I saw this quote from Richard on the AF Term Clarification thread. I question his view that he is the first to figure this stuff out and specifically that Ancient Wisdom holds that "only the ‘good’ ... kept the ‘bad’ in check".

Ancient wisdom (at least Buddhist and Taoist) says to me 'as long as you think there is a separate independent 'you' then cultivate good (skilful - in that they do not lead to an agitated mind) qualities but ultimately you must drop the whole ball of wax entirely'. This is not a matter of elimination but rather seeing them for what they are.

- Han Shan

- Hsin Hsin Ming

- Hui Neng

In this sutta Sariputta puts the issue of wholesome vs unwholesome qualities in their proper context. There is nothing here about keeping the bad in check.

this was my favourite part of the buddhist quotations you provided, all of which are excellent, and all of which, i understand, can be read to mean the same thing as what actual freedom does (and perhaps was even written to mean such). however, those quotes can also be sensibly read in at least one other way which changes their meaning and differ them from what is meant by an actual freedom from the human condition. the malunkyaputta sutta is another example of how something can line up so well when looked at one way, then not when looked at another. there, everything seems to check out well until toward the end, malunkyaputta repeats his understanding of what the buddha told him and says, among other things, the following:



and the buddha responds that he has understood.

this is not what either i nor richard, whom you quote above, mean by actual freedom at all. what we mean is that it is a condition in which we do not experience feelings - they do not arise to fall away. stress is not amassed not because it falls away, but because it doesn't enter the picture to begin with.

what do you make of this particular discrepancy? i can move onto the ones i found in the quotes you posted above, next.

tarin

In the Sutta that you cite, Buddha is instructing Ven. Malunkyaputta in how to practice. Malunkyaputta has not yet awakened. When Malunkyaputta repeats the teaching back (part of which you quote) he is showing that he understands the practice (essentially cultivating dispassion) - not that he understands the transcendent - this is how I read it. The quotes that I gave are from people who have awakened and are speaking from the transcendent perspective.

For those reading this, the definition of 'feelings' we are using is: "Physical sensibility other than sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell. The condition of being emotionally affected or committed; an emotion (of fear, hope, etc.). Emotions, susceptibilities, sympathies. A belief not based solely on reason; an attitude, a sentiment."

A difference between Buddhism and AF that will cause confusion is in how we see the experience of phenomena:
Richard: "The three ways a person can experience the world are:

1. cerebral (thoughts); 2. sensate (senses); 3. affective (feelings)."

Buddhism states that there are just the 5 senses and the mind. The affective being compounded.



Go for it.

i have considered this interpretation as well, and so have cited that particular sutta as an(other) example, in addition to the texts from which you quoted in the original post, of how certain buddhist texts and passages can be read to mean the same thing as a pure consciousness experience (suggesting that experience of such has existed at some point for practitioners within the buddhist tradition - such as the buddha, hsin hsin ming, or hui neng - or who were associated with taoism - such as han shan).

assuming that this way of reading is correct, a good question is whether or not there is any textual evidence that this mode of experience was stabilised/made permanent by any such practitioner (such that they were living in, as i call it, an actual freedom from the human condition). do you know of any texts which could support the claim that they (any of them) were?



for those reading this, i will note my agreement with chuck's definition of 'feelings' above (and so it follows that the term 'feelings' refers to any and all affective experience, which includes, among other things, any experience of irritation, agitation, frustration, craving, greed, libido, disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness, nervous tension, and apprehension).



according to the article on the actual freedom trust website on which richard wrote the precis of actual freedom, from which your above passage originally comes (though the order has been reversed from what i find in the original), the affective (feelings) way of experiencing the world is forever deleted for the actually free person (a claim i can personally verify):



in comparing the above with buddhism, do you mean to state that the entire affective faculty vanishes - that the entire package of instinctual passions is deleted - from the experience of a human who has reached awakening ... such that a human who has reached awakening will never, ever, experience feelings?

as you state that you are awakened, is this your (necessarily on-going) experience?



ok. i will do it in the format of contrasting my own experience with what is written in those texts from which you quoted above (with the relevant parts of the passages in bold):



my mind is not uninvolved in worldly events (it is only ever involved in worldly events). it is not by remaining uninvolved in worldly events that i am (my mind is) at peace and tranquil, it is because i have no affective faculty, and so such involvement does not cause any hope, fear, judgement of right and wrong, or feelings of pleasure and misery.. and so i am free to be involved as much as i like.



all i do, all day long, is see what appears (and act on it as is appropriate and beneficial). there is no 'going beyond appearance and emptiness' here.. these appearances (this world of people and things) are actually here (it actually exists). this is not an illusion which occurs in an empty world.. the changes which occur here in this world of people and things are actual (this world, and these changes, does not and do not only exist because of some kind of 'ignorance', they exist whether or not they are perceived).



what is it, exactly, which is supposed to be delusive about the (functional) mind? this mind, which functions in determining, and thus discriminating between, various objects and courses of action, is not a phantasm - it actually exists in its function/in its occurrence as a faculty of this sensate and reflective flesh and blood body which i am, and of which i am the experience.. . which experience is not at all 'rid of discriminative thinking'.

tarin