If someone attains to Actual Freedom without attaining arahatship, do they still experience fundamental suffering due to the Three Illusions? Do they "cling" to the positive feelings brought on by Actual Freedom? In Daniel and Tarin discuss AF, Tarin says that PCEs are centerless, which makes it sound like AF implies arahatship PLUS no affective feeling. 

Before, arahatship sounded so profound and Ultimate (Bill Hamilton: "I have a treasure of infinite value") but whenever someone brings up AF people start saying things like "I'm only a mere arahat" as if it weren't really that gret.

Can you become Actually Free without being an arahat?

To the best of my knowledge, I have not crossed the A&P or entered any real meditation territory. I'm asking because I want to decide which path to follow. 

If you answer, would you please list your experiences with these things? (Attained PCEs, attained AF, arahat, stream enterer, etc.)
Thanks

Paul

Check this out and see what you think...it might answer some questions or create new ones. - Actual Freedom and Buddhism.docx
Good luck,
~D

My advice would be don't worry about the ultimate. Just pick the a path that makes the intuitively appeals to you. Follow instructions in the short - medium term. If progress stalls before you are satisfied, then pick something else. 


This is sort of true.

AF is kind of like  MCTB Arahatship - affective feeling + messed up intellectual view of reality.

Due to the messed up view point AF falls short of ultimate liberation. They end up clinging to the objective. And to lack of affect. This lack of inclusivity limits liberation.

Here are daniel's latest views on AF...
http://integrateddaniel.info/my-experiments-in-actualism/


If you are not confused enough, and insist on being better informed, read this...
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5527670
------------

Also note Daniel's critera of Arahatship in the MCTB is based on overcoming subject / object duality. It does not line up with the most popular critera of 100% eardication of suffering per the buddhist conception. I don't know if it matches up with Bill Hamilton's conception.

------------

I have personal experience with this stuff. 

If it helps lend credibility, my early experience is listed here...
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2368325

Some comments by Tommy McNally:


Tommy McNally I just finished reading Dan's piece about Actualism and it's probably the best, most honest and clearly written breakdown of the way things have gone for almost all of us who claimed "Actual Freedom" at one time or another. I haven't spoken to him for a while and haven't gone on the DhO for quite a while due to being busy with other projects, but his descriptions really hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways. There are slight differences in how it's played out s go far for me, but his overview and his comments on the emotional aspects are spot on. A really well written piece on a subject that caused a lot of us so-called "hardcore dharma" practitioners to question what we were doing and then go deeper again. If anyone's interested in going down the same developmental axis, I think Wei Yu and Thusness' blog is one of best resources available right now, outside of looking deeper into specific systems and specializing to a certain extent. I'll post more, gotta go out just now...
September 21 at 5:26am · Unlike · 8
Tommy McNally If you break Actualism down to a basic set of techniques and cut away all the verbiage of the website, you’re left with bare attentiveness to immediate sensate experience. At its most fundamental level, and regardless of what the self-proclaimed progenitor says, the entire practice leading to “an actual freedom from the human condition” is based on paying attention to what’s happening in the sensate field right now, but with a focus on the aggregate of feeling.

Through the application of the method which, to give credit where credit is due, Richard [Last Name Redacted] developed - of asking “How Am I Experiencing This Moment Of Being Alive”, generally referred to as HAIETMOBA – the mind is inclined in a very specific way towards the way the body feels and how we, as an individual physical body, are experiencing the world at this very moment. It’s a powerful method when used correctly and the acronym makes it easy to remember, but it’s basically just a way of turning attention towards the sense doors.

Another aspect of AF practice is the dismantling of belief systems and what’s referred to as the “social identity”. By exploring how certain sensate experiences give rise to certain emotional states, one begins to see how deeply held beliefs and assumptions about the nature of reality are often false and lead to negative emotional states. Through taking all emotional experiences to bits, you can see how each has the same basic ‘flavour’ and how certain perceptual processes ‘colour’ them to be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. It’s almost a sort of self-psychotherapy and can be very intense, but ultimately worthwhile.

Something almost Tantric about AF is the emphasis on experiencing all sensate experience as pleasant, or focusing on the pleasant aspects of it so as to override the natural tendency of feeling to be positive, negative or neutral. Enjoying yourself is a large part of the basic method too and is actually very, very useful regardless of system. There’s also developing what’s referred to as “naivete”, which is basically a childlike wonder and sense of newness which occurs during the PCE and once this is established as the baseline. This is quite unique to AF as far as I know, but is a lot of fun to work with and does incline the mind towards experiencing in that way.

As I think about this, which I haven’t done for quite some time, I’m laughing at how simple a system of techniques this is for how amazing the outcome is. But at the same time, I’m kinda sad that the refusal of its founder to accept how close his basic model is to the Dharma prevents many from seeing how close they are to discovering something really special. At root, Actualism is just another method of development but its view is wrong on so many levels that I can’t begin to list them. This is simply my opinion on the matter, having practiced it with utter sincerity for quite some time I can speak from experience but, to this day, I still can’t see how people haven’t figured out that Richard is batshit insane and that his entire model collapses under scrutiny. Not only that, if one continues to apply those same techniques once so-called Actual Freedom happens, the entire thread unravels and the very foundation of it is seen to be empty! It becomes impossible to posit the existence of a physical body beyond its imputation, so to continue to think that an “actual world”, existing “out there” and apart from the rest of experience is seen to be complete ballocks.

There is value in the basic techniques and mental postures, undoubtedly, but the bullshit and general weirdness of its spectacularly bearded founder ruins it. I could go into all the reasons why I consider this to be so, but it serves no practical value and diminishes the positives that could be gained from skilful application of the techniques with Right View.

I don’t know if there’s anything else I can add here, I’m doing my usual and going off on tangents so I’ll sign off for the moment and add more if I think of anything useful.
September 21 at 7:55am · Edited · Unlike · 12


    Tommy McNally I think Wei Yu's done a lot more work on analyzing AF in comparison to realization within the Dharma and has put it far more clearly than I can. I always found it funny that Richard claimed that the material of Awakening to Reality wasn't Buddhist and that he refused to say whether or not what Thusness described was what he called AF. I don't believe that AF, or even the PCE itself, is related to recognizing rigpa as the whole of AF's view is that, with the dissolution of subjectivity, one experiences the word from the side of the object; there's still a very obvious reification of the physical form as being independent from consciousness and the other aggregates. If a person didn't have any insight into anatta prior to hitting a PCE, the experience could suggest that one is experiencing things 'as' the object of consciousness which is partly where I think a lot of the confusion comes in. If one has realized Anatta, the PCE has quite a different level of impact in comparison to when it's experienced prior to this. It's still amazing, don't get me wrong, but it's different in lots of very subtle ways which require close scrutiny of the PCE itself to really 'get'. I also don't think that AF or the achievement of it, whatever that actually is, is related to Stream Entry or can really be aligned with any of the Buddhism models due to there being way too many disparities at way too many levels. There are characteristics of it which could feasibly be correlated with certain attainments within Buddhism, but due to the continued belief that there is an objectively existing "actual world" it sort of cancels itself out. As Wei Yu says, there are similarities with the taste of Anatta but, in my experience, it's not the same development trajectory.
    September 21 at 6:58pm · Unlike · 5
    Tommy McNally To clarify on what Lindsay's referred to as "PCE focus", I think it's worth mentioning that it's not actually the PCE itself which is the focus. It's more about focusing on the characteristics of of the PCE, using previous experiences of it to recognize that those characteristics are always there as an integrated part of the field of experience itself. Using previous experience of the PCE to fuel practice is referred to in Actualism as "pure intent", wherein one continually inclines towards experiencing the world in that way and with the intent to be "happy and harmless". By aiming for PCE's as a conscious goal, it short-circuits the attempt to incline the mind towards apperception by setting up a desire for things to be clearer or better than they are, which one then ends up inclining towards. It's like a loop of desire; you know how amazing the PCE is but your own desire to recreate that experience is just a mental fabrication. It's not possible to "imagine" a PCE because it occurs at a stage in the perceptual process prior to the formation of concepts, so any effort to recreate or fabricate it will ultimately fail. The memory of a PCE is a tool, but to aim for what you think a PCE is will lead in the opposite direction from where you want to be as it inclines the mind more towards the internal experience.
    September 21 at 7:13pm · Edited · Like · 2

This is a loaded question as it presupposes the Three Illusions are actually illusions. However, that is not the case - everything is not dukkha, everything is not impermanent, and the emotions and the ego are indeed "Self".


There are no positive feelings (as in emotions/moods/affective states) when actually free.


Yes, in fact it would be easier.


On this forum you will get recommendations for the meditative path, of course. However the information you will receive here about actualism and actual freedom is not correct. If you'd like to learn more about actualism, I highly recommend reading the AFT site and joining the actual freedom yahoo group. It's only fair - learn about the meditative paths on the meditative path forum, learn about the actualist path on the actualist path forum.


Yes PCE, no AF, no Arahat, yes stream enterer (though I'd say that no longer really applies).

Cheers,
- Claudiu

There seems to be a dukkha/stress center in the brain. There seems to be many many "things" that are wired to it. I am leaning towards the idea that you can Vipassanize just about anything that is wired to this center and rewire it so that sensations no longer have to meet the stress threshold to get to conscious awareness. It seems you can rewire by seeing the "thing" clearly or rerouting the signals thru the love center of the brain. There are lots of techniques out there to choose from and some will work better/faster than others for some people. Pick something you want to work on and start doing it....evaluate the results and keep going or change...repeat.
Good Luck, and may the Ultimate find you
~D

Hi Claudiu
I have a couple questions about your Actualist practice if that's ok as I'd like to support my own personal practice and development 
"There are no positive feelings (as in emotions/moods/affective states) when actually free"
Is that your personal experience or your belief? Since you do not claim AF (Virtually Free?) I'm wondering if this has been something you've glimpsed but only temporarily? Is there no love, compassion etc there? Equanimity? (Which feels like an affect to me). What about instinctual body fear (like someone jumping out of the shadows quickly to attack you or a snake trying to bite you?) It sounds freaky to be honest, but I am open minded, or so I like to think ;)
"...everything is not impermanent, and the emotions and ego are indeed "Self"
What in your experience is not impermanent? Scientifically and/or spiritually? Assuming ego and emotions disappear in AF does the Self actually exist until AF occurs and demolishes the Self, or is it all an illusion to begin with, along with emotions and the ego from the start?
I really don't want to get too philosophical here, I'm just hoping to make sense of the training and practice - thank you!
Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Sure thing!


It's true, I'm not actually free. It's based on my experience of PCEs, my experience of actually free people (I visited Richard & Vineeto in Australia) and what's written by actually free people on the AFT site. So I am extrapolating somewhat, not having the experience of actual freedom yet, but the PCE definitely is almost there, going by reports. So yes, in the PCE, there are no affective states, not even feeling happy. But the experience itself is remarkably pleasant, wondrous, enjoyable, etc. The way I experienced it was that there is literally nothing to do, except to enjoy the moment - that's all you have to do if life were always like a PCE.


No love or compassion either, no. 'I' am entirely absent, so too is anything 'I' am - which is among other things any emotion. It's really something else.

Yea I would say equanimity is affective. There isn't equanimity either. It's much more vivid and sparkling than that.


I haven't experienced this for myself so I can't answer from my own experience, but I can link you to something Richard wrote. Did you ask this question after having read the AFT by any chance? He literally describes an instance in which a snake comes out at him (link). What happened for him is that he still had the instinctual reflex ("These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows [...] and see the green and black snake [...] which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards"), but none of the instinctual passions that usually come with it ("[...] an instinctive response [the stepping back] which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.
There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.").


Matter isn't impermanent. Speaking scientifically, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. They do constantly change shape and reconfigure, though. Also I'd say space and time aren't impermanent. Plus, everything is actually remarkably stable - a cup for instance - even if eventually, over many years, it will degrade.

I would rather say that 'I' am impermanent, and to attribute that characteristic to the physical universe itself, is to project 'my' qualities onto the universe.


I'm not really sure how to answer. It's a bit weird. So, in a PCE, I only experience what is actually there, and the self is nowhere to be found. It is as if 'I' never existed. This is quite a trip! And it's remarkably freeing. It means no matter what 'I' get up to, all of it can be wiped away in just a moment. So 'I' am never so strong and persistent that 'I' can't disappear at a moment's notice. However, then the bizarre thing is that 'I' come back, and then that experience of actuality is far gone again. Then 'I' am felt to be very real. But I wouldn't say 'I' actually exist. I don't know if illusion is the right word... but I guess that would be the proper word for experiencing something that isn't actually there, right?


Hope it helped!

Cheers,
- Claudiu

(D Z) Dhru Val:

Oh? Are you saying that an actually free (from affect) person clings to lack of affect? If a person is free from such affect, what is the substance of such clinging?

Something isn't adding up here... Do you mind defining 'affective state' as you understand it and as you understand the AFT people to understand it?

per·ma·nentˈpərmənənt/adjective

• 1.lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

Space and time aren't impermanent? Are you frozen in spacetime? Our planet is moving in the Solar System. The gravitational influence on any given region of spacetime by other objects in the Solar System is therefore constantly changing. Spacetime is therefore constantly bending in different directions.

Affective simply means "Relating to, resulting from, or influenced by the emotions."

It surely does add up. The mistake is in assuming that any sort of non-neutral experience is affective. So when you hear about an experience that is wondrously enjoyable and exquisite in every way, you assume it is affective, and it sounds like a contradiction to say it isn't. This is a common mistake to make though because most of human experience is not a PCE, and thus is indeed affective in some way or another.



I don't want to get into this now. But at the very least, since matter can't be created or destroyed, it means that all the matter that exists today, has always existed in some form or another, and will always continue to exist. There is your permanence.

They consider something (a state lacking affect) as an ultimate that is objectively true, compared with other things that are just instinctual passions. 

So I posit there will be clinging. 

Clinging isn't limited to affective states. There are more subtle types of clinging 

For example: I sometimes experience an unplesant tight muscular contraction in the solar plexus region, that can sometimes painful. But otherwise it is non-affective. Based on my investigations this is caused by a subtle sort of clinging, which in turn is caused by momentary ignorance.

Do you mind defining 'emotion' as you understand it, and as you understand the AFT people to understand it?

According to 2014 science, the law of conservation of energy is considered true, yes. But, the structures composed of energy all seem to be impermanent.

I guess people may use the word "ultimate" in various ways, but for me, it means the Three Characteristics, in that these apply to all sensations at all times, before and after, all the way through, so they are the common demoninator of all experience, as well as the basic sensations themselves, as these are the first foundation of all of it.

AF seems to delineate two worlds, one Real, the other Actual, and says they are not the same, as questions of Ultimate should seem to apply to all things (Real and Actual), then to call the Actual world Ultimate would seem to be missing something.

As to whatever I did, how it lines up with anything related to AF I have no idea, but I like that mind mod and would recommend it, regardless of how you label it.

There are some problems with stating that matter and energy are permanent.

First of all matter and energy were either created or contained in the singularity of the "Big Bang."   Current theories tend to favor a "heat death" scenario where the Universe dims out and all matter has decayed in 10^10000 years. This is when entropy is at a maximum and all energy and matter has wound out.  Regardless of how much sum total energy there is, everything has decayed and the Universe is essentially dead. However, a "big crunch" scenario is theoretically possible where the Universe contracts back into a singularity, though not currently in favor.

Using the law of conservation of energy as an example of permanence is taking a process of continuous flux, change, and dissolution and redefining permanence as the sum total of that process.  This is analogous to saying, "All things are not impermanent!  Change is permanent!" or "All things are not impermanent! Nirvana is permanent!"  Neither of these are actual "things."

There is no special definition. "Emotion" is used in the usual sense that everybody understands, as in, I feel happy or I feel sad or I feel love, etc.

The assumption that everyone has the same personal definition of 'emotion' or 'affect' probably lies at the root of the AF controversy.

I casually use 'emotion' to refer to a complex interaction of distinct sets of phenomena including mental state, physical arousal, and 'emotional-type body sensations'.

(D Z) Dhru Val:

Would you at least agree that there are more subjective experiences (the autoreferential nature of self/ego/soul/being/whatever experience, for instance) than others (purely sensate experience)?

 
(D Z) Dhru Val:

I'd agree with you if with "clinging" you are referring to a certain habit of physical posture, which then turns into a physical discomfort. If that's not the case and with "clinging" you refer to something purely mental* and that "subtle sort of clinging is caused by momentary ignorance" , then I'd ask you: ignorance of what exactly? What are you ignoring that is causing your clinging activity?

----
*Mental: a : of or relating to the mind; specifically : of or relating to the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to external reality <mental health>

Beoman is stating that all matter (whether it is energy or matter) is permanent and has always existed, as such space, time, and matter have no beginning or end. Rather they have always existed and will continue to exist. Richard rejects any notions of their being Big Bang or a beginning to the universe and states that the infinitude of the universe can be readily apprehended via common sense, and possibly (I may be wrong in this) experienced directly.

According to Richard, an actual freedom from the human condition is contingent upon the infinitude and permanency of the universe.

Richard does not deny that the universe fluxes.

Wow - if that's true, AF is clearly worthless - do you have a link to Richard saying that?

Its a delusion.

I cannot find a link to that at the moment. Yet I clearly remember him saying that if the universe were not infinite and eternal, it would not be possible for an actual freedom from the human condition to exist.

If you're curious about his views on the physical universe you can read here:

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-universe.htm

http://actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ03.htm

Matter can't be created or destroyed? Are you sure?

Well that question led me on long Google quest.

The laws of thermodynamics state that enery cannot be created or destroyed, and matter is "made of" energy. However, there seems to be some quantum nonsense that breaks this law. So, actually, I don't think we can answer this question with science at this point in time.

Right, everything is in a permanent state of change, constantly.  

My friend...good on you for putting your name and face on here. It promotes good things. good sentiment

There are no such things as PCEs or Actual Freedom. It's heresy.   Discover what jhana is for real, for yourself. Then, the rest of the path will come naturally. Sit down still and resolve not to move for say...an hour and a half. See if you make any breakthroughs. If you cant do that, then you haven't got the guts for super-knowledge.



If you want slightly more explanation...PCEs and the like were invented by people who had some taste of the fourth jhana and went crackers. Don't worry about em. 

Jhana is your friend. You wont get addicted or any of that bullocks. It moves you along swiftly and does your work for you. Im an arahant of only perhaps three semi-active on this forum.  Remember, use Jhana, all these people who claim to go without are in devilishly dark states of mind because they can't handle the pressure.



my good deed for a month or so  . Good chap you have an honest face unlike most buggers around here. you know what to do.

Are you equating matter with energy? I don't think you can say that matter is made of energy even if you put made of in quotes.

If the law gets broken, then it means that it is not true, right?

Einstein equated moving masses to energy with E =mc2.  So, yes, according to science, matter is energy.  I put it in quotes because it's like saying sticks are "made of" wood.  Sticks ARE wood, so it's kind of misleading to say they are two things.

The law that doesn't seem to be QUITE a law is the conservation of mass.  In newtonian physics, mass cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system.  So if you incinterate paper in a bell jar, it will have the same mass before and after.  The reason this may not (note - may not, since they aren't sure) apply to the universe is that the universe might be an open system where entropy will allow for the decay of energy and thus matter.  The expansion of the universe is speeding up, as well, which is another confusing bit of data.

Are you confusing mass with matter?

Sticks could be made of metal, plastic, glass ...........