Alright, I'll answer each of your concerns as is most immediately obvious to me.
Overall, I suggest you be extremely careful when you use the word "cult". That word gets thrown around quite a bit, and it's not clear what people mean by it except "something bad". As such it amounts to an ad hominem attack, which has no valid logical basis. There are legitimate cults out there and it cheapens their suffering to throw the word around and accuse something that isn't a cult as being a cult.
J C:
I'm interested in AF/Actualism, but it seems that there are some questions and concerns that to my knowledge have not been answered.
Actually, all of these questions and concerns have been answered, some of them multiple times. There are pages and pages on the AFT devoted to discussing why actualism is 180 degrees opposite from buddhism, for example. If you weren't aware that these pages existed,
here are some links. There are even pages devoted to
Buddhism, and you can follow that topic page to all the links on the left to read even more.
Here is a page specifically pointing out how actual freedom is different from enlightenment, with Richard's more up-to-date understanding of Buddhism. If you were aware of their existence, and you read them, yet weren't satisfied, then my words here won't help either. I'm not sure what you would expect, in that case.
===
J C:
1. Concerns about Richard.
There are numerous reports of concerning behavior from Richard - as Daniel put it, the stories about him sound like the Psychopaths section of Saints and Psychopaths. For instance, a couple, Peter and Vineeto, went to visit him, and somehow Vineeto ended up with Richard while Peter left... breaking up people's relationships is not appropriate or acceptable behavior from a spiritual teacher. Richard claims to and has been observed to have no emotions, and is generally said to exhibit extreme disregard for the rights of others, marks of a sociopath.
The salient mark about most of the concerning reports is that the people reporting them have no credibility. Some of them originated from somebody who claimed to be Richard's dead ex-wife. Someone who is willing to lie about that is clearly willing to lie about other things.
As to Richard "breaking up" Peter and Vineeto, my understanding is that Peter and Vineeto broke up of their own accord many weeks before-hand, as they deemed it necessary for them to progress. I am pretty sure this is written somewhere on the AFT but I haven't been able to find the page. Thus whether Richard ended up with Vineeto or not is besides the point as Vineeto was not with Peter at that point, and, both Richard and Vineeto being single, they can do whatever you want. Note that I am not confirming or denying whether they were or are together as I simply do not know. It's entirely possible.
J C:
Shinzen Young, in a YouTube video, discusses seeing a homeless guy and noting that the body language of the homeless guy was very similar to, though not identical to, the body language of an enlightened person - whatever had happened to him had messed up his "self" to the point where there was almost no one there, though not in a positive or healthy way. He didn't mention whether the homeless guy had an Australian accent ;) Seems Richard, who has been reported to possibly suffer from past traumatic experiences or past mental breakdowns, may be in a similar position.
Richard
openly admits to having had mental breakdowns. He considers his entire 11 years of enlightenment as him having been insane as he considers full enlightenment a form of insanity. As to whether he is still suffering from them - he's still "suffering from" the effects of what he calls his latest breakdown which he calls actual freedom. I think "suffering from" is the wrong term to use though as he is having a blast, and evidently so for anyone who meets him.
J C:
There are just so many disturbing reports and stories that it is hard to trust any philosophy or theory coming from him, especially considering...
Here's another one: Richard reportedly enjoys finding small mammals and torturing them to death. I have it on reliable authority from reports I heard from a person I trust - though I can't divulge who that is nor can I publicly air those reports as it would be a violation of privacy - that Richard goes out hunting in the wilderness of Australia, finds baby mammals - kittens and puppies in particular - captures them, and slowly tortures them. He thinks their cries of pain are funny. He doesn't see it as malicious because it's just the universe doing its thing. He's laughing the entire time.
But I don't think this discounts actual freedom since he isn't hurting any people.
Oh wait - I just made that up! See how easy this is? There being a lot of reports doesn't mean anything if they aren't substantiated. I'd ask you to track down the source of those reports. Mike, on the virtualconvivium yahoo group, recently talked about those reports. I asked him to share them and he hasn't so far.
Here's one of Richard's
more recent messages on the topic of those reports. It was in response to someone publicly posting an email that Richard wrote to them in private:
RICHARD: G’day No. 25, I cannot help but notice how you draw no distinction between your private correspondence and your public correspondence inasmuch, without any by-your-leave, you (unilaterally) proceed to make public knowledge text which is obviously communicated to you in a non-public manner.
I will therefore take this opportunity to request that you similarly make public knowledge a vital portion of text from your private correspondence with [No. 4], on October the 7th, 2011, during the period Sep-Oct of that year when he was putting into action his <quote> ‘warn a few friends’ (#136xx) reaction upon having <quote> ‘felt like I’d been duped’ (#136xx).
I am specifically referring to two paragraphs of text to be found in the following email you sent to Vineeto (and Cc’d to me) on March 26, 2012.
Vis.:
From: Respondent No. 25
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:31 AM
To: Vineeto
Cc: Richard
Subject: Fwd: Conversation about actualism
• : Keep in mind that the responses I wrote at the time were my perceptions of the situation and information AT THAT TIME – I do not necessarily agree with them currently. And as I’ve stated, I am bracketing the things I don’t understand and doing my best to balance the information you’ve provided me.
-[No. 25]
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Forwarded message
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:12 PM
To: Respondent No. 25
Subject: Re: Conversation about actualism
[...snip...].
• : I am curious as to how you became acquainted with ‘[female identifier deleted].’
• [Respondent No. 4]: [female identifier deleted] was personally acquainted with [...2 paragraphs or 176 words or 777 characters withheld...] galore).
[...snip...].
Please note that all what is required is those 176 withheld words in those two paragraphs – and nothing else as all the rest of the text in any of those eight emails you forwarded is worthless – because those 176 words contain the key to comprehending how this whole sorry saga (aka ‘the mother of all kerfuffles’) was triggered.
In other words, once those two paragraphs (those 176 withheld words) are public knowledge I will be able to demonstrate, step-by-step, how [No. 4]’s actions at that time effectively led to wrecking another’s life (her exact words, in message #10555, are ‘wrecked it’) resulting in her fearing for her life (‘grave consequences, such as with my life’, in message #10563, plus ‘eliminate me physically’, message #10750) were she to fly to Australia as planned the next month ... or even ever.
Of course, Mike did not take him up on that offer.
====
J C:
2. The Proprietary Nature of AF and Refusal to Combine it with Buddhist or Other Practices
Richard claims complete control over what AF is and how it is defined.
This is like saying Joe claims complete control over what the Empire State Building is and how it is defined, or Sally claims complete control over what fear is and how it is defined, etc. Actual freedom is an objectively existing state which Richard and a few others are currently experiencing it. They don't define it - it is precisely that which they are experiencing it. As such they describe it, from experience, whenever they talk about it. He cannot define actual freedom as anything other than what it is. It is not in his control what actual freedom is. This will become more obvious the more actually free people there are. It should already be obvious as there are multiple people that are actually free. Richard could say they weren't, if he wanted to - though I don't see why he would - but that wouldn't change whether they are actually free or not. Actual freedom exists separately from Richard. Richard could and will die, yet when that happens that won't change what actual freedom is.
J C:
He makes rather grandiose claims about being the first person to achieve such a state, it being an entirely new thing that changed the course of humanity, despite the obvious similarities to the Dharma and other philosophies. Statements to the effect of AF being completely separate from Buddhism or 180 degrees opposed to it are similar.
As to him being the first, I agree that he is. I don't agree that he is because he wants to be special and I believe that he is special because belief in that is required to practice Actualism. I agree that he is because I haven't found anything else like it. As to the obvious similarities to the Dharma, well that's what many of the conversations here are about. Nobody has been able to satisfactorily show how they are similar. You can claim they are similar, but that doesn't make it so. You would have to prove your claim. More follows.
J C:
He refuses to acknowledge any similarity between AF and other systems [...]
This is like saying somebody refuses to acknowledge any similarity between apples and giant robots made of steel. Yes... because they are different things. You can't acknowledge something that isn't true, unless you're a liar and you're trying to deceive people. Again, first you would have to show that they are similar. You can't just claim they are similar and expect to have proven a point. You might like to peruse the links I put in above about 180 degrees opposite.
J C:
[...] - typical of more cult-like and less legitimate philosophical movements (Ayn Rand is a good example here; she similarly claimed to be the originator of a new, objectively correct system, founded a cult, and refused to recognize that philosophers for thousands of years prior had discussed,classified, and argued against her ideas).
You're not making an argument here. This is not a valid point. You aren't actually saying anything substantial here. If you want to show that Actualism is a cult, then make the case that it is a cult, don't just say things are cult-like without proving why. For this claim to succeed you would have to show how actualism is *not* 180 degrees opposite from buddhism, which you haven't provided any evidence for at all thus far.
J C:
Generally, reasonable and sane teachers encourage the criticism of their ideas and the blending of philosophies, whereas the insistence that one's perfect ideas be kept pristine is the mark of a cult leader or someone obsessed with control.
This is like saying that someone insisting that 2 + 2 equals 4 and refusing to blend it with the idea that 2 + 2 equals 5 is the mark of a cult leader or someone obsessed with control. Is it that, or is it the mark of someone vitally interested in making sure his fellow human beings have the right information? Again this comes back to you having to prove that actualism and spirituality are not 180 degrees opposite.
J C:
This leads to the problem where Richard can change definitions and make declarations about other people. For instance, Tarin had claimed AF and then afterwards stated that he had no idea what AF actually was, other than what Richard defined it to be.
Just because Tarin says that actual freedom is what Richard defines it to be, does not mean that actual freedom is what Richard defines it to be. It doesn't support the point that Richard can change definitions and make declarations about other people. As such this criticism is invalid. I will also point out that when someone experiences something on a daily basis and writes reports about it, you would expect those reports to be accurate. You would also expect that if he hears reports of something and he thinks that it's different from what he's experiencing, he would probably be right about that too. It doesn't mean he would be right 100% - it doesn't mean that whatever he says is right - it just means you would expect him to be right simply because he has the experience. Consider the analogy to anyone with expertise in any field.
===
J C:
3. The Often Incoherent Nature of the AF Website
The AF website, to put it mildly, is very difficult to read. It's full of neologisms and opaque sentences and at times reads much like the Time Cube website or something like that. It's pretty much impossible to look at it and get a clear idea of what AF actually is or how to practice it, other than to visit Richard and do what he says. It makes it seem more like a crazy cult than a sane spiritual practice.
I did have difficulty with the actual freedom trust at first, as well, and it seems a lot of other people do too. Maybe someone else could communicate the ideas better. But actually I find nowadays that it makes quite a lot of sense, and I can easily engage people in discussion about this section or that section and have a dialogue about it to clarify it. I find the largest impediment to making sense of the AFT website was my preconceived notions about what actualism was. For example, if you currently hold that actualism and spirituality are the same, the AFT website will not make sense to you. That doesn't mean you should start believing they are the same without any evidence or critical thinking. But it means one of the first impediments, for you, is to resolve that issue by seeing how they are not. If you think they're the same then you will simply ignore all of the things that make it different as being unimportant or weird or quirky or whatever, whereas in fact those are the things that are actually important.
You compare it to the Time Cube website, yet the Time Cube website makes no rational sense. It is impossible to figure out what he is saying. On the other hand, Richard, Peter, and Vineeto say very specific things which are rational, internally consistent, sensible, factual, etc. Give me any excerpt and I am almost sure I will be able to show how this is the case.
You don't have to visit Richard to understand what actualism is about. There are plenty of people who haven't ever met Richard, who understand actualism - like Alan, for example (has various correspondences with Richard on the AFT).
And it's not a matter of "doing as says". Richard has said this multiple times, it's the PCE which is the guiding light, not what Richard says. It's your experience you follow. Richard just points out that there is a thing that is the PCE in order to help you recognize it. Then he gives advice - what worked for him - the actualism method. Whether you follow it is up to you. You see for yourself whether it works. It's not a matter of uncritically doing what Richard recommends for reasons you don't understand.
I have shown how all the points that made it seem like a "crazy cult" to you are invalid... If you agree, I hope you will now have some integrity and withdraw that claim.
There is one thing you got right, though - the AFT site does not make actualism seem like a "sane spiritual practice". That's because it isn't a spiritual practice.
J C:
For instance, I have no idea what a PCE is or how I would get there. Richard says something to the effect that most people have had and can remember a PCE - wtf? I'm pretty sure I haven't, but I'd love to read a clear explanation of what one is or how to get there.
Okay... instead of me providing you with a myriad of links to pages that explain what a PCE is and how to get there, could you instead tell me what you've done on your own in order to figure out what a PCE is?
===
J C:
4. Philosophical Issues
There are some strange philosophical ideas relating to AF that, well, just don't make any sense. The idea that somehow AF can put you in touch with the "actual world" rather than the perceived world, or that various facts about the existence of the real world can be understood simply by experience, are just plain inaccurate. It should be clear that everything you experience comes from perception, and you can be wrong about perception, yet AF doesn't seem to address this or take it into account.
Put simply, there is an objective reality, the senses are an accurate perception of this objective reality, the way knowledge is obtained is via the senses plus logic, where the rules of logic are based on the way objective reality behaves (e.g. an object can't be two things at the same time; it can't exist and not exist at the same time; objects have constancy; etc.) This isn't necessarily actualism-specific. I would argue it's the only rational understanding of the world, though. Just because you can be wrong about perception doesn't mean that perception is invalid as a whole.
I'm not sure if there are any correspondences where they discuss this issue of perception. I don't remember having come across any in particular. We can discuss it, if you like.
To clear up a point, the "actual world" isn't different from the "perceived world". The actual world is just the world as it is without the affective filter/without the filter of 'identity'. The perceived world with an identity is filtered - that's not the actual world. The perceived world without an identity is not filtered - that's the actual world. You still "access" the actual world via "your" senses. Actually, you are your senses - which is insanely fascinating.
===
J C:
5. Concerns about Emotional Suppression
Some AF practitioners have reported that AF practices suppressed their emotions - for instance, Jill (TJ Broccoli) made a post on the DhO about coming out of AF and realizing that she had been deluded into suppressing her emotional states and thinking it was helpful or healthy.
Yes, and Tommy as well. I guess I have to say it - here's the hint - they weren't practicing actualism. Richard specifically addresses the point over and over again that you should *not* repress and/or suppress your emotions. If you then go about doing just that - that isn't because of anything Richard suggested.
J C:
AF, of course, is a Limited Emotions Model, and is therefore subject to all the criticisms in MCTB of those models. As Daniel puts it, ditching the split is possible and a good idea, but ditching one's stuff (emotions) isn't possible or a good idea... as long as you're alive, there will be stuff that comes up.
Okay, if you're just going to say that actual freedom is impossible, then why are you even interested in it?
J C:
Despite all of the above, I find many of the ideas and practices inspired by Actualism to be interesting, and I'd like to learn more about them. I'd be curious to know how others overcame the above obstacles.
I overcame them by figuring out that they have no basis in fact.
J C:
Seems to me the ideal is to practice vipassana with a bit of actualist-style practices added in.
Oh God... oh God no... please... why would you do that? Do you really want to go about suppressing your emotions like Jill and Tommy did? Did you even read Tommy's post where he talked about the repercussions of that?
J C:
I believe Thusness and An Eternal Now have a theory which to the best of my understanding is something to the effect that Buddhism contains both non-dualistic and luminous parts, the non-dualistic parts similar to MCTB, and the luminous parts similar to Actualism, so it would make sense that Daniel, after becoming an arahat, would seek out other practices that emphasize the remaining parts and focus on the joy and wonder of life.
Well, maybe there are superficial similarities, but are they really the same?
J C:
I'm not an arahat yet, so maybe once I become one this will all make more sense. My plan is to first become an arahat and then explore the other side of things, but I'm also considering incorporating actualist-inspired practices... I'd love to hear some suggestions or comments.
I would really suggest keeping your spiritual practice entirely separate from actualism. The fact is that you can't blend the two - they simply don't mix at all (because they're 180 degrees opposite) - so any attempt to do that is bound to fail. Or more precisely, you'll come up with something spiritual that maybe sort of looks like actualism, but isn't, and you're going to end up confusing yourself and others in the process. Aren't the failures of Jill, Tommy, Tarin, Trent, Daniel, etc., to attain actual freedom - and often in extremely harmful ways (see Jill & Tommy) - enough to deter you?
I will also point out that in my estimation, becoming an arahat will make it more difficult to make sense of actualism and to attain actual freedom.
My suggestion is you spend as much time as it takes to figure out what actualism is about. I assure you, it's different from spirituality, but definitely don't take my word for it. If you still come to the conclusion that it is similar, then just go for spirituality. If you come to the conclusion that they're different, then figure out which one you'd rather pursue and pursue that one.