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

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?

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.

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)

Vineeto 'interacted' intensively with Richard for 40 days. I don't think dust on the lens would require that much time to be removed.

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.

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.

Could you elaborate please, that phrase is a bit vague to understand.

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?

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.

Could you provide links to these descriptions? I don't keep up with the actualfreedom yahoo group (though perhaps I should).

Hi John:
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.

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).



and going by things those people have written publicly.

*

regarding behind the scenes activity concerning AF: no idea.

*


dunno.

Moved to this thread.

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.

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

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.


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

Ah, ok, understood.


I am puzzled yet again:

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'.

ok, makes sense. that neatly resolves the increasingly-confused questions that were arising in my head.

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...

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.

Steph S:


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.

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?

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

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...
*************************

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.

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?

Yay.

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 ;)

Did it match it precisely? Daniel said:

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:

to which Daniel answered;

Edited a few times for flow.

HAIETMOBA and the sweet spot are still excellent tools for creating conditions favorable to insight especially DO.

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.

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 Good one, too.

Cheers,
Florian

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...]

@ 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 )

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!

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.

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.

With a sub-category of "happiness".

Nice idea, the sentiment (even if I'm just interpreting it from the words on the screen) is really lovely.

@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.

This thread was split off of RE: my thoughts on actual freedom and the dho

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

you're welcome.



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.



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).



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).



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

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.



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).



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

Did you ask one question that was critical of AF?

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")?

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?

Response from the aft


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

Message has been removed because message have special character which are not able to parse.Please contact to administrator

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)

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.

plenty.

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)

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..).

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

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.

a million $ question.

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).

Message has been removed because message have special character which are not able to parse.Please contact to administrator

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

And why did you add the passive-aggressive voice to it?

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,

huh.. weird!

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

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

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'.

I disagree, if we are using the AFT's framework, here is how they define belief


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."

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

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 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.



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.



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.


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.

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?

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.



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.

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.

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;



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?

Some fun pan-mystical whatever:





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:




(EDIT: Just FYI, for whatever reason, I have found pondering this to be highly practical, somehow.)

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.

thanks for that one, I guess I read this after posting a post trying to conceive of unbinding...

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?

ok well thanks for at least reading my rambles ;)

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?

Likewise, yours are quite enjoyable. I'm reading quite a bit more carefully these days, and by extension enjoying the various point made more.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don't think I follow. Making which delusions more "elemental"/"at the source"?

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!

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.

encountered when?

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.



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.



thank you.

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.

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.

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

that which you gained after encountering actualism.

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).


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!

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




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.



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.




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'....

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.

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


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.


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.

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




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)...



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



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



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.



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.

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%?


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.

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.

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)?


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?


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.

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 .

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.

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



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.



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.

We're in agreement here.


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?


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.

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?

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'?

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.

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.

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.


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

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?

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?

i missed this post.


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



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

"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

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.

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.

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.

Hi, Omega Point



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



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.

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.

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