180 degrees opposite

thumbnail
Psi, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 1:49 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 1:49 AM

180 degrees opposite

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
As seen in the link below, the 180 degrees opposite diagram, does not apply to Buddhism, Taoism (as I understand it), Non-duality, and cognitive behavioral neuroscience, energy work , and certainly can in no way apply to the Insight Path, the chart isn't even close on the left path to describing any one of the above paths.  The chart certainly does not break down all paths of both open handed teachings and occult teachings, so indeed one can not claim that Actualism is 180 degrees opposite of all paths..  Surely, this was just a mis-conception.  So, in light of this indisputable fact, maybe we can communicate more openly without at least this one misconception.

I can explain further is this isn't self-evidently clear.



http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/180-degrees.htm
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 6:11 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 6:11 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Richard simply isn't talking about the pragmatic dharma version of enlightenment - he's talking about being-consiousness-bliss, which is actually a more traditional use of the word "enlightenment."  Buddhists usually use the word "awakening" anyway, so there isn't really a conflict.

Richard has a section on buddhism, but you probably won't find it to match your version of buddhism - he generally focuses on traditional religious practices.

Maybe something to consider is that pragmatic dharma is pretty different from what 99% of the world's buddhists would identify with, so any comments Richard might have made about buddhism can be disreguarded by pragmatic dharma practitioners.  He's always fairly clear about how he's representing a word - even that chart has a definition on it - so if it's obvious he's not talking about your definition, there's no reason to take offense (or, if not offense, whatever else might cause unpleasantness).

Is there a reason this particular thing has captured your attention so definitively?  It really isn't central to the method that you agree with everything Richard says.  If it seems like your practice is identical, or only 10 degrees different then that's for you to decide.  Maybe we can compare results as time goes by and see if there are any genuine differences there.  The main difference in the other thread that I've noticed is that Actualists are aiming for an emotionless state and Buddhists aren't.  You also said that bare awareness seemed to be emotionless for you when you were practicing it, though.  Maybe your idea of buddhist practice really is identical to actualism.  Maybe you do some things different, and you find those things to be vital to your practice.  If it makes you feel better, Actualism isn't all that different from my previous conception of buddhism.  Coming to this forum changed my conception of buddhism into something I didn't like as much, so I switched definitions.  I don't think my practice itself has changed much over time though.

If you reguard "equanimity" to be emotionlessness, think of the progression of the jhanas as the result of felicity and letting go of control rather than concentration, and see the "self" as the emotions/ego, then buddhism is identical to Actualism.
thumbnail
(D Z) Dhru Val, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 9:29 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 9:29 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 346 Join Date: 9/18/11 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Richard simply isn't talking about the pragmatic dharma version of enlightenment - he's talking about being-consiousness-bliss, which is actually a more traditional use of the word "enlightenment."  Buddhists usually use the word "awakening" anyway, so there isn't really a conflict.



Yes, I would agree.

Part of the confusion is that in earlier days of DhO people assumed that there was only one enlightnemnet, and that the end result of Vipassana / noting was the end of all traditions (I think this idea might be from the MCTB ). 

So when a DhO member (Tarin) got 4th path, and then subsequently become the first person on the site to achieve AF (a claim that he later redacted for political reasons), it was assumed that AF represented a further development over ALL enlightenment tradtions. 

Further adding to the confusion, Tarin and others didn't make a distinction between Richards ideas of enligthenment, based on a True Self  / Heart opening, type enlightenment and MCTB 4th path.


If you reguard "equanimity" to be emotionlessness, think of the progression of the jhanas as the result of felicity and letting go of control rather than concentration, and see the "self" as the emotions/ego, then buddhism is identical to Actualism.

cc


Actualism and buddhism differ in 'view', and as result the realization as well. 

Buddhism is very broad set of different traditions. But it tends to discusses self  and phenomenon in terms of a non-affirming negation. Ultimate reality is the unfindability of an ultimate reality. No self is the unfindability of a self. 

Actualism uses worlds like the self goes extinct. The actual world is what is ultimately here and true. The 'real' world is false and covered with a layer of delusion.
thumbnail
Teague, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 9:42 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 9:42 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 104 Join Date: 8/1/11 Recent Posts
When any of us start a particular path, I don't think we can really understand the end state of the practice until we actually experience it.  It's like we're reading a menu, and think, "mmm, that sounds good," but we haven't tasted it yet.  We might even get an appetizer before the main course arrives, such as high equanimity or a PCE, but this doesn't satisfy our hunger.  To continue this metaphor, the ingrediants of both Buddhism (when it comes to the practical aspects) and Actualism seem good to me, but I've already placed my order for the Buddhist dish.  That doesn't mean I won't want to sample Actualism down the road.  Reading Dan's "experiments in acutalism" essay is a convincing testimonial from someone who has sampled both dishes and has deemed them complimentary to each other.

In the Goenka courses, he gives the example of someone who sets out to dig a well.  He picks a spots and starts digging, but then someone tells him, "no, no, over there water is better." and so he starts digging there.  But if you dig ten feet here and ten feet there and never stick with a spot, then you'll never reach water.  So that's what I'm doing: digging my well.

I still haven't been convinced that the two practices are that different from each other.  I think the skills one learns doing one would help with the other, such as the ability to investigate our experience.

-T
thumbnail
Teague, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 10:23 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 10:23 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 104 Join Date: 8/1/11 Recent Posts
(D Z) Dhru Val:

So when a DhO member (Tarin) got 4th path, and then subsequently become the first person on the site to achieve AF (a claim that he later redacted for political reasons), it was assumed that AF represented a further development over ALL enlightenment tradtions. 




Dang, I just read the anouncements in that link.  The AFT really has a low opinion of this "Buddhistic forum."

Just a simple observation.  Not wanting to start another debate.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 11:52 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 11:51 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Okay , I read what Richard said about Buddhism and he just doesn't understand much, he says he does, but he doesn't.  Which is fine, I am just seeking truth, and :

 Why do I get invovled with these discussions about actualism , etc?  Well, why does Richard vent out a bunch of ill conceived thoughts about Buddhism, why does he invite responses?  This is simple cause and effect, if he did not write about how wrong something is, and base it upon misunderstandings, in my opinion, then why wouldn't someone be able to discuss the subjects that Actualism brings up?  It is not  adefense, or a defense mechanism, those are instinctive reactions, these are logical discussions about statements being made on the Actual Freedom website about Buddha and the teachings.

Because, being a seeker of the truth, that requires investigation, and when investigation exposes something as non-truthful it should be either taken back or corrected.  There are differences in opinions and facts, which has been clarified on the Actualist website, yet there is the spouting of misunderstandings and opinions being presented as facts, and in a logical sounding manner.  But, just because something sounds logical does not mean it is logical, especially when investigated.  So, I guess, because I still have clinging, clinging to what is right and truth, it burns my butt that someone can just say a bunch of stuff as the truth when it is obviously not the case, to me anyway.

For example:

Richard: 

The actualist method is a far cry from the Buddhist carefully cultivated ‘mindfulness’ ... the practice of ‘mindfulness’ is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here – now – as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. 

"All Buddhist do not want to be here"  Huh?  Why would someone say that?  Where would they formulate an opinion as such, and why present the opinion as a fact?  Did he even understand the Satipatthana Sutta as a  novice? It is said he did, I think, but it seems not.

Mindfulness is a further withdrawal from the actual world?  What? , that is foolish, (in my opinion)

Richard:
Mr. Gotama the Sakyan should not have dawdled, tarried ... because there has been untold suffering since then that has been all unnecessary. Wars, rapes, murders, tortures, corruption ... the list is endless. If he had gone all the way there would probably be peace on earth by now. That was two and a half thousand years ago, remember. Plenty of time for everyone to become free.

So, he is playing the blame game?  On the Buddha?  This is just nonsense talk, in my opinion.

Anyway, the reason for discussing this is to show another way of looking at Actual Freedom, it seems that ot is spreading some pretty far out un-justifiable opinions, and passing them off as facts.  To me this is wrong speech, and as shown has repercussions, everyone can be held accountable for their speech and actions, myself included.

So, to be proactive, I am not a supporter of dogmatism, and know the practice of rites and rituals  for what they are, but am a supporter of Investigation into reality, no matter where it leads.  It is what it is.

So, please, please, do not take any of this personally, that is not the intention, but the intention is to examine statements that are held out for public view and to see how well it holds up to reality, not blaming anyone, just flaggin'

Perhaps one can just focus on the methods and drop the propaganda, but for me , it goes hand in hand.

So, I must reflect upon my own consciousness, Is it dogmatic? Is it untruthful? Am I hardheaded or open-minded? If I disagree with something is it okay to express this?  Why is this sometimes seen as an attack rather than as a discussion?  This is a discussion board, right?  More rhetorical questions....

Psi Phi

The buddhist link on AF

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/buddhism.htm



thumbnail
Psi, modified 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 1:42 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/5/14 1:42 PM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Teague:
(D Z) Dhru Val:

So when a DhO member (Tarin) got 4th path, and then subsequently become the first person on the site to achieve AF (a claim that he later redacted for political reasons), it was assumed that AF represented a further development over ALL enlightenment tradtions. 




Dang, I just read the anouncements in that link.  The AFT really has a low opinion of this "Buddhistic forum."

Just a simple observation.  Not wanting to start another debate.


Well, after having read the above posted link, and the first post of this link here, discussing AF seems to be a dead end road, and time is short.


www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2733454#_19_message_2733454



The subject of Actual Freedom  is going to be abandoned, it is only bringing about disagreements and misunderstandings, and thus is non-fruitful.  

It's been real, and it's been fun.  emoticon  Just think it is wise for me to stick with what I know works and leave others alone to do what they know works.  There may be common ground, but so what?  Who needs the politics?  Perhaps I should start a practice log and get a little more serious, it may hold myself more accountable to practicing.  At least I learned some new words for Scrabble..., thanks to Richard, he's quite the vocabulist.

So, Peace to all!

Psi Phi

P.S.  If my mind changes, woe to us all....
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 10 Years ago at 10/6/14 4:24 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/6/14 4:24 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Hey Psi,

We made a long thread and gave eachother a lot to think about.  My only interest in the debate has been to see if the differences really are different.  I'm actually not sure, and that's a good place to be.  I hope you don't "leave me alone" in the future - I think you have some good stuff to say.

If we end up in the same place and it's where we both wanted to be - or if we end up in different places, and that's where we both wanted to be - we still both get to win, eh? emoticon
thumbnail
Psi, modified 10 Years ago at 10/6/14 7:42 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/6/14 7:42 AM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 1099 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Hey Psi,

We made a long thread and gave eachother a lot to think about.  My only interest in the debate has been to see if the differences really are different.  I'm actually not sure, and that's a good place to be.  I hope you don't "leave me alone" in the future - I think you have some good stuff to say.

If we end up in the same place and it's where we both wanted to be - or if we end up in different places, and that's where we both wanted to be - we still both get to win, eh? emoticon

Hey Not Tao,

Everthing is fine, you have my respect, it's just that it seems wiser if I disengage from the AF commentary, I am sure Richard would appreciate me not poking out AF's flaws, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings, as much as I would appreciate his website not denigrating the rest of humanities religions and spiritual practices.  So, I will focus back to what is wholesome and productive from personal experience.  Until your post I had not even looked at AF, and on the website I have found some things I agree with and some things I disagree with.

Wu Wei

Psi Phi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 10 Years ago at 10/6/14 4:56 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 10/6/14 4:56 PM

RE: 180 degrees opposite

Posts: 995 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Wu wei indeed! emoticon