case, includes both one’s own body and the bodies of others. Traditionally, one reflects on how our bodies are impure or unclean, to counteract the perception of our bodies as pure, and the five skandhas are viewed as “aggregates of filth.” This meditation engenders a sense of disgust toward the body and strengthens our sense of renunciation, of wishing to be free of samsara.

[...]the Mahayana views the body in the same way as someone who wishes to cross a river views a boat. It is immediately useful and beneficial, if used properly. Shantideva, one of the greatest exponents of the bodhisattva path, who lived in India in the seventh and eight centuries, says in his classic work the Bodhicharyavatara:

Upon finding the boat of human birth now, cross the great river of suffering.

O fool, there is no time for sleep, for this boat is hard to catch again.

And, again, Parinirvana:

Having dwelt upon the nature of nirvana, the Buddha now explains its positive aspect and says that nirvana has the four attributes of the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... the Buddha says: "O you bhiksus [monks]! Do not abide in the thought of the non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure and have things as in the case of those people who take the stones, wooden pieces and gravel for the true gem [of the true Dharma] ... In every situation, constantly meditate upon the idea of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality meditatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like the wise person."


What conclusions should we extract out of this? Richard says that paradise is here/now experiencing reality in this physical body (experiencing delight eating mangos and having orgasms); Buddhism seems to see this human body as an (often refered as impure, repulsive) opportunity, as a means to an end (Budhahood, Parinirvana) that occurs elsewhere, and apparently is Eternal. I won't discuss again if consciousness does cease or doesn't cease after physical death (Parenthesis: I would also LOVE an explanation from you on how is not scientifically questionable or not-supernatural the transplantation of accumulated abstract actions and effects from body to body, existing in 6 different realms, incluiding hell and heavens; all this dynamic according to some moral precepts and rules, for example). The thing I'm saying, and you are agreeing with me here, is that the methods and results are different: Actualism emphasizes a life free of malice and sorrow experienced by this body and the consciousness product of the components of this body (brain), and Buddhism emphasize a series of abstract actions (karma) going through the wheel of suffering from body to body. It's without the body, after the death of the physical body, when the Eternal and the Bliss of parinirvana bring complete relief and answer to suffering.

- Subjectivization, self and being. You said "Consciousness is subjective by definition". You referred to something I said before: "because it doesn't subjectivize experience". And, you're right about this: I still see red as always and differently from a color-blinded person, for example. Maybe I would salivate more with a steak than with a tomato. Would you agree that there are levels of subjectivization at least?

Richard:

1. There are three ways of experiencing the world of people, things and events: 1. sensate (senses); 2. cerebral (thoughts); 3. affective (feelings). The feelings include both the affectionate and desirable emotions/ passions (those that are loving and trusting) and hostile and invidious emotions/passions (those that are hateful and fearful).
2. All sentient beings are born with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically bestowed by blind nature which give rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – which is ‘being’ itself – that human beings with their ability to think and reflect upon their mortality have transformed into a ‘me’ as soul (a ‘feeler’ in the heart) and an ‘I’ as ego (a ‘thinker’ in the head).
3. Thus there are three I’s altogether but only one is actual (sensate) and not an identity; I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. The primary cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on is the instinctual passions which give rise to malice and sorrow and the antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion which, if sublimated and transcended, give rise to Love Agapé and Divine Compassion


This subjectivization greatly increments with this feeling of being. You haven't answered how you practiced the Actualism method nor if you've had a PCE. In a PCE, this becomes apparent as feelings stop to arise, even in circumstances when they traditionally arise. This implies the elimination of some of that subjective experiencing: if someone make a loud noise while I'm in a PCE, I will have an automatic startle reflex but not some fear/ruminations for hours and hours. One could say that this body detected a physical danger and acted according to that circumstance jumping, but there is no entity who will interpret this as something personal or a real menace to his life. There is a jump, but there is no feeling in the solar plexus and neurotic thoughts. There is no effect as there is no one creating the effect.

This feeling of being is the very malice and sorrow. Malice and sorrow exist because there is a feeling of being. "I" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me". Now, what does the Buddha said about self and feelings?

The Buddha:
"Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'
(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness)
[...]
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness)"


This seems to have the objective of not relating and embracing "feelings" as part of "me". Instead, to realize no-self, one have to detach from feelings, seeing them as "not mine". Actualism accept feelings as "mine" (actually, they are part and parcel as they constitute the self), and work from within that idea to deconstruct self.

Now, some (MTCB ) arahats here have claimed that they keep experiencing the arising of feelings, and the actually free persons said they aren't experiencing them anymore. If you have some Vajrayana, Mahayana or Theravada reports where the complete absence of feelings 24/7/365 is specified, please share. If not, we can't say categorically that Actualism is not new and that was covered by Buddhism before Richard's method.

Now, you said:

Eradicating feelings isn't the "complete eradication of being"


From the Buddhist point of view, maybe, and that's where both methods are different. Let's remember part of the dependent origination:

"With Mind and Matter as condition, Sense Gates arise
With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises
With Contact as condition, Feeling arises"

Actualism is ok with sense gates and contact. They don't represent any kind of suffering. Buddhism, on the other hand, seems to encounter links of creation of suffering before that. Where? In the mind but also in the body ("With Mind and Matter as condition, Sense Gates arise"). Body and mind (Nāmarūpa) meaning:

This term is also used in Buddhism, to refer to constituent processes of the human being: nāma is typically considered to refer to psychological elements of the human person, while Rūpa refers to the physical. The Buddhist nāma and rūpa are mutually dependent, and not separable; as nāmarūpa, they designate an individual being.[1]


So, what's one condition for the problem of suffering to exist (along with ignorance, mental formations, and conciousness)? The very arising of Nāmarūpa. This cycle of suffering goes on and on until one stops and cuts this process, and this stoppage implies not having a human mind and body or human birth. Again, this sounds like "consciousness without an object (human body)".


Now, don't get me wrong. I still find some aspects of Buddhism useful, even to my Actualist practice. What I am saying here, and that's why I asked you in the first place, is that I think that this Actualism thing is somewhat different to Buddhism. I won't say 180 degrees opposite, but at least, I think, there is a difference of some degrees. Also, pardon me if I didn't answer all your questions, you certainly touched a lot of points there, and I don't have more time right now.

Regards,

Felipe

EDIT NOTE. This post includes examples with quotes from different Buddhist traditions. Feel free to ignore it if it confuses someone more than what it helps to clarify the differences.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:34 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:11 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:

And, again, Parinirvana:

Having dwelt upon the nature of nirvana, the Buddha now explains its positive aspect and says that nirvana has the four attributes of the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... the Buddha says: "O you bhiksus [monks]! Do not abide in the thought of the non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure and have things as in the case of those people who take the stones, wooden pieces and gravel for the true gem [of the true Dharma] ... In every situation, constantly meditate upon the idea of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality meditatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like the wise person."


What conclusions should we extract out of this? Richard says that paradise is here/now experiencing reality in this physical body (experiencing delight eating mangos and having orgasms); Buddhism seems to see this human body as an (often refered as impure, repulsive) opportunity, as a means to an end (Budhahood, Parinirvana) that occurs elsewhere, and apparently is Eternal. I won't discuss again if consciousness does cease or doesn't cease after physical death (Parenthesis: I would also LOVE an explanation from you on how is not scientifically questionable or not-supernatural the transplantation of accumulated abstract actions and effects from body to body, existing in 6 different realms, incluiding hell and heavens; all this dynamic according to some moral precepts and rules, for example). The thing I'm saying, and you are agreeing with me here, is that the methods and results are different: Actualism emphasizes a life free of malice and sorrow experienced by this body and the consciousness product of the components of this body (brain), and Buddhism emphasize a series of abstract actions (karma) going through the wheel of suffering from body to body. It's without the body, after the death of the physical body, when the Eternal and the Bliss of parinirvana bring complete relief and answer to suffering.


Is the way the 'parinirvana' or parinibbana in pali described in that quote above from wiki (a mahayana related quote) universally accepted as the definition of parinibbana? Is it found in the pali sutta version? I'm not sure. Don't have time at the moment, but I'm curious if it is. Have you researched this yourself, Felipe?

As far as i understand it parinibbana is simply translated as 'totally unbound', meaning the last of that which binds disintegrates, i.e. the sensory spheres


"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html


What does this sound like? a mode of perception empty of all that is described above (by definition then with dependent origination and all it entails not arising such as malice, sorrow and 'emotion') but still with only a 'modicum of disturbance' of the six sensory spheres, that which disintegrates upon physical death. This would be 'totally unbound'. Could the 'six sensory spheres' conventionally be termed a 'physical flesh and blood body' with a cognising brain?
End in Sight, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:22 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:22 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Is the way the 'parinirvana' or parinibbana in pali described in that quote above from wiki (a mahayana related quote) universally accepted as the definition of parinibbana? Is it found in the pali sutta version?


It would be grossly out of place in the Pali canon...
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:38 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:36 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Hi, Nick and EiS,

Since Omega is a Tibetan practitioner, and Tibetan has these particularities of Buddhas being eternal, incorporeal and etc. , for example...

In the Dharmakaya doctrine the Buddha teaches that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being, but has become a being of a different order altogether. In his ultimate transcendental "body/mind" mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life, is present in all things as the Buddha-nature, and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities.

The Nirvana Sutra mentions the Buddha-nature as "the boundless Dharmadhatu". The Lotus Sutra and especially such tantras as the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra give expression to a vision of the Buddha as the omnipresent, all-knowing, liberative essence and deathless Reality of all things.

In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha declares:
Nirvana is stated to be eternally abiding. The Tathagata [Buddha] is also thus, eternally abiding, without change.
This is a particularly important metaphysical and soteriological doctrine in the Lotus Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha sutras. According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity and, even worse, outright denial of that eternity, is deemed a major obstacle to the attainment of complete awakening (Bodhi).

For the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, and his Jonangpa School, the Buddha is to be understood as the wondrous and holy wish-fulfilling Essence of all things, beyond comprehension:
Buddha—an essence of immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable, excellent exalted body, wisdom, qualities, and activities extremely wondrous and fantastic—is vast like space and the holy source, giving rise to all that is wished by sentient beings like a wish-granting jewel, a wish-granting tree …[11]


I decided to use that definition to make a clear difference between that outcome and objective and those of Actualism. Tibetan deals with a lot of 'incorporeality', and Actualism with non. And that's my point. I remember when I studied Tibetan, the teacher even said 'the future is the most important time for a Buddhist', referring to those future states of 'Buddhahood'. For Actualism, there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet, the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:51 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 8:44 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Hi, Nick and EiS,

Since Omega is a Tibetan practitioner, and Tibetan has these particularities of Buddhas being eternal, incorporeal and etc. , for example...

In the Dharmakaya doctrine the Buddha teaches that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being, but has become a being of a different order altogether. In his ultimate transcendental "body/mind" mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life, is present in all things as the Buddha-nature, and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities.

The Nirvana Sutra mentions the Buddha-nature as "the boundless Dharmadhatu". The Lotus Sutra and especially such tantras as the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra give expression to a vision of the Buddha as the omnipresent, all-knowing, liberative essence and deathless Reality of all things.

In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha declares:
Nirvana is stated to be eternally abiding. The Tathagata [Buddha] is also thus, eternally abiding, without change.
This is a particularly important metaphysical and soteriological doctrine in the Lotus Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha sutras. According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity and, even worse, outright denial of that eternity, is deemed a major obstacle to the attainment of complete awakening (Bodhi).

For the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, and his Jonangpa School, the Buddha is to be understood as the wondrous and holy wish-fulfilling Essence of all things, beyond comprehension:
Buddha—an essence of immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable, excellent exalted body, wisdom, qualities, and activities extremely wondrous and fantastic—is vast like space and the holy source, giving rise to all that is wished by sentient beings like a wish-granting jewel, a wish-granting tree …[11]


I decided to use that definition to make a clear difference between that outcome and objective and those of Actualism. Tibetan deals with a lot of 'incorporeality', and Actualism with non. And that's my point. I remember when I studied Tibetan, the teacher even said 'the future is the most important time for a Buddhist', referring to those future states of 'Buddhahood'. For Actualism, there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet, the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world.


Hi Felipe,

Then so as to not seemingly make absolute statements as others may have done about 'Buddhism' and all the schools that could be included under such an umbrella term, including the 'pragmatic dharma movement' and its adherents, it would be clearer and less confusing for all to avoid calling 'Buddhism' as this and that based off of one school of thought when approaches that could fall under such a term may not actually meet the definitions you are using. It can confuse others readings and lead to misinterpretations and misrepresentations and may simply be a way to sell a point, based on half truths. I'm a stickler for clarity. Be specific. Also there is no 'future' in the dharma I put into practice that is divorced from 'thought'.

Nick
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 9:16 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 9:16 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Maybe you're right. I guess I mixed because, according to my poor memory, in the Tibetan Mahayana school it's said that they cover the topics of both 'Hinayana' {Theravada} and 'Mahayana', along with 'Vajrayana', but maybe I was wrong on that assumption.

However, I don't think my references about no-self {from a sutta of the pali canon} and dependent origination {from a generic wiki article} are that different in Tibetan.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 10:01 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 9:30 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Maybe you're right. I guess I mixed because, according to my poor memory, in the Tibetan Mahayana school it's said that they cover the topics of both 'Hinayana' {Theravada} and 'Mahayana', along with 'Vajrayana', but maybe I was wrong on that assumption.

However, I don't think my references about no-self {from a sutta of the pali canon} and dependent origination {from a generic wiki article} are that different in Tibetan.


Hi Felipe

Whatever floats your boat and motivates you to stop delaying. but be wary, are you simply posting such things to validate your own motivations and objectives at the detriment of clarity at the DhO? Disclaimers wold help. e.g This is my view of 'Buddhsim'. It helps me drop the things I've deemed blocks for what I wish to achieve on the path I'm walking.

Your view could be a mixed up balls of a view with no ground to stand on, but if it motivates you to do what must be done, then I'm all for it. But, disclaimers all round and being clear about where your ideas are based will avoid confusing others or pushing what could be an underlying and hidden from view self-serving agenda. Unless that is one's intention to begin with. If so, then the DhO with its eclectic mix of approaches, objectives, practitioners and motivations doesn't benefit in my opinion.

Nick

Edited for more words.
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 10:11 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/20/12 10:06 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
but be wary, are you simply posting such things to validate your own motivations and objectives at the detriment of clarity at the DhO?


Perhaps, it could also contribute and not only be 'detrimental'. If you think is mixed, then consider it mix. Does this mixing implies that I'm wrong point by point? I am, after all, quoting relevant and valid sources. Maybe someone could also learn from these fragmentary points in a more specific way. A Tibetan practitioner could extract some value, a Theravadan one other, and an actualist another. I will add a note in my post, if that helps.

Cheers,

Felipe
End in Sight, modified 11 Years ago at 7/21/12 5:31 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/21/12 5:27 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Maybe you're right. I guess I mixed because, according to my poor memory, in the Tibetan Mahayana school it's said that they cover the topics of both 'Hinayana' {Theravada} and 'Mahayana', along with 'Vajrayana', but maybe I was wrong on that assumption.


You're right in that those claims (about covering everything, about superseding previous forms of Buddhism) do seem to be commonly made in Mahayana / Vajrayana forms of Buddhism.

However, I don't think my references about no-self {from a sutta of the pali canon} and dependent origination {from a generic wiki article} are that different in Tibetan.


About no-self and feeling: I wouldn't assume that what the AFT refers to by "feeling" is what is called "vedana" in Pali, or that the two are identical in meaning. "Feeling" in English is a polysemous word.

'I' am anger and anger is 'me' (AFT endoses)
vs.
'I' am pain and pain is 'me' (AFT does not endorse)

Both are felt, but that doesn't mean that both are vedana.

About dependent origination: people from Mayahana / Vajrayana backgrounds seem to have different ideas about what dependent origination is about. I don't know why.
An Eternal Now, modified 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 11:23 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 11:05 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Hi, Nick and EiS,

Since Omega is a Tibetan practitioner, and Tibetan has these particularities of Buddhas being eternal, incorporeal and etc. , for example...

In the Dharmakaya doctrine the Buddha teaches that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being, but has become a being of a different order altogether. In his ultimate transcendental "body/mind" mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life, is present in all things as the Buddha-nature, and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities.

The Nirvana Sutra mentions the Buddha-nature as "the boundless Dharmadhatu". The Lotus Sutra and especially such tantras as the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra give expression to a vision of the Buddha as the omnipresent, all-knowing, liberative essence and deathless Reality of all things.

In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha declares:
Nirvana is stated to be eternally abiding. The Tathagata [Buddha] is also thus, eternally abiding, without change.
This is a particularly important metaphysical and soteriological doctrine in the Lotus Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha sutras. According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity and, even worse, outright denial of that eternity, is deemed a major obstacle to the attainment of complete awakening (Bodhi).

For the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, and his Jonangpa School, the Buddha is to be understood as the wondrous and holy wish-fulfilling Essence of all things, beyond comprehension:
Buddha—an essence of immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable, excellent exalted body, wisdom, qualities, and activities extremely wondrous and fantastic—is vast like space and the holy source, giving rise to all that is wished by sentient beings like a wish-granting jewel, a wish-granting tree …[11]


I decided to use that definition to make a clear difference between that outcome and objective and those of Actualism. Tibetan deals with a lot of 'incorporeality', and Actualism with non. And that's my point. I remember when I studied Tibetan, the teacher even said 'the future is the most important time for a Buddhist', referring to those future states of 'Buddhahood'. For Actualism, there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet, the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world.


Shentong teachings, and the school of Jonang, are a minority school of Tibetan Buddhism, in fact the least adherents out of the 5 schools of Tibetan Buddhism - in fact Jonang is only recently 'officially recognized' this year as one of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism by the Dalai Lama. Shentong is often accused by Tibetan Buddhists of leaning towards the eternalist side of interpretation (but so does certain early sutras of the Tathagatagarbha class of Mahayana scriptures) and is much closer to the view of Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta than other forms of Tibetan Buddhism, and I think these certain schools (like Shentong/Jonang) and some Tathagatagarbha class sutra (like the early version of Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra) are as eternalistic as they are accused of (though the degree of being affected by eternalist view very much depends on each individual shentong-view teacher, some are less eternalistic than others). However, vast majority of Tibetan Buddhism/Mahayana do not hold such views (though not very uncommon either).

Most Tibetans do not hold an eternalist view and are more towards the Nagarjuna 'middle way' teachings in terms of view... just mentioning this because Mahayana and Tibetan is very vast, there is no single uniform view that is accepted throughout.

And whenever Richard of AF accuses Buddhism, he always accuses Buddhism as if Buddhism is teaching a form of Hinduism and an eternalistic Self... obviously, this is a view held by a small minority of Buddhists even among Tibetan/Mahayana (needless to say, much less in Theravada) and most do not think it represents the teachings of Buddha.

As for 'future', in Dzogchen form of Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhahood is already spontaneously perfected right now as the three kayas. It only needs to be discovered.
An Eternal Now, modified 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 11:21 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 11:20 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
Maybe you're right. I guess I mixed because, according to my poor memory, in the Tibetan Mahayana school it's said that they cover the topics of both 'Hinayana' {Theravada} and 'Mahayana', along with 'Vajrayana', but maybe I was wrong on that assumption.

However, I don't think my references about no-self {from a sutta of the pali canon} and dependent origination {from a generic wiki article} are that different in Tibetan.

In Pali suttas, the original words of Buddha, Nirvana (pali: Nibbana) is always taught as the cessation, or remainderless termination of craving.

There are two kinds of nirvana: nirvana with remainder which is termination of craving with the remainder of body-mind/sense awareness fully functioning.

Nirvana without remainder, which is parinirvana (final cessation), is the termination of even body-mind in a post-mortem state. So when the Buddha 'nirvanas' (ceases), an analogy used by the Buddha is like the fire of a candle 'blowing out'.

However, Nirvana is not just the end of life. As mentioned earlier, Nirvana can be 'reached' in this life, and that is nirvana with remainder. There is no nirvana without remainder without first attaining the nirvana with remainder in this life.

The Buddha taught,

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."

— AN 3.32

SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):

And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.

And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.

And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.

And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.

And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.

And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.

And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.

And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.

And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.

And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.

And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.

And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.

And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.

And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.

And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.

And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.

And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.

And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.

And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.

And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.

And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.

And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.

And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.

And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.

And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.

And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.

And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.

And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.

And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.

And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.

And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.

And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.

And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 5:35 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 5:35 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Vas A:
tarin greco:

the progenitor of the actualism method has informed me that i am mistaken about this, however; he has stated that, of the practitioners on the dho i have indicated to him as having possibly become actually free, several have certainly not done so, despite my impressions. further, he has stated that i, at my current stage of actualism development (being only 'newly-free of the instinctual passions'), cannot gauge whether another person's condition is that of an actual freedom or not... not even from extensive direct contact and conversation. evidently, then, i have no reliable way of recognising an actually free person at all. essentially, what this means is that the criteria which i've so far used to determine what an actual freedom is, is actually invalid for the purpose.
tarin


firstly, thanks for the fresh air you have given to the whole subject.

let me ask you a bold question... before you drop your ability to recognize (faultily or not) an 'actually free person', could you apply that ability one last time.. on the progenitor himself? in your extensive communication and interaction with the progenitor (of af), did you find anything puzzling that you could not account for? [this question is being asked in the light of various controversies that are occuring with new documents being circulated etc. a honest opinion, even if it is just that, will help me]. iow, freshly evaluating by your own experience, is he 'actually free' or not?


To others who may be confused by the consistent use of this word "phenomenological", as I have been, I thought it might be useful to attach the definition found on Wikkipedia (Go Wikki! ;-) ). However, put succinctly, it appears to mean to discuss/ research everything from the perspective of one's own actual experiences (not using actual to correlate to any "af" meanings, lol!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

Love and Peace!

Jazzi
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 6:54 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 6:54 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Hiya Jazzi,

Welcome to the DhO,

To others who may be confused by the consistent use of this word "phenomenological", as I have been, I thought it might be useful to attach the definition found on Wikkipedia (Go Wikki! ;-) ). However, put succinctly, it appears to mean to discuss/ research everything from the perspective of one's own actual experiences (not using actual to correlate to any "af" meanings, lol!).

Thank you for taking the time to post that link, and I'm glad your no longer confused about the words used here. I had no idea what the word meant until I started using this site either so you're not alone in your confusion, we've all been there at some point. emoticon

I've wondered whether or not it'd be helpful to create a sort of DhO glossary thread, just basic descriptions of what certain commonly used words such as "phenomenological" actually mean in plain English, maybe with some contextual examples or links to various online dictionaries?

Sometimes it's just that there's one big word that encapsulates something in a clearer way, but there's been criticism of the tendency towards an intellectual approach to discussing this stuff before on here. However, having a more empirical and phenomenological emphasis when describing your practice can make it much clearer to discern what's required to move forward.

T
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 7:57 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/22/12 7:57 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Hi OM,

Thanks for all the effort put into your posts over the last little while, there has been some real gems in there which have been helpful.

One thing perhaps you have not considered in your assessment of actualism is the imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method. Novel? in the dhamma world, yes. You will be hard pressed to find anyone sum up Buddhism (of any flavour) as that.

all of the great scientific points you make have enriched my understanding (which was always Spinoza's monism at it's heart anyway) so i am more than happy, as an 'actualist' (as if such a thing existed), to carry on with the 'set of facts/theories' presented and consider how this 'moment of being alive' is enhanced in the light of them.

Loyalty to Richard and his optimisation of freedom has never been part of the method, or subjection to his intellect for that matter.

beholden to no one includes him. loyalty and gratitude will get one in all sorts of convoluted and unnecessary affective states.

'regards and cheers' (!) haha
thumbnail
Pål S, modified 11 Years ago at 7/23/12 4:16 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/23/12 4:16 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 196 Join Date: 8/16/10 Recent Posts
Although cut from a different context I always found the following quote useful:


I'm not going to tackle the last position, but instead ask you to partake in one of the following: take a hammer and smash one of your fingers as hard as you can, or cut yourself deeply with a knife. Now, as you experience the searing pain of your body unleashing a whirlwind of reactions in your brain, ask yourself: is this an illusion, is this real? If you need to go to the hospital afterward, ask the nurses "is this an illusion, is this real?" If they submit you to another person of your profession, ask them "is this an illusion, is this real?"

http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/590397
Tom Tom, modified 11 Years ago at 7/23/12 1:48 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/23/12 1:48 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 466 Join Date: 9/19/09 Recent Posts
Pain/suffering is generally the only indicator people use to discern if something is "real."

-People think dreams (during sleep) are unreal because they are generally less painful than waking reality.
-People watch movies and say they aren't real because they're sitting in the comfort of their chairs at room temperature.
-Same goes for video games.
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 11 Years ago at 7/23/12 9:05 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/23/12 9:05 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
Andrew .:
One thing perhaps you have not considered in your assessment of actualism is the imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method. Novel?


http://www.janfrazierteachings.com/blog/?p=3093#more-3093
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 3:31 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 3:31 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Thanks for the link Jeff, I wasn't making that exact point (Novel in general) rather in contrast to what buddhism generally is summed up as, though I guess buddhism really is so vast that it wouldn't be hard to find someone summing it up that way.

I like the link to Jan frazier, very clear writer. cheers.

for the record, I have really enjoyed the debate in this thread, my contribution probably seemed defensive, but it was more an attempt to balance the equation a bit with what I have found useful in the AFT writings, I have no argument with science, infact enjoyed a good hour of watching homemade double spit wave/particle experiments that appeared in the youtube margin besides Omega Point's links!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asxo-IdcuH0&feature=related
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 9:30 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 9:30 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Jeff Grove:
Andrew .:
One thing perhaps you have not considered in your assessment of actualism is the imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method. Novel?


http://www.janfrazierteachings.com/blog/?p=3093#more-3093


What did you mean to show by posting that link? Nothing written at that link talks about enjoying this moment of being alive.
Trent , modified 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 12:53 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 12:53 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 361 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
hello everyone, Omega Point,

one of the many excellent things about actualism is that the principles are inarguable as far as sensibility is concerned. there is absolutely no argument whatsoever that could possibly invalidate the sensibility that is part and parcel the actualism method. even if there were hypothetically-- and i emphasize the *if* and the *hypothetically*-- inconsistencies or contradictions or otherwise disagreeable content published on the actual freedom trust web-site, none of it-- no matter how wild the imagined disparity-- could invalidate the sensibility of the method.

the actualism method-- which is the consistent enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive-- is remarkably simple. one needn't learn anything about something else in order to apply the method, let alone does one need to understand modern quantum physics theories or centuries old religious practices, nor does one need to even have an opinion about what those have to do with actualism. the foundation necessary for the method is already available, by virtue of the fact that to be reading these words means to be a living human being.

since the foundation is already available, then sincerity is all what else is required. otherwise, one will forgo the sensible imitation of the actual (by way of the method) and instead initiate silly logical arguments, all the while squandering away one's only moment of being alive defending one's identity; which is, in effect, to defend one's malicious and sorrowful nature; which is, in effect, to defend the malicious and sorrowful nature of all 'humanity' and the appalling behavior incited by it.

since the successful application of the method is no different than the end itself (the consistent enjoyment and appreciation
of this moment of being alive), then noticing that is really the only reason one needs to jump in with both feet, to be totally committed. indeed, one can easily verify for oneself that the method is both personally and socially harmonious, and that there is nothing to worry about whatsoever. here is where one can become quite unbelievably overjoyed, by confirming the undeniable fact that the more committed one is, the more wonderful, joyous and fun life becomes. as this unleashed appreciation precipitates more of the same, one only need step out of the way, for the end is far nearer than one ever felt possible ... indeed, it was right here all along.

in case it is not clear, allow me to emphasize just how auspicious an opportunity this really is: you have before you a freely available method, elucidated in both generalities and specifics, that is harmless through and through, which eventuates the very meaning of life. it is a way by which to end all of the sadness and loneliness and anxiety and confusion and anger and so forth which plagues the vast majority of some 7,000,000,000 people on this planet, which includes (or at one time included) every person you have ever known, cared for, conversed with or even laid eyes upon. it is the means to living in peace and and tranquility for the remaining duration of your life. the method is immediately effective (and instantaneously verifiable), reproducible on demand, does not require input or assistance from anybody else, needs absolutely no supplementation,
and cannot ever be stripped away from you by another. furthermore, the abundance of details about the method and many preemptive writings that counter common hesitations are widely available through millions upon millions of words of text and video, including autobiographical articles, journals, essays, one-on-one and group correspondences. yet still further, the content has an impeccable consistency and integrity, having been carefully supervised, edited and and presented by Richard, an undoubtedly perspicacious and caring man with decades of experience being a normal person, being a spiritual person, being a family man and parent, being a person practicing what was later named the actualism method, and as a person living the result. finally, he is still to this day actively assisting and aiding his fellows online and in person.

now, if all that still isn't enough for you, then perhaps that is a not-so-subtle hint about the insatiability of your current condition, eh? but not to worry, if that is the case ... seeing so may be the very impetus needed to quit quibbling, to get off of one's backside, and to actually do something about it.

enjoy,
trent
thumbnail
Jeff Grove, modified 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 4:56 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 4:56 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Jeff Grove:
Andrew .:
One thing perhaps you have not considered in your assessment of actualism is the imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method. Novel?


http://www.janfrazierteachings.com/blog/?p=3093#more-3093


What did you mean to show by posting that link? Nothing written at that link talks about enjoying this moment of being alive.



The techniques of AF are excellant tools for creating conditions for a favourable outcome, but the more insight I get into the evolution of practices among the different traditions throughout the world the more the methods of AF are not novel

Andrew summed it up in the post above - I enjoyed reading the above link

cheers
Jeff
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 7:50 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 7:50 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
The techniques of AF are excellant tools for creating conditions for a favourable outcome, but the more insight I get into the evolution of practices among the different traditions throughout the world the more the methods of AF are not novel

I've emphasized the first line because it's a really useful, not to mention skilful, way to look at the AF methods, particularly in light of Trent's post, and the second section is just a wonderfully insightful comment.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 7:58 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/24/12 7:58 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Tommy M:
The techniques of AF are excellant tools for creating conditions for a favourable outcome, but the more insight I get into the evolution of practices among the different traditions throughout the world the more the methods of AF are not novel

I've emphasized the first line because it's a really useful, not to mention skilful, way to look at the AF methods, particularly in light of Trent's post, and the second section is just a wonderfully insightful comment.


Can't help myself... seconded emoticon
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 11:31 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 11:31 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Tom A Vitale:
concluded that AF can not be attained unless one "ACTUALLY GET THOSE SAME
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS that will classify them as patients of PTSD".


Maybe this just means that it is very hard to obtain without some degree of progress in insight? (like at least A&P or stream entry). As "untreated" insight disease is likely to lead to various clinical diagnoses.


"I mean it when I say: ‘I have the most classic indication of insanity. That is: everyone else is mad but me’."

"The doorway to an actual freedom has the words ‘Warning: do not open ... insanity lies ahead’ written on it. I opened the door and walked through. Once on the other side – where thousands upon thousands of atavistic voices were insistently whispering ‘fool – fool – fool’ – I turned to ascertain the way back to normal."

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-sanity2.htm

Richard thinks of himself as having made his way back to normal but still has the classic indication of insanity. But Aloha concluded that AF can't be attained unless one "ACTUALLY GET THOSE SAME PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS that will classify them as patients of PTSD".

Some practitioners of Actualism actually do seem to lose touch with rationality and start to write completely irrational things, pure intent being the latest example by one of them.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 1:41 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 1:41 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
"The doorway to an actual freedom has the words ‘Warning: do not open ... insanity lies ahead’ written on it. I opened the door and walked through. Once on the other side – where thousands upon thousands of atavistic voices were insistently whispering ‘fool – fool – fool’ – I turned to ascertain the way back to normal."

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-sanity2.htm

Richard thinks of himself as having made his way back to normal but still has the classic indication of insanity.

No, you misrepresented his quote:
Richard:
Once on the other side – where thousands upon thousands of atavistic voices were insistently whispering ‘fool – fool – fool’ – I turned to ascertain the way back to normal. The door had vanished – and the wall it was set in – and I just knew that I would never, ever be able to find my way back to the real-world ... it had been nothing but an illusion all along. I walked tall and free as the perfection of this material universe personified ... I can never not be here ... now.

So no, he doesn't think of himself as having made his way back to normal.

The way he put it to me in person is that sanity lies on one end of the spectrum and insanity lies on the other end of the spectrum, but actual freedom lies nowhere on that spectrum at all. As he put it, sanity itself is the problem (sane people do malicious and sorrowful things all the time), but insanity (aka religion/enlightenment) is not the solution.

(To be clear: he says he has the most classic indication of insanity, but he does not say he is insane.)
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 2:48 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 2:48 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Okay, so he has the classic indication of insanity.

And Aloha concluded that AF can not be attained unless one "ACTUALLY GET THOSE SAME PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS that will classify them as patients of PTSD".

What you have been writing lately about Pure Intent is also completely irrational. Maybe you are getting closer to being AF.

Good luck!
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 2:53 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 2:53 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Tommy M,

Thanks for this! :-) I agree with both points- coming from a medical standpoint, we are always told to 'use language that the patient will understand.' However, it is truly difficult to express oneself if one limits oneself to always calling the 'neuromagnetic pathways', the 'electrically stimulated pathways that the brain uses to communicate an action to the body'. It can get wordy and impractical- you are correct. And, in this, we have all chosen to be students; it was not a 'necessity' in the same way that a doctor's visit was. Therefore, no one truly has any responsibility to 'dumb it down' for the newbies like me. However, my limited understanding of the language (in particular, the yogi/ chinese words), due to my limited background with Buddhism, does oftentimes lead to my feeling helplessly lost in the waves, and wondering at my practical ability to overcome these language barriers. Therefore, it is a turn-off to new yogis. However, your idea of a glossary page is brilliant, or perhaps, when someone uses a term that is little-known or of a different language, it would be incredibly generous of them to allow for a parenthesied definition directly after. But, as I said, I understand how trying that may be, especially if one is in the 'flow' of what they are writing. But a glossary sounds golden! Thanks, Tommy! You rock!
emoticon

Love and Happiness,

Jazzi

PS- Just ecstatically happy today, and thanks for this moment of happiness!
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 3:02 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 3:02 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Aman,

Meaning no disrespect, and I am new here, so I may be speaking out of turn. If so, I apologise. However, your comment "...What you have been writing lately about Pure Intent is also completely irrational..." lacked the support and credence that this site usually seems to offer, leaving one with the impression that your tone was sarcastic, pointed, and, in short, an attack of the person to whom this comment was addressed. Was there any point to adding this besides causing insult, which equates harm, which does not follow the inherent concept that seems to be practiced by the majority of 'harmlessness'? As stated, I am fairly new, and could be missing old lines of friendship or familiarity. But this comment, had it been directed toward me, would not have assisted in any way with my understanding of self, and, in my limited perception, I am having difficulty seeing how it could be assisting any other.

Love and Happiness,

Jazzi

PS- nothing wished by this comment but a genuine friendliness and Happiness. :-)
thumbnail
Jake , modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 3:55 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 3:55 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:


What you have been writing lately about Pure Intent is also completely irrational


What does this sentence mean? Can you unpack it a bit?

What is rationality (according to your usage)? And what makes it preferable to the alternative(s)?
Fred none, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 9:40 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 9:40 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 21 Join Date: 4/16/12 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Okay, so he has the classic indication of insanity.

And Aloha concluded that AF can not be attained unless one "ACTUALLY GET THOSE SAME PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS that will classify them as patients of PTSD".

What you have been writing lately about Pure Intent is also completely irrational. Maybe you are getting closer to being AF.

Good luck!


If you're interested and not merely speculating on the basis of hearsay, I suggest you get it straight from the horse's mouth:

Richard
RICHARD: I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists and have been officially classified as suffering from a pronounced and severe mental disorder. My symptoms are: 1. Depersonalisation. 2. Derealisation. 3. Alexithymia. 4. Anhedonia. Also, I have the most classic indication of insanity. That is: everyone else is mad but me. I just thought I might share that with you, as I consider that it may be important for you to know that you are currently engaged in a correspondence with a madman.

RESPONDENT No. 19: Richard, I’m going to let my light out from under the bushel and tell you what I see: You are still ‘crazy’, and I still have affection and/or compassion for you.

RICHARD: As I am a person devoid of either latent or active enmity, I require no restorative affection whatsoever to create the illusion of intimacy in my human interactions. And as I am also a person devoid of either latent or active sorrow, I require no antidotal compassion whatsoever to create the illusion of caring. Thus, in an actual freedom, intimacy is not dependent upon cooperation. I experience an actual intimacy – a direct experiencing of the other – twenty four hours of the day irrespective of the other’s affection and/or compassion ... or mood swings. If this is being crazy – if this is a severe mental disorder – then it sure beats the sanity of the real world ... which is a sanity that produces wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide.


This is an extract, the whole page is a well worth read:

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-sanity2.htm
Tom Tom, modified 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 10:13 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/25/12 10:11 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 466 Join Date: 9/19/09 Recent Posts
Clinical Psychology = Abnormal psychology and thus is the study of abnormality and has nothing to do with sanity/insanity as these are "outdated" terms psychiatrists/clinicans do not use themselves.

This is likely due to the fact that the psychologists/psychiatrists do not represent a state of perfect sanity and thus are not qualified to determine whether someone is insane or sane (other than if they are more "insane" than "they" themselves are, and would not be qualified to determine if someone is more "sane" than them).

A modern psychiatrist would mention nothing of sanity/insanity and Richard is therefore inferring "madman" from "mental disorder" (abnormality) where the two are in no way synonymous.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 11:19 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 11:19 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
It is not hearsay but a personal account by a person who actually met Richard. I quoted her exact words. The said horse has an agenda and that is to be known as the first human in the world who has achieved a condition he calls as Actual Freedom. What is funny about this is that at the same time, he also wants to be known as someone who has no self/Self.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 11:25 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 11:23 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
It is not hearsay but a personal account by a person who actually met Richard.

Haha, I couldn't resist:

wiktionary:
hearsay
1. information that was heard by one person about another
2. (law) evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath

That is, "information that was heard by one person" (you) "about another" (Richard).

Or: "evidence based on the reports of others" (Aloha) "rather than on personal knowledge" (your own experience of meeting Richard).

In my personal experience of meeting Richard, he was not suffering from PTSD or any psychological disorders that would classify him as a patient of PTSD... and that is not hearsay because I met the man myself, thus it is my personal knowledge I am using as evidence.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 12:38 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 12:38 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
The words I quoted are not my words but the exact words which were typed by Aloha on yahoo forum. I should have provided the link to the message as well. Here is the link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10750

She met the man herself on many occasions, that is her personal knowledge.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 1:45 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 1:02 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
The words I quoted are not my words but the exact words which were typed by Aloha on yahoo forum. I should have provided the link to the message as well. Here is the link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10750

She met the man herself on many occasions, that is her personal knowledge.

Yes, I agree with all you just said. I think, by definition, you posting her words here would be considered "hearsay" (vs. if she posted them here herself). But I am not a lawyer and I don't know how it works when referring to documented statements so I am content not to pursue the conversation.

In any case, you having never met the man, you can't really know what the facts are, so you'll have to choose to believe either Aloha or me, as we offer pretty directly contradictory statements. I will add that my reports and experiences of Richard are consistent with the millions of words available on the AFT whereas Aloha's reports are not.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 2:43 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 2:42 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
I have seen this behavior among other Actualists as well that when it comes to their way of looking at things (when it helps them), they will try to go for the exact meaning of words such as "hearsay" in this instance. But even then, I don't think that quoting someone would be considered "hearsay". If I go by your understanding of the definition of "hearsay", that would mean that wherever anyone has quoted Richard, that is "hearsay" as well. Right?

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
In any case, you having never met the man, you can't really know what the facts are, so you'll have to choose to believe either Aloha or me, as we offer pretty directly contradictory statements. I will add that my reports and experiences of Richard are consistent with the millions of words available on the AFT whereas Aloha's reports are not.


I choose to believe Aloha because the example that you gave of "seeing" metal moving other pieces of metal without touching as implying to be somehow equivalent to "experiencing" non-sensate non-affective benevolent life force that is called pure intent is simply not the same. Aloha seems more sensible to me than you currently.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11836

And when it helps the Actualists, they will go for very loose definitions of words and will equate something as different as "seeing" metal moving other pieces of metal without touching as "experiencing" non-sensate non-affective benevolent life force that is called pure intent.
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 5:12 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/26/12 5:08 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

In my personal experience of meeting Richard, he was not suffering from PTSD or any psychological disorders that would classify him as a patient of PTSD... and that is not hearsay because I met the man myself, thus it is my personal knowledge I am using as evidence.


Hey Beo,
Sorry, I couldn't resist emoticon

Are you qualified to give a positive/negative diagnosis of PTSD, or any other psychological disorder?
Do you realize that usually, to give such a diagnosis one must be both qualified in terms of mental health training, and then diagnose the patient in a clinical setting?

I don't think you visiting a man you have never met before, for a few days, qualifies you to diagnose Richard as having, or not having, any psychological disorders.

I do think it does give you a glimpse into a man, but as the old saying goes - monks would delay their diagnosis of someone's attainment to after at least spending a year or more with them. (I think it was Ajahn Chah who said that).
This also relates to Daniel Ingram's 'Dharma Jet Set Culture', which relates to the phenomena of a person you've never met before coming in for a few days, seeming perfect and flying away before you could see their issues.
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 11 Years ago at 7/27/12 9:16 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/27/12 9:16 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
I wonder if people argue because they are dissatisfied with their current moment and so choose a feeling of important engagement.

Trent wrote a most concise piece and the primary interlocutors choose to ignore it. In light of that main point (that enjoying this moment is self-evidently sensible), perhaps the parties can choose to argue why and why that is not so. Perhaps, we can argue if more needs to be done in order to achieve the cessation of all our own suffering. And what those other things may or not be and why. Richards credentials may be evidence one way or the other but they are not the only piece of evidence nor necessarily the most important.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/28/12 10:21 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/28/12 10:21 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
If you see this thread as argumentative, then what about the AFT site? Isn't it full of arguments especially Richards?
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 11 Years ago at 7/28/12 11:02 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/28/12 11:02 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
If you see this thread as argumentative, then what about the AFT site? Isn't it full of arguments especially Richards?


Yes.
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 2:03 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 2:01 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
I wonder if people argue because they are dissatisfied with their current moment and so choose a feeling of important engagement.


Bingo.

After that debate, I investigated my intentions and the emotional effects of those judgements. Why am I arguing on the Internet if this very action is making me uneasy? Why is it making me uneasy? What do I have to defend?

I retired from reading/posting in the DhO a few days and realized that my judging abilities were impeded/contaminated by my own confirmation bias and my actualist calenture. I realized that there was an identity behind all those lines: I was creating a belief of the (supposedly) absence of beliefs, and "my" identity clung to that part of "me" the same way it has clung with other aspects of my life that I considered important in the past, at the time of elaborating a definition of "me", of my identity and my role as a human being.

I realized that the judging is not the problem; it's the emotional shadow behind it (in the form of defensive pride or [malicious] motivation) that makes the judging corrupted, biased, dishonest, cunning.

I'll continue to investigate those issues, and I'll refrain myself from commenting here for a while.

Good luck!
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:32 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 2:57 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Felipe
Jon T
Felipe C.:
I wonder if people argue because they are dissatisfied with their current moment and so choose a feeling of important engagement.


Bingo.


Bingo.


Felipe:
After that debate, I investigated my intentions and the emotional effects of those judgements. Why am I arguing on the Internet if this very action is making me uneasy? Why is it making me uneasy? What do I have to defend?

I retired from reading/posting in the DhO a few days and realized that my judging abilities were impeded/contaminated by my own confirmation bias and my actualist calenture. I realized that there was an identity behind all those lines: I was creating a belief of the (supposedly) absence of beliefs, and "my" identity clung to that part of "me" the same way it has clung with other aspects of my life that I considered important in the past, at the time of elaborating a definition of "me", of my identity and my role as a human being.

I realized that the judging is not the problem; it's the emotional shadow behind it (in the form of defensive pride or [malicious] motivation) that makes the judging corrupted, biased, dishonest, cunning.

I'll continue to investigate those issues, and I'll refrain myself from commenting here for a while.

Good luck!


I totally agree: a person must be willing to check their own cunning and (dis)honesty. In this way, a big release is self-made. Seeing the emotional condition of mind producing cunning, dishonest, corrupted action.


tarin greco:

"... there have also been individual, independent investigations into the practices themselves, enabling understandings of possible relations, and there have also been skilful adapations and uses of whatever resources have happened to exist in order to further practical inquiries and develop their results. this has been very much in the spirit of the dho's stated purposes.

...that idiosyncratic readings are produced by idiosyncratic individuals, with idiosyncratic faculties of memory and language, and so, to a notable extent, diversity is inevitable. differing readings and understandings can result in opposition, however, and in this way can cause purposes to cross, which may preclude consensus. a lack of consensus, though, need not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the individual practices reported to, and informing discussions at, the dho community. it has seemed to me, rather, that the plurality of understandings which have been put forth has introduced elements and emphases which have very likely fostered these individual practices, aiming them towards greater goals. this too seems to have been in keeping with the dho's purpose.

...and so i have valued the confluences and cross-pollinations that have occurred on the dho these past two years.

(...)

i look forward to continuing to see what we all continue to come up with.

tarin


So, Felipe, I hope you keep sharing your practice as you find it useful/beneficial to yourself and others.

Thank you.

editx1: coding problem fix
edtx2: oof. Thank you, Nick. Please excuse me Felipe and Yadid!
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:20 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:20 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
It was Felipe who posted that, Katy. Not Yadid. And I think it is an important lesson to address on any of the paths being sold around here.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:14 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:14 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
It was Felipe who posted that, Katy. Not Yadid. And I think it is an important lesson to address on any of the paths being sold around here.


Indeed. Upon reflection, I am beginning to think (in reference to my own posting behavior and debate engagement as well as others') that there is a divide of some kind-- probably more than one-- between mature practice (based on authentic insights) and immature practice (based on a 'practitioner' or even 'realizer' identity). However we conceptualize our practice, whatever techniques we use, we often seem to go through this process of maturation.

The funny thing that happens is we sometimes then associate the maturity with the conceptualizations and techniques being deployed at that time... and create a story. "Well, I practiced like X for a while, but then I discovered *this* method and conceptual view, and really broke through to a deeper insight, so therefore this newer approach is 'best'". Meanwhile, it is just that we have *begun maturing* out of that phase of identifying with practice, conceptual views, and realizations. And we mistakenly associate that maturity with a change in descriptions, techniques, and groups, ironically repeating the cycle and keeping ourselves trapped in immaturity.

It seems to me that authentic practice and realization that truly goes beyond practitioner or realizer identities produces an automatic open mindedness about others' descriptions and experiences. Because it innoculates us against reifying descriptions, and opens us to the nameless/indescribable/groundless.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:35 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:35 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Thanks much, Nick. Yadid and Felipe, please excuse my mistake.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:48 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/31/12 8:48 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
. Jake .:
Indeed. Upon reflection, I am beginning to think (in reference to my own posting behavior and debate engagement as well as others') that there is a divide of some kind-- probably more than one-- between mature practice (based on authentic insights) and immature practice (based on a 'practitioner' or even 'realizer' identity). However we conceptualize our practice, whatever techniques we use, we often seem to go through this process of maturation.

The funny thing that happens is we sometimes then associate the maturity with the conceptualizations and techniques being deployed at that time... and create a story. "Well, I practiced like X for a while, but then I discovered *this* method and conceptual view, and really broke through to a deeper insight, so therefore this newer approach is 'best'". Meanwhile, it is just that we have *begun maturing* out of that phase of identifying with practice, conceptual views, and realizations. And we mistakenly associate that maturity with a change in descriptions, techniques, and groups, ironically repeating the cycle and keeping ourselves trapped in immaturity.

It seems to me that authentic practice and realization that truly goes beyond practitioner or realizer identities produces an automatic open mindedness about others' descriptions and experiences. Because it innoculates us against reifying descriptions, and opens us to the nameless/indescribable/groundless.


Sounds right to me.
Jill Morana, modified 11 Years ago at 8/1/12 9:00 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/1/12 9:00 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 93 Join Date: 3/1/10 Recent Posts
. Jake .:


Indeed. Upon reflection, I am beginning to think (in reference to my own posting behavior and debate engagement as well as others') that there is a divide of some kind-- probably more than one-- between mature practice (based on authentic insights) and immature practice (based on a 'practitioner' or even 'realizer' identity). However we conceptualize our practice, whatever techniques we use, we often seem to go through this process of maturation.

The funny thing that happens is we sometimes then associate the maturity with the conceptualizations and techniques being deployed at that time... and create a story. "Well, I practiced like X for a while, but then I discovered *this* method and conceptual view, and really broke through to a deeper insight, so therefore this newer approach is 'best'". Meanwhile, it is just that we have *begun maturing* out of that phase of identifying with practice, conceptual views, and realizations. And we mistakenly associate that maturity with a change in descriptions, techniques, and groups, ironically repeating the cycle and keeping ourselves trapped in immaturity.

It seems to me that authentic practice and realization that truly goes beyond practitioner or realizer identities produces an automatic open mindedness about others' descriptions and experiences. Because it innoculates us against reifying descriptions, and opens us to the nameless/indescribable/groundless.


thank you Jake
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 2/27/13 10:47 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 2/27/13 10:47 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Good Friends,


It is not rare for certain peoples to make category errors when attempting to understand the various orders of profundity that are the teachings associated with Shakyamuni & the family of Buddhas. Generally confusing the phenomenological, epistemological, & soteriological, with the ontological. Generally, the teachings are not meant ontologically, in fact, Shakyamuni specifically refused to answer questions in this respect, instead maintaining noble silence. This includes the teachings on dependent origination, karma, 'rebirth' etc. Nagarjuna heavily reenforced this with his own analysis of Shakyamuni's teachings, concluding the teachings are absolutely anti-foundationalist. This does not mean however that the yield is devoid of epiontic understanding.

Recognizing the possibility of category error, Shakyamuni taught generally not to spend time overly ruminating, pontificating, or trying to analyze karma etc until one is a Buddha. As many non-domesticated minds can't help but to ontologically mistake & further delineate boundaries. Upon reaching Buddhahood and having access to the proper vision samadhis & bardo visions or attaining these states prior, this conflation is destroyed. Timothy Leary for example, recognized the underlying causal structure responsible for the visions as properly the Buddhist karmic/rebirth psychological structure through the bardo visions prior to any dawning of attained Buddhahood (versus atemporal Buddhahood).



The various vision states can reveal, amongst many things, that when still subject to delineating a being, there is a moral-knowledge process who's symbols can be observed in a face-to-face visionary fashion - karma is an observable psychological law. Further that all sense and conscious-impressions appear to be wave-interference patterns of sort, perceiving reality/actuality falls under this category and thus is also considered a wave-interference pattern. There appears to be no non-dream conscious actuality, as all conscious experiences show themselves to be fabrication, albeit some more persistent than others (the sense experiences and information associated are seen to be hallucination, these rather subtle "karmic-traces"/sense-field recognitions most arahants are considered to still have upon reaching mere-personal nibbana). However, high-level bodhisattvas, Buddhas, and awareness-holders reduce the fabrication traces into superposition, where the generally typical 'non-objectified' "qualia/sensation/experience soup", the "actuality/reality/unreality", is seen as appearing to be a pre-tuned frequency of many (manual tuning is possible). Functioning identically to descriptions of quantum harmonic oscillators. There are many "experiential soup" frequencies, with little evidence of being less "real" or "external" or "actual" than that 'actuality/unreality/reality' once taken to be the consistent and "realer" or more "actual" world. This conclusion was and is of course engendered because those contemplatives who are not high-level bodhisattvas, Buddhas, or awareness-holders, and who consistently wake to a what appears to be a 'consistent' & 'persistent' world. The other tuned actualities however immolate that hasty conclusion. This is an order of the knowledge of emptiness. Further, the inconceivable extinction samapattis where awareness turns in on itself, such as the standard nirodha-samapatti, cannot be considered a more real non-dream actuality, as despite being able to hold it longer and longer and on command, it is ultimately temporary.



Considering the philosophical/logical issues that arise from seeking the ontic, it is concluded to be mostly of little use both from scientific and Buddhist traditions.

"So, what is the message of the quantum? I suggest we look at the situation from a new angle. We have learned in the history of physics that it is important not to make distinctions that have no basis -- such as the pre-Newtonian distinction between the laws on Earth and those that govern the motion of heavenly bodies. I suggest that in a similar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made. There is no way to refer to reality without using the information we have about it." -Anton Zeilinger, inventor of quantum teleportation

There is no understanding "reality" outside phenomenon and the epistemic, making distinctions and seeking or asserting the real (ontic) beyond the epistemological boundary and its methods are generally pointless endeavors based on cultural biases and distinctions that themselves have little to no basis. Buddhism and science make use of thought-experiment and other methods of speculative logical inquiry, epiontic or otherwise; don't mistake this for the mostly meaningless seeking or assertions pertaining to the ontic.

This is a critical point if one is trying to understand the development and debate-driven emergence that is Buddhism, as this is primarily an attribute of many criticisms of inter-Buddhism between schools and individuals from various sub-traditions, and cross meta-traditions debates between Buddhism and Hinduism. Confusing this can lead to complete inversion of meaning.

One of the many examples of inter-criticism would be the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' and its warning & criticism of the generalized traditions including the dzogchen sects, identifying various points in each that are often mistaken, & which lead to ontic reifications/"attachments". Such as the subject-object dichotomy, the extreme of the two-truths, extremes of ritual service and attainment, extremes of space and awareness. Another being the similar lankavataran criticism of various schools, identifying four types of nirvana & then considering these types merely views of philosophers, as they appear to make unnecessary distinctions that lean more towards ontic-seeking (assuming more while explaining less etc) & that have less basis in the face of the mind-model utilized by the lanka. The nirvanas descriptions considered in this fashion: 'the nirvana attained through seeing the self-nature of all things as non-entity', 'the nirvana attained through seeing the individual marks characterizing all things as non-entity', 'the nirvana attained through the recognition of the non-existence of a being endowed with its own specific attributes', and 'nirvana attained through the severance of the bondage conditioning the continuation of the individuality and generality of the skandhas'.




"About dependent origination: people from Mayahana / Vajrayana backgrounds seem to have different ideas about what dependent origination is about. I don't know why. "



Simply put, It appears this way because dependent origination is not entirely simple and straight forward, for it has orders of subtlety that are profound. Shakyamuni specifically warned Ananda against the notion that it is ultimately simple & straight forward and instead that the proper notion is profundity. One of the more in-depth explanations of dependent origination is given to Ananda right after. This is rather telling however, as Ananda appeared to be a weak contemplative that continually showed a lack of insight both during Shakyamuni's life and after Shakyamuni's parinibbana. Shakyamuni became known for his implicit teachings, so Buddhist logicians concluded over time and collective processing power by virtue of consistent mass debate, that the profundity extended even further beyond the in-depth explanations given to the monks.
-As well as the schools interested in anything beyond personal-nibbana attempting to quantify various parts of what Shakyamuni (or for that matter the knowledge of any equivalent & sufficient Buddha) understood but didn't teach (as the Buddha essentially said to the regular monks that a handful of knowledge is all that is being taught considering its relation to removing dissatisfaction; however that the knowledge of Buddha was forest-like rather than a handful). Moreover, this and the aforementioned concerning orders of dependent-origination subtlety, are extensively reenforced due to the increasingly sophisticated views of causality that were forced also by said debate processing.




Further, the texts recount Shakyamuni presenting dependent origination in several different ways, with varying emphasis and with different causal links in the chain. Serving different purposes aligned to different skill-sets and faculty-levels. Sometimes keeping the analysis rather course and simply pointing to birth and becoming as I-making with an emphasis on clinging. Beyond, sometimes implicitly pointing to direct pointing procedures to 'non-manifestive consciousness' by asserting that name & form and consciousness co-emerge and without one, the other turns back and without support falls away (and of course necessarily finalizing this for certain individual types via atammayata). While other times information gathered from vision samadhis is included, such as energetic tendencies, mundane orders & transcendental orders of birthing, dependent origination etc.


Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

"As the Buddha described the Awakening experience in one of his discourses, first there is the knowledge of the regularity of the Dhamma — which in this context means dependent co-arising — then there is the knowledge of nibbana. In other passages, he describes the three stages that led to insight into dependent co-arising: knowledge of his own previous lifetimes, knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of all living beings, and finally insight into the four Noble Truths."

"Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens, how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be brought to an end.

The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what," what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in the future?" (MN 2)

He put all these questions aside because they interfered with the path of practice leading to the end of suffering. Instead, he focused on the process of how birth happens, because the process involves factors that are immediately apparent to one's awareness throughout life and lie enough under one's control to turn them toward the ending of birth. An understanding of the process as process — and in particular, as an example of the process of dependent co-arising — can actually contribute to the end to suffering, because it gives guidance in how to apply the tasks appropriate for the four noble truths to all the factors in the process leading up to birth.

One of the salient features of dependent co-arising is its lack of outside context. In other words, it avoids any reference to the presence or absence of a self around or a world behind the processes it describes. This allows one to focus directly on the factors of the process as factors, parts of a causal chain. And this, in turn, makes it easier to notice which factors — such as ignorance — cause suffering and should thus be abandoned; which ones — such as attention and intention — can be converted to the path to the end of suffering, and so should be developed before they, too, are abandoned; and which ones — such as clinging and becoming — constitute suffering, and so should be comprehended to the point of disenchantment and dispassion, leading to release.

This sutta concerns a monk — Sāti, the Fisherman's Son — who refuses to heed the Buddha's care in treating all the elements of the process of wandering on from birth to birth as processes. Sāti states that, in his understanding of the Buddha's teachings, consciousness is the "what" that does the wandering on. His fellow monks and then the Buddha treat him and his erroneous view in a way that parallels the way they treat Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers in MN 22. First the narrator notes that the view is not merely wrong, but actually evil and pernicious: To adopt it would be to place an obstacle in one's path. The monks try, unsuccessfully, to dissuade Sāti from his view, after which they report the case to the Buddha. The Buddha calls Sāti into his presence, and after ascertaining that Sāti will not abandon his view even when reprimanded by the Buddha himself, he abandons Sāti as too recalcitrant to teach, and turns to cross-question the monks as to the relevant right view of how consciousness functions in the process leading to repeated birth."



The 'Mahayana / Vajrayana backgrounds' consider themselves inline with the implicit meanings of the early texts. The 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' for example, presents the twelve links in a way that isn't in disagreement with the early texts themselves.

Beyond examples like the Thai theravada tantra tradition, the distinctions between theravada, mahayana etc based on the degree of differentiation pertaining to dependent origination are actually generally minor. Amongst the early schools, varied presentations abound to a similar degree, the abhidharmists have several presentations of their own. Some early schools took a rather realist approach, while old-theravada was relatively anti-realist. Some emphasized the dependent-origination of person-only, others emphasized its psychologically therapeutic value only, deemphasizing the relationships that cause vision itself to manifest etc. Beyond, considering the cross-pollination of emergent sophistication, theravada and other traditions have embraced much of the causal subtlety, consequently becoming more anti-realist in the process (theravada in terms of dependent origination and a release of prior 'realist' views such as atoms having spatial dimension etc). For these traditions, through assimilation, indirectly concur that the later schools have brought Buddhism development and in general closer to the heart of the teachings.

<As a quick aside, it should be noted that Buddhist monks, generally of middling faculty & of every meta-category still argue based on present-"pop" representations devoid of historical perspective. For example, theravada monks asserting Shakyamuni's teachings concerning compassion & loving-kindness in the early texts as somehow antithetical to the views that madhyamaka holds concerning the early-texts, Shakyamuni's teachings, and arahantship. When the opposite is true, as madhyamaka's and Nagarjuna's basis for the bodhisattva path is derived from the early-texts, Shakyamuni's teachings, including on dependent-origination and compassion & loving-kindness etc, arahantship (and that there is more than one path to nibbana as Shakyamuni walked one of them and taught another, one is a like a PhD and the other like a bachelor's degree). A similar example, a mahayana monk of middling-faculties might incorrectly believe the early-texts are devoid of the necessary basis or compassion & loving-kindness teachings, or bodhisattva birth, or basis for the two-truths. Buddhism is so vast, many examples abound.>


To understand the relationship between the links of dependent origination, let us quickly review the five similar steps in the intellectual history of Buddhism and physics.

1. Transition from the paradigm of substance to the paradigm of causality.

2. Replacement of productive causality by lawlike successions.

3. Transition from causal and lawlike successions to co-emergence.

4. Criticism of ontological view of co-emergence, and claim that co-emergence itself is relative to the cognitive act that posits it. ("Co-emergence Co-emerges"; this is one of the meanings of "emptiness of emptiness")

5. Silent return to the practices of life, or agnostic return to the practices of experimental science.


Clearly, the subtlety of the knowledge and application of dependent origination can be discerned from the above and viewed from many facets & orders of understanding. From observing the courseness of viewing and applying the links through the paradigm of substance to applying the paradigm of co-emergence yet immolating all unnecessary views of it, etc & beyond.

Dependent origination applies to the moment, the proceeding moment at the most is a partially conditioning factor; co-origination is generally not best understood like "one mind-moment there is contact, next mind-moment there is feeling, next mind-moment there is craving", for in a mind-moment the bulk of the dependent chain can apply. However, this process almost entirely falls away & cannot be delineated if disallowing the experiential discernment (of any kind) of name & form, naming & forming. Just the rlung tendencies/trace fabrication-tendency imprints remain there.

The bulk of Mahayana / Vajrayana (hundreds of thousands of texts) fall under steps three to five. However, to iterate, the bulk of Buddhism evolved further due to the aforementioned steps, including the 'neo'-interpretations of the early schools, which are the only remaining. Just as in Science, the logicians keep pre-Newtonian & Newtonian mechanics as historical reference, a teaching tool, and logical reference for comparison. However, due to the precision of modernity, the functional/applicable representations themselves of pre-Newtonianism & Newtonianism are devoid of the unnecessary meta-physics of the heavenly bodies or of a clockwork universe (however slightly flawed historically referenced teaching tools still incorrectly percolate, past even their historical relevance, generally due to non-logicians and lay-people, such as the 'earth revolving around the sun'; when in fact by the time of Einstein we recognize that the earth and sun tug on and revolve around each other but recognize no real reference point).

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

"Though the principle of dependent arising is applicable to any situation where an origination of phenomena takes place, the Pali Buddhist tradition has focused upon the doctrine almost exclusively in terms of its twelvefold formulation. So much has this been the case that the two have tended to be blankly identified with each other, dependent arising being equated simply with the twelvefold series and the twelvefold series being regarded as an exhaustive treatment of dependent arising. This exclusiveness of emphasis doubtlessly poses a certain danger of rigidity; but even despite this danger it is not without its justification. For the aim of the Buddha's teaching is not abstract and theoretical, but concrete and soteriological. Its goal is liberation from suffering [...] If suffering is produced by causes, these causes and the way they can be stopped must be uncovered and exposed. The twelvefold application accomplishes precisely this. In its positive or direct aspect (anuloma) it makes known the causal chain behind suffering, demonstrating how the round of existence arises and turns through the impulsions of craving, clinging, and karma, working freely behind the shielding screen of ignorance. In its negative or reverse side (patiloma) it reveals the way to the cessation of suffering, showing that when ignorance is eliminated by the rise of true knowledge all the factors dependent on ignorance likewise draw to a close.

However, as a consequence of this constriction of attention, sight has tended to be lost of the broader range of exemplifications the principle of dependent arising might have, even within the limits of the soteriological direction of the teaching. Dependent arising cannot be reduced to any single one of its applications. Any application is only a pedagogical device framed from the standpoint of the teaching's practical orientation. Above and beyond its specific instances, dependent arising remains an expression of the invariable structural relatedness of phenomena. It is a principle to which all phenomena conform by the very nature of their being, the principle that whatever comes into existence does so in dependence on conditions. From the perspective this teaching affords, things are seen to arise, not from some intrinsic nature of their own, from necessity, chance or accident, but from their causal correlations with other things to which they are connected as part of the fixed order obtaining between phenomena. Each transient entity, emerging into the present out of the stream of events bearing down from the past, absorbs into itself the causal influx of the past, to which it must be responsive. During its phase of presence it exercises its own distinctive function with the support of its conditions, expressing thereby its own immediacy of being. And then, with the completion of its actuality, it is swept away by the universal impermanence to become itself a condition determinant of the future.

As living experience, the advance to emancipation cannot be tied down to a series of mere negations, for such a mode of treatment omits precisely what is most essential to the spiritual quest — the immediacy of inner striving, growth, and transformation. Parallel to the demolition of old barriers there occurs, in the quest for deliverance, a widening of vistas characterized by an evolving sense of maturation, enrichment, and fulfillment; the departure from bondage, anxiety, and suffering at the same time means the move towards freedom and peace. This expansion and enrichment is made possible by the structure of the gradual training, which is not so much a succession of discrete steps one following the other as a locking together of overlapping components in a union at once augmentative, consummative, and projective. Each pair of stages intertwines in a mutually vitalizing bond wherein the lower, antecedent member nurtures its successor by serving as its generative base, and the higher, consequent member completes its predecessor by absorbing its energies and directing them on to the next phase in the series. Each link thus performs a double function: while rewarding the efforts expended in the accomplishment of the antecedent stage, it provides the incentive for the commencement of the consequent stage. In this way the graduated training unfolds organically in a fluid progression in which, as the Buddha says, "stage flows over into stage, stage fulfills stage, for crossing over from the hither shore to the beyond."




Mahayana and Vajrayana utilizes the vision samadhis and owe portions of their development to critically extracting information from such. These traditions stick to the script of phenomenological, epistemological, and soteriological; rejecting realism or ontology claims in favor of usefulness and utility, generally embracing the phenomenal and epistemic in a way that is clarified and magnified by the soteriological and the other way around. Understanding this leads to a clarity as to some of the purposefulness pertaining to the persistent practice of perceptual pointing, as in, inspecting, discussing, and seeing the naturally pure Buddha-qualities in all investigated and the pure-land traditions etc.





The traditions that fall under Mahayana and Vajrayana ultimately conclude (simply put) due to some of the many insights of emptiness, that fabrications can be made pure, thus consciousness can be pure, and so name & form can be pure, thus the six sense media can be pure, and so contact can be pure, thus feeling can be pure, and so craving can be pure, thus clinging/sustenance can be pure, and so becoming can be pure, thus birth can be pure etc and the combinations in-between. The bardo visions experientially verify that the long-Bodhisattva path based on merit (simply put & for the sake of understanding, psychological seeds) and compassion as to bring about pure becoming and pure birth is a viable strategy to have positive result and moment by moment release from dissatisfaction and unpleasantness (while in the face of the great mirror & test, the fully dawned bardo trances). The advanced and subtle meta-paths pointed to in other threads, utilizes knowledge of emptiness and co-origination to purely fabricate conscious sense-base contact leading to pure feeling, pure craving, and lighting the fire of pure clinging/sustenance (this process is a recipe for liberated & exalted states of fabricated bliss, paradise...for those who can handle the reigns properly). The lower awareness-holders, when releasing this fabrication-process (already & generally atammayata is perpetually the case, as it is necessarily by definition trans-state & condition) like releasing a muscle, like blowing out a candle, release to non-abiding consciousness-without feature/non-manifestive consciousness (non-objectification). The middle and greater awareness-holders have hacked into the neutrality of emptiness & reset ordinary unfabricated consciousness at its very basis to a perpetually blooming nirvanic bliss; the ouroboros of liberation & bliss; the best of all aspects; the perfect superposition of fabrication/non-fabrication, objectification/non-objectification; that which is necessitated by the truly-boundless).


Now to examine a few assertions:


"Let's remember part of the dependent origination:

"With Mind and Matter as condition, Sense Gates arise

With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises

With Contact as condition, Feeling arises"

"Actualism is ok with sense gates and contact. They don't represent any kind of suffering. Buddhism, on the other hand, seems to encounter links of creation of suffering before that."



Buddhism is okay with sense gates and contact. They don't represent any kind of intrinsic suffering or dissatisfaction. It doesn't follow to assert that "on the other hand", it is an unnecessary distinction. The actualist is confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions.

As mentioned above, dependent origination isn't a straight-line, it is beyond a model of productive causality and even law-like successions. Buddhists & Buddhism don't encounter 'links of creation of suffering' any more than actualists & actualism do in actuality (in fact, many ultimately view the links, the skandas, and even wrong views etc as Buddhas and buddhic attributes); however Buddhism's analysis is surely more subtle and sophisticated, as actualism presents no real causal model, actualism instead is primarily definitional & substantial, and inline with the methodology of direct-pointing.




"This feeling of being is the very malice and sorrow. Malice and sorrow exist because there is a feeling of being. "I" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me"."




This actualist later pointed out, and even later demonstrated behavior appearing inline with what was pointed out, (self-proclaimed dishonesty, cunning). Thus when this actualist asserts "this feeling of being is the very malice and sorrow", he is likely right. Beyond this, correlation doesn't automatically or ultimately mean causation (careful of false cause fallaciousness). Is there not the logical possibility of a feeling of being that doesn't relate to malice and sorrow (why the presumed black and white thinking)? To not allow this logical possibility seems to fall for an association fallacy, where the actualist would be presupposing with no basis. Just because a feeling of being is associated with malice and sorrow, or even that malice and sorrow can arise from a feeling of being, in no way logically disproves or discounts the rational assumption that feelings of being can arise without said defilements or negative outflows. If one can completely kill/immolate affective feelings/feelings of being and further through dependent origination and if wished, can completely end all feelings (affective & non-affective) whatsoever, then why not assume the possibility that the process can be broken-down and domesticated?

The consequence of a phenomenon isn't necessarily its root cause. If 'malice and sorrow exists because there is a feeling of being', and feelings of being arise due to causes and conditions, then malice and sorrow exists because of the causes and conditions that lead to those feelings and further 'feelings of being'. Thus, in this respect, there is no ultimate conflict with Buddhism.


This is further illustrated by Richard, who proclaims the unconscious habits that cause said unwanted feelings are difficult to root out and can partially-manifest etc during virtual freedom; simply put, because humanity has been using and inheriting feelings so long and they are deeply engrained etc. Considering that unconscious habits are non-experiential (as Richard himself appears to be referring to an unconscious probability/conditional matrix), it is rather clear actualism also encounters 'links of creation of suffering' 'before' beingness co-emerges with feeling. Further Richard speaks of affective feelings necessarily having opposites, if affective feelings were truly non-conceptual and did not emerge from deep conceptual symbols, then there would be no necessary opposites. If the actualist disagrees, then it appears he must assert either that Richard's discussion on virtual freedom is flawed, as it is referring to something underneath/before present experience & consciousness; or the actualist must assert Richard is incapable of discerning or prefers some of the most basic flaws of reasoning concerning the paradigm of substance, paradigm of definition etc (if either of these is the case, then they assert less 'rational faith' in Richard's capacities & common sense then even this analysis is assuming and granting him).

Further, actualism falls for course observations and ambiguity when asserting 'feeling of being' as " "I" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me" ". For the becoming and birthing process of identity isn't a 'feeling' in itself, which is corrected by logic & the dependent origination process. To assert otherwise is to fall for a fallacy where one reifies a process into a series of conceptual & substantive entities during the course of analysis. A feeling of being is not a definitional & definitive entity, it is a process of causal and conditioned relations; a co-emergent cognitive discrimination and co-conditioning tuning-function inter-related to 'feeling' and its inseparable causes (as there no actual duality as to cause and effect).



"Now, what does the Buddha said about self and feelings?

"The Buddha: Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'

(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness) [...]

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness)"




This quote has several orders of meaning. For context, it is from the perspective of preemptively understanding that simplistic notions of ego-soul-self are unfounded, illogical, and not based on what is carefully observed. Yet the Buddha also said the self was the aggregates, purposefully.



"This seems to have the objective of not relating and embracing "feelings" as part of "me". Instead, to realize no-self, one have to detach from feelings, seeing them as "not mine". Actualism accept feelings as "mine" (actually, they are part and parcel as they constitute the self), and work from within that idea to deconstruct self."



Buddhism accepts that many foolishly and habitually accept feelings as mine and constituting the self, clinging to them or or other skandhas. However utilizing logic and observation we know this "self" isn't in accords with actuality. There is no ultimate logical reason to invoke the label of self, considering it functionally isn't a self, there are only perceptions and not a self discernible within experience. Actualism doesn't hold to an unchanging subject of experience, let alone that unchanging subject being feelings or feeling of being. If it was functionally a self, then feelings would be at beck and call. However there is no operational self as such, and if one cannot control what is considered "me", what sense does it make to add "me" to it? In actuality, there is only delusion of self, not actually a permanent self that needs to be immolated, it is all mere conventional speak. "The identity ascribed to man is nothing more than a fiction" -Hume.



The assertion appears to fall for an error related to ambiguity. Actualism doesn't have the objective of relating and embracing "feelings" as part of "me". Why would they embrace that which they believe causes malice and sorrow (or even in fact 'is' malice and sorrow)? Further, why would actualism assert/assume/presuppose a self as simplistic as the soul-Atman it criticizes as delusion? Thus it cannot be assumed that actualism is making a serious epistemic or phenomenologic claim without criticizing and rejecting the claim for lack of careful observation etc, it cannot be an ontic claim without falling for the mind-projection fallacy etc. Thus it is properly assumed actualism is dealing with this particular concept on purely a soteriological basis, or one must criticize and assert less 'rational faith' in actualism and said claims then this analysis is assuming & granting in favor of Richard and actualism. Actualism in proper, simply accepts that this tendency "is" and seeks to immolate it (in favor of non-affective/non-self feelings/sensory etc).

Buddhism also accepts that there is this tendency common and seeks to immolate it. However it sees no absolute need to placate to this simplistic notion in favor of more careful observation and analysis. Thus still working from the perspective that "mine-ness","beingness", and other identifications, with feelings or otherwise, commonly & functionally 'constitute' the self, Shakyamuni worked to deconstruct the self by the teaching mentioned by the quote and dependent origination etc. Thus beyond semantic games for the sake of uncalled-for segregation and divisiveness, there is no actual difference, meaning actualism has no claim of actual novelty, even the presuppositions and beliefs that Buddhism refutes and corrects of actualism have also existed before actualism.

The actualist asserts "instead, to realize no-self. one have to detach from feelings, seeing them as "not mine"." The quote however didn't mention realizing no-self, nor did it assert a causal structure related to said non-mentioned-realization.




Further, neuroscience demands that any positive and assertive 'acceptance' of feelings as "mine", leads to an ease of reification and further return to later acceptance of feelings as "mine", however requiring less input. Thus comparing the utility of herding the mind with assertions of self and assertions of non-self, one can lead to an ease of solidification concerning phantoms of mind, while the other is a more direct shot to the goal. Further, if properly viewing self and the all as dream and unreal, then this conditions the brain to take them as such, and will not scare at what it discerns as mind, dream, and a phantom of such. <Though there are certain immatured mind-types of certain faculties that do benefit in early stages from faith in a higher reality of certain qualities of "self" & "no-self" etc>.


Concerning presupposing and assuming self:


" "To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self' [or] 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling]' [or] 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend — feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has perished.

"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, 'Feeling is my self.' Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.

"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No, lord."

"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling].'

"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No, lord."

"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' "


"However, I don't think my references about no-self {from a sutta of the pali canon} and dependent origination {from a generic wiki article} are that different in Tibetan. "



The references themselves are brief and hardly provide context, however this actualist's presuppositions should not be confused with the references themselves. As the presuppositions are generally incorrect and do not necessarily follow from the references.



"If you have some Vajrayana, Mahayana or Theravada reports where the complete absence of feelings 24/7/365 is specified, please share. If not, we can't say categorically that Actualism is not new and that was covered by Buddhism before Richard's method."



Actually, when Richard or anyone else asserts novelty, 'newness', optimization, limits within other traditions etc, they are the ones who the burden of proof falls on. It is a logical fallacy to project or conflate or shift the burden of proof onto anyone else who isn't making said assertions and claims. To clarify further the nature of this fallacy, the inability or even failure to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. Further, any disinclination or disinterest to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever, even if it goes unchallenged for years. Beyond, careful in fallaciously moving the goalpost, there is no need to post-rationalize and continue presupposed beliefs concerning actualism's novelty. Appreciate the benefits of being open to changing one's mind through better reason, or evidence providing better understanding, as this is actually enjoying this moment of being alive, while inventing ways and performing trivial mental gymnastics to cling to old beliefs is not so.


Further this actualist conflates (even if just in words) the specific subset of feelings that actualism considers "bad", with feelings in general, as actualism doesn't do away with "non-affective feelings" like, hot & cold (actualism seems to consider bodily-pain as 'non-affective') etc. Thus the actulist, in proper, should be asking for implicit reference concerning removing affective feelings. However, dependent origination can apply to more than mere affective feelings, advanced practitioners like the yogi Dharma Sangha have also severed the feelings of hot & cold etc.




"As the Khemaka Sutta points out, those who have already attained one of the lower levels of enlightenment may not identify with anything in particular, but may still have the illusion of subjectivity; that is, there may not be anything for which they think "I am this", but they may still retain the tendency to feel "I am". " -wiki

"The other four aggregates constitute the mental side of experience. Feeling is the affective quality of pleasure or pain, or the neutral tone of neither pleasure nor pain, present on any occasion of mental activity. [...] whatever registers affective tone is feeling. [...] As the yogin contemplates the rise and fall of the five aggregates, his attention becomes riveted to the final phase of the process, their dissolution and passing away. [...] the realization of the unconditioned requires a turning away from the conditioned, it must be emphasized that this realization is achieved precisely through the understanding of the conditioned. Nibbana cannot be reached by backing off from a direct confrontation with samsara to lose oneself in a blissful oblivion to the world. The path to liberation is a path of understanding, of comprehension and transcendence, not of escapism or emotional self-indulgence. [...] sustained by bodily vitality [...] he is still subject to "a measure of disturbance" conditioned by the body with its six sense faculties [...] he still experiences pleasure and pain [...]"

"seeing how the aggregates that made up his "person" were also the impelling factors in the round of experience and the world at large, and how the whole show could be brought to cessation. With its cessation, there remained the experience of the unconditioned, which he also termed nibbana (Unbinding), consciousness without surface or feature, [...]"

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form (also, from the cessation of name & form comes the cessation of consciousness). From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. [...]"

"The skandha analysis of the early texts is not applicable to arahants. A tathagata has abandoned that clinging to the personality factors that render the mind a bounded, measurable entity, and is instead "freed from being reckoned by" all or any of them, even in life. The skandhas have been seen to be a burden, and an enlightened individual is one with "burden dropped". "


"Maybe you're right. I guess I mixed because, according to my poor memory, in the Tibetan Mahayana school it's said that they cover the topics of both 'Hinayana' {Theravada} and 'Mahayana', along with 'Vajrayana', but maybe I was wrong on that assumption.


"You're right in that those claims (about covering everything, about superseding previous forms of Buddhism) do seem to be commonly made in Mahayana / Vajrayana forms of Buddhism."




First, there is no such thing as 'the Tibetan Mahayana school'. Secondly, the labels of hinayana, mahayana, vajrayana are misleading, do not reflect schools themselves or their progression and development. The terms are used meta-categorically, they shouldn't be reified, and don't fully & properly reflect scholarly viewpoints. This though does not demand one necessarily individuate schools or sub-schools from one another, as this can also be misleading as to the actual development of the teachings, the relationship and stance of prominent thinkers amongst & in-between the schools (Nagarjuna was primarily a student of hinayana etc etc), as well as their opinions concerning embracing the dharma teachings in general rather than delineating by sub-tradition. Moreover, in terms of categorization, scholarship generally prefers to segregate based on development and influence dynamics related to several factors including geopolitics, rates of information transfer and which bits of information are moved and to where. Thus if one must broadly refer or label anything, it follows reason to say Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.

Third, no school or tradition covers everything. It is said it took roughly 7-9 months to recite the early 10,000 texts worth of teachings, now there are over half a million different texts, some rather long and much of them have between three to five orders of meaning. No specific school or tradition even has access to all the texts. However, the growth and development of all of those traditions emerged out of massive discussion and cross-pollination by virtue of debate and often increasingly refined analysis. Further, a complete study of one sub-tradition yields some knowledge of other traditions but not complete knowledge by any means, some specific argumentation lines will be known and many generalities. There is only so much time in the year. Thus in terms of a root-dynamic even leading to the development of a sub-tradition, 'superseding orders' can be spoken of if desired, yet know that no scholar is teaching or reading something that is covering all of Buddhism or anything close.



Withal, in some general senses there is observed superseding, however again with blatant examples like Thai Theravada Tantra, it is clear the co-emergent growth of sophistication and subtlety as a whole is more pronounced than anything else. Another example, if one understands madhyamaka rather well, even though not knowing many of the particulars of the classical arahant texts and other interpretations, let alone all the commentaries and later developments related to the abhidharmists etc, one could still walk and achieve along the arahant path well. Similarly an abhidharmist who is well versed in his own sub-tradition, could make progress towards several of the path-variants of tantra, while not knowing many of the particulars concerning those related to a specific tradition's text. Moreover, a theravadin can walk bodhisattva path-variants based off a thorough investigation of the theravadin texts while not knowing many of the particulars concerning said bodhisattva paths. Etc.


As a slight aside, with in mind the distinction mentioned in the beginning concerning the phenomenological/epistemic/soteriological versus ontic seeking and ontological emphasis. As well as beyond the ultimately collaborative argumentative/debate functions that yield co-emergent growth, if unpacking the primary criticisms between the the sub-traditions or higher order, they reduce back to asserting ontic reification tendencies and supposed mistakes deriving thereof. However, in nearly every circumstance the defending and responding sub-tradition etc sincerely counters by asserting anti-ontology/ontic-seeking. What to conclude from this? Well first, these criticisms primarily arise in the texts out of the fast-paced and rather enjoyable intellectual process of critical and soteriological debate-grounds. Often it is a psychological game, where refined intellect, and quick-wit is trained; many of the textual arguments thus are artifacts from criticisms that were meant like a move of momentum in a fast-paced game of debate rather than a truly serious criticism (beyond asserting the superiority, accuracy, utility, etc of various explanatory ordering principles invoked epistemically/soteriologically). Second, when one moves beyond certain personal projections of perceived exercises in ontology etc and certain false projections of certain students throughout history, one sees the sub-traditions as a whole are in much less in conflict with one another then often assumed. More in the fashion of similarities than differences.


Now considering the smudge of context represented in all the aforementioned. One should be careful making hasty conclusions or generalizations concerning the quotes following, further it can antagonize cherry-picking tendencies.


"The tide of misinformation on this, or on any other topic of Indian lore comes about because authors frequently read just a few verses or paragraphs of a text, then go to secondary sources, or to treatises by rivals, and presume to speak authoritatively. Only after doing genuine research on such a topic can one begin to answer the question: why were those texts and why do the moderns write the way they do?"


"Having dwelt upon the nature of nirvana, the Buddha now explains its positive aspect and says that nirvana has the four attributes of the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... the Buddha says: "O you bhiksus [monks]! Do not abide in the thought of the non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure and have things as in the case of those people who take the stones, wooden pieces and gravel for the true gem [of the true Dharma] ... In every situation, constantly meditate upon the idea of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality meditatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like the wise person."



The above quote is lifted from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra with no context or understanding of the rather in-depth sutra.

"The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a long and highly composite Mahayana scripture, refers to the Buddha using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. From this, it continues: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self."

The Ratnagotravibhaga, a related text, points out that the teaching of the tathagatagarbha is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "affection for one's self" - one of the five defects caused by non-Buddhist teaching. Youru Wang notes similar language in the Lankavatara Sutra, then writes: "Noticing this context is important. It will help us to avoid jumping to the conclusion that tathagatagarbha thought is simply another case of metaphysical imagination."

Further, in other portions of the text, where the positive-self discussions are being had, a monk proclaims that for the first time he has attained the proper view (that which was exceedingly soteriologically beneficial for that particular monk; as the entire text speaks to a range of contemplatives & to different faculties and paths, hearer monks, bodhisattvas, etc).


"Is the way the 'parinirvana' or parinibbana in pali described in that quote above from wiki (a mahayana related quote) universally accepted as the definition of parinibbana? Is it found in the pali sutta version?"


"It would be grossly out of place in the Pali canon... "



Automatically presupposing that the quote, either gathered from the quote and/or the link, refers to parinirvana may lead to confusions. Beyond, a team of monks under the direction of Padmasambhava wrote the Mahaparinirvana Sutra with a heavy soteriological emphasis, however the scant references to epistemic modeling/assertions & ordering principles do not fly in the face of the early teachings, though it may appear this way to overly hasty quasi-discernment. Padmasambhava appeared to be such a grandmaster of the bardo visions & actual-clear-light that many consider him developed beyond even Shakyamuni. Thus, let us not trivialize the text by projecting and assuming ontology, ontic-seeking or anti-logical and naive notions of eternality and self, some of which are the most basically refuted notions on behalf of Buddhism (it wasn't then nor now a secret that Shakyamuni fully refuted these notions, that part of what distinguished him amongst other contemplatives of his day were these varying orders of refutation).

In the early texts, Shakyamuni does conventionally teach self to those snared in conceptual/perceptual traps relating to reifying concepts of non-being, emptiness, or nihilism; thus the soteriological and conventional precedent was established. As an aside, many great thinkers later have referred to even the views of eternalism or nihilism as subtly pure Buddhas (epistemically/soteriological), as paths are possible and available for those who are attached to these views, figuring ways to use these views as fuel; again for the sake of those bound up in views.

The quote is specifically referring to and acting towards teaching monks who are not skilled in objectless meditations, meditations beyond name & form, and certainly not nibbana. As first there is criticism of abiding in the thought of non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure; then it advises to meditate on the idea of the self, eternal, bliss, pure for those who are still in a position to desire the attaining of reality. Neither actually describe nirvana, for eternal/non-eternal, self/non-self, or bliss/non-bliss all refer to definitions & limitations that are non-applicable to the boundlessness of nirvana. The freedom of nirvana is the boundless freedom of inconceivability.

"Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. Since absolute inconceivable truth is also Sunya, Sunyata or the void is shared by both Samsara and Nirvana. Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood." -Nagarjuna


Further, considering all the above, and considering the 'positive aspect' of the nibbana of the early texts: Conventional discussions can be had of nibbana as 'self' in terms of 'self' simply equaling 'consciousness without feature', in other words, for convention, it is that-which-remains-after-the-true-negation. Though even the self in actuality has departed the empty room, there is a 'space' where environmental decoherence cannot enter, leaving emptiness, nibbana is so unbounded it is beyond being or non-being; thus this 'self-contained' freedom from decoherence, the leftover after the negation of which the self departed the empty room and after even the room itself is discarded, can be conventionally called 'self' (though Buddhism in proper, Shakyamuni and otherwise, have stressed the limited utility of this, in most cases declaring there is no point in adding the label of self, however there are many different minds with different defilements).

Further, conventional positive discussions can be had of nibbana as 'eternal' in terms of gaining the two knowledges, the knowledge of destruction corresponds to the eternal destruction of the defilements at their very root; the knowledge of non-arising corresponds to the gained certainty (or 'the remaining certainty after the true-negation') of the eternal non-arising of future defilements.

Further, conventional positive discussions can be had of nibbana as 'bliss' in terms of the knowledges as well, for the first bliss is the bliss of severing all that can cause distress and make one tremble; the second bliss is the blissful presence of that discernible certainty as to future freedom and persistence of severance.

Further, conventional positive discussions can be had of nibbana as 'pure' in terms of the purity of attainment and severance, as well as the persistence of such. The resulting purity of behavioral fruit etc. Further etc as discussions of pure are somewhat self-explanatory.

Thus it is not in conflict nor grossly out of place concerning the early representations & texts. This includes when 'The Nirvana Sutra' mentions the Buddha-nature as "the boundless Dharmadhatu".



"In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha declares:

Nirvana is stated to be eternally abiding. The Tathagata [Buddha] is also thus, eternally abiding, without change.

This is a particularly important metaphysical and soteriological doctrine in the Lotus Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha sutras. According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity and, even worse, outright denial of that eternity, is deemed a major obstacle to the attainment of complete awakening (Bodhi)."

The Lotus Sutra and especially such tantras as the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra give expression to a vision of the Buddha as the omnipresent, all-knowing, liberative essence and deathless Reality of all things."



The Tathagata/Buddha & Nirvana can be be considered eternally abiding (explained beyond the obvious conventional purpose already mentioned above) in the context that 'eternally abiding' here must implicitly & necissarily refer to 'as long as there are unliberated sentient beings' (for that matter, sentient beings in general). As long as there are sentient beings, there will be, in actuality, the eternally abiding potential of consciousness without surface and it itself etc. The Tathagata/Buddha thus is a principle/potential for full awakening, the capacity by virtue of sentience.

Further, there is no need nor evidence nor reason to take the lotus sutra or the mentioned tantra and the tathagatagarbha class sutras as 'metaphysical', atleast beyond the soteriological and epistemological boundary. Using twilight language to 'give expression to a vision of the Buddha', should not be conflated with ontological speculation.
Omnipresent as it is found where every mind is found, all-knowing as it is found where every mind is found and is beyond subject-object, it is the liberative essence as it is found where every mind is and is thus path and result (and subtly considered even the appearance of obstacles), deathless reality for as long as there are minds and sentience there will be this actuality.

Failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity, in association with path-obstacles, can be considered in respect to the relationship with the ability to see the Buddha/potential for full awakening in others etc. A reference to how, if one is lacking the capacity to understand the positive aspect in its observed & conventional, then one is lacking the sufficient knowledge and faculties to yet lift oneself to the summit of complete awakening. Further, an outright denial can be considered a major obstacle as this is an indication of being bound up in views, which may act as a preventative factor or factor of distortion in regards to many states & attainments.
As generally the bodhisattva, Buddha, awareness-holder paths necessarily attain a malleability of the dharma teachings and representations of said teachings. For example, a Bodhisattva's personal path completely ends several steps before complete-awakening, they have already attained nirvana and have gone beyond all spheres of suffering (and thus it is said their path is over), yet several steps remain concerning increasing intellectual discernment and the faculties related to 'initiating' transcendentally spontaneous wisdom. As complete realization entails becoming an increasingly suitable vessel in so far as being able to carry the weight of increasing numbers and types of beings.




"In the Dharmakaya doctrine the Buddha teaches that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being, but has become a being of a different order altogether. In his ultimate transcendental "body/mind" mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life, is present in all things as the Buddha-nature, and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities."




There really is no such thing as the 'dharmakaya doctrine'. The term and notion originated from the early texts and has been adapted to the various epistemic and soteriologic models since (its use is vast and any impulse to make hasty generalizations or conclusion should be exterminated). It can mean the emergent causal structure/phenomena concerning dhamma teachings themselves. As Shakyamuni is said to have taught "Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma". After Shakyamuni's parinibbana, his dhammakaya was distinguished from the physical body, as the only way to 'relate' to Shakyamuni from then on was through the teachings and the associated co-emergent causal structure. Amongst many of its applications during the development and refinement of modeling etc, dharmakaya became a slightly ambiguous term related to various conceptions of the higher or highest attainments. Some masters imposed limitations and made errors through consolidation concerning the level of attainment that the dharmakaya represents related to one epistemic model or another (some even limiting it to the non-actual clear light). However, an in-depth meta-approach generally concludes it proper to equate with the highest possible attainment considered out of any advanced meta-tradition, which is considered to include the maximum intelligence, knowledge & wisdom 'relatively' possible (Prasaṅgika necessarily includes this to mean mastery over that age's science and art in its consideration of 'maximum', in fact this is considered critical for the highest attainments related to having the proper capacities pertaining to assisting other beings, by being able to draw great corollaries).


However, to the quote, non-manifestive consciousness doesn't discern and entertain notions of groups of beings delineated by becoming & birth. Thus little reason to speak of human beings, as awareness does not discriminate when animating actuality. Almost every tradition of any order, Buddhist and otherwise, could be construed in some fashion or another as no longer essentially 'human being' (rather ambiguous term to begin with). The result of 'a body who has immolated feeling of being' could be considered no longer essentially 'human being'. Any contemplative who achieves any order of super-sanity can be said to be no longer essentially human being. When one fully relinquishes traces of cognitive discrimination, a knowledge related to the sameness of non-manifest consciousness dawns. The sameness of which has infinite life as long as there are minds and sentience, as non-discriminative awareness, in principle, can be found where every mind is. It is present in all things as awareness is what animates the experience of reality/actuality/unreality (biocentric-like as a practicality). Thus it can be considered 'possessed of great and immeasurable qualities' (again all within an epistemic model with soteriological efficacy).


"When you [attain] realize that samsara and nirvana are dharmakaya, you need not put effort into meditation practice." -Padmasambhava

Though the Buddha-matrix is subtly present within all, proper wisdom allows operation of said matrix.





"For the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, and his Jonangpa School, the Buddha is to be understood as the wondrous and holy wish-fulfilling Essence of all things, beyond comprehension:

Buddha—an essence of immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable, excellent exalted body, wisdom, qualities, and activities extremely wondrous and fantastic—is vast like space and the holy source, giving rise to all that is wished by sentient beings like a wish-granting jewel, a wish-granting tree …[11]"



"Shentong teachings, and the school of Jonang, are a minority school of Tibetan Buddhism, in fact the least adherents out of the 5 schools of Tibetan Buddhism - in fact Jonang is only recently 'officially recognized' this year as one of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism by the Dalai Lama. Shentong is often accused by Tibetan Buddhists of leaning towards the eternalist side of interpretation (but so does certain early sutras of the Tathagatagarbha class of Mahayana scriptures) and is much closer to the view of Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta than other forms of Tibetan Buddhism, and I think these certain schools (like Shentong/Jonang) and some Tathagatagarbha class sutra (like the early version of Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra) are as eternalistic as they are accused of (though the degree of being affected by eternalist view very much depends on each individual shentong-view teacher, some are less eternalistic than others). However, vast majority of Tibetan Buddhism/Mahayana do not hold such views (though not very uncommon either).


Most Tibetans do not hold an eternalist view and are more towards the Nagarjuna 'middle way' teachings in terms of view... just mentioning this because Mahayana and Tibetan is very vast, there is no single uniform view that is accepted throughout."





This calls for a differing order of explanation. First however, consider that the Dalia Lama severely emphasizes Nagarjuna and middle way. Then consider the Dalia Lama taking the firm stance on Dorje Shugden (it started several decades before it was blown out of proportion by certain media outlets, claiming bans and illegality, despite this flying in the face of the chronology and facts of the issue). However, despite certain differences, this provides some clues as to the context by which the Dalia Lama 'officially recognized' Jonang. First, he was undoing a political wrong that was perpetuated a long time ago.

Second, he assessed it in detail to determine whether the teachings are anti-buddhist, non-representative of Tibetan Buddhism (this includes anti-buddhist claims such as ontology claims related to eternalism). Clearly, because of the Dorje Shugden situations, the Dalia Lama has demonstrated a seriousness in what he sees as protecting Buddhism's integrity, even in the face of political pressure within and outside Buddhist communities. Thus it isn't some passive political appeal, nor just passively allowing blatantly anti-buddhist doctrines or traditions into what is officially recognized. So we can't be so quick to jump to conclusions, especially considering the primary criticism between schools has been quantified as the false assertion of ontic reification or ontic-seeking.



Now, is the Jonangpa meta-tradition (for that matter shentong,tathagatagarbha class sutras, the mahaparinirvana sutra (or other Padmasambhava teachings/influenced teachings), yogachara etc, actually closer to the view of Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta? - No! For much of Hinduism and the meta-tradition of Advaita Vedanta are active exercises in ontology. Generally, even with what has become normative, where hindu yogis/hindu tantric yogis are non-studied and know relatively little of their texts, but are rather accomplished in their meditations, will assert ontological realness even after mind-projection fallacies and problems with induction etc are explained in detail. While in inter-dynamic Buddhism, including of yogachara, thus shentong; shentong, thus jopang, these issues are already recognized and dealt with, including the limits of utility pertaining to these problems.

Moreover, in terms of phenomenology and associated epistemic models (with soteriological efficacy) only, and comparing strictly in this fashion the aforementioned traditions with Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta. One immediately comes to some variant of the common criticism coming from many traditions upon this accusation, emptiness & co-emergence necessarily provides all the primary distinctions!

Beyond, in terms of the commonality of eternalistic views, the lay-people do occasionally have eternalistic models that they further take as ontic. However, the general consensus is that a fair portion of the lay-community leans towards nihilism as well. Nagarjuna's work is profound and easy to mistake, many monks don't know for example in Nagarjuna's tantra, the Buddha-matrix is mentioned. As far as the schools? I have never spoken to a teacher who is respected as logician, who upon discussing induction fallacies and mind-projection fallacies, asserts ontic seeking or ontic necessity, especially beyond epistemic boundaries etc (in fact, again and again, phenomenological, epistemological, & soteriological is the conclusion). I have spent good portions of time examining the more exotic and fringe schools, and in every case thus far, the supposed controversy (in these cases, if the accusation appears trivial and shallow, often it is) becomes non-sense in actuality. Further, as far as advanced monks and yogis, there is absolutely no need to ontologically seek, speculate, or distort working epistemic models & epiontic models. As the epistemic models consume all that is possibly relevant and necessary, logicians consider spending time on what's left as useful as spending time ruminating back further and further, teasing out factors of infinite regress (a generally non-meaningful use of time).







My experience sheds light on this Shentong/Jonang;
Many years ago I experienced a series of spontaneous dream-yoga events over the course of several months. Please note that dream-yoga is distinct from the practices related to the non-actual and actual clear light of sleep. Dream-yoga relates to the change and modification that occurs by falling under the spell of the temporary extinction that induces the sleep, and distinctly after that event of modification, practices initiated thereafter. While the basic non-actual clear light of sleep practices (of which the more advanced actual clear light eventually can follow), concerns maintaining awareness through the sleep-extinction, surviving it, but not falling under the spell of the modification that first is random imagery and then full dreams etc. Instead of falling under the spell of modification, the prana retracts into the heart-area and one is neither connected and aware nor not connected and aware of the body for the duration of the sleep cycle (in the beginning overall & over time per iteration, another sleep-extinction might arise).



Skipping to the primary order, more advanced dream-yoga, as relating to the experiences: through lucidity or constructed habit, the dream falls away. When the dream falls away for the general person, one of three colors will persist, these colors will be experienced like a cliff/precipice/vast abysses, however some can be experienced inversely (rather uncommon), where the cliff/precipice leads to 'ascending upwards' instead of falling downwards. Red generally represents deeply-rooted aversion, white generally represents deeply-rooted attachment, black generally represents deeply-rooted delusion (reaching black is preferred and more important, which is why it is called "near-perfected").
-It should be noted that preliminary calibers of varying lucidity can occur that should not be mistaken, the dream can go in and out of black (with falling or not) with either no actual delusion-precipice at all or with one that one 'coasts' down. The second can be considered a version, albeit a weaker version/echo, of the delusion precipice. As for the going in and out of a dream or having the dream fall away or dissolve, leaving a stationary black; this is generally either still subtle dream, one of the less-useful passive conscious states, or a delusion-of-other-emptiness (not the emptiness of other in proper, generally a self-delusion instead; thus those states are not to be considered the delusion precipice).

When the the dream falls away leaving the "near-perfected" black precipice of delusion, it is arising with the subtle perceptual corruption and vision-consciousness reification, not properly seeing/experiencing that otherness as indeed empty, instead subtly reifying some inherent quality of substantialness related to "other/object". One experiences the black-precipice as a subtle other/object/that-which-has-substance and will experience falling and similar. However, one can correct this by posturing the mind in-line with two-fold emptiness. Attending to the sameness and utter equality in the complete absence of established existence, burrowing attention in-between, on the horizon or fence of "out there/in here" and releasing both sides from the horizon. The moment the mind properly postures in this way, some sort of symmetry/threshold can be met.


A wondrous turning-about & shift occurs due to said threshold, for mind automatically adjusts and re-orients itself. The false animation & show of otherness abruptly ends, the black precipice is nowhere to be found, falling isn't possible as there is absolutely nothing "other" to relate to or fall relative to. There is still access to the knowledge held, there is of course no felt or perceived sense of "being" or "I am" associated. The senses are a super-mundane 'set' of senses that is primarily a vision-'tactile' complex (certain functions though do associate with subtle vibratory, "pseudo-audible"-registering). By vision at this point, an almost informationless, pixilated-like neither perception or non-perception; a light-like radiance and if forced, one might try to describe the visual aspect as an quasi-perceived indeterminate mix of black, grey, and white tones - however this can be extremely misleading; it is a distinct color and visual change from the black precipice (generally 'lighter' than the blackness of the black precipice, the precipice has no real discernible indeterminate function to its appearance, while it can only be said 'generally' of the post-precipice, as the indeterminacy of the post-precipice also makes it richer & luminous in some visual sense that might contradict 'lighter' in tone).

A few brief moments after this turning-about, suddenly like lightning, a natural, pre-knowledge familiarity instinct dawns, or a 'deep-knowledge', pertaining to a functional potentiality that naturally yields. An instinctual knowledge appearing like if waking to a familiar body, where there is no need to cogitate or even acknowledge the dawning familiar knowledge of functionality. It is automatically pre-understood in some abstract primal sense to be so indeterminate, inseparable, and boundless, that it is capable of being a creative-like potential, or something capable of loading multitudes and multitudes of thought-forms. It is known that one can acknowledge and connect two points in a vertical fashion, not in a sensory derived fashion, almost like operating through automatic functional knowledge of a visceral map, rather than the senate mapping & biofeedback itself (similar to the formless potentiation related to the pre-initation of muscle movement etc). Connecting what the abhidharmists might call the base of mount meru, to the peak (this mount-meru notion also corresponds to the spinal-complex when in the form body etc). In this case however, again there is no sense or feeling of spine-complex and form body, or "self", being or non-being.

When the two points are made to connect in proper fashion & symmetry, another shift occurs, like switching the "on" setting. More precisely, the "on" switch takes a few mind-moments to activate; during which, the subtlest sensory/map associated with each point dawns. A 'deep knowledge'-based sense arises as the proper connecting line is drawn (the "line" is sensed in an extremely abstract way, a pre-cognitive informational-sense, not properly tactile sensation, not properly knowledge, or cogitation or instinct). Considering the experience around this point, it can be said that the moment the two points are properly connected, the crown chakra is present, activated, and emanating. During a brief mind-moment, there is a distinct pulsating sensation (vibratory "pseudo-audible" pulsating tones as well) rapidly inflating and expanding from the crown chakra, arising inseparably with a stream of visual phantasmagoria. This moment is properly the dawning of the Sambhogakaya. After this brief-moment, the stream of visual phantasmagoria becomes an emanatory torrent & begins rushing generally and indistinguishably from both the aforementioned points and the line-relationship in-between (keep in mind, at this point, any discussion & description emerges with the crescendo of misunderstanding possibility, often blatant).



Now with the kaya "on" and functional, freedom of boundless emanation and bliss is fully the case. The limit and scope of discrimination and "the all" doesn't properly apply in its normative negative aspect. It is nirvana but it is also a harnessed control over an unborn cosmos of emanation. If to discriminate "is", "that-which-one-is" can be said to be none other and inseparable from "Pure-land" itself. There are absolutely no limbs, head, and torso to this body beyond "potentiality" itself, as in the capacity to naturally emanate anything possibly discernible and tune such potentiated emanations to whatever degree one can possibly discern (though no discerning is needed or generally used for the functioning of the emanatory body). It is beyond notions of fabrication however, the emanation aspect is easier to control and more natural than any label of, "will-to-being", "visualize", "conceptualize", "fabricate" etc. Course notions of intention or instinct don't properly apply, but for the sake of discussion one could say the subtlest discriminative-awareness intentions operate the kaya. One 'observes appearance into existence', or loads appearance/thought-form from another order by observation. Thousands and thousands of thought-forms can be pooled and morphed, solidified, made to one, made to many - all in a few mind-moments. Anything is possible there. It is a freedom free from even the conceptual & experiential limits of a negation-only freedom, as if those limits applied, it appears that it would render "freedom" into a very subtly measurable, definable, and bounded abstract or process.

It can indeed be considered vast like space (though the space-element, consciousness-element, or nothingness-element are not necessarily perceived/present, though can be made to be). It can be considered holy source/wish-granting jewel/a wish-granting tree. There are thousands (& thousands more) of explorable aspects to this, however from within the kaya, it doesn't appear possible to break the symmetry and return to the delusion precipice or generate delusional perception and fall under the spell of it, as in when experimentally attempting to reroot or reboot the perception of "other-ness", the kaya rejects it & appears incapable of becoming deluded by a sense of "other-ness" (again, in no way does this mean there is a sense/feeling of "I am", being, or sense of self). Having pushed this to various degrees, its persistence remained unbudged; even curious situations related to directly experimenting with the emanation of movement, not experiencing an abstract moving 'against' another abstract (the "other" abstract). There is instead the experience of visual layers corresponding directly with the intended emanation as well as some abstract knowledge-sense that might be summed up as "moving" through pure virtuality, spaceless yet vast virtuality (immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable; the kaya, both during the movement-tests and not, is beyond movement/non-movement, beyond dynamic/static). Even to the immeasurable & incomprehensible extent of emanating a plane/world with the appearance of beings with minds cannot be properly discerned as "other-ness", as all possible information discernible from said plane is automatically pre-known to be discernible (there is an indeterminacy factor that is known and explorable as well). The kaya is measuring them into appearance, they are inseparable and cannot be "other" (though beyond simple notions of multiplicity and singularity). However, the most persistent & assertive observable/conclusion showing itself when doing the movement or world tests, is the sheer pervasiveness of certitude concerning the impossibility of the actual perception of "other-ness" (as within and related to the kaya).


The kaya itself when compared to posturing, though not identical to the two-fold-emptiness posturing, can be completely considered two-fold-emptiness by definition. As though lacking self-aspect worthy of identification, it also maintains non-passing integrity via direct analysis, against and versus regular order empty 'things', as they do not maintain integrity and are passing upon analysis.

Now considering the kaya fits the definition of two-fold emptiness and the phenomenological posturing comparison falls towards emptiness-of-other/two-fold-emptiness, it follows in likelihood that this is an example of actual two-fold-emptiness in the context of the broader discussions of emptiness; one could say an example of "deep emptiness". So the dichotomy between two-fold-emptiness and non-empty-emptiness breaks down as its basis as a problem is due to misinformed, albeit-it very careful, conceptualization. In other words, it does in fact appear that there are at least 'differing orders of emptiness' (shentongpas and Nagarjuna agree on the error of epistemic foundationalism and reject it, therefor they are aware of the flaws of representational modeling etc etc). Know that 'orders of emptiness' falls in line with emptiness of emptiness and penetrates beyond even affirming negation/non-affirming negation. It is absolutely unjustified to cast two-fold emptiness, non-empty-emptiness, Shentong, Dolpopa, Padmasambhava etc, in any sort of light such that they appear at odds with Nagarjuna's middle-way, Rangtong etc.



"Shentongpas (those who hold a Shentong view) consider their position to be the rarefied expression of Mādhyamika. They hold that this view is the fruit of direct meditative experience and not realized through the path of conceptual understanding nor scholarship. In light of that, they posit that Rangtong is expedient for individuals who approach Dharma primarily through philosophical studies, whilst Shentong is a means of support for the meditation-oriented practitioner."

"Shentongpas often present themselves as Rangtongpas as well, asserting they see the two views as a complementary unity, a continuum, a coalescence."


Having approached the dharma with an indeterminate middle-way approach, emphasizing bodhicitta, much study and sufficient meditation, I declare Shentong views do appear as properly a complementary unity; there is not a contradiction. It is the fruit of direct meditative experience and isn't properly understood or accessible through the conceptual work; it doesn't conflict with madhyamakan scholarship, but the fruit surely aids and adds to the insight into said scholarship.


Nagarjuna:

"All the Buddhas have said that emptiness definitely eliminates all viewpoints. Those who have the view of emptiness are said to be incurable."


Shåkya Chok-den:

"Self-emptiness is more profound for eliminating

proliferations by means of the view. Other-emptiness is more pro-

found for practice by means of meditation."


Nagarjuna:

"I bow to my own mind that dispels mind's ignorance by eliminating the mind-sprung web through this very mind itself.

Sentient beings with their various inclinations picture different kinds of gods, but our precious mind cannot be established as any other god than complete liberation."




<note: Don't conflate the bardo-visions in general for this kaya, while provisionally it can be said the bardo-visions generally present 'doors' that lead to the kaya(s) in varying ways, the bardo-visions themselves are not properly this kaya and most have structure and rules that absolutely don't apply to the freedom ontop of freedom that is the Sambhogakaya.>



<For more context related to the post-dream color-precipices, if the dream has genuinely fallen away leaving, or dissolving into a color other than the normative, then very careful analysis, including identifying the corresponding labels for the color, can provide insight into which and how certain advanced paths will be more natural than others. More specifically, it provides insight into the stamp or imprint on that mind that relates to applying a specific meta-path, thus attaining non-normative results.

For example, this mind experienced the black precipice many times, a non-normative type of white precipice, and two different types of blue precipice several times. No red precipice at all. However one of the non-normative colors explains why no red-aversion precipice, as one of the blues corresponds to an imprint of the 'vajrasattva-buddhamind', 'the natural purity of the aggregate of consciousness', 'pure without renunciation of aversion'. Which has many orders of implication concerning life, path, tendencies, etc. This mind-imprint type is untethered to rooting out aversion, it can be rooted out if inclined, however, it can automatically transform itself during the proper-course of life, certain paths and ultimately can 'liberate itself' (or the seed will remain, yet with no potential to arise, etc concerning other possibilities).

In this mind's case, the specific imprint-type lead to 'rediscovery intuitions' concerning many parts of the advanced techniques and verification concerning how emptiness applies to meta-paths/paths in general (meta-paths can be applied to any person, though matching a proper meta-path with a properly discerned imprint-type generally leads to a distinct increase in efficacy, performance, natural symmetry etc).

During the held-breath tummo for example and before one has attained the knowledge of non-arising, instead of shielding using 'face-to-face' non-objectification during the burning cycle as to remove the mind from dissatisfaction, one can use fabrication to generate immense pure-desire & pure-clinging/sustenance. This pure-uberdesire & pure-sustenance/clinging acts as a secret and comfortable raft, carrying one to emptiness cycles, tummo attainments such as the clearing of the channels, etc- without facing any aversion or similar difficulty. The desire gobbles up all potential-aversion and associated embers and uses it as wondrous fuel and momentum to accelerate further & longer (no need to preemptively reject or renounce aversion). It might be viewed as a total transmutation of the soil by which aversion grows, mutating the roots of aversion, the genetic-modification of aversion, as once it is so converted (this is possible even before the burning cycle has ignited), all fabrications can be dropped and one is left with the wondrous natural purity of the aggregate of consciousness. There is a distinct difference between the process of aversion-mutation with moment-by-moment fabrication as its sustenance and the specific & fabricationless natural purity of the aggregate of consciousness.

One is a comfortable and secret raft where paddling and some order of effort is still required, depending on the strength of the yogi. The other is a comfortable and secret raft, a throne of a raft, where no paddling or 'effort' is required, just a torrent and tour of paradise; destination freedom. Auto-piloting and begetting the beautifully boundless & bountiful birthright, this being the benign & bedazzling beatific beguilement of the path-itself, the secret & precious backdoor to the enlightenments, liberation... and eventually Buddhahood. The breathtaking beacon that blessedly beckons the bane, banishment and bludgeoning of dissatisfaction & defilement at its bedrock, at its backbone, at its very base and basis. >









"I remember when I studied Tibetan, the teacher even said 'the future is the most important time for a Buddhist', referring to those future states of 'Buddhahood'. For Actualism, there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet, the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world. "




"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."


Actualist apologists should be careful when allowing ambiguous wordplay to confuse context. If the 'Tibetan' 'teacher' was referring to those states of Buddhahood, then the actualist apologist is committing a category error with his assertion and comparison. It is a flaw in reasoning to compare a state(s) and the attaining of, figuratively & provisionally referred to, with a position, meta-physical, ontological, or otherwise concerning temporality/time.

Further, actualist apologists, as having done so before, should in the future avoid confusing the flawed, unnecessary, and completely dispensable views/tradition of actualism, with the bare methods themselves. Some apologists have demonstrated the tendency to oscillate and conflate these contexts, using the views to cling to the presupposed notion of novelty and difference, while simultaneously claiming "that's not my actualism" in terms of when any of those particulars of said view is deconstructed and shown to be pseudo-scientific & pseudo-intellectual. This clinging leads to purposely changing contexts; purposely equivocating ambiguous language; utilizing special pleading; utilizing a self-serving bias, such as when distorting anecdotal evidence etc etc.



Actualism of course, does assert a differential comparison on more than one occasion concerning the present related to the future. There is a goal & there are processes in the present that actualism discerns needs modification, and even destruction, as to allow and attain a better, more enjoyable, "happier and more harmless" future or future-nowness. Thus there is no distinction with other contemplative traditions on this basis, as the attempted distinction is seen to be trivial and based on misunderstanding provisional statements.

This of course, has nothing to do with the apologists tacked on presupposition (the trivial one, intended to draw out the false & misleading distinction of that actualist's own creation) concerning "there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet".

Nothing in the 'Tibetan' 'teacher's' statement, or the actualist methods, or implied by logic within that particular self-referential actualist set of views, makes any distinction or makes any statement as to the "actual future", the 'real' nature of time, or whether or not the "future exists yet". The actualist doesn't appear to realize or care that 'it doesn't follow', in other words, it is a flaw in reasoning to do what he has, which is change the subject. Further, this applies to "the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world ". Including all the applicable & aforementioned criticisms, this is a self-serving and misleading statement loaded with presupposed terms that are devoid of actual relevance.

" Now follows the esoteric instruction which reveals the three times to be one: Abandon your notions of the past, without attributing a temporal sequence! Cut off your mental associations regarding the future, without anticipation! Rest in a spacious modality, without clinging to the thoughts of the present. Do not meditate at all, since there is nothing upon which to meditate. [...]" -"Introduction to awareness", 'Tibetan Book Of The Dead'


If pushed to discuss views of time based on epistemic modelling, many early schools had different views. Some asserting extreme momentariness, that there is only nowness ultimately untethered from past and future. Some asserting all three-times persist. However the advanced schools, aware of the logic concerning the cognitive dependent co-origination of dependent co-origination itself, don't cling to any or assert "in reality" any model of time whatsoever. Moreover, for convenience and convention that avoids detailed discussions of co-emergence, the advanced traditions thus assert the three times as an interrelationship of past-present-future and additionally a nowness/present that is untethered to some degree or in some sense from the three-times.


This view of time is closest to modern physics, as per experimental evidence & mathematical evidence, there is an interrelated past-present-future, with a lot more flux between then most anyone expected. Experimentally proving that the present alters the past, indicating the future does influence the present; as a matter of scientific fact. Further considering the meta-material experiments showing a lag in time, thus showing us the degree to which time is quantized/digitized. Withal, at deeper orders, there is a nowness that basically untethered from the three-times, as the quantum-gravity process is emanating space and time, thus the process ("unborn" process) itself and beyond the planck sale is timeless "now" to a somewhat significant degree.



As far as any loose and created temporality relationship concerning "Tibetan paths", they can generally be divided into two categories, the long-bodhisattva paths & the tantric-bodhisattva paths (this includes mahamudra, dzogchen etc). First, the tantric-bodhisattva paths are concerned with 'segregating samsara and nirvana' and reaching an accelerated buddhahood/awareness-holder attainment as soon as possible in this life (as quickly and as soon as that individual student discerns & efforts as necessary and worthy). Not only returning again and again to the natural perfection of the moment, or seeing atemporal buddhamind & gradually extending for longer and longer (thus 'future being the most important time', beyond being a statement of provisionality alone, is completely unjustified). Though also utilizing the attained knowledge and insight through various practices, to build a moment by moment paradise.

The actualist apologist claims to have practiced deity visualizing for 'the sake of generating "bliss", however the primary use it has before the non-actual clear light, isn't generating bliss at all, it is amongst other things, to gain insight attainments into the observed fact that in a single mind-moment there can be bliss & emptiness (some traditions also equally or more so emphasize intelligence & emptiness in a single mind-moment). It means, amongst many orders of potential insight, the very root of experienced awareness can be re-programmed and sustained mind-moment by mind-moment in bliss & emptiness (thus fabrications & liberation). Further that the practice is used as a path in itself that eventually leads to liberation through bliss (this doesn't mean it is of the easiest paths). These are a few of the meanings of emptiness of emptiness.


<Note: around the time of the non-actual clear light and beyond, the dynamics for mantra practice, deity practice, etc changes and to the degree that the techniques can be utilized for different reasons from then on out.>

The fabrication paradise attained by the awareness-holders surpasses personal-freedoms concerned with merely non-objectification, as a state of extremely exalted bliss can co-mingle with liberation (emptiness) and any other fabrications one wishes (one of the liberations concerned with liberation from the limitations of personal-liberation). The fabrication paradise is one of the highest possible moment by moment enjoyments, in fact only a single great-bliss (let alone when all the great-blisses are activated at the same time, a while before the supreme and special extinction) is far more delightful than mere non-objectification, much more delightful than the regular enlightenments, where one merely destroys the feeling "I am", the center-point, associated identification, and dissatisfaction. To iterate, actual freedom, is merely a regular enlightenment, not a supreme enlightenment, and significantly underdeveloped compared to reaching buddhahood/awareness-holder enlightenments, which constitute the actual & supreme moment by moment enjoyment of this life or any other.

As to the long-bodhisattva paths, buddhahood is only spoken about as the goal in a provisional fashion to assist the very immatured pseudo-bodhisattva just beginning or having begun the paths. Beyond this, these paths disregard buddhahood in favor of personally living for sentient beings, developing emptiness knowledge as to bring about the natural perfection and to assist others. It is a different order of embracing this moment of being alive. Therefor, it is false and misleading to say that some future state is preferred as priority, or that a position is had concerning a preference of temporal states, 'preferring future'.


"As for 'future', in Dzogchen form of Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhahood is already spontaneously perfected right now as the three kayas. It only needs to be discovered."


Indeed.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present." -Padmasambhava

Padmasambhava, the great Indo-Tibetan buddhist, one of the original & prime tantric practitioners that created what became Tibetan Buddhism. The primary overseer concerning the translation and recreation of a great number of the Indo-Tibetan texts, as well directly & significantly participating in creating the written Tibetan language.




"Perhaps, it could also contribute and not only be 'detrimental'. If you think is mixed, then consider it mix. Does this mixing implies that I'm wrong point by point? I am, after all, quoting relevant and valid sources. Maybe someone could also learn from these fragmentary points in a more specific way. A Tibetan practitioner could extract some value, a Theravadan one other, and an actualist another. I will add a note in my post, if that helps."



Actually, 'texas sharpshooting' & 'cherry picking' are considered flaws in reason specifically because they are unhelpful & wrong, misleading and misconstruing relevant and valid sources. It is generally considered cheap opportunism opposed to asserting meaningful assumptions, conclusions, etc. So yes, in this case, this mixing implies the assertions are wrong point by point. A valid source with no or worse, incorrect context, often means the directly stemming assertions are wrong point by point. Suggesting that someone could or should learn by efforting through the fallacies, by deciphering and translating blatant errors, is a method to deny and avoid correcting and deleting one's error.

To argue and assert hypotheticals as to "perhaps, it could also contribute and not only be 'detrimental' " is somewhat trivial and seems to be an excuse that could be made when any error is pointed to almost under any circumstance, one could just play semantic games with what "contribute" means in the most blatant of self-serving ways. It presupposes and assumes there is "something" meaningful or of value but "hidden" and has to be put together. Further, it is assuming that said "meaningful & hidden something" is more meaningful than any potential confusion caused. Under this circumstance, that others should put in the effort to discern and translate because of the possibility of hidden meaningfulness appears absurd (it really places stock in the level of meaningfulness; to justify the expenditure of the audience's time). There isn't, due to the lack of context and miscontext reviewed & deconstructed during the course of this writing, it is clear there is no hidden value, but an example of an emergent and self-propagating error upon error stemming from said cherry-picking.

However, despite that actualist apologist not knowing clearly the "cash-value" of the "hidden something" in relation to said potential confusion, he still chose to post. Thus unreasonably putting the burden on the audience to be educated enough to refute or correct the errors, as if no one does or currently can, then those errors can bleed into the minds of those members of the audience who are completely devoid of any knowledge of the Buddhism or are at some risk of blatant mistake and being misled. A risk the actualist is willing to take in order to defend his own presuppositions.

A 'tibetan practitioner' likely won't extract any value, as there have only been incorrect contexts concerning Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, in fact the context presented by the apologist is misleading and much more unhelpful than helpful. A 'theravadan' likely won't extract any value, as there have only incorrect contexts concerning dependent co-origination, provisional teachings, etc etc, withal, the context presented by the apologist is misleading and much more unhelpful than helpful. Further, an 'actualist' likely won't extract any value, as often incorrect contexts have been presented of actualism, and incorrect contexts of Buddhism. It is not shocking that relating an incorrect context of one with an incorrect context of another doesn't generally lead to a correct contextual comparative analysis. It can however lead to a reaffirmation of incorrect presuppositions pertaining to false and non-existent distinctions.


"What conclusions should we extract out of this? Richard says that paradise is here/now experiencing reality in this physical body (experiencing delight eating mangos and having orgasms); Buddhism seems to see this human body as an (often refered as impure, repulsive) opportunity, as a means to an end (Budhahood, Parinirvana) that occurs elsewhere, and apparently is Eternal."



Yet nearly all consider this and now Nirvana, Shakyamuni's subtle pure-land, etc etc so the paradise here/now distinction falls flat.

Shallow conclusions are generally drawn from shallow analysis. Further, Richard's paradise here & now experiencing reality is bounded and a shadow of the actual paradise of here & now experiencing reality. From the shore of the actual paradise, there is absolutely no need to delineate a body (let alone placate the presupposition of physical) as the experiencer, a limited 'self' who's end is associated with the break-up of the body. The boundlessness of actual paradise is actually free of the limiting chains of actualism. The nibbana of here and now, experiencing reality as actual paradise, experiences no delineated being or self thus no self that ends with the delineated break-up of the body, nibbana is free from delineation of being or even non-being.


The compounded and conditional delight that occurs through eating mangos and having regular and conditioned orgasms, affect-less or otherwise is but a smudge compared to the orders of freedom & delight possible, from nibbana to the awareness holder's pure-paradise. Absolute freedom and emptiness is so delightful, that eating a mangos or having orgasms cannot improve or possibly increase the delight, however the delineation of a delight-tone can be observed at one's will. For the apprentice awareness-holder can generate the experience, taste & otherwise of mangos without requiring a mango, but merely knowledge of the taste & experience. Even before the awareness-holder phases, the experience can be made so apparent it becomes far clearer, more persistent, more delightful, & more pungent than any sense impression made with the mangos themselves. That mango can be saved and given to the hungry & needy beings. Just as those becoming adept at the natural purity of visual consciousness will use deity yoga to the degree of having an open-eyed visual representation clearer than anything in normative vision.

<Further, for those intending to prolong life utilizing science's increasing confirmation of the benefit of caloric-restriction might be able to use this taste-impression mechanism extensively to lower the sugar-metabolism, allowing weight retention at lower-intake levels. However this taste mechanism shouldn't be abused if one is abusing the sugar and/or has a weight problem (diabetes is one of the worst diseases attainable out of the wide range of possible due to drug use and abuse) .>

Concerning orgasm, even the proper preliminary blisses prior to the ignited great blisses or further awareness-holdership are far more delightful than the height of mere affective or non-affective orgasms. Further, a male or female actually-free individual of actualism will feel a small order of delight, while even a male or female mid-level awareness-holder will generally have already uncovered the basis bliss and caused their genitalia to be perpetually & spontaneously orgasmic, this tone of orgasm (this innate bliss is further used as fuel for other additional and simultaneous great-blisses) is infinitely greater than the standard lay-person orgasm. Further, by the point of perpetual orgasm, an even higher-order of climax becomes possible.

To say Buddhism often refers to the body as impure or repulsive is false, only a portion of Buddhism even uses those provisional teachings. Though, most people would be hard pressed to label it delightful if each bodily part is independently placed before them, bodily liquids and all (thus when doing this in their minds, they are reaching an anatomically correct perception of body, rather than strictly the perception of body as a soft, delightful and erotic skin-cloud etc that many that are still bound by delineation project on the element body and cling to). However, these assertions clearly have no ontological or epistemic basis when actually examining Buddhism, for emptiness obviously refutes any notion of the body being inherently impure or inherently repulsive. Some tantras take the explicit position that the body is the most precious and wondrous thing in all the universe (and thus dedicating the body and its time & behavior to other beings is the ultimate gift and selflessness). Further, when using the provisional teachings concerning impure or repulsive, it is to cut off clinging and I-making/identification directly and efficiently. Even if someone had not yet claimed nibbana but had some experience in the disgust-abandonings, then during the moments of death or disease, that person's unpleasantness could be reduced or minimized.







"And whenever Richard of AF accuses Buddhism, he always accuses Buddhism as if Buddhism is teaching a form of Hinduism and an eternalistic Self... obviously, this is a view held by a small minority of Buddhists even among Tibetan/Mahayana (needless to say, much less in Theravada) and most do not think it represents the teachings of Buddha."




Richard acts like he knows enough about Buddhism to claim distinction, yet he does appear to make these most basic errors that are in no way reflected in the texts he refers to. As Richard refers to the early-texts, though they are equally as 'buddhistic'; they were written hundreds of years after Shakyamuni, indicating his critique of 'buddhistic' as meaningless. It is a self-serving bias that misrepresents Buddhism to a grossly simplistic and faux degree, as it's that much easier to attempt to separate one's methods and oneself as superior or novel. Osho did a very similar thing. The question is, is Richard incapable of learning and understanding the teachings, is he unwilling or disinterested, or does he know his claims are false and is using the ignorance of others (In Osho's case, it appeared to be a mix of all three) ?

However, considering how the fisherman's son was scolded for bastardizing the teachings by asserting the notion that consciousness is the "what" that does post-death wandering, it is clear Richard has little knowledge or concern with relating what the texts actually say.


"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken."





"Now, you said:

Eradicating feelings isn't the "complete eradication of being"

From the Buddhist point of view, maybe, and that's where both methods are different."



In a struggle and attempt to maintain the illusion of 'difference', the actualist apologist conflates a point of view, with differences in methods (and thus results). Further due to this struggle, the actualist assumes this is a Buddhist point of view (however, that was not being asserted on behalf of Buddhism at all). A generally non-buddhist view; in fact this is closer to the developed non-buddhist Upanishad "being", which equated being/self with the state beyond feeling "I am", thus "actuality" = "being"; the Buddhist counter points out the extremely limited utility, or even lack of utility, of doing so, 'why even call it "being" then?'.

Further due to this struggle the apologist completely dodges the assertion the statement actually referred to, instead removing its context and attempting to make distinctions by converting its context as some view or opinion.

Now to correct the blatant miscontextualization (intending to misrepresent another's assertion to make it easier to discount, draw distinction, refute, or to use as evidence in some fashion, is distinctly a flaw in reason, a logical fallacy).


A logical assertion was presented, which isn't the same as an opinion, thought experiments are a cornerstone to science and philosophy, the very idea being that they are not opinions and share inter-subjectively agreeable values or features, bordering 'logically objective'. A logical fallacy violates the rules of logic regardless if the person asserting realizes it or not. This logical assertion is implicitly refuting any objective "cash-value" in the semantics that are being used, as being most proper or absolute.

What was actually said:

"A complete eradication of being would permanently extinguish a priori, which is logically untenable for a variety of reasons (like its self-refuting as this knowledge could only be known a priori, meaning if it were true that the being was eradicated, that-which-was-eradicated would have no way of knowing, so the claims or teachings couldn't possibly arise."

If being can be equated with experience itself in some semantic sense, then there is even less semantic value in saying being is eradicated. However, the implied counterexample of "being" being equated with experience itself in terms of semantic value is also arguable in favor as, because 'experience itself' might be considered 'more fundamental' than feelings (it persists once feelings are eliminated etc). Though in the implied counterexample, there is nothing underneath experience that is easily called "being".

The assertion is basically a logical proof, as it is simply stating that an experience cannot discern from the inside of a particular moment of experience that experience itself has been fully destroyed in that moment, as it requires imputed experiential-information into said experience for any discerning or knowledge of experience to be experienced and known.




"You said "There are no objects" and "physicality isn't in accords with the laws of nature", so perhaps you won't see a baseball (an object) in a frank trajectory to you (another object), and that's gotta hurt. My body is some kind of object, a lion is a kind of object, a skyscraper is a kind of object, etc."



The appearance of what is could be delineated as an approaching baseball, in no way means it is physical or even that "objects" are involved. The conventional model of physics is the standard model of quantum mechanics, this is the old and out of date model that has been replaced, and yet that old model doesn't ultimately have physical objects. Speaking of "that's gotta hurt" is an appeal to vividness, which has nothing to do with the conversations of improper delineation and presuppositions of objects and physicality. When asserting materiality, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

When saying "My body is some kind of object, a lion is a kind of object, a skyscraper is a kind of object, etc." this is relying on a shifting context, as again delineating and labeling them, then relating or relaying these mentated labels, in no way at any step, means those are objects or physical. However, if one means 'abstract entities for convention', then what is the use of pseudo-scientific convention if there are scientifically coherent conventions that explain more with less ambiguity and implicit presuppositions? Thus if one demands to speak of "objects", then an excerpt from a model more in-sync with science and modern epistemic modelling in proper:


"In the Dialogues Berkeley argues as follows:

(1) Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are sensible objects.

(2) Sensible objects are those things perceived by sense.

(3) Those things perceived by sense are ideas.

(4) So, sensible objects are ideas.

(5) So, houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are ideas.

(6) Ideas cannot exist except in a mind.

----> Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., cannot exist except in a mind.

In the case of sensible things, then, "esse est percipi" = to be is to be perceived.

(1) Every physical object is a collection of sensible qualities.

(2) Every sensible quality is an idea.

(3) So, every physical object is a collection of ideas. (from 1, 2)

(4) No idea can exist unperceived.

(5) So, no physical object can exist unperceived. [Etc.]"



"Now, back to methods, from my understanding, Actualism enhances the receptors of physicality (senses) and leaves everything else behind ("soul" and "ego", which are interpretations of that physical inputs). "



What is being discussed there isn't methods, but views. All that is presented here is the actualist apologist presupposing the senses are "receptors of physicality". Then further, that apologist delineates and separates mind & matter based on created mentated labels derived from self-referential ideas, assumptions, and beliefs; from those created and projected assumed notions, further separation is made. It is futile to reaffirm one's pre-supposed notions. Interpretation is needed to even discern and delineate the senses themselves or from one another; further, interpretation is needed to then cogitate explanations concerning the already delineated and interpreted senses. There is nothing besides presupposing labels and explanations to fit the experience -concerning the tendency to assert or cling to 'physical'. Physics has rejected materiality and our experience in no way, shape, or form, leads us to observe or conclude definitively, or even reasonably in favor of physicality/materiality or physical/material objects, or any objects beyond mere delineation.

If one is trying to remove beliefs, why allow traces of prior beliefs inform the discovery of this moment?




"Richard names that physical because physical objects (baseballs, skyscrapers, apples) are received by other physical objects (tongue, skin) which have nerves (physical objects) that are processed by another object (brain):"




Thus Richard is merely reaffirming traces of his own beliefs. As the above is blatantly falling for flaws in reasoning by virtue of circularity. "This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good."

Richard is reported by the actualist apologist as basically saying "it is physical because it is physical because it is physical". Thus a flaw in reasoning and it does not actually follow to assume and/or assert at any point in the apologist's series "physical, or physical object". When Richard asserts materiality, the burden of proof rests on him. Science has refuted materiality as the default position.


Further unpacking the statement, we see the presupposition of an "external" physical world of objects. This is scientifically unjustified and is derived from deeply ingrained assumptions. Further we see the assumption that the result arising from processing of the brain (or the brain itself) can and should be called "physical" even though it is only a representational hallucination (thus one can only experience the mind and mentation). The mere fact that it is processed, indicates an interpretation. Thus it is also against the grain of science and logic to assert nerves are physical/material, as they are experienced and sensed only through mentation and mental experience via representational hallucinations. These representational hallucinations in neurobiology necessarily defer to physics, as to whether there is "objective world" or whether or not "objects" are really there when observing them or material is there at all etc...the results are in, our experiments indicate objects are not really there, there is no objective reality or externally physical or material reality. Time to question and root-out the culturally outdated notions; there are people who still believe the earth is flat or 6000 years old or evolution isn't true, thus some beliefs for some people die hard despite the scientific evidence. There is no need to appeal to outdated conventionality when it reaffirms pseudo-scientific notions and ignites confusion & reification tendencies concerning such conventionality.





Maha Boowa:

"When you investigate mental phenomena until you go beyond them completely, the remaining defiling elements of consciousness will be drawn into a radiant nucleus of awareness, which merges with the mind’s naturally radiant essence. This radiance is so majestic and mesmerizing that even transcendent faculties like spontaneous mindfulness and intuitive wisdom invariably fall under its spell. The mind’s brightness and clarity appear to be so extraordinary and awe-inspiring, that nothing can possibly compare. The luminous essence is the epitome of perfect goodness and virtue, the ultimate in spiritual happiness. It is your true, original self — the core of your being. But this true self is also the fundamental source of all attachment to being and becoming. Ultimately it is attachment to the allure of this primordial radiance of mind that causes living beings to wander indefinitely through the world of becoming and ceasing, constantly grasping at birth and enduring death.

The fundamental cause of that attachment is the very delusion about your true self. Delusion is responsible for all the defiling elements of consciousness, and its avenue of escape is the ongoing momentum of conscious activity. In this sphere, delusion reigns supreme. But once mindfulness and wisdom are skilled enough to eliminate conscious activity and therefore close this outlet, delusions created by the flow of mental phenomena cease. Severing all of its external outflows leaves delusion no room to maneuver inside the mind, forcing it to gather into the radiant nucleus from which all knowing emanates. That center of knowing appears as a luminous emptiness that truly overwhelms and amazes.

But that radiant emptiness should not be mistaken for the pure emptiness of Nibbana. The two are as different as night and day. The radiant mind is the original mind of the cycle of constant becoming; but it is not the essence of mind which is fully pure and free from birth and death. Radiance is a very subtle, natural condition whose uniform brightness and clarity make it appear empty. This is your original nature beyond name and form. But it is not yet Nibbana. It is the very substance of mind that has been well-cleansed to the point where a mesmerizing and majestic quality of knowing is its outstanding feature. When the mind finally relinquishes all attachment to forms and concepts, the knowing essence assumes exceedingly refined qualities. It has let go of everything — except itself. It remains permeated by a fundamental delusion about its own true nature. Because of that, the radiant essence has turned into a subtle form of self without you realizing it. You end up believing that the subtle feelings of happiness and the shining radiance are the unconditioned essence of mind. Oblivious to your delusion, you accept this majestic mind as the finished product. You believe it to be Nibbana, the transcendent emptiness of pure mind.

But emptiness, radiance, clarity and happiness are all subtle conditions of a mind still bound by delusion. When you observe the emptiness carefully, with sustained attention, you will observe that it is not really uniform, not really constant. The emptiness produced by primal delusion is the result of subtle conditions. Sometimes it changes a little — just a little — but enough for you to know that it’s transient. Subtle variations can be detected, because all conditioned phenomena — no matter how refined, bright and majestic they seem — invariably manifest some irregular symptoms.

If it is truly Nibbāna, why does this refined state of the mind display a variety of subtle conditions? It is not constant and true. Focus on that luminous center to see clearly that its radiance has the same characteristics — of being transient, imperfect and unessential — as all the other phenomena that you have already transcended. The only difference is that the radiance is far more subtle and refined.

Try imagining yourself standing in an empty room. You look around and see only empty space — everywhere. Absolutely nothing occupies that space — except you, standing in the middle of the room. Admiring its emptiness, you forget about yourself. You forget that you occupy a central position in that space. How then can the room be empty? As long as someone remains in the room, it is not truly empty. When you finally realize that the room can never be truly empty until you depart, that is the moment when that fundamental delusion about your true self disintegrates, and the pure, delusion-free mind arises.

Once the mind has let go of phenomena of every sort, the mind appears supremely empty; but the one who admires the emptiness, who is awestruck by the emptiness, that one still survives. The self as reference point which is the essence of all false knowing, remains integrated into the mind’s knowing essence. This self-perspective is the primary delusion. Its presence represents the difference between the subtle emptiness of the radiant mind and the transcendent emptiness of the pure mind, free of all forms of delusion. Self is the real impediment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Transcendent emptiness appears. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can say that the mind is truly empty only when the self leaves for good. This transcendent emptiness is a total and permanent disengagement that requires no further effort to maintain.

Delusion is an intrinsically blind awareness, masquerading as radiance, clarity and happiness. As such, it is the self’s ultimate safe haven. But those treasured qualities are all products of subtle causes and conditions. True emptiness occurs only when every single trace of one’s conditioned reality disappears.

As soon as you turn around and know it for what it is, that false awareness simply disintegrates. Clouding your vision with its splendor, that luminous deception has all along been concealing the mind’s true, natural wonder."




“Like the clay in the artists hands, we may convert it into a divine form or merely into a vessel of temporary utility." -Lama Anagarika Govinda



“The word desire suggests that there is something we do not have. If we have everything already, then there can be no desire, for there is nothing left to want. I think that what the Buddha may have been trying to tell us is that we have it all, each of us, all the time; therefore, desire is simply unnecessary.” -Tom Robbins
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 2/28/13 12:27 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 2/28/13 12:27 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Good Friend,


"In my day to day experience I personally have no problem distinguishing the physical from the mental/spiritual/social."



Thus reflecting your sensibility, though the intent of the writing is to provide fruit for many who will read, as long as this page or some representation stays online/available. Moreover, most people do fall into problems from such distinguishing, as such doesn't stand the test of logic (this distinguishing isn't found in actuality, thus it is as if you are talking about a universe different than the one you are in); considering nearly all people reify labels and mental categories to some extent or another, their delusion generally perpetuates or grows.
Thus if delusion is something you consider worth discarding, whether in yourself or others, then consider cultivating a problem with such distinguishing until you release said unnecessary views. Distinguish to whatever degree suits you.


When asserting to others there is materiality however, the burden of proof rests on you, science has debunked the notion that materiality is the default position.
Moreover, there are logically consistent views (that also embrace the provisionality of language) that are inline with modern academia that understand that these separations are worthy of tossing out as they do not represent reality, as they don't add to understanding, yet remove, ignore, and trivialize the interpenetrating nature.
If you don't grasp and reify at such, and the views doesn't actually add to our understanding but decomplexifies in a way that provides little to no benefit & rather the potential to increase delusion and pseudoscientific thinking, -then what value to even use them at all (especially in the face of views associated with modernity)?

As to delusion, I am not merely referring to a false conception or a lack of understanding concerning a specific particular, but also the perceptual errors and associated unpleasantness. As neuroscience demands the brain does not know what is real or not, and is always taking cues as to such.
Experientially delineating materiality, or worse, fundamental materiality, often leads to false views of objectivity/objective opposed to inter-subjectivity, which in turn allows bewildering degrees of subject/object, which lead to taking 'things' as further substantial, etc etc. It turns an interpenetrating process into concrete separate entities and beings, making it that much easier to cling and ontic-seek. Turning in on itself, gaining a self-generating system of grasping, delusion, etc. The brain often habitually grasps & reifies said subtle symbolic errors, making it easier and often trapping the non-liberated many to experience unpleasantness in the wide array of ways.

While the views that align with physics and what is understood as 'reality', like necessarily understanding the universe as an epistemic informational construct, allows the opposite conditioning. The brains follows and takes all as dreamlike/simulationlike of sorts, naturally disincentivising grasping at reputation, I-making, views,etc, further, naturally deconstructing bodily pain and discomforts etc. Boundless & secure innocent joy is much more easily sought and practically a natural consequence of effectively integrating said scientifically inline views.



"I have no idea if physicality is or isn't in accords with the laws of nature"


Modern science does have a very clear idea, materialism is out the window, it is no longer an acceptable model by virtue of direct experimentation. Feel free to continue using pseudoscientific models on a personal basis however, as there are still members of our human family that for example utilize, believe, better yet, some even 'know' quite surely that the earth is flat.


"...but do you really mean that you have trouble understand the meaning of the word physicality in an AF context as it relates to day to day experience?"


Rhetorical devices are generally discerned via their associated or surrounding contexts.



"Your whole message comes across as very nit-picky to me, which is a shame as I'm sure there are some great points in there."


It generally takes a near obnoxiously bright light, so bright one cannot really even bare it, to get rid of the subtlest shades of darkness.
If you see it as nit-picky than this is okay. Generally it is impossible (nor do I have interest) to placate to each individual & their internal models concerning what is to be considered 'justified criticism' or not or further what is to be considered 'minute' and of what type of minute ('being very subtle', or 'being of small importance', or perhaps 'marked by close attention to details'; further the internal rules to distinguish and label as such) which is implicitly required to establish a personal threshold as to what is to be considered 'nit-picking'. It could be widely argued that science and philosophy on so many orders is 'nit-picking'.


For the sake of conversation, quite content to grant you this general term though, proceeding:
Know that of my contributed writings there are two general types of 'nit-picking', however, both types share the common characteristic, to the root of the term, of picking, plucking, and removing eggs of parasitic-like delusion (delusion nits).

The first category of picking delusion nits (the bulk) is for the general readership, as a mode consisting of deconstructing the valid and invalid extensions of views. Pertaining to actualism for example, extensions that are protruding improperly beyond the strict boundaries of soteriology. Soteriology that strictly has its place being applied with a viewless methodology.
Some of the rhetorical devices had their purpose in drawing out examples of said improper view extension (creating category errors and reification, even to the degree of ontology); to separate the wheat from the chaff, the viewless methods from the superfluous - unnecessary, & overextended views.

The second category of picking delusion nits is for a specific few, as a mode consisting of cutting through the resistance posed by conceptual orders, by directly drawing out hidden internalized models and specifically causing forceful & skillful excitation of defilement & identification potentials.

Beyond there is not a 'shame', for if 'nit-picking' is preventing you from grabbing and plucking the fruit of whatever 'great points' you apparently see, then know this is merely another reflection of your sensibility. Those particular fruits, naturally, are not suited for this instance of you.




"I'm assuming that the definition for physicality in this case must come from an AF context, since AF is what is being discussed in this thread."
"However, words like physicality have a fairly simple and obvious day to day use that can't just be ignored or the whole discussion becomes pointless. The uses of the word physical/physicality that I have seen in the basic AF documents have followed this day to day definition of the word. "
"What Omega Point is doing to some extent seems to me to be the equivalent of joining a car forum and arguing that cars don't exist at all from certain perspectives. While it may certainly be true, the spirit of the whole discussion has been lost."



When addressing and analyzing the AF context per its progenitor, what becomes apparently clear is its shifting or ambiguous nature. For is the AF context per its progenitor purely soteriological or purely provisional? -Clearly not, by virtue of 1) the mentioning and rejecting of quantum mechanics and derived and associated models; 2) the asserting and mentioning of death, infinite space, materiality, and fundamental materiality in what can be said as an ontological or epiontological manner (even to the extreme of taking up positions on what he perceives as 'the deathless', timeless, eternality etc); 3) the asserting and mentioning of particulars concerning evolution and no hormonal secretions; 4) the pointing to material states as being real-er or pure-er, more significant, naturally preferable etc; 5) the attempted implicit and explicit rejection, downplaying, or belittlement of other traditions (to the extremes of "tried and failed" and the complete false distinctions concerning spiritual freedom versus actual freedom, the loaded term PCE etc etc), moreover Richard's assumptions as to their methodologies and what he apparently perceives as their "truth" claims.


Withal, in so far as shifting context, consider the aforementioned with the fact that Richard says that the initiated understand he is not referring to the body but actually 'apperceptive consciousness' (what others might call 'ordinary unfabricated consciousness'). Then implicitly declaring his presuppositions when further saying 'this body's apperceptive consciousness'.
Thus your attempt to superimpose the limited and general definition of physicality seems to lean in the favor of a category error, avoid the AF context, and to continue to the momentum of an unnecessarily shifting context.

Understanding this all properly leads to pointful and pointedness, however considering the aforementioned, it is clear the attempt at analogy is completely inapplicable. Further, far from the discussion becoming pointless, understanding my contributed writings as to "AF" and its place should illuminate a proper context for various individuals, it will be made clear if not much clearer.
Further it is possible that this proper understanding can limit and reduce the myriad of misguided discussions of 'af'. So as the viewless methods can be properly understood and applied without the taint of bias and belief which had its basis rooted at the time of identity.


Withal, some more sophisticated traditions consider Richard's apperceptive consciousness primarily a 'liberation of mind', the teachings and practices I have advocated and their many associates are considered 'liberation of body' on top of that. Allowing mastery over skin temperature, the direction and associated functioning of the cerebrospinal system, increased spleen and circulatory health, the capacity to induce a bodily hibernation, directly modifying and controlling the experience/sense interface and emergence (from the experienced lightness of body to stripping hot/cold to activating perpetual blisses), controlling the sleep process and etc.
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 3/1/13 1:39 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/1/13 1:39 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Good Friends,


Actualism, its principles, its methods, are absolutely devoid & empty of any inherent quality of sensibility, let alone inarguable sensibility. To disagree is to assert an immutability that appears to disagree with the actualist axioms and it's progenitor.


Since Trent has gone out of his way to address me aside from everyone, I will respond to all points as so. Firstly, Trent is trying to limit the scope of discussion and criticism. He is appealing to ridicule when referring to "silly logical arguments" (how can a body find something silly?) and "quibbling" (generally appeals to ridicule are logically considered appealing to emotion).

The 'thought-terminating cliché' fallacy & appealing to emotion is quibbling by Trent's own standard and thus while doing so Trent is "squandering away one's only moment of being alive defending one's identity; which is, in effect, to defend one's malicious and sorrowful nature; which is, in effect, to defend the malicious and sorrowful nature of all 'humanity' and the appalling behavior incited by it" (by his own standard, appalling and all; despite its slippery slope nonsense; Trent demands one disregard the "silly" logic needed to plainly see his secreted nonsense). Trent's assertion of quibbling should be rejected as it is only indicative of an insufficient projection; the label of quibbling can however be applied to his own writing. He speaks of sensibility and quibbling and yet the majority of what he writes is a series of unsubstantiated and and unnecessary claims, often with what appears to be an opinionated bias, bordering on shallow & idolatry (self-serving bias).

Trent also appeals quite much to misleading vividness, which is considered a flaw in reason as it does nothing to support his assertions at all, however, he is using misleading vividness to create a psychological bias (which is the primary use of appeals to misleading vividness, likely why Richard employs it). I declare that silly presuppositionalism is far worse, far less helpful than "silly logic" (however, presuppositionalism has little to no utility).
Trent speaks of the quibbling nature of identities while he himself then secretes what primarily is a series of his beliefs with little to no backing beyond assertion itself. It could thus be axiomatically counter-asserted that Trent and Richard both have been & continue to spend their time defending their identities.
Trent may not to understand that the application of discriminative awareness is not necessarily the same as defending identity.

Trent is preemptively appealing to motive, which is a logically fallacious method to silence criticism. Trent is setting up the conditions, like actualists before him, to question the character and sincerity of someone who disagrees. It is one thing to speak of quibbling, it is quite another to speak of quibbling while having just proceeded to quibble oneself.




I reject the notion that the sensibility of actualist principles are inarguable. Arguments from sensibility are generally of three types. First, sensibility as in the capacity for sensation or feeling, responsiveness or susceptibility to sensory stimuli, the ability to perceive stimuli. Sensible as in something that can be sensed. Exhibiting good sense, perceptible as having, containing, or showing sound sense or sound reason & judgement. Of a kind to be perceived.

i.e. " 'Sensible Things' In the Dialogues Berkeley argues as follows:
(1) Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are sensible objects.
(2) Sensible objects are those things perceived by sense.
(3) Those things perceived by sense are ideas.
(4) So, sensible objects are ideas.
(5) So, houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are ideas.
(6) Ideas cannot exist except in a mind.
Therefor, houses, mountains, rivers, etc., cannot exist except in a mind.
In the case of sensible things, then, "esse est percipi" = to be is to be perceived.
(1) Every physical object is a collection of sensible qualities.
(2) Every sensible quality is an idea.
(3) So, every physical object is a collection of ideas.
(4) No idea can exist unperceived.
(5) Thus, no physical object can exist unperceived.
-
(1) Primary and secondary qualities are sensible qualities.
(2) Sensible qualities are ideas.
(3) So, primary and secondary qualities are ideas.
(4) Ideas cannot inhere in (or exist in) a non-thinking (or unperceiving) substance.
(5) So, primary and secondary qualities cannot inhere in (or exist in) a non-thinking (or unperceiving) substance.
-
(1) Secondary qualities are ideas.
(2) Secondary qualities exist in the mind.
(3) Primary qualities are inseparable from secondary qualities.
(4) So, primary qualities exist in the mind.
“In short, let anyone consider those arguments which are thought manifestly to prove that colors and tastes exist only in the mind, and he shall find they may with equal force be brought to prove the same thing of extension, figure, and motion.”
(1) Ideas can only resemble other ideas.
(2) Primary qualities are ideas.
(3) So, primary qualities cannot resemble ‘qualities in bodies’.
-
(1) Extension, figure and motion are ideas.
(2) Ideas are inert.
(3) Ideas cannot cause anything.
(4) So, extension, figure and motion cannot cause anything.
(5) Extension, figure and motion cannot cause secondary ideas. "
---





Second, sensibility as in the capacity for responding to emotion, impression, aesthetic stimuli & distinctions. Emotional capacities. Occasionally the liability to feel hurt or offended; sensitive feelings. Receptiveness to impression, whether pleasant or unpleasant; acuteness of feelings. Emotional responsiveness toward something, such as the feelings of another. The quality of being affected by changes in the environment. Sensible as in emotionally aware and responsive.

i.e. "Sensibility proved as complicated a term as culture. Sensibility evoked feeling, an affect, something felt as much as thought. " -Michelle Moravec, associate professor of history at Rosemont College

"Physiological models of the nervous system and of information's coming to the brain through nerves forwarded such theories; these had a gender-based effect as well, suggesting that women were more susceptible than men to feeling of all sorts because their frames, their nervous system, were more delicate, more finely tuned. To some extent, this gendered sympathy, making it the "feminine" quality it's still assumed to be, but it also worked to women's detriment, by the end of the 18th century, by suggesting that women were so susceptible to their feelings that they could easily be led astray through an unreflective emotional and physical reaction, and that they were so emotionally driven that they were weak - slaves of their finely-tuned bodies. One sees such beliefs in some action in major 18th-century "novels of sensibility," in which both men and women of great sensibility are to a great extent too finely formed to function in the world. One with sensibility lacked the strength to survive in the increasingly competitive, capitalist economic structure of post-industrial revolutionary Britain.

Having emotional sensitivity through one's nervous system that made one more sensitive to emotional, sympathetic response to others was called sensibility. The corresponding adjective is "sentimental," not "sensible." As you probably recognize, being "sensible" - at least in our time, in the late 20th century, has the opposite connotation: being ruled by reason, rather than any sort of emotional susceptibility or indulgence. In the 18th century, having "sense" or even being "sensible" would of necessity require sensitivity to nerves and the physical (and moral) senses, but it would mean controlling one's emotions, rather than indulging them, allowing rationality reins over emotions, even if reliant on emotions in the first place. It goes along with the 18th-century notion of "prudence," although that has economic connotations: a "prudent" match, or "prudent" behavior, means paying attention, first and foremost, to financial gain: a prudent marriage is one formed with an eye to marrying money or property, rather than marrying for love." -Jane Austen, professor of English at Wisconsin University
----





Third, sensible as in something rational and reasonable that is readily and soundly perceived/sensed by the common. Arguing from this particular has to be generally considered flaws in reason (appealing to masses; appealing to mind-projection, etc).

Considering the above, it doesn't appear overly reasonable to assert or argue for the sensibility of the actualist methods or principles.
In reverse order, they are not properly perceived or soundly sensed by common sense. Further, they are not properly sentimentalist, in fact they are ultimately anti-sentimentalist (thus in this sense, actualism is anti-sensibility). Further, they are not properly ruled by refined reason, instead, they are born from something festered with pseudo-intellectualism & pseudo-scholarship(like 'pure' intent, which isn't sensible).
Making assertions and ignoring the logical burden of proof isn't sensible, it is anti-sensibility due to using flawed reasoning.
The methods and principles are not created outright, built, or 'self-assembled' due to inter-referential logic and coherent necessities of reason. The views & principles instead are ultimately referential to Richard's cognitive biases, not rational sense.






A neo-sentamentalist could argue that actualism, its principles, its methods, falls for fallacious reasoning that essentially believes since there is unpleasantness, dissatisfaction, self-aggrandizement, & suffering associated with feeling or emotional states, and that the unpleasantness, dissatisfaction, self-aggrandizement, & suffering are worthy or removal/conquering, that therefor all feeling or emotion states are worthy of removal/conquering too.
This is an association fallacy and black and white thinking, for there is the logical possibility & plausibility of specifically tackling the problem of unpleasantness, dissatisfaction, self-aggrandizement, & suffering; allowing the possibility of experiencing feeling/emotion without necessarily having those formerly-associated qualities.


If the actualist asserts that feelings and emotions are necessarily equal to unpleasantness, dissatisfaction, self-aggrandizement, & suffering or in fact are the aforementioned, then the neo-sentamentalist could counter-argue that the actualist is falling for flawed reasoning by taking that which is necessarily a causal process such as the category of feelings, and reifying the associated definitional constructs into mistaken qualities of "thingness", "object-likeness", "substantialness", "definitiveness", "immutability", and qualities associated with a closed, defined, and/or self-referential set. A feeling is not a thing or an object, but a causal process.

Moreover, feelings and their qualities only arise through an interrelation of several causes, they are defined only by "their" relationships. Appearing only by causal integration. Feelings are not inherently dissatisfaction or "bad". Beyond the logic concerning the lacking of the claimed intrinsic qualities, it can be evidenced by a priori examination when directly generating feelings or emotion without clinging.

The neo-sentamentalist then could ask the actualist if the causes to feelings are inherently or immutably dissatisfaction, self-aggrandizement, defilement etc. If yes, then it still doesn't follow that feelings will necessarily have those qualities. Further concerning the causes, the same issue arises concerning an error of reason by category and the solidifying of a definitive projection onto a causal process.
If no, then the neo-sentamentalist could iterate that by understanding the causal process, one can remove the dissatisfaction etc and keep refined feelings, further asserting that refined feelings make up the supreme moment by moment enjoyment of being alive and attaining the natural perfection of feelings is necessarily realizing that they subtly partake in the nature of the perfect & vast universal stillness.

Withal, that it is self-aggrandizement to personally remove feelings all together. For it can protect the subtle cognitive-self, in fact making self-aggrandizement that much easier. Finally, the neo-sentamentalist points out that no actualist has actually demonstrated, logically or otherwise, that cognition (rational or not), or personally-related behavior is not more so or equal to the "self-aggrandizement" of feelings. Merely blankly asserting that feelings in fact are -can be axiomatically rejected for that reason (directly limiting the efficacy and sensibility of actualism).

Lastly, the neo-sentamentalist could point to "Second, emotional deficits result in moral blindness. Psychopaths suffer from a profound deficit in negative emotions, including moral emotions (Cleckley, Hare, Patrick, Blair, Kiehl). They also have a profound deficit in their understanding of mere moral rules. When they talk about morality, Cleckley (1941) says they simple “say the words, but they cannot understand.” Blair (1995) has shown that psychopaths fail to draw a distinction between moral and conventional rules; he argues that they regard moral rules as if they were merely conventional. The prevailing interpretation of these data is that psychopaths cannot form moral judgments because they lack the emotions on which those judgments ordinarily depend. Third, there seems to be a conceptual link between emotions and moral judgments. Someone who was fully convinced that an action would maximize happiness can still believe that that action isn’t morally good. Someone who believes that an action would lead to a practical contradiction when universalized does not necessarily believe that the action is morally bad." J. Prinz -Oxford University Press.





-
A neo-misologist could argue that reason, deep conception/conceptual symbols, and opinions are the subtlest self-aggrandizement, suffering, dissatisfaction, unpleasantness etc. Further, that deep and subtle conceptual symbols are necessarily required to even discern dissatisfactory feeling experiences. Further even, that deep and subtle conceptual symbols are necessarily required to experientially discern feelings, as feelings are manifestations of said symbols. The neo-misologist could then go further and assert that all wars are ultimately due to said conceptual symbols and the resulting experiences and behavior.

The neo-misologist could then assert that the acualist is necessarily self-aggrandizing when seeking or spending any time or behavior on actual freedom, as it invokes dual conceptual symbols of self/other and freedom/non-freedom and the associated behavioral priorities of self over other.
Then the neo-misologist could assert that the actualist is self-aggrandizing by attempting or attaining the annihilation of feelings, as it is putting the imaginary self above and thus rejecting a type of emanation from and therefor actually of the 'perfect universal stillness'.

Conceptual symbols are what lead to this rejection of the 'perfect & vast universal stillness' and thus are the supreme causes of self-aggrandizing. Further, that this type of supreme self-aggrandizing, the "self-aggrandizing that leads to the seeking and attained destruction of feelings", is additionally a supreme cognitive trap, as it actually provides safe haven for irrationality and the identity-complex. One has merely removed some of the tools used to detect the deep and corrupting conceptual symbols. Without shame, guilt, doubt, embarrassment etc, how easy it is to maintain and stick to false notions, beliefs, and the sickness of symbols! It leads to the ultimate safe haven of pride, primarily cogitative.


However, if the actualist asserts logical argumentation is "silly", the neo-misologist could counter that this is also a conceptual trap, as logic can lead to the knowledge of the destruction of conceptual symbols. They are so subtle and often out of direct experiential reach, that by using one of the only other tools one has at their disposal, logic, one can 'peer beneath the veil of experience'. Further, under the actualist paradigm, it would appear a need to increase the reliance on logic, as one of the tools to experience reality (feelings) are ended, yet if sound reason and logic isn't placed above unsound pseudo-reason and pseudo-logic, then one is left only to sense impressions to solve the worlds problems... Yet this has no immediacy to an actualist, as conceptual symbols generally corrupt their behavior, thinking, and time spent on dualistic personal/self time and related behavior. The subtle conceptual symbols still force a bounded being/experience, while free of these symbols entails true boundlessness in actuality.


A neo-platonist could axiomatically counter an actualist and claim the meaning of life is attaining the continuous highest possible state of knowing & truth.
Etc.







Trent may be partially conflating the sensibility of people with the "principles" and methods they adapt and adapt to, plagued with the notion that those "principles" and methods themselves have their own intrinsic sensibility.


Trent 'spills ink' iterating that it is sensible and that there are no hypotheticals or inconsistencies or contradictions that could ever make it insensible. Yet Trent doesn't clearly define his terms concerning what he even means by sensibility, or what he means when he says principles, as the progenitor generally defines various principles based on assumptions and false dichotomies, continuums etc.

How can there even be principles if everything is physical, or are principles physical? Without "silly" logic, how can there be said principles or manifestation of such? Further, it is quibbling to argue from sensibility in relation to much of what was being discussed, as it that in no way deals with the criticisms of the false actualist claims, instead Trent is subtly appealing to everyone to brush it under the rug. For 'only' the body known as Richard is allowed to make blanket statements and silly arguments concerning topics he knows only a rather small portion about (Buddhism/Buddhist practices/texts/theories; contemplative history and science in general).





It is sensible to discuss the ultimate validity and academic integrity of a series of assertions (especially if out of the mouth of someone who claims to make one of the greatest discoveries, so great it makes clear to him that all other great contemplative men of the past 2500 years were flawed and delusional and not with proper intention; how sensible such claims are; definitely warranting investigation into whether grandiose delusion and thinking is at hand.). Part of what was discussed is a claim towards being a legitimate separate tradition with enough profundity and novelty to warrant a segregation.


Trent does not even attempt to admit any error on Richard's behalf; nothing he has asserted invalidates the criticisms, labeling them "silly" doesn't change the fact that Richard and Trent have made logically questionable claims and those false claims should be pointed out if someone to going to make the claims public as they have. Someone publicly pointing out their falsehoods or questioning their claims is more sensible then either one of them making their claims & comments in public to begin with.





How sensible is it to write in a way that appeals to shutting the door on logical analysis and criticism, rather than addressing it as to improve the method and its capacity to apply well to individuals? Instead Trent offers fantastical idealism and simple thinking. It is a way to appeal to avoiding all argumentation concerning inconsistencies or flat out non-logic. He says no matter how wild the disparity and matter the argument, yet hypothetically if Richard was not being honest and was hiding his fallen states then this surely would influence the sensibility to significant degrees as it reflects on the result (or that Richard has a dual-agenda etc).
Or hypothetically, what if the long-term results in some are actually harmful? Trent should remember that wishful thinking can cause blind-spots to unintended consequences.

Further, one could counter by asking hypothetically what % of errors are needed to reduce the sensibility or make it arguable?, 10%, 50%, 75% 99%? Degrees of sensibility, indicating arguability and therefor allowing the question of root sensibility. How sensible is a method that incorporates loaded terms such as PCE or AF? How sensible is a method that has its roots in the idea that Richard is the only contemplative out of millions throughout history to have gotten it right? Not sensible is a method that considers the highest potential and purpose of life mere personal affectlessness.


"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. "

"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'"

"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.


There are literally more actual slaves now then at any other point in known history, and Trent is quibbling (by his own standard) on about the purpose of life being the personal elimination of feelings and ultimately the personal "pleasure principle" (personally related pleasure indulgence, self-effort, self-time on behalf of a 'free' person is the highest form of self-aggrandizement). If the self is ultimately immolated, then why placate its memory & spend any time at all on a personal life or any personal related matters? Further, this has been clarified earlier through the process of another utilizing and describing "actualism"; "happy and harmless" consists of placing a self-related/directed "pleasure principle" above the harm and non-pleasure one's actions could have on others (above their quality of life).

"Happy and harmless" can often be considered a rationalization process related to lulling the mind into passivity & blissful ignorance, cultivating naivety towards the actuality of the constant river of tears streaming from the billions. This is of course taken by the actualist to be actually peace on earth.
Another human getting cancer through "pleasure principle" actions, essentially tossed aside and considered & compared with avoiding the harm caused by the killing of insects while walking.

Sensible? This is surely what the world needs, people telling themselves they are harmless (and deriving subtle cognitive joy from thinking and faux "knowing" (agmidya) they are inline with "harmlessness") while causing pathology such as cancer to others because ultimately self-pleasure takes priority (again, how sensible?). A disciplined ignorance, or naivety doesn't actually bring one closer to innocence for one's crimes against others. Even if it is a crime of lackadaisical indifference, or worse, personally-blissful, personally-fulfilling lackadaisical indifference.


Voltaire, "You cannot free fools from chains they revere."

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people."

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.




I suggest modification of the non-perfect methods and the less then ideal sensibility of the principles of actualism. If it transmutes its self-labeling into something reflective of its actual form, a mere inter-traditional method, and not a separate tradition, thus piggy-backing other traditions of contemplative science instead of aimlessly trying to separate itself as "perfect above others", it could be applied and spread more efficiently. This is of course if one prioritizes efficiency and assisting other sentience over clinging to incredibly shaky, divisive, and segregative notions of a separate tradition.
There are roughly 300 million Buddhists and since Buddhism has no sacred cows, if the actualism were to be a bit more sensible and thus toned down its arrogance & superiority complex a little bit then there should be no reason why millions of Buddhists wouldn't adopt or convert to the method, if it is in fact so sensible, worthy, and 'perfect above others' (which it isn't).


I reject the notion that the actual actualist principles & methods, beyond unneeded generalizations that apply to nearly all contemplative sciences throughout all history, is consistent enjoyment, or consistent appreciation. The actualist methods, minimally referenced: 'attentiveness and sensuousness and aperceptiveness' & cultivating the sweet-spot/HAIETMOBA, relates to taming the dependent origination and discriminative awareness process utilizing direct-pointing, insight (basic & moment by moment), concentration/mindfulness & pure presence/unborn awareness/contact.
Questioning the silliness of moods & deconstructing the social identity, is utilizing basic insight and moment by moment insight & mindfulness, dependent origination & unfabricated presence/sense contact.
Besides the pretentiousness on the page concerning Naivete, and the aforementioned categorical meditation & insight qualities, moment by moment intention practices are not new. Being 'harmless' is the attempted equivalent to the superior loving-kindness sub-path, attainments, and releases.




However as an aside, Richard's own behavior presents a counter to his assertions, as his carelessness concerning his harming other bodies in actuality seems to argue in favor of many people, including Richard, properly needing a set of ethics or an ethical self to properly harmonize one's actions with the moral priority of non-harm, his lack of moral seriousness has lead to harmful behavior and thus a behavioral and actual rejection of the benevolence of the perfect universal stillness.
Richard's harmlessness is all in his head, as his behavior is harmful in actuality. Further, mixed amongst the HAIETMOBA method is more of Richard's drivel:

"It is really important to understand about the soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) ... getting into feelings like this – ‘perfect’ feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty, and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened, or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that intuition of ‘being’ that I call the soul – sugar coats itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of Blissful Euphoria. Thus one then goes off into some mystical State of Being in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear and pure perfection of this actual world. It is very, very difficult to get out of the enlightened state and go ‘beyond it’ into this actual world of the senses.
I found out for myself how difficult it was as I lived enlightenment for eleven years ... the same as the ‘Tried and True’ teachings that all the Saints and the Sages and the Seers, the Messiahs and the Masters, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Gurus and the God-men have been touting as being the cure-all for the ill of humankind for millennia. I found these solutions to be the ‘Tried and Failed’. I found that, in an altered state of consciousness such as spiritual enlightenment which results when the ego dissolves, the sense of identity does a quantum leap from the head to the heart. One realises oneself as being ‘Me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... one becomes ‘pure being’ (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Realisation). The resultant oceanic state of unitary perception – called by some choiceless awareness – creates the delusion that the illusion of ‘self’ is ended. There is an on-going experience of oneness and wholeness which expresses itself as: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’. For those who go all the way into this delusion, they realise that ‘I am The Self’ or ‘I am Buddha’ or ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ and so on."




Above, Richard demonstrates a perfect example of self-serving bias, attributing his successes to internal or personal factors but attributing his failures to external or situational factors. Ockham's razor anyone (something orthodoxy actualism appears to avoid)?

"As the Khemaka Sutta points out, those who have already attained one of the lower levels of enlightenment may not identify with anything in particular, but may still have the illusion of subjectivity; that is, there may not be anything for which they think "I am this", but they may still retain the tendency to feel "I am". " (Richard is clearly wrong and has been deluding himself and others)


"The pre-Buddhist Upanishads link the Self to the feeling "I am." "


This rationalization process is indicative of novelty seeking at a subtle level, and imagination. To assume otherwise is to assume he is left with a purely algorithmic computational process, which is demonstrably untrue, as it would necessitate a complete lack of irrationality. Further, the brain is able to logically solve problems that are non-algorithmic. The closest humans get to pure computational rationality is through mathematics, which requires imagination (and non-computational self-referentials; requiring imagination) to logically compute. Considering the neuroscience, logic & imagination are inseparable.


Firstly, Buddhism considers from observation and reason there to be thousands of enlightenments, some are liberation and others are not, but they are not possibly experienceable by one person. That is just amongst Buddhism, let alone all the other contemplative traditions that define enlightenment differently. This is an extreme example of a generalization fallacy Richard uses.

To compare ‘I am The Self’ or ‘I am Buddha’ or ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ and so on." is a gross bastardization of what each tradition actually says. It likely reflects Richard's ignorance or his grandiose malintent. The Buddha didn't realize with any self, affect, I-maker, attachment, conception or otherwise "I am buddha".

Full Buddhahood is not a state of being, there is no me or affect or I-maker, self, attachment, there is no sense of identity in the heart, there is no pure being. The the non-manifestive nature of arahantship let alone unborn buddhahood is completely, evidently, and non-mistakenly lost on Richard.

Richard claims it is really difficult to get out of the 'enlightenment trap', yet he does it in only a few years. Are we really expected to believe that out of all the millions of contemplatives over the years, tens of thousands spending the bulk of their lives in retreated and non-retreated contemplative study, no one, not a single one, noticed there was an identity in the heart and other factors after some change? This notion is extremely unlikely, to the degree of absurdity and bordering idolatry.


From my own experience, this "quantum leap to the heart" occurs before one is close to Arhantship, let alone supreme Buddhahood. It wasn't difficult to see the identity in the heart while in my early years with lackadaisical meditating & no serious contemplative study. Yet we are supposed believe Richard is the only one in history, as he tried every other enlightenment and they all fail (again, it is literally impossible to try every enlightenment, many require the removal of factors necessarily present in others etc).
Grandiose or sensible? I assert this to be childish grandiosity; Richard, while bastardizing all other contemplatives, is falling for the ultimate self-aggrandizement. These are preventing the actualist methods from hatching out of their filth into being more functional and more easily spread. As long as actualism struggles to maintain the facade of a separate and novel tradition, it will flounder and assist only a handful. Actualism needs to become actually free from Richard, many of his axioms, and his grandiosity.




Further, considering the lessons learned by the advanced awareness-holder traditions, it is ultimately realized that feelings can be perfected if investigated in a non-biased way, it could be said these perfected feelings have the essential nature of the 'perfect and benign universal stillness', properly perfected non-dual feelings necessarily do not arise with any opposites, unpleasantness/dissatisfaction in actuality, they are properly beyond opposites as they arise from the heart of non-discrimination.
A heart of discrimination causes the discernment and experience of feelings loaded with their opposites, a heart of non-discrimination doesn't. Richard's projections and heart of discrimination do not mold or limit the perfect universal stillness that has shown itself to a great many before him.


<the actual freedom pages on social identity, naivete etc is based on outdated scientistic notions of evolution, likely derived from 80's pop-science culture, that are flawed and debunked. The human brain is hardwired for understanding altruism and empathy, these are not traits forced through social conditioning; however, they often are socially reenforced. Natural evolution isn't "survival of the fittest", it is "reproduction of the fittest". Further, long before Richard's incorrect views were written down, mathematical evidence existed and was considered normative in biological circles showing altruism and empathy, self-sacrifice etc to the point of death, even among those devoid of children, can necessarily be explained in terms of a "greater good" evolutionary survival strategy (as a further aside, a separate example of a "greater good" survival strategy is each human body being programed to die in relation to their caloric intake via free-radicals, necessitated by humans being at the top of the food chain).

Further, just because Richard is a parent, doesn't entail Richard having any proper knowledge of when or where moral processes occur, as well as subtly hinting at a psychologists fallacy (as an aside, how early does Richard think one should start teaching one's kids not to feel?). Modern research shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity that isn't something we learn, this is also true of our reactions towards the sense of unfairness. It appears that proto-fairness isn't a complicated learned process.

In fact Yale's Infant Cognition center, Harvard, University of Washington and University of Illinois have replicated infant studies which leads them all to support the conclusion that even infants as young as 6-10 months appear to show some sort of rudimentary moral compass, a proto-sense pertaining to fairness. For example it appears even at a young age, infants understand some basic events and the unfairness of a ball getting stolen from someone and prefer neutral events or positive events like someone discovering and opening a box.


Beyond, modern academicians have proven DNA and its associated mutations (epigenetic or otherwise) are ruled by quantum processes, in fact DNA is even held together by quantum entanglement. Quantum evolution implies quite much and is in the earliest stages of being unpacked.
Away from Richard's infinite material universe, and him forcing an evolutionary leap. As the universal-wave-function process is creating and trying every program, including what mutations occur in the DNA. Consider the aforementioned and the "hard problem of consciousness".

Further, in a Newtonian universe, like Richards, there is no explanation or reason or room for complicated life, DNA, or any of the human processes like cities. The fact that the universe is a informational process is significant for this reason, as all programs are due to it, it is the reason humans are and cities are, it is the reason any of our technology is possible. It also is the reason why enlightenment, liberation/freedom and other contemplative attainments are possible. These are all programs it has created and tweaked and experimented with. It is the informational process that caused the emergence of space and time. Further, considering the holographic paradigm & the necessary refutation of local and non-local realism by virtue of experimentation , consciousness is necessarily neither localized nor non-locally smeared out.


Lastly, his claim to no hormonal reactions has not been tested and is nothing but an unfounded assertion. His claim that somehow this equals no hedonism should be rejected. For it doesn't logically follow this to be the case. Even 'without hormones' hedonism is possible by many considerations to what hedonism is (such as a cognitive principle). Such if Richard experiences any pullback during intensive, non self-administered pain then hedonism is necessarily possible, as it means there is a subtle differential preferences in experience. Also if Richard has any cognitive preference, such as being a 'guinea-pig' versus not-being a 'guinea-pig'.
Also pretty evident when examining his behavior, such the hedonistic cognitive self-preference to smoke and burn himself over the actual pathology and its causes (preferring imagination and its repetitious subconscious mantra of "harmless" over actuality and rationality). Considering the grandiosity of his claims, the very decision or lack thereof that leads to not spending time making himself public, on television etc, might be be considered hedonism. Almost two decades of a claimed "most" profound & novel freedom ever and less to show for it than Osho.>




In terms of consistent enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive and sensory delight etc, I declare a higher order of enjoyment and appreciation exists, one that has its sensory delight to a much greater degree than actual freedom.
The consistent enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive is so general it is implicitly present in the majority of contemplative sub-paths. It could be the mantra of drug-addicts to the hedonism of college kids to the pursuit of being perpetually nibbana'd.

How is the simplicity remarkable? The simplicity of the generalization is such that it applies to majority of non-actualist contemplative methods. The simplicity of the method itself isn't remarkable by any standard, as evidenced by observing the thousands of other methods, Buddhist and non.
If the simplicity of the method was actually remarkable than why the "millions upon millions of words of text and video, including autobiographical articles, journals, essays, one-on-one and group correspondences"; clearly no more simplistic, let alone remarkably simplistic compared to other methods.

The method asserts its own self-referential terminology and rituals, this is far from simple or sensible (literally the opposite to one of the general contexts of the term sensible; further opposite of simple). Buddhism is a dynamic complex made up of thousands of explored methods, a great number of those methods have well under a million of words to their name and provide freedom thus the elimination of I-making (thus eliminating feeling "I am") unpleasantness and dissatisfaction (similar with Hinduism to a smaller degree etc).
Perpetually living every moment like one is viewing it from one's death-bed, about to draw last breath, this technique is enough for some to reach liberation (also leads to mere 'pce'-calmness of the formless realm, etc, etc). Much less than millions upon millions of words. Beyond, perpetually pointing to and expanding the part of awareness that doesn't name or form experience, and not allowing experience to be formed into anything. Etc etc.



Asserting or stating "the foundation necessary for the method is already available, by virtue of the fact that to be reading these words means to be a living human being." is somewhat meaningless. The availability of the necessary foundation, especially concerning being living, or human, does not more so apply when compared to other practices and methods. Trent appears to have a flair for theater.



Further, it can be debated as to what constitutes the highest enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive. What good does one or even a handful of islands of plenitude, peace, and happiness do amongst an ocean of misery? What good is personally enjoying life when there are peers amongst the human family that are still literally eating dirt cookies? A higher enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive is to dedicate what is considered the most 'precious thing in the world' by many tantric traditions etc, the body itself, it's actions, it's time, to other sentient beings.

Who cares about one's own unpleasantness or actual freedom? Ask this question, and the only one to answer in the affirmative will be identity. No one else has a share in one's agony, thus generally the time spent on it is self-aggrandizement.
Any effort or time spent seeking self-happiness and self-release (behaviorally invoking duality etc) could be said to be better spent on others. Who cares about self-unpleasantness or self-enjoyment other than self/identity?
What is better, one or more reaching actual freedom or further, nibbana, or becoming closer through the effort of one, or spending that same time and effort on seeking personal actual-freedom?
Instead of spending time divided amongst a few and then yourself, why not less effort towards yourself and even more towards others, why not the absolute minimum training oneself, indulging oneself, spending time on oneself etc, and the maximum towards serving others?
What other than identity and its traces or non-freedom from effort/non-effort is responsible for not living up to this higher standard of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive?


"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his indivudualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."

"Pity may represent little more than the impersonal concern which prompts the mailing of a check, but true sympathy is the personal concern which demands the giving of one's soul."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.




Further, one doesn't have to learn anything else beyond the methods themselves concerning the vast majority of other contemplative methods, Buddhist and non. However, there is much advantage to having an increasingly accurate and up to date knowledge in general, it is part of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive.

Even concerning the efficacy of the methods themselves, learning about neuroscience & physics gives one a wide range of applicable pointers that considerably influence the efficacy. Entire models of liberation and practices with naturally implied predictions concerning increases in efficacy can be built just from understanding quantum physics and neuroscience.




Beyond and it iterate, what is the use of Richard's and actualism's divisiveness? Why more segregation? Why must it be considered a separate tradition? Divisivness and segregation is not the 'essential character of the universal perfect stillness'.

Considering this point and the aforementioned concerning what constitutes the the highest enjoyment etc, I conclude & declare off the top, the personal Alpha Point to be the greatest possible enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive. The personal Omega Point is the maximum possible intelligence (see 'brain workshop' to increase iq per hour) and complexity (thus maximum knowledge concerning the enjoyments/appreciations & the most efficient methods possible to deal with & assist each person individually). The Alpha point is the complete meta-awareness, application, fruition, and unborn reset derived of said knowledge.

As well as a tradition concerning reaching 'true-now' (using 'the temporality of being' to reach the unborn'). There is a scientifically proven experiential lag due to perceptual processing time, with this in mind, constantly 'strive' every second to reach the unborn true-now. Focusing on name or form or color or perception or identity or feelings & emotions, or anything born, or any striving, innocence or non-innocence or pain & suffering, any object or object of meditation etc, is not the true-now.

As well as a tradition based off of MLK's quotes. "Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.""Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."
"We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive." Etc.


I can develop one tradition or several different, however what is the use of segregation? I rediscovered a good portion of the advanced practices I now teach before (instead of making hasty generalizations, I put in the proper study-time demanded by scholarly humility, instead of committing hasty flaws in reason) verifying and finding similar and subtle parallel variants, yet again, what is the use of segregation? What use is more tradition divisiveness?
If Richard had spent the time researching to a degree greater than the lackadaisical & had spent just a portion of the time that has been spent writing or pontificating on actualism, he would of also realized these more exact, implicit, and /or subtle parallel variants and the necessary and implicit consolidation of actualism.
Instead he self-aggrandizes through indulgently steeping oneself in the passive mind of self-stillness, simultaneously while disrespecting 'the perfect universal stillness' with lackadaisical, anti-scholarly, and ultimately pretentious effort and claims.

Due to this, in actuality he still has not harmonized all aspects, including his behavior, with the 'essential character of the perfect universal stillness'. He has traces that currently prevent further harmonization.



If he really was innocent and had actually discovered something new, the burden of proof is on him & it stands to reason that he would be speaking on television and reaching out publicly to the masses. Instead of automatically rationalizing that he does not 'want' to be a guinea pig, it appears the default position when truly willing to help others and truly discovering the 'most important and novel thing in all of contemplative history' would be a non-isolatory resolve to joyfully spread and scientifically verify his claims and the 'universal stillness'...

He isn't, instead he perpetuates isolation by dealing only through the web through correspondence, where he specifically filters questions and formulates the answers (and arguably defends identity using Trent's logic). One is more 'difficult' and requires 'effort', yet yields greater results with more attention and proof of his claims via being observed live while being around masses; while the other engenders doubt and is less helpful, providing credence to witness claims against him.
Further, less attention, less proof, less outreach, less sensible. Humorous considering of the yogis and "god-men" he considers lacking in contemplative insight and skill (and common sense) many have proven beyond any doubt they can public speak and answer live public questions while being observed by many academicians and large crowds with innocence and without any discernible dissatisfaction or unpleasantness.

Many have claimed to be well-domesticated and free & yet still remained integrated activists in society. Or some like the Dalia Lama, despite having proven to retain high cognitive abilities while appearing innocent and without any unease or dissatisfaction while being observed by thousands at a time, claims literally to not even be enlightened or liberated.
Richard, who claims to have made a break-through and is actually free-er then all the rest, appears to know he can't actually stand up to public scrutiny, and remains hidden. He claims to be free-er than all of contemplative history for around two decades and yet he is relatively unknown.


Out of seven billion people, it isn't sensible to assume actualism is the proper or most efficient for all of them, most contemplative traditions have well grown past such simplistic notions. Further, actualist growth rates will have to significantly skyrocket, exponentially so, for even a smudge of influence on the planet. Even a smudge... As the rate it is going, by the time all the current actualists draw last breath, a few handfuls of people will have been helped at the most. There is nothing in actuality that is auspicious about this method or acquiring knowledge about this method.

To iterate, what use is an island of plenty surrounded by an ocean of misery? It is just another method, and all while Trent illogically appeals to vividness. Besides a fantastical appeal to idealness and faux auspiciousness, there is little change to the constant river of tears. However, the actualist's highest priority isn't spreading the 'perfect universal stillness' or actually improving the world's situation for as many people and as efficiently as possible, it is instead merely achieving personal self-freedom.
Achieving personal freedom and simply living life dedicated to this personal stillness is only slightly more helpful to the world than a wild animal living in the woods. Trent claims it eventuates the meaning of life, I dare say it still hasn't dawned for Trent yet.


For the most part, every particular Trent has referenced in his appeals to ridicule then appeals to vividness & appeals to thought terminating cliches, can be claimed of Osho and a great many other contemplatives through history. These cliches and vividness appeals thus contribute little to nothing save the intended psychological effect. Reaffirmations strategies utilized by others throughout history, also known as propaganda.



There is no reason for Trent to reject logical debate, it is part of enjoying life and it is subtly of the perfect nature Trent seeks. All in actuality is the subtly an imitation of the perfect boundless stillness, Trent's bounded and limiting projections do nothing to define or limit this.


"The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood."

"If physical death is the price that I must pay to free my white brothers and sisters from a permanent death of the spirit, then nothing can be more redemptive."

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative". -MLK




side note: At all the workstations, the laptop is elevated so I can stand. I don't need to get off my backside as I am not on it...
-This may become increasingly common throughout offices and workstations.
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 3/1/13 9:21 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/1/13 9:21 AM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
"One thing perhaps you have not considered in your assessment of actualism is the imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method. Novel? in the dhamma world, yes. You will be hard pressed to find anyone sum up Buddhism (of any flavor) as that.
[...]
Loyalty to Richard and his optimization of freedom has never been part of the method, or subjection to his intellect for that matter.
beholden to no one includes him. loyalty and gratitude will get one in all sorts of convoluted and unnecessary affective states."


"I wasn't making that exact point (Novel in general) rather in contrast to what buddhism generally is summed up as, though I guess buddhism really is so vast that it wouldn't be hard to find someone summing it up that way."





Good Friend,

Glad you enjoyed the links, however for clarity, I cannot take credit for making the videos.
Buddhism is so vast that it is unlikely that amongst all languages even 1/10 of Buddhist texts are available online. Further, there seems to be little point in making an argument for novelty based on how it is generally summed up, considering cultural differences and the general vagueness concerning the vastly different degrees to which one can generalize.
Moreover, what about 'loyalty & gratitude' concerning behavioral morality or principles of freedom, could this not be considered part of enjoying this moment of being alive? Or is this also convoluted and unnecessary?
Were Martin Luther King's loyalty & gratitude concerning freedom and morality convoluted and unnecessary?



I reject that Richard has optimized freedom. To just blankly assert this accomplishes nothing (other than possibly to reaffirm one's beliefs). It is a subtly loaded statement fallaciously appealing to novelty. The notion of PCE is a step down and not an optimization to the much older and much more precise Buddhist direct pointing procedures, such as directly pointing to sense contact, or further directly pointing to or beyond the delineation of the senses themselves amongst one another.

You have to point to what has been optimized as the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion. There is no credible evidence that one can point to that supports any claim of optimization.
The success rate and influence of actualism has to increase exponentially before the evidence will be there declaring itself in favor of the label of optimization. Buddhism has no sacred cows and would convert entirely if there was actually an optimization, however every single person who claims or prefers actualism, thus far appears to have a rather limited understanding of Buddhism.

The reason why no serious and seriously knowledgeable Buddhists have or will be converted is because all the issues and claims of 'post-Buddhist, now-actualists' or 'actualists' are easily addressed and are devoid of anything profound & novel. How much optimization could we be possibly dealing with if nearly every single 'actualist' practices something other than the orthodoxy? How much optimization could we be possibly dealing with if nearly every single 'actualist' essentially has to re-define many terms to the degree to which they disagree with said 'optimization'? How much optimization could we be possibly dealing with if one has to pick and choose which parts are the 'optimized' tradition and Richard's delusions/false beliefs?

How much optimization is involved with Richard making claims of "knowing" that have been literally debunked by science; and then him making claims with the same skill or lack thereof inspecting the intro concerning "adulterated consciousness" and "pure consciousness"? Richard in fact has not demonstrated in any serious or rigorous way that his 'optimization' is not one of the degrees of non-abiding liberations etc etc. Richard also has not demonstrated freedom while speaking amongst large groups of people, while Buddhists who claim no liberation or even enlightenment have shown mass-public speaking abilities with no issue.

Buddhists however have identified a category of contemplatives over history who rely only a moderate amount to none on the Buddha's teachings and realize enlightenments and orders of liberation. However, it is generally said that these types almost always do not speak amongst crowds and teach and answer questions amongst crowds (due to traces of fear and uncertainty about the arising of future defilements). Richard has not even come close to proving he is not of this type, until he does so, any claims to optimization can be taken humorously.
Until someone can prove definitively where the profound novelty in Richard's 'optimization' is, especially to the degree of justifying, out of those few methods, a new tradition all together...then there is little to justify more segregation.
Buddhism figured out how even to root out and become free from even the survival instinct; how does actualism optimize freedom?

Further, Buddhism has realized and warned of whole categories of mind-smashing potentials (the double-edgedness of neuroplasticity) from rooting out the capacity to learn, to rooting out the capacity for memory, intelligence, language etc. Considering Richard has demonstrated lower order imagination, is it really optimization in eliminating the higher orders as he has, or is it mind-smashing? A domesticated and liberated mind does not need to kill a leashed creativity/imagination under beck and call.


Observing creativity itself is necessarily part of the 'perfect universal stillness' and surely part of supremely enjoying paradise moment by moment. It appears what you consider an optimization, can also be considered something that binds and limits the potential for full freedom, consider being on guard for such self-imposed limitations.


"[...] The characteristics of actual freedom are not present in actualism as dogmas demanding hopeful belief with its blind faith and trusting surrender. The actualist knows that these facts are self-evident from the PCE and are available to anyone who cares to investigate in a sincere way. Attentiveness is the method of investigation and apperceptiveness has the capacity to reveal the factual character of actuality ... all the while freely accessible to any human being’s sensuous observation. With this degree of inspection, one sees the following factors: (a) it is ‘me’ in ‘my’ totality that is standing in the way of the already always existing perfection here on earth; (b) all feelings are inherently flawed and are narcissistic by nature; (c) every other-worldly truth is, in the end, unable to bring about peace-on-earth; (d) there are actually no entities that are unborn and undying, timeless and spaceless, birthless and deathless, formless and ceaseless, immortal and immutable."


Richard is implying that if an 'actualist' or otherwise doesn't know these facts to be self-evident from PCE etc, then that person isn't being sincere. He is limiting the scope of future debate, by preemptively calling character into question. He is preemptively using ad hominem & appeal to ridicule/intent fallaciousness and subtle attacks, which in turn questions his cognitive sincerity.

He seems to forget that logically the burden of proof rests on him since he is making the claims, and his own or anyone else's ignorance, unwillingness, or inability to discredit his assertions, does in no way provide credence to them. Further, he preemptively is special pleading and appealing to purity to dismiss relevant criticisms of his claims (both logically fallacious). Lastly his assertions show black and white thinking, as he is presenting two alternate states, when there are in fact several possibilities exist. Etc.

However, how can one be "insincere" and experience the "PCE"? He also claims a PCE is something everyone experiences, why are his assertions not axiomatically held by every single person?
Or the wishful thinking and appeal to consequences Richard utilizes? Further, if the universe is eternal like Richard claims, then it and ultimately everything in it, as nothing can be separate from the universe, might be considered subtly undying, ceaceless, birthless and deathless, immortal, and immutable.

If the universe is infinite and thus has no edges, then it is formless. If the universe and time is eternal then it necessarily exists outside of of relations of time, indicating it is timeless and spaceless, which further indicates a likeliness of it being unborn.
Richard says due to the nature of oblivion, nothing actually dies. Oblivion is the deathless or appears to have the nature of the deathless. Optimization?


"As the Khemaka Sutta points out, those who have already attained one of the lower levels of enlightenment may not identify with anything in particular, but may still have the illusion of subjectivity; that is, there may not be anything for which they think "I am this", but they may still retain the tendency to feel "I am". "

Optimization? On enlightenment prior to even Arahantship? What is optimized?



Withal, wise is the distance from your original assertion. As on contrary to the original, it is axiomatically implicit in dhamma, both Buddhist and non.
I study as a general Buddhist scholastic, and my initial impression while expanding my knowledge of various traditions was the exact opposite as yours. Some things are so implicit that often they need not be even said. Secondly, a portion of the unsaid is left unsaid to encourage critical thought and the ability to logically dissect. As well as to encode information in plain site in order for it to self-reveal as a fruit of soteriological benefit when the student is mature enough.
-Buddhism also values the difference between someone coming to a solid conclusion (and -the varying growth potentials related to such) and the appearance of a conclusion, as there is often less benefit and subtle obstacles associated with said appearance.

An example of aforementioned would be zen koans or further the 'direct realization of emptiness with conceptual knowledge', as you can go over dozens and dozens of texts covering this specific emptiness in some fashion yet so much implicitly related to it will go often completely unmentioned. Such as the fact that the emptiness yields the direct & practical knowledge concerning how to put into place personal-liberation and further building a personal fabrication paradise out of perpetual states of exalted bliss and exalted intelligence.
Or that the inner emptiness (and subtler orders) demands that one can achieve liberation through bliss and without arising aversion, that humans must necessarily be able to practice and achieve path attainments and liberation that the devas would hypothetically practice if on path (it was this realized concept that partially pushed me to 'rediscover' portions of the bliss based practices).

Moreover, that in actuality, there is no intrinsic, non-dream state of the senses. Or that the concept of emptiness demands that the possibility of generating taste sensations as one chooses. - After having years of exposure with many of the traditions, through study, experience, and face to face encounters, I categorically reject the original assertion.
-





Of this, the more generic the assessment of the implicit is, generally the less useful it is mentioning it. The imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" is so generic it can refer to the hedonism of college kids, to the mantra of drug-addicts, to the pursuit of being perpetually nibbana'd etc ("as the means and end of the method" including).

Plenty of Buddhists across the gambit, in fact, possibly the majority of Buddhists, both academic and non, wouldn't dispute it being summed up (thus conventional) as the "imperative to enjoy this moment of being alive" or even "as the means and end of the method" at all.

Buddhism doesn't cling to views and has been described as having no sacred cows. The vast majority of Buddhism invokes the doctrine of skillful means through wisdom, knowingly or not, in other words, to willingly embrace and use teachings that are meant to expedite growth towards specific goals, including if they are simplified or overly simplified, even to the degree of being false at some more complex and/or subtle level (or having other baggage etc).

For example, it makes little sense to refer to Buddhism or even a sub-tradition merely as a "method", but there would be no dispute to using the term incorrectly in a sentence, a paragraph, a paper, a book etc if it serves a purpose and it's flaws and uses are acknowledged by someone. Likewise it makes little sense to refer to science to or even a sub-tradition merely as a "method", but there would be no dispute to using the term incorrectly in a sentence, a paragraph, a paper, a book etc if it served a purpose and it's flaws and uses are acknowledged by someone (science and the modern zeitgeist in it's total is related to yet distinct from the scientific method, & it is ultimately incorrect to conflate them).



Iterating the pursuit of being perpetually nibbana'd; a specific example requiring little background being when taking nibbana itself as an object to 3/4 (generally beyond this, taking it as an object and/or seeking becomes an obstacle) into the path of being perpetually nibbana'd. Either as a concentration 'partial-insight' practice itself; another concentration 'partial-insight' practice being the noting practice common to this forum (many traditions don't fully consider noting to be an insight practice, but more of a concentration practice with partial insight component at the most).
Or, with a dual practice taking nibbana itself as the object for insight etc and a jhana/samadhi practice.

A thoroughly stabilized and adept jhana/samadhi is considered enlightenment by some sects of Hinduism & some sects of classical Brahmanism, as well as some classical independent Yoga schools. Upon even a cursory glance, it appears the considered use for jhana/samadhi is for orders of concentration to remove/push-aside various obstacles to "enjoying this moment of being alive" while simultaneously engendering orders of equanimity, bliss, firmness of awareness, etc directly aiding the "enjoying this moment of being alive".

For these sects of Hinduism and Brahmanism, as well as for the independent Yoga schools, the practice and the goal is jhana/samadhi (including but not limited to vision samadhis). Therefor to sum up as the "imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method" would directly be true. These are all considered dhamma, including by many Buddhists, and were around a long time before "actualism".

<However, as a quick aside, in India & Tibet etc over the course of several thousand years, there were absolutely people, not rare, who thought they were only the body, that the body and themselves ended upon death. These people also practiced to remove suffering and other obstacles in their lives while behaving in line with personal-hedonism to enjoy life while it lasted. This modus operandi is also true under your generalization and is much older. >


Further, back to a specific example of the pursuit of being perpetually nibbana'd. Both sub-examples up to roughly 3/4 of the way to being perpetually nibbana'd sufficiently demonstrate themselves. No matter which practice aspect is emphasized during finishing up this path to arahantship, whether it be the primary, as in directly pointing to atammayata (non-objectification, non-identification, the ceasing of the uncontrolled forming of experience).
Or More coarsely, the disgust-abandonings, emptiness knowledge, or the nirodhas and the diamond-like samadhi, etc., they all can be considered the "imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive". Including the disgust-abandoning, as one is abandoning specifically those perceptual traces which were subtly impairing "enjoying this moment of being alive".

Nibbana is thus the supreme enjoyment of this moment of being alive, it is free of all outflows that could possibly reduce the enjoyment of said moment. The "imperative to "enjoy this moment of being alive" as the means and end of the method" therefor does apply and is nothing new.

Further, many Buddhist schools are more overt about it, such as the schools who speak of reality being a subtle pure-land, the schools who speak of reaching the natural state/perfection of reality, the schools who encourage the long-bodhisattva paths etc. Where the experience of reality in its actuality, is necessarily synonymous with "supremely enjoying this moment of being alive".
In fact, the long-bodhisattva paths generally embraces the enjoyment of this moment of being alive to such an extreme degree of preference that they intend to experience thousands to millions of additional lives and their moments instead of going right for buddhahood or nibbana.
Generally intending to eventually culminate in experiencing what might be considered the absolute maximum possible moment by moment enjoyment of life, where one becomes a world-teacher and starts a meta-tradition on a planet that will have serious and grand historical legacy, like in Shakyamuni's case (being considered one of the most influential peoples in all history).


However, there is another variant of long-bodhisattva (a mahabodhisattva-icchantika), that perpetually refuses to enter buddhahood, instead intending to remain with moment by moment living and its associated enjoyability and natural perfection until the end of sentience (in other words, as long as possible, possibly forever).

As well, the sub-tradition and the various associated thinkers in agreement found in other traditions who consider that upon bodily death there is annihilation/extinction/cessation-only (further, that the Buddha is dead-only and why even speak of him at all; the 'rebirth' process here refers to the false moment by moment selfing process while being alive only). Again, the "imperative to 'enjoy this moment of being alive' as the means and end of the method" applies quite much.
Further, take into consideration a common theme throughout quite a many traditions. The notion that the universe is rapidly being created and destroyed every moment; like how in physics we invoke that the virtual particles are being rapidly created and destroyed every moment (or another, that the present selects a superposition of the past etc). So in those traditions they necessarily embrace enjoying this nowness.




Withal, what can necessarily be said of the four truths: "Life is not the supreme happiness & generally unpleasant if the associated defilements that cause perceptual disturbances are allowed (types of ignorance, name and form grasping etc). However, there is supreme happiness found in the complete moment by moment freedom from all associated defilements & obstacles, and there are procedures & methods to progressively bring such a supreme happiness by an eventual end of said defilements & obstacles."


With the aforementioned, considering it can necessarily be said of the truths (the Buddha referred to nibbana as the supreme happiness), it distinctly can be summed up as the "imperative to 'enjoy this moment of being alive' as the means and end of the method".

In terms of generalization and summing up, Buddhism certainly doesn't limit itself to strict black and white uses of "alive" or "living" etc. An example being of an adept level fourth jhana, of it sometimes being said 'one can neither properly be considered dead or alive' (humorously 'Schrodinger's jhana').
The operative term "alive" becomes proportionally less of a strict disqualifier directly in relation to the degree of one's knowledge concerning how information is comfortably presented in Buddhism etc.




Beyond Buddhism and upon a cursory glance, it appears the generalization applies to the pursuit of the Tao. It applies to other various Hindu & Brahmin (including the Sri Aurobindo re-branching of Hindu philosophy and practice), as well as Jain sects where the goal is to either unite atman with brahmin, maintain an absence of atman in the face of a totalization of brahmin-only, or the absence of both (eventually seeing the world through brahmin's eyes). Each being a different conception of what the highest form of moment by moment enjoyment is. Where what occurred upon death was a side effect of the goal, rather than the goal itself.

Further, it applies to various gnostic schools, where the supreme enjoyment of the moment by moment would be equated with uniting with the highest possible good (in classical gnosticism, the seeking of the experience of absolute good was explicitly equated with seeking the harmless).
It applies to the neo-platonic schools where the supreme enjoyment of the moment by moment of being alive would be equated with uniting with the highest and greatest possible state of truth.
Hermetism with the highest and greatest possible moment by moment state of justice.
It could be said to apply to some esoteric alchemical traditions, whereas transmutation is used to provoke the highest enjoyment.
Stoicism and neo-stoicism etc.

Therefor, not only can the "dhamma world" in general (buddhism, hinduism, jainism, taoism etc) be properly explained by the generalization, it and the other mentioned traditions can claim novelty by a thousand plus years.


Also, when generalizing of the methods themselves, the 'actualist' methods do not have a smaller margin of difference between the methods and goals than 'dhamma/dharma' practices do. The 'actualist' seeks to attain a non-objectified awareness of sorts, yet much of the practices necessarily use objectification.


"Locke, in philosophy, argued that we can only know the world through our senses; he included in this a sort of moral sense, however. Thinking "rationally" in his system can only occur through the experience we gain through our bodies (and that moral sense). He does not thereby condone orgies indulging any of the senses or emotions, but he does argue that without the body, there can be no mental work, and no morality."
Omega Point, modified 11 Years ago at 3/1/13 1:22 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/1/13 1:22 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 39 Join Date: 7/14/12 Recent Posts
Good Friends,


"Harmless: This has been a matter of debate here before. In the AFT this refers to the absence of malice (the desire to hurt another person; active ill will, spite or hatred; a deep resentment). Now, back to my point in the smoking debate, could a human being live without causing some kind of harm? Let's consider "harmless" just as an intention. Are you suggesting that Richard smoke with the (malicious) intention to cause harm? Should he stop walking because he potentially kill hundreds of insects? Should he stop talking because other people can interpret his words in some way and get offended? If the argument is that of level of necessity and that smoking is just a pleasure, should he stop going to the movies because he can contaminate with his car or should he stop turning on the TV because that consumes energy and the process of generation of that energy contaminates the planet?"



To put this into perspective, a 1993 Supreme Court ruling acknowledged that a prisoner's exposure to second-hand smoke could be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment (which would be in violation of the Eighth Amendment).
Smoking is not a harmless activity and thus could never be considered 'just' a pleasure, this isn't like riding a bicycle or flying a kite, but of an entirely different category.


"In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoke-free law in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighboring towns without smoke-free laws showed no change, and the decline in heart attacks in Pueblo was attributed to the resulting reduction in second-hand smoke exposure."

Beyond potentially sudden fatalities, the potential agony of a multi-year battle with cancer of a single person would never, ever, be worth the pseudo-'pleasure' of a single cigarette, or all the tobacco cigarettes.
Hardly even pseudo-pleasure at that, as any noticeable and reported psychoactive effects of the cigarette (and not the projected psychosomatic relief) are the psychoactive effects known of nicotine poisoning. The only one wagering in favor of said pseudo-pleasure over the real harm of others is the identity, which puts self-pleasure over others'-unpleasantness.

"Opinion polls have shown considerable support for smoke-free laws. In June 2007, a survey of 15 countries found 80% approval for smoke-free laws. A survey in France, reputedly a nation of smokers, showed 70% support."


To divorce intention from the truth and knowledge of actions & their consequences, is to divorce oneself from personal responsibility, being a moral agent, and actuality. An affectless person, such as a sociopath, a psychopath, a schizophrenic, an apperceptive consciousness, etc could actively lack this definition of malice (the desire to hurt another person, active ill will, spite or hatred, a deep resentment) and could harm and damage others to the point of lethality.
Thus, this use of the term "harmless" amounts to nothing but an internalized model, label-only, nothing to do with the actuality of actions, behaviors, and their consequences.

The fact that additional principles have to be invoked to establish 'true' or 'true-er' harmlessness points to actualism's ethical limitations. Moreover, considering there is no duality between action and actor and no actor can be found beyond mere action, it is clear this particular internalized model generally equals mere affirming tendencies, delusion, identity and it's traces.
Actively avoiding, removing from mind, overly simplifying, or cultivating ignorance towards the obvious ethical knowledge of damaging others and associated ethical dilemmas specifically by actualist apologists, or by Richard, might point to AF's lack of mastering actions and behavior, thus a lack of enlightened conduct. Changing the subject as to avoid the truth of these limitations is additionally a minor representative imitation of the same lack of proper conduct (a muddled attempt at that).

To iterate, it is one thing for a human being to do everything possible, or nearly, to avoid unnecessary harm & pathology to others, with no/neutral or positive intent, and despite all this harm occurs; and in response the human being adjusts behavioral probabilities to reflect this and correct the failed application of moral intent if possible. It is quite another for a human being to have knowledge or partial knowledge of direct or indirect harm or pathology, or the relevant potential thereof, still to blatantly partake in the harm-supporting or harm-activating event or potentiality, -considering all this harm occurs, all while telling oneself and asserting "harmless".


To simultaneously hold in mind the knowledge of the harmful infringement and violation of others with the belief that labels the observed intent as "harmless", is to portray cognitive dissonance. The latter might also be considered self-aggrandizement. To consider "harmless" just as an intention, or to label that observed intent "harmless" appears foolish when one is blatantly harming oneself and others.
There is little reason or point in asking "could a human being live without causing some kind of harm", this is bordering a thought-terminating cliche -moreover, it is irrelevant and changing the subject (though surely is a question unfortunately invoked by many on many orders, including to the macro where rampant resource mismanagement is justified and pollution spewed to psychotic degrees). Further it is a flaw in reasoning to assume that the lack of a 'perfect' solution has any bearing on the relevant and the actual. Further it is a flaw in reasoning to confuse the category of uncontrollable entropy correlates related to living with the category of controllable entropy correlates related to living and under the domain of the will to whatever capacity.
The uncontrollable entropy correlates related to living itself have virtually nothing to do with ethical analysis as to the controllable and how to live & behave most properly (generally considered in line with the moral concern of respecting the life, integrity, and well-being, even flourishing, of others; further abstracts such as truth, the good, justice etc).



To address "Are you suggesting that Richard smoke with the (malicious) intention to cause harm?",
Considering the behavior and the necessary 'deep ecological' harm, the intention or lack thereof is a mere footnote. His lack of intention/action to prevent destructive and potentially lethal events in the least appears associated with the amoral and might be considered by some to be associated with the malicious.
I am suggesting that Richard smokes with an intention that appears to be associated with self-aggrandizement, delusion such as cognitive dissonance etc, callousness etc.

I am suggesting that Richard's belief and claim as to the status of his intention is only partially relevant, at the very most, as to discerning the proper label for said intention-action-consequence complex. For the claimed intention comes as hardly relevant in the face of the consequences in so far as establishing a value and properly labeling it.
To iterate, I am suggesting that since action and actor can not be separated by proper logic or in actuality, the label inscribed to a specific intent cannot be properly discerned independently of actions and consequences.

Withal, Justin the actualist apologist, attempted to explain away the smoking issue, commenting that to choose not to smoke is selfish... and that to choose to smoke is in fact somehow selfless. This foolishness & flaw in reasoning occurs by delineating non-self.



"Should he stop walking because he potentially kill hundreds of insects? Should he stop talking because other people can interpret his words in some way and get offended? If the argument is that of level of necessity and that smoking is just a pleasure, should he stop going to the movies because he can contaminate with his car or should he stop turning on the TV because that consumes energy and the process of generation of that energy contaminates the planet?"



It is foolish and playing with imagination to assert smoking as just a pleasure. Moreover, it is beyond just the level of necessity, it is a moral risk/benefit analysis. To find some type of scant pleasure in smoking tobacco equivalent in value, to any degree, with the violation & harm of others, is to self-worship. To behave as an amoral agent incapable of functioning in the world without perturbing the 'deep ecological' symmetries and demoting oneself to a mere 'heavy burden on mother earth'.

Further, in so far as the irrelevancy and the appeals to vividness via seemingly random & uninspired ethical dilemmas, of the billion or so.

"Should he stop walking because he potentially kill hundreds of insects?"

Comparing the disastrous scenario of a cancerous human (and the associated many many bits of unpleasantness) due to another human and their willing and avoidable behavior is quite different than the much smaller potential bits of suffering and generally quick death of stepping on insects. Modern research indicates that not only is insect consciousness merely a few bits, insects don't seem to experience pain and arguably possesses the possible experience of some sense of proto-unpleasentness at the most.

"Should he stop talking because other people can interpret his words in some way and get offended?"

He might consider to stop talking because his words can be understood or misunderstood and perpetuate delusion. Withal, smoking, it's harm and lethality, is a completely different realm of discussion than offensive lip service (from how you constructed the statement with "interpret in some way", the offense would likely of been out of context).
Moreover, frivolous chatter and mindless banter might be considered worthy of avoiding; also if Richard is unwilling or incapable of contributing to an intellectual or well informed scientific discussion, then he might consider taking the Zen advise in so as not to speak unless it improves upon silence.

"should he stop going to the movies because he can contaminate with his car"


Straying further away from the point, as comparing some trivial pleasure event as equivalent with the potential harm and lethality of another is identity worship and unworthy.
What else but identity and it's traces beckon the initiation of actions that lead to movie going? Why not save that fuel; if not, then why not spend that money solely on another who could use it better or for their needs.

If that pleasure is so worthy of attaining, then why not take that money and spend that fuel bringing a homeless person or an unprivileged person to said movie instead of oneself? Instead of the unprivileged person and oneself, why not two unprivileged persons and not oneself (and so on)? What else but identity and it's traces cause this self-preferential and self-maximizing behavior?
The abstract, fleeting, and somewhat shallow pleasure of going to 'the movies' is nothing in the face of lasting pollute/contamination damage in actuality.

"or should he stop turning on the TV because that consumes energy and the process of generation of that energy contaminates the planet?"

With limited resources, billions of humans, and infinite-growth economic models as normative, avoiding ill-reasoned resource expenditure & pollution distribution is the rational, selfless, and default position. -Including superfluous degrees of vehicle use or ownership.
Moreover, considering the resources extracted upon the back-broken & oppressed (i.e. blood metals like coltan, which is found in nearly every electronic device), the selfless and reasonably default position is to sensibly restrict the number of owned devices; further, to effort contribute back to society in attempted proportion to how much resource mismanagement, others' oppression, impoverishment, & discomfort one is utilizing and thus responsible to act on.
I would not advise owning a tv; assuming a tv though: no, the gain generally isn't worth any energy consumption whatsoever. Importantly, it is a self-con to mismanage & spend the most precious resource of time.

If so many others are enjoying this or that pleasure-triviality, then why isn't the associated knowledge of such other-delight enough to satiate you? It is only identity that will respond and wager one should partake in this or that shallow self-pleasure-triviality than rather utilize the most precious resource of time in a more productive, selfless manner.





"Once there were two meditators sitting by the side of a rushing torrent,
when a crazed man arrived intending to swim across. Both meditators knew
that the current was extremely treacherous and that the man would surely drown.
They tried to dissuade him from crossing, but the man would not listen to reason.
One of the meditators decided that nothing could be done and so resumed his absorbed
concentration. The other got up and punched the man unconscious so that he would not
kill himself in the river. Who committed the act of violence?
It was the meditator who shunned the opportunity to save a life."
-Dalai Lama



Moral relativism, nihilism, etc are not scientifically justified:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdMdbSnNSw

"Yes there is a point to it. If you can undermine materialism, you also undermine the reason for rejecting idealism, which in turn allows us to dispose of dangerous ideologies that invert Hegel -such as existentialism, nihilism, relativism, and/or any idea that says that because God is dead we can just transvalue any and all value systems. " -Johanan Raatz
Felipe C, modified 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 7:30 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 1:32 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
Omega Point,

As other participant wrote before, your answers are pretty nit-picky. I would add that your answers seem over moralistic, and you constantly went off on a tangent with the things I wrote in that post.

For instance, when I wanted to address the issue of using a car to go to the movies, you chose to criticize going to the movies as a pleasure, instead of addressing the point of using a car for whatever purpose. When I questioned if Richard should stop talking, you chose to pick and judge Richard, when I obviously was addressing the act and repercussions of the speaking of any human being and the hearing and interpretation of another. Those were not my points at all, obviously.

The facts remain... every action has repercussions independently of intentions, that's obvious. The scope of 'harmless' used in the AFT website is simply 'free from malice'. It is not being an ascetic, minimalist, moralistic, austere, homeless, retreated-from-the-world-and-some-of-its-costumes person. Now, you could nitpick and morally judge every action from Richard all you want, but to do that with each and every action from him, from you and from everyone, is close to an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

You could argue that smoking is unnecessary {to a free person at least} and immoral because of its 'deep ecological harm', but then why stop there?

Let's suppose that procreating is an specific action that implies more ecological damage than the act of smoking everyday. Are you then going to judge Richard or the parents of the world for being parents? Why? Is it really necessary to have children? Is justified because it's pleasurable? Is justified because it comes from an instinctual drive to perpetuate the species? Would you say that a person who smokes creates more 'ecological harm' than a parent, even when these hypothetical facts say the contrary?

Let's suppose that soy plantations are causing 'deep ecological harm' in some parts of the world. Is it necessary to eat soy? Are you going to judge Richard for eating soy sauce?

If you argue that those things are of first necessity order, then you also said...

'Smoking is not a harmless activity and thus could never be considered 'just' a pleasure, this isn't like riding a bicycle or flying a kite, but of an entirely different category.'


Why do you stop there? Why riding a bycicle or flying a kite is more desirable than smoking in your scenario? A kite is made of plastic or paper, and the production of those materials implies ecological harm. Further, why are you {or Richard} using a computer to argue on the Internet if that is causing some ecological harm? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that what you are saying is that is impossible to claim freedom from malice just because some things we do cause 'ecological harm'. Are you suggesting that we should return to the stone age and always remain quite to save energy consumption, or perhaps we should commit suicide as species because humans have been very ecologically naughty?

In respect to the moral content of Richard's words, why are you writing words in a forum judging someone as 'deluded' without even knowing him or without knowing experientially what an actual freedom is? Do you find that pleasurable or are you on a mission to save us all from delusion? Perhaps you're doing more harm with your words than Richard, and you should stop talking {as you recommended Richard}? {Note. I'm not saying that you should shut up, because everyone is free at the end, I'm just saying that if you like to moralistically judge Richard and 'actualist apologists', you should judge yourself equally and consider that possibility}.

If you argue that you are in the position to judge and not be judged because you're not claiming being 'harmless' as opposed to Richard, then you should share your attainments. Do you consider yourself enlightened, free, liberated, harmless or whatever? If yes, could you share the behavioral, moral and perceptual aspects of said freedom, and then explain why are you causing the ecological harm you do when using the computer to discuss in forums. If no, why would you judge from the darkness? How are you different from a blind leading the blind? Richard, Justine and Trent --the objects of your criticism-- had both spiritual and non-spiritual attainments {actual freedom}. They can tell the differences, and preferred an actual freedom because they experientially compared and determined that that was the answer to an even happier and more harmless life.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 4:26 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 4:26 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Felipe C.:
If you argue that you are in the position to judge and not be judged because you're not claiming being 'harmless' as opposed to Richard, then you should share your attainments. Do you consider yourself enlightened, free, liberated, harmless or whatever? If yes, could you share the behavioral, moral and perceptual aspects of said freedom, and then explain why are you causing the ecological harm you do when using the computer to discuss in forums. If no, why would you judge from the darkness? How are you different from a blind leading the blind? Richard, Justine and Trent --the objects of your criticism-- had both spiritual and non-spiritual attainments {actual freedom}. They can tell the differences, and preferred an actual freedom because they experientially compared and determined that that was the answer to an even happier and more harmless life.


I don't know what Omega Point will say regarding what his attainments are but just from his writings, he seems to be several order above Richard, Justine, and Trent. So I think that the blind leading the blind is more apt for Richard, Justine and Trent than for Omega Point.

Regarding Omega Point causing ecological harm, I think it does more good than bad and he has hardly gone on to lengths that Richard has gone to discussing on forums. Even with his massive posts, he is nowhere close to 'millions of free words' that are on AFT site.
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 7:59 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 7:58 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Omega Point:
Further, Buddhism has realized and warned of whole categories of mind-smashing potentials (the double-edgedness of neuroplasticity) from rooting out the capacity to learn, to rooting out the capacity for memory, intelligence, language etc.


If one of the mind-smashing potentials happen, what could be done about it? What should be done to prevent it from happening? If some of it has already happened, can it be reversed?
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 8:22 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 3/2/13 8:22 PM

RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Omega Point:
Withal, some more sophisticated traditions consider Richard's apperceptive consciousness primarily a 'liberation of mind', the teachings and practices I have advocated and their many associates are considered 'liberation of body' on top of that.


True.

Breadcrumb