Announcements Announcements

DhO Hacked and Upgrade

General

ATTENTION!: It appears that our server has been hacked through this version of Liferay, meaning it is no longer secure, and so expect instability as we deal with this and attempt to upgrade to Liferay 7, which we failed to be able to do last year the last time the team attempted it, but we have no choice at this point, so bear with us as we try again. Save any long posts in a text file before posting them. You can follow me on Twitter at @danielmingram for updates if the site is down. Apologies for any complexity this causes. We will work as fast as we can. We have backups of the database, so hopefully nothing will be lost. Thanks to all helping with this complex process.

 

 

 

Message Boards Message Boards

Practices Inspired by Actualism

Click here to understand Actualism

Toggle
Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/6/14 11:05 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Change A. 12/7/14 8:03 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/7/14 12:56 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Change A. 12/9/14 10:51 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Andreas 12/7/14 1:44 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism J J 12/7/14 4:53 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/8/14 3:28 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:04 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/8/14 5:05 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 5:18 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/8/14 5:56 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 6:10 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/8/14 6:22 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:02 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/8/14 7:21 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 7:31 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/8/14 7:33 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism J J 12/8/14 7:53 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:01 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/8/14 8:54 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism (D Z) Dhru Val 12/8/14 9:02 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism An Eternal Now 12/8/14 11:30 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism An Eternal Now 12/8/14 11:26 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 2:19 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:29 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/10/14 5:25 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/9/14 12:17 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/14/14 3:19 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/9/14 4:17 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/12/14 6:16 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/9/14 9:52 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/11/14 4:44 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/9/14 10:14 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/9/14 5:06 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Adam . . 12/9/14 6:27 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/9/14 9:02 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/9/14 9:04 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/9/14 9:47 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/9/14 11:37 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/8/14 9:37 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 10:21 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/8/14 10:33 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/12/14 7:09 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/8/14 6:33 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:15 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism (D Z) Dhru Val 12/8/14 11:52 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alexander Entelechy 12/8/14 5:26 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/8/14 6:20 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/8/14 6:36 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/8/14 9:29 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:31 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/8/14 10:05 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/8/14 9:09 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/8/14 9:37 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism An Eternal Now 12/21/14 5:55 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism An Eternal Now 12/21/14 6:06 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 11:24 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/21/14 5:17 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 6:18 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Andreas 12/21/14 6:07 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 6:26 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/21/14 6:36 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 7:11 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/21/14 7:25 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 8:12 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/21/14 9:11 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 11:30 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/21/14 10:27 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 11:05 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/21/14 11:12 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/21/14 11:41 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/22/14 12:40 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/22/14 8:39 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/22/14 9:53 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Not Tao 12/22/14 11:25 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/22/14 11:44 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/22/14 11:45 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/22/14 1:41 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/22/14 4:40 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/22/14 5:09 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/23/14 8:49 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Daniel - san 12/22/14 8:51 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/23/14 8:16 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/23/14 12:17 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/23/14 6:01 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/23/14 6:28 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/23/14 8:03 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/23/14 4:14 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/23/14 11:25 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Shashank Dixit 12/24/14 2:33 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 11:41 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/24/14 2:03 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 4:03 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/24/14 9:49 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 10:25 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/24/14 11:46 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/24/14 11:45 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 11:50 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/24/14 7:05 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 7:59 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/24/14 10:28 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 8:50 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/24/14 9:54 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Shashank Dixit 12/24/14 10:29 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 10:39 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/24/14 11:38 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/24/14 2:36 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 12/24/14 4:07 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/24/14 10:21 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/24/14 8:05 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 12/24/14 11:41 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/25/14 12:59 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/25/14 7:59 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Change A. 12/25/14 1:52 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/25/14 2:35 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/25/14 2:58 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/26/14 12:37 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 12/26/14 1:04 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/26/14 1:35 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism J J 12/26/14 3:47 PM
Thread Split Florian 12/28/14 1:57 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Change A. 12/26/14 1:37 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Felipe C. 12/26/14 1:53 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 1/1/15 9:46 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 1/2/15 6:10 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 1/2/15 4:12 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 1/4/15 8:02 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism J C 1/3/15 7:16 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism J C 1/3/15 7:20 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 1/4/15 4:04 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 1/2/15 4:54 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism James Yen 12/22/14 2:35 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism James Yen 12/22/14 3:16 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 3/30/15 8:16 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 3/30/15 9:49 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Teague 3/30/15 9:16 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 8/16/16 9:37 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Echo 10 3/31/15 9:42 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 3/31/15 10:45 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 4/1/15 6:46 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Bill F. 4/3/15 1:43 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism John Wilde 4/3/15 5:25 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 4/3/15 6:32 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 3/30/15 9:33 PM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 3/31/15 1:49 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Psi 3/31/15 8:48 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism wwyww 3/31/15 11:47 AM
RE: Click here to understand Actualism Alin Mathews 4/1/15 12:03 AM
Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/6/14 11:05 PM
I've spent a lot of time reading on the Actual Freedom website, and I know a lot of people get lost there easily or dislike Richard's style of writing.  So here is probably the best page to read if you really want to understand Actualism.  If you've avoided the site up until now and only have a second-hand understanding of things, this is your opportunity to get it "from the horse's mouth" - so to speak - without delving into the guts of the site.

I would recommend scrolling past Richard's stuff at the very top and then past the first section by Vineeto until you get to the second flower divider.  Start where Vineeto says "Many people have confused the method of actualism with the spiritual method of ‘self’-observation..."

http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/vineeto/selected-writings/investigatefeelings.htm

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/7/14 8:03 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
After Vineeto supposedly gained "Actual Freedom" somebody congratulated her and passed a comment about her body which made her reply in a way that somebody who isn't even anywhere close to freedom would do. Her outburst didn't suggest that she was free in any way in any sense.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/7/14 12:56 PM as a reply to Change A..
It would be nice if this thead could be about the methods presented, rather than the typical character attacks in threads about Actual Freedom.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/7/14 1:44 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Aint what she describes just a kind of mindfullness practice?

PS
I think the character attacks comes from lack of credible practioners of the method. Not that I know of any except Richard etc and their website is one big mess.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/7/14 4:53 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
But what if I dun wanna understand actualism?

jkjk

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 3:28 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Click here to understand Actualism v. Buddhism:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152890353/Actual-Freedom-and-Buddhism
It's lengthy but worth it - tons of good stuff, particularly the proposition that in order to achieve a constant PCE state one first needs a compresive intuitive knowledge of Buddhist anatta, which, according to Thusness (according to the author), Actualist teaching provides quite well. But it's not the end of the path...

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:04 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel, have you read about Actualism as well as that essay by Thusness?   I remember reading the paper a while ago and feeling that Thusness had completely missed the point of Actualist practice.  You seem to think that the PCE and non-dual ground of being are the same thing, so it makes sense that you would like Thusness's teachings.  The PCE is not rigpa, though.  There is no non-dual experience in the PCE.

EDIT: Yes, it's very clear that Thusness has completely misunderstood actualism.  Apperception is not non-dual, and it is not de-objectified awareness.  Thinking still happens as well.  It is simply the ordinary sensory experience without emotional coloring.  I don't know why I keep repeating this stuff at you, Daniel, haha.  You completely refuse to accept my explanations, but maybe I keep doing it in hopes that your interest in the subject will lead you to question why I'm being so insistent inspite of how I seem so obviously wrong to you. emoticon

EDIT: The article was actually by An Eternal Now, not Thusness.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 5:05 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
My understanding of the non-dual is that it is experience without subject-object distinction. What is your understanding? Does the PCE contain a subject in your experience? If so, I have misunderstood. If not, where is the dualism? Where do you think Thusness has misunderstood? Not looking for a debate, just curious. Be well.-Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 5:18 PM as a reply to Bill F..
In the PCE, I am still a body and a pair of eyes looking out into the world that is separate from me. I don't look at a cup on the table in front of me and see it as a part of me. I don't feel that the seeing is happening on its own without me. I don't feel out of control of myself, and I don't experience any changes in where my perception is happening, how it's happening, or in what manner it arises or passes. I am not dissolved. I don't experience myself as non-being or even pure awareness. I don't experience vibrations of imperminance, and I don't see anything as lacking essence, being non-existant in some fashion, or being holographic projections.

My perceptual experience in the PCE is exacly as it always has been, minus all emotional feelings (all emotional tension has been resolved). Thoughts come and go like a disembodied voice as they always do. The sparkling perfection that fills the senses is, I believe, the imaginative faculty shutting down because there are no emotional scenes to rehearse. The mind's eye stops blocking the actual stream of vision in consciousness (same with mind's ear, etc.). The attention just stays in the sensory experience because it has nothing else to bother with.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 5:26 PM as a reply to Bill F..
AEN desperately wants for Buddhism to be more advanced than AF, for there to be more to do to reach liberation. In a PCE though, the idea of there being more to do is incomprehensible. The thing that 'needs' more simply doesn't exist.

Also he states that Thusness still experiences emotions, so why's he trying to line up stage 5 with AF?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 5:56 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
O.K. Thank you. So in your experience of the PCE your identity is that you are the body and the eyes in the example given? Are you saying that thoughts always present to you regadless of state as a "disembodied voice"?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 6:10 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Yes, thoughts are like a voice in the head - I am speaking without my mouth, and hearing the words I say without my ears.  There are mental pictures and sounds that form along with thoughts that distract from the senses.  These go away in the PCE along with emotional feelings.  The thoughts come and go as they would otherwise.  There is usually less to think about, though.

I am also still a "me" in every way.  I own my hands and body and am in control of them.  I am the one doing the thinking and the seeing and the hearing.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 6:20 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Daniel, have you read about Actualism as well as that essay by Thusness?   I remember reading the paper a while ago and feeling that Thusness had completely missed the point of Actualist practice.  You seem to think that the PCE and non-dual ground of being are the same thing, so it makes sense that you would like Thusness's teachings.  The PCE is not rigpa, though.  There is no non-dual experience in the PCE.

EDIT: Yes, it's very clear that Thusness has completely misunderstood actualism.  Apperception is not non-dual, and it is not de-objectified awareness.  Thinking still happens as well.  It is simply the ordinary sensory experience without emotional coloring.  I don't know why I keep repeating this stuff at you, Daniel, haha.  You completely refuse to accept my explanations, but maybe I keep doing it in hopes that your interest in the subject will lead you to question why I'm being so insistent inspite of how I seem so obviously wrong to you. emoticon
This is not an Actualism attack or a Not Tao attack, but since you are taking a firm stand on being an Actualist Cognoscenti, I would like to pose some questions.

Why do you think you are the only one on this board that understands Actualism, excluding other self-proclaimed Actualists?  
Why do you think others do not understand Actualism?  
What proof have you to provide that your personal PCE experience is different from other practioner real world experiences, such as Mindfulness, Bare attention, Pure Awareness, Four Right Exertions, Insights, and or any combination or combinations thereof?
Are you willing to accept different interpretations of experiences that may or may not use the same exact wording as found on the Actualism website?

Psi

P.S.   I cut out about seven other questions.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 6:22 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Nice, thank you. So in the PCE as you experience it there is subject and object, the subject is just the sense rather than thoughts/feelings? So there is a solid identity looking out at a world of solid things that have an essence? 
Where do you think Thusness got it wrong? It's been a while since I read. Does he refer to PCE as the "ground of being" or "rigpa"? These are not rhetorical. It actually has been a while.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 6:33 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Hey Not Tao,

Two questions for you:
Not Tao:
In the PCE, [...] I don't experience any changes in where my perception is happening, how it's happening [...] My perceptual experience in the PCE is exacly as it always has been, minus all emotional feelings (all emotional tension has been resolved).

Your descriptions of still being a body and a pair of eyes etc. do resonate with me. That's actually one of the major things I realized was different: with actualism, existing is not a 'bad' thing. It's not a bad thing to say that I exist. Existence isn't what has to be eliminated. Rather it's just the 'identity'.

However one difference I noticed in my most memorable PCE is that I *was* the body, instead of 'having' a body. I was the sensory perception, instead of the senses happening to 'me'. So my first question is, in your PCEs, do you have any experience of being the body/being the senses, as opposed to having a body/having senses?

Not Tao:
[...] I don't see anything as lacking essence, being non-existant in some fashion, or being holographic projections.

These are also important aspects of the PCE. For me another aspect of the PCE that is important is that I experience things as actually existing. That is, I know, via experience, that what I am perceiving truly does exist. My second question is: do you experience things as having essence, as being existent in some fashion, in any way that's different from regular consciousnesses?

Cheers,
- Claudiu

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 6:36 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
This is not an Actualism attack or a Not Tao attack, but since you are taking a firm stand on being an Actualist Cognoscenti, I would like to pose some questions.

Why do you think you are the only one on this board that understands Actualism, excluding other self-proclaimed Actualists?  
Why do you think others do not understand Actualism?  
What proof have you to provide that your personal PCE experience is different from other practioner real world experiences, such as Mindfulness, Bare attention, Pure Awareness, Four Right Exertions, Insights, and or any combination or combinations thereof?
Are you willing to accept different interpretations of experiences that may or may not use the same exact wording as found on the Actualism website?

Psi

P.S.   I cut out about seven other questions.

A question for you: did you read what Not Tao recommended people read who want to understand Actualism?
Not Tao:
Start where Vineeto says "Many people have confused the method of actualism with the spiritual method of ‘self’-observation..."

http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/vineeto/selected-writings/investigatefeelings.htm

If so, does anything Vineeto wrote help to answer your questions?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:09 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi,

Daniel keeps saying he experiences compassion and joy in the PCE.  I keep telling him that, if there are feelings, it isn't the PCE - so that's why I believe he is mistaken.  The PCE has no feelings.  Thusness An Eternal Now says the PCE is the ground of being and a state of non-dual realization.  Since it is neither of these things, then he is mistaken.  I would probably know if I had a non-dual experience, no?  Wouldn't it line up with some descriptions?  This seems pretty straightforward to me... There are many altered stares of consciousness, and many of them might resemble the PCE in description - like having a wide awareness, or perceiving things clearly in the senses, but then people will add a few disqualifiers, like an emotional state and/or altered perceptual experience that clearly isn't a PCE.  I've had a number of fascinating ASC myself when I was practicing the jhanas.  This just isn't very complicated, IMHO.  You and Daniel seem determined to make it complicated, though, like I am misunderstanding my own experience or portraying it badly.  It's not a symantic issue, though.  There really are no feelings at all.  So, as long as an experience has feelings, it simply isn't a PCE.

I'm not basing this off the AFT either.  I have experienced a state with no feelings - and this aspect is what created all the other parts of the experience.  It happens to match Richard's descriptions.  So, it's kind of the main point of it all and it's why Actualism is focused 100% on examining feelings.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:02 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Yes, Thusness says directly that Richard is mistaking the ground of being as the end of the path.

Here is something Thusness wrote on the topic: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5527670/en

EDIT: For hindsight, link isn't actually by Thusness, so nevermind that, haha.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:15 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman, yes that's correct.  I think this perception happens, though, because the imagination is no longer obscuring direct experience.  You can see that same perspecive in flashes if you just "be here now" for a moment.  That phrase tends to interrupt the imagination.

EDIT: Actually, TBH, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  Being the body and having a body don't seem all that different to me.  The only difference in perception for me is the fact that there isn't anything obscuring the senses.  Maybe you were more interested in that kind of aspect, though, due to previous meditation experiences.

EDIT 2: I understand what you mean by things having an objectively "real" quality, but I'd prefer to say something like things seemed more solid, or more present than they usually do.  They are no longer obscured.  These are all perceptions, though, so I have no idea if anything really exists or not. :3

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 7:21 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Are thusness and omega point the same person?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 7:31 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Actually that's a good question.  I remembered reading that paper a while back and I seemed to remember it was credited to Thusness.  I just did a quick google search to find it and posted the link.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 7:33 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Where did you see that? 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 7:53 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Fairly certain Thusness and Omega Point are not the same person.

Just from what I've read, Omega Point has published a few papers,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfg20whgd048te8/omega-point-salvation.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3dv4dc11ciqa98/omega-point-af.pdf?dl=0

I've linked them above, he seems to be oriented towards Vajrayana in his practice and views, of course I cannot confess familiarity with his attainments or accomplishments.

Thusness is a (from what I've read) friend and mentor of An Eternal Now, they maintain the Awakening to Reality blog.

Daniel Leffler linked AEN's essay above, but for convenience I've placed it here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/152890353/Actual-Freedom-and-Buddhism

(Note: the author of the above essay is AEN)

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:01 PM as a reply to J J.
Ah, you've cleared it up.  AEN must have posted Omega's essay along with his own at some point and associated the whole thing with Thusness in my brain.

I'll point to some quotes from AEN's article that I think are incorrect:

In his explanation, the experience of AF is the clear seeing that there is no Subject, no Ultimate Mind or Awareness that is in union with phenomena, but there is rather only the sensate universe without a Subject,which is as described in Thusness Stage 5 description - which is that there is no Ultimate Subject, and hence no Ultimate Subject or Identity to be in union/one with objects. It is seen that there is no Ultimate Self or Being or Awareness, and any mentions of ‘self’ (as accordance to the Buddhist teaching of Anatta and what Thusness told me) is merely as a label, a convention that does not refer to an inherently existingentity/substrate/container/background/Source/Ground-Of-Being/ontological-essence but rather a process of phenomena like the word Weather’ does


There is still a subject and objects in the Buddhist sense in the PCE and Actual Freedom. Richard defines the self as the feeler, not the point of perception. When he says he self-immolated, he's saying he gave up being an instinctual feeling entity. This is not the same as saying he abandoned the center-point of perception.

Oh, I can't go on from here because the website wants to charge me money...

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 8:54 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
I don't think that's correct either. Omega Point posts here occasionally and he submitted that essay himself. I understand your frustration man, I really do, but I think it's important to be careful when criticizing others points of view that we have done the research, or are speaking from our experience. Be well.-Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:02 PM as a reply to J J.
Fairly certain Thusness and Omega Point are not the same person.

Yes they are different people. They are semi-open with their real identities.

Thusness's background is more Zen influenced, lives in Singapore, does not teach formally. 

Omegapoint's background is Vajrayana, lives in the States, teaches.

Also I think actualism at Stage 5 is more AEN's  idea since, he practiced Actualist stuff for a little while. Thusness didn't AFAIK.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 2:19 AM as a reply to Bill F..
William Golden Finch:
Nice, thank you. So in the PCE as you experience it there is subject and object, the subject is just the sense rather than thoughts/feelings? So there is a solid identity looking out at a world of solid things that have an essence? 
Where do you think Thusness got it wrong? It's been a while since I read. Does he refer to PCE as the "ground of being" or "rigpa"? These are not rhetorical. It actually has been a while.
From what i've gathered the Pure Conscious Experience is only a taste of Actual Freedom from the normal subjective controlling state of the human condition. iow the PCE is not the 'permanent' deletion of the subjective sense of being a thinking Ego and Feeling Being/Soul, those subjective controls are only temporarily in abeyance. during a PCE there is no sense of a subjective 'me' lording it over the body there is only an apperceptive bodily awareness, albeit without AF's permanent extinction of the ancient passions .

Actualism claims that Enlightenment does not go as far as AF because only the thinking ego is deleted in the enlightened and the feeling being/soul remains. In enlightnement 'all that is' has become the Soul's subjective realm. whereas AF is free all sense of ego AND soul, revealing a 100% objective universe that is ACTUALLY HERE. all sense of 'Being' (a subjective 'me') has vanished 'permanently'. 

Therefore, just to repeat, during the PCE one only gets a taste of being free of the human condition (the recently developed thinking/fabricating ego and the more ancient feeling/emotional soul). eventually the ancient instinctual passions reignite, pulling awareness away from the PCE's primary sense data experience and back to the normal secondary and tertiary perspectives of the emotional, mentally subjective, sense of being an inner Being/a Soul.

So, in both the PCE and AF there is just the apperceptively conscious (aware of being aware) 'actual' body. one is a 'what' not a subjective who/me/feeling-thinker. there is *only* awareness of ears hearing, eyes seeing, tongue tasting etc.etc. none of it is the psychologically filtered subjective experience of 'my' life.
 
Basically actualism claims that without the sense of a subjective me/ego/identity/soul/entity/witness seeing 'through' the eyes, hearing 'through' the ears, the actually existing universe then experiences itself as a mortal apperceptively aware highly intelligent sensate human body *only*. just as the universe is experiencing itself as a sensate dog, a tree etc. (but with different sense configurations) . via the human body the universe is then consciously aware of it's awareness and can benignly explore itself, possibly even experience the actuality of its own infinitude.

apperception is new because its a non psychological, non subjective sensate consciousness. it is the freed innate unfiltered intelligence of the actual body seeing and doing things never tofore apparent.

Such an awareness is a sense organ of the universe, not a subjective me living its passionate self centred dramas nor is it a mystical 'peaceful me'. it is 'this' (sans inner, thus no outer) actually existing universe exploring itself as an apperceptive, intelligent human brain.

if AF from the human condtion really can be pulled off en mas Hollywood scripts will never be the same haha.   

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:37 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Daniel keeps saying he experiences compassion and joy in the PCE.  I keep telling him that, if there are feelings, it isn't the PCE - so that's why I believe he is mistaken.  The PCE has no feelings. 

Hi Not Tao. What I've actually said is that we mean different things by compassion and saying there are no emotions to the state is confusing (to me anyway : ) if there is benevolence and enjoyment. I am using the word enjoyment (long word for joy) even though I don't think Actualists do use that words (they're very selective in their verbiage). Still, if the state wasn't enjoyable why cultivate it? (rhetorical Q : )
The 'compassion' I remember experiencing in what I think was a PCE bled into a lucid dream as I pulled off to a rest stop during an hour-long drive home from a meditation retreat years ago. I had a dream that I was holding my father in my arms and he was very thin and dying, I was comforting him. Normally I have anxiety and contraction around the idea that my father will die (we are very close) but in this dream I was looking into his eyes and I was smiling with a peaceful Mona Lisa like smile - at peace but not feeling bad in any way (contracting) and certainly not excited or happy (expansive) - more like content - no emotional sensations (I was very aware of my internal sensations after observing them all day everyday for a week and a half)
That said, I understand in a deep way that the nature of pure consciousness or Being is peace, fearlessness, wonder and benevolence. I line this teaching up with the Brahma Viharas because I think the pure conscious state has been experienced by many mystics throughout time and those words were used to describe the nature of the thing, not our reaction to the nature of the thing
The reason I believe that is because we are talking about a natural perfected baseline state that (according to Richard) mostly everyone has experienced at least some time in their lives. My proposition is that love and compassion and joy and equanimity are not the emotions you percieve them to be. There is a personal love (affection) and an expansive joy and a manufactured equanimity - but those are not this. The Brahma Viharas aren't emotions as you term them, they are qualities of the natural state, not reactions however subtle. All clinging must be gone and (IMO anyway) the energy channels are clear so that if an emotion starts to arise it's gone before you know it
Please understand that I am not doubting your experience in any way, but using my own intellect and experience to come to a different conclusion than you about what the natural state is and how to convey that to others. I am also open to the idea that these paths are extremely personal and maybe a bit plastic and not all people experience and describe these subjective experiences in the same ways. If my adjectives don't line up with yours it is quite ok with me to say my experience was not a PCE as defined my the Actualist Method (trademark here), but my experience was also not a manufactured state - it was arrived at through effortless effort and bare attention to reality presenting itself. Words sometimes help and sometimes...

Thusness says the PCE is the ground of being and a state of non-dual realization.  Since it is neither of these things, then he is mistaken.  I would probably know if I had a non-dual experience, no?  Wouldn't it line up with some descriptions?  This seems pretty straightforward to me... There are many altered stares of consciousness, and many of them might resemble the PCE in description - like having a wide awareness, or perceiving things clearly in the senses, but then people will add a few disqualifiers, like an emotional state and/or altered perceptual experience that clearly isn't a PCE. 

I think that those relatively experienced in samatha and vipassana practice have a handle on what is a ASC or a manufactured state or not. I can't speak for Thusness but I've read so many disparate variations on what a 'non-dual state' is that I can't use that as a disqualifier with any sort of assuredness at all. I don't really know what the ground of being state is
I also think the strobing and tingling and other symptoms you pointed to in your other post are more the result of consciousness focused inward particularly on bodily sensations and fast moment-to-moment awareness, so again, descriptions may vary by person and situation 

I've had a number of fascinating ASC myself when I was practicing the jhanas.  This just isn't very complicated, IMHO.  You and Daniel seem determined to make it complicated, though, like I am misunderstanding my own experience or portraying it badly.  It's not a symantic issue, though.  There really are no feelings at all.  So, as long as an experience has feelings, it simply isn't a PCE.

I'm actually trying to make this simple believe it or not. Some of your words (Actualism teachings) resonate, such as non-expansion or contraction of the heart center and loss of ego, and some do not. When you presented Richard's explanation to me that Buddhist or 'spiritual' practitioners don't have real insights into anatta en masse and are actually dissociating from their 'egos' it became more clear to me that the goal of practice is the same - to realize egolessness. This is Richard's teaching. I do not believe that I was always dissociated from myself in all of my experiences (perhaps some of them, but most people have experienced PCEs says Richard) or that so many realized masters the world over are always dissociated in their realizations of anatta. I also reject the idea (also expounded by Daniel Ingram though he doesn't much care for Buddhist emotional perfection models either) that this is a seperate line of development totally disctinct from 'spiritual' practice. Granted, spiritual practice is a big term and I've realized it means many different things to many different people but, even according to Richard, the goal is to realize that the ego is a sham - he just says that no one knows how to realize that truth fully and regularly except through his teachings. If I am misrepresenting something here please let me know 

I'm not basing this off the AFT either.  I have experienced a state with no feelings - and this aspect is what created all the other parts of the experience.  It happens to match Richard's descriptions.  So, it's kind of the main point of it all and it's why Actualism is focused 100% on examining feelings.

My point is that different teachings and different words speak to different people more than others at different times. Everything on AFT most likely doesn't resonate with you - like Veneeto knowing there was no mysticism in creation because she just knew one day that the universe was infinite and that leaves no room for God (huh? says me). I also think that even a 'perfect' PCE experience is subject to subjectiveness and everyone may not experience it exactly the same way, express it exactly the same way, or resonate with the exact same words when trying to convey the tones of the natural state. In the end it doesn't really matter so much anyway (I think we'd both agree). I am interested in banishing afflictive emotions and all attachments - these are the goals of Buddhism as I understand (the second arrow) and I am happy to use any and all technologies toward that end
The results of our individual practices are the lamps we use to guide our ways, my practice of bare attention is very supportive of my goals but I am also incorporating things from here and there to be more happy and harmless in general. My flesh and blood body likes it too : ) 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:29 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
If this is true, then why does Richard call enlightenment a delusion, and say he had to break free of that delusion to get to Actual Freedom?

Enlightenment is what happens when you give up the ego and leave the feelings (soul) intact - this is my understanding of Richard's view, yes. But then he says Actual Freedom is 180 degrees opposite, which would point to the feelings being the problem, not the thinking mind. Why would he say to avoid enlightenment if it was just a step along the way?

EDIT: Interesting, maybe you are right.
There is a vital difference in understanding and evaluating experiences
between the spiritual search and actualism. Spiritual people give great significance to a temporary absence of the ego, or
personal self, and the much sought-after emergence of a new identity, the real ‘me’, in a out-of-the-ordinary experience,
Satori or ASC. Whenever one removes only one’s personal ‘self’, the ‘ego’, with one’s ‘soul’, the
animal-instinctual ‘self’, still intact, this will result, in the ‘soul’ running amok, unfettered by a personal ‘self’,
inevitably evolving into an impersonal ‘Self’. For an actualist, however, such absence of ‘I’, the ego only signifies the
unabated and uncontrolled presence of ‘me’, the soul, the animal-instinctual part of the identity and can give great insight
into the psychic power and lure of an Altered State of Consciousness and the animal instincts in action.Those who
know by their own experience use the word enlightenment when
referring to the permanent Altered State of Consciousness, the death of
the ego, the expansion into Being. While one can revert to
normal from a temporary Altered State of Consciousness because the ego
is not permanently extinct, Enlightenment is an
irreversible, permanent state where the feelings run rampant, now
uncontrolled by any personal self or ego.For me, it is enough to have sufficient experiential knowledge of what
I need to avoid – the instinctual grasp for ‘my’ psychological and psychic survival experienced in an Altered State of
Consciousness. Now, from a state of Virtual Freedom, any Altered State of Consciousness would be dilapidation and has most
definitely lost all of its former seduction of grandeur.Given Richard’s experience of going through enlightenment and
struggling to come out of it into the actual world, it is now an unnecessary, arduous and convoluted enterprise to unwittingly
allow oneself to become enlightened and then torturously endeavour to free oneself of enlightenment … … in order to become
actually free.In actualism one incrementally dismantles and eliminates both ego and
soul, both one’s personal ‘self’ and the instinctual ‘self’ passions until both components of the identity become
extinct in one great finale – bingo.


http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/asc-pce.htm


The interesting thing about this to me is that it doesn't seem to line up with Vipassana or non-dualism in any way...  It's more like Richard improved on Hindu practices.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:29 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Psi:
This is not an Actualism attack or a Not Tao attack, but since you are taking a firm stand on being an Actualist Cognoscenti, I would like to pose some questions.

Why do you think you are the only one on this board that understands Actualism, excluding other self-proclaimed Actualists?  
Why do you think others do not understand Actualism?  
What proof have you to provide that your personal PCE experience is different from other practioner real world experiences, such as Mindfulness, Bare attention, Pure Awareness, Four Right Exertions, Insights, and or any combination or combinations thereof?
Are you willing to accept different interpretations of experiences that may or may not use the same exact wording as found on the Actualism website?

Psi

P.S.   I cut out about seven other questions.

A question for you: did you read what Not Tao recommended people read who want to understand Actualism?
Not Tao:
Start where Vineeto says "Many people have confused the method of actualism with the spiritual method of ‘self’-observation..."

http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/vineeto/selected-writings/investigatefeelings.htm

If so, does anything Vineeto wrote help to answer your questions?


Yes, and yes, I already posted about this on my Practice log, as it was interesting how it lined up almost exactly not only with my own practice experience, but also with Bare Attention, The Four Right Exertions, and Dependent Origination in terms of stopping the Mind short of craving arising.  I will read more from Vineeto, as time presents itself.  But, at the stage of her practice she is describing, I've already been doing what resembles her practice for quite sometime, and got there through Buddhist instructors.

Now, having this understanding of how the actual Actual Practices are explained by Vineeto, and how things line up, I understand that , in my opinion, the View from you , Not Tao, and the Actualism Website is simply just clinging to views.  And that's okay, it is part of the process.  And thus the thicket that arises from such clinging...


Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:31 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi, do you have emotionless experiences that arise from these practices?  If so, then I have no trouble saying we're doing the same thing.  The problem I have is that you keep telling me I am incorrect about my own experiences...

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 9:37 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
very nice explanation, thank you Alin

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 10:05 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Psi, do you have emotionless experiences that arise from these practices?  If so, then I have no trouble saying we're doing the same thing.  The problem I have is that you keep telling me I am incorrect about my own experiences...


Do I say you are incorrect about your own experiences?  If I do , I am sorry.  Mostly, I just want to make sure people of the future don't read this stuff and try to become emotionless sociopathic, alexythemic, indiffernet zombies.  Which is what some people of the future might get from explanations of being emotionless..   That is my main concern, that this is hashed out for progeny. If you mean by emotionless, as in a PCE, the not having of a habitual emotional tendency represented by hatred or greed arise, then yes I could agree with you.  It is hard to say that any other emotions arise that the typical person would call emotions.  i.e. emotions with some sort of me-ness or attatchment and clinging.  But, I couldn't go as far to say that in a PCE one would or would not have the Brahma Viharas as a baseline state of consciousness, which would explain why someone could be in a PCE and laugh and remain in a balanced state of mind.

Is the word emotionless used on the AF website?

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 10:21 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel,

That was a thoughtful post.

At this point I'm tired of arguing about these things since it doesn't really help practice.  Do you ever find yourself deep in an argument and wonder how you even got there?  Haha, idk, I'm not actually very interested in any of the definitions or the dogmas (the trademarks, as you say).  I think I just became frustrated when you kept insisting I was describing things poorly when they seem to simple to me.  Metta, to me, is a feeling of friendliness or benevolence.  Karuna is a positive feeling of sadness for another person.  Mudita is a feeling of gladness that another person is happy.  Uppekha is the only thing that might be called emotionless, but because it's always associated with the other three (and said to include the other three) I tended to use it to describe a feeling of openness and contentment with all things.  This feeling is also gone in the PCE, though. The only way to understand why this is better, IME, is to see it first hand. Actual innocence requires no feelings. Everything is simply itself. Saying "I don't care" is more accurate than "I am compassionate and loving" - even though "I don't care" sounds horrible to an affective sensibility.

Is the word emotionless used on the AF website?


Yes, all over. emoticon

EDIT: I already regret posting this.  It's just more arguments, haha.  All of my posts lately reek of aversion, which is never good.  I'll let you guys have the last word.  Here's hoping I have a bunch of PCEs in the coming days, then I can write directly from experience and maybe confirm or refute your arguments in a more final and satisfying way for all of us.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 10:33 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
[quote=
]
Is the word emotionless used on the AF website?


Yes, all over. emoticon
EDIT: I already regret posting this.  It's just more arguments, haha.  All of my posts lately reek of aversion, which is never good.  I'll let you guys have the last word.  Here's hoping I have a bunch of PCEs in the coming days, then I can write directly from experience and maybe confirm or refute your arguments in a more final and satisfying way for all of us.




Your fine, I found this, and to me this is key:


VINEETO: 

Yes, the method of actualism is to become aware of and minimize the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emotions in order to be happy and harmless. One cannot be emotionless as long as one is a ‘self’ and to try and be emotionless means you would only end up repressing your feelings.


I will translate into Psi language:

PSI:

Yes, the method is to become aware of and minimize the ‘greed’ and ‘hatred' i.e. Craving emotions in order to be happy and harmless. One cannot be emotionless as long as one is a ‘self’ i.e. delusion , and to try and be emotionless means you would only end up repressing your feelings.

To me, it's same practice, the roots of dukkha , greed , hatred , and delusion, and the cessation of dukkha.  Vineeto is relaying the four noble truths, and quite explicitly.

She also points out the neccessity of Anatta, one cannot be emotionless (without Craving) as long as one is a 'self', (Anatta), so true....

Psi


RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 11:52 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
In the PCE, I am still a body and a pair of eyes looking out into the world that is separate from me. I don't look at a cup on the table in front of me and see it as a part of me. I don't feel that the seeing is happening on its own without me. I don't feel out of control of myself, and I don't experience any changes in where my perception is happening, how it's happening, or in what manner it arises or passes. I am not dissolved. I don't experience myself as non-being or even pure awareness. I don't experience vibrations of imperminance, and I don't see anything as lacking essence, being non-existant in some fashion, or being holographic projections.

I wanted to make a seperate thread rather than hijack this one, but DhO seems to be down for maintainance or something.

I used to think similarly, but then I started seeing lack of essence by doing some simple experiments.

In terms of seeing things as lacking essence, next time you (or anyone else practicsing actualism) gets into PCE** try this simple experiment...

1) Close your eyes, and place your fingers on either side of your forehead, cross your arms so left fingers are touching right side and right fingers are touching left site.*
2) Focus on how the raw touch feels, at the level of touch.
3) Try to feel as if you are touching for the first time, and had no prior concept of what a hand or a forehead was.

Can you sense how at the precipce of the present moment the raw sensory feeling of touch of the left hand on the forehead vs the feeling of the touching of the right hand on the forehead feels the same ?

Only to be differentiated later own into left vs right. And how the mind can impute the feeling "hand touching forehead" vs "forehead touching hand" depending on focus.

Ofcourse you are still able to differentiate between the two sides if you want, but the point is that that differentiation happens relative to other sensory inputs and inferences. 

This seeing is something close to suchness / lack of essence. For now the experiment only deals with touch. But it is possible to look at all sensory input in this way.

The conditioning that causes confusion between functional and epistemiological truth slowly disintegrates.

*  Not strictly necessary to cross sides, but it does help disrupt the usual automatic imputations somewhat.
** Or something similar to a PCE-like state, otherwise it wont work becasue there is too much obstruction to senses.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 11:26 PM as a reply to Bill F..
William Golden Finch:
Are thusness and omega point the same person?


No they are not. I do not know Omega Point personally, only read a bit of his (often very lengthy) posts.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/8/14 11:30 PM as a reply to (D Z) Dhru Val.
(D Z) Dhru Val:
Fairly certain Thusness and Omega Point are not the same person.

Yes they are different people. They are semi-open with their real identities.

Thusness's background is more Zen influenced, lives in Singapore, does not teach formally. 

Omegapoint's background is Vajrayana, lives in the States, teaches.

Also I think actualism at Stage 5 is more AEN's  idea since, he practiced Actualist stuff for a little while. Thusness didn't AFAIK.

AF in terms of the experiential taste is quite similar to phase 5, in terms of insight are not really the same.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/10/14 5:25 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
If this is true, then why does Richard call enlightenment a delusion, and say he had to break free of that delusion to get to Actual Freedom?

Enlightenment is what happens when you give up the ego and leave the feelings (soul) intact - this is my understanding of Richard's view, yes. But then he says Actual Freedom is 180 degrees opposite, which would point to the feelings being the problem, not the thinking mind. Why would he say to avoid enlightenment if it was just a step along the way?

EDIT: Interesting, maybe you are right.
There is a vital difference in understanding and evaluating experiences
between the spiritual search and actualism. Spiritual people give great significance to a temporary absence of the ego, or
personal self, and the much sought-after emergence of a new identity, the real ‘me’, in a out-of-the-ordinary experience,
Satori or ASC. Whenever one removes only one’s personal ‘self’, the ‘ego’, with one’s ‘soul’, the
animal-instinctual ‘self’, still intact, this will result, in the ‘soul’ running amok, unfettered by a personal ‘self’,
inevitably evolving into an impersonal ‘Self’. For an actualist, however, such absence of ‘I’, the ego only signifies the
unabated and uncontrolled presence of ‘me’, the soul, the animal-instinctual part of the identity and can give great insight
into the psychic power and lure of an Altered State of Consciousness and the animal instincts in action.Those who
know by their own experience use the word enlightenment when
referring to the permanent Altered State of Consciousness, the death of
the ego, the expansion into Being. While one can revert to
normal from a temporary Altered State of Consciousness because the ego
is not permanently extinct, Enlightenment is an
irreversible, permanent state where the feelings run rampant, now
uncontrolled by any personal self or ego.For me, it is enough to have sufficient experiential knowledge of what
I need to avoid – the instinctual grasp for ‘my’ psychological and psychic survival experienced in an Altered State of
Consciousness. Now, from a state of Virtual Freedom, any Altered State of Consciousness would be dilapidation and has most
definitely lost all of its former seduction of grandeur.Given Richard’s experience of going through enlightenment and
struggling to come out of it into the actual world, it is now an unnecessary, arduous and convoluted enterprise to unwittingly
allow oneself to become enlightened and then torturously endeavour to free oneself of enlightenment … … in order to become
actually free.In actualism one incrementally dismantles and eliminates both ego and
soul, both one’s personal ‘self’ and the instinctual ‘self’ passions until both components of the identity become
extinct in one great finale – bingo.


http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/asc-pce.htm


The interesting thing about this to me is that it doesn't seem to line up with Vipassana or non-dualism in any way...  It's more like Richard improved on Hindu practices.

right, it doesn't line up because its 180° in the opposite direction. but it's also not an improvement on Hindu practices as they are psychological practices honoring the feeling Being.

AF is freedom from all non actual subjective states. it is when the psyche no longer exists and the brain's innate intelligence has been released from all that is not sense. subjective practices are no longer possible as there is nothing to practice them with.

AF considers psychological practices the MO of early humanity who hoped their spiritual beliefs and practices would protect them from out of control thoughts, passions and physical elements. 

AF is out 'from' control of everything that controls a subjective psychological being including the need to control others. it 
is the intelligent apperceptive brain free of all mental fabrications and psychological practices.
  

It is nothing like Buddhism which is a subjective practice tthats embedded in the psyche denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all.  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 12:17 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
It is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all. 

Psi: 

What does this statement even mean?  What is a Buddhsm that is embedded in a pyche?  Where is the embedding taking place, and what exactly is a Buddhism? What or who is doing denying actuality exists, where is an actuality, have you seen one?  Can you prove that actuality exists somewhere, is it physical, if not, where is it? What believes consciousness is all?  Can you show me specifically what believes that there is a consciousness?  Where does this believer reside, what part of where, and what exactly is it made of?  Are you insinuating there is a soul that lives inside the body somehow?  This is a very confusing statement.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/14/14 3:19 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
It is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all. 

Psi: 

What does this statement even mean?  What is a Buddhsm that is embedded in a pyche?  Where is the embedding taking place, and what exactly is a Buddhism? What or who is doing denying actuality exists, where is an actuality, have you seen one?  Can you prove that actuality exists somewhere, is it physical, if not, where is it? What believes consciousness is all?  Can you show me specifically what believes that there is a consciousness?  Where does this believer reside, what part of where, and what exactly is it made of?  Are you insinuating there is a soul that lives inside the body somehow?  This is a very confusing statement.

Psi

'I' am not insinuating anything merely correcting peoples misinterpretations about what the goal of actualism actually is, which not just the ending of the thinking Ego, it is a 100% passionless state of no psychological Being (aka Soul). It is not the 'felt' peace of the Pure Being of Buddhism which is a subjective state.

The apperceptive awareness of AF has no 'inner' spiritual me temporarily occupying an 'outer' body. they are not joined/not two nor nondual. the inner sense of Being required to concieve of nonduality no longer exists -- and never did. it was a non actual figment of the thinking brain. 

AF it is just the sensible sensate conscious experiential intelligence of the actual mortal body *only* 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 4:17 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
It is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all. 

Psi: 

What does this statement even mean?  What is a Buddhsm that is embedded in a pyche?  Where is the embedding taking place, and what exactly is a Buddhism? What or who is doing denying actuality exists, where is an actuality, have you seen one?  Can you prove that actuality exists somewhere, is it physical, if not, where is it? What believes consciousness is all?  Can you show me specifically what believes that there is a consciousness?  Where does this believer reside, what part of where, and what exactly is it made of?  Are you insinuating there is a soul that lives inside the body somehow?  This is a very confusing statement.

Psi

'I' am not insinuating anything merely correcting peoples misinterpretations about what the goal of actualism actually is, which is a 100% passionless state of NO sense of 'Being' (aka Soul) whatsoever. It is not an inner psychological 'felt' peace and it is not the Pure Being of Peace of Buddhism which is a psychological state.

Whereas the apperceptive awareness has no sense of being an inner 'Being' or an outer body. they are neither joined/not two nor nondual. the inner sense of Being required to concieve of nonduality no longer exists. and it never did. it was a figment of the thinking brain. 

AF it is just the sensible sensate conscious experiential intelligence of the actual mortal body. 

So are you implying you have Nibbana permanently and that the goal of Actualism is better from personal experience?

If not, how do you know it is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all?

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 5:06 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
[quote= they are neither joined/not two nor nondual. the inner sense of Being required to concieve of nonduality no longer exists. and it never did. it was a figment of the thinking brain. 
]
AF it is just the sensible sensate conscious experiential intelligence of the actual mortal body. 

If there is an inner sense of Being, it can not rightly be called non-dual as this is imposing a separation (inner/outer) that implies dualism. Did thou come to destroy the misunderstanding of others and spread one's own? You will be quite at home here. I'm just playing though, nothing worse than those radical non-dualists. Be well.-Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 6:27 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Hey Alin,

Maybe you could introduce yourself? (not that you have to)
Do you practice Actualism/for how long?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 9:02 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Hi All,
I don't want to make this a philosophical S-Show, but really trying to get a basic understanding of Actualist practice, sometimes I can be a little snarky in the process
There was an interview with Shinzen Young (pretty sure it was batgap) where he generally questioned those that claim to have fully realized anatta. This was in a Buddhist context (I believe he was asked about D Ingram et all) where he used the Syrian prison scenario as an extreme example, saying we should be careful about claiming to be totally free of the self unless we could really test those claims under extreme hardships, he was throwing major doubt on those that claim to have finished/perfected the insight into anatta (as I believe D Ingram does and as Richard certainly does, but he's got other words). Sorry to lump you guys into the same sentence Daniel, if you're reading this
Seeing as AF claimants say they do not experience emotions anymore, and boredom being an emotion, what would happen if you put an AF person in solitary confinement with nothing whatsoever for a week. a month. a year. No boredom would arise? What about if you blasted the same Brittany Spears song over and over and over and... (ala Gitmo) - no aversion?
I was reading the Actualist website and it seems Richard and friends are building a ship to travel the world the world to spread the good news
Anyway, says Richard in that announcement (http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement1.htm)
he had generally declined personal meetings because he's 'not very keen on either formal meetings or scheduled appointments' and he's setting sail because he justs happens 'to particularly like the boating lifestyle'
Would it be safe to say that Richard has an aversion to scheduled meetings and a desire to live the boating lifestyle?
Wouldn't these be considered at least subtle emotions?
Also, would an Actualist person save someone that was drowing, or feed a starving child, or help an old lady across the street?
Isn't this compassion? Or, in Not Tao's case, choosing to be a vegetarian for the sake of reducing animal's suffering? Will that practice continue when actually free and why? Compassion? (I know that's a dirty word for some reason to AFers)
Now, don't get me wrong, I think supportive emotions are good things. But liking the boating lifestyle (or your wife) may be called love by some, unless you just like like her ; )
Helping someone out or going out of your way to reduce their pain and/or suffering might be compassion
Having an affinity for the boating lifestyle (or nature or vacations...) could be because you enjoy it
Many would call having a neutral attitude about likes and dislikes and life's inevitable vicissitudes equamimity
I'm not trying to be cute, but I think it's important to take a harder look at this teaching and to decide if we are 1.) redefing the word 'emotion' to either mean that no physical sensations related to thoughts arise in the body or 2.) that emotions are attenuated to the degree that they are extremely subtle and fly under the radar because practioners don't look inward so much (also a bad thing I gather in AF, not sure why)
Perhaps there are more options that I am not considering? I'm asking this question seriously 
I'm just throwing this out there, not to provoke, but to be even more precise in our words and to help the conversation so we're all on the same page. It could be that I'm just missing something major. I get that things aren't personal, I fully understand egolessness from my own experience. I don't have any beliefs or philosophies about the soul, I'm really not sure how important the various philosophical structures are to our bare experience either (I think Buddhists and Actualists agree that it's pretty important, but the Buddha warned against thickets of views)
I'm interested in exploring Actualist teachings some more because the training (that I understand so far) seems generally harmless and only good to bring oneself back to feeling good as much as possible (I'm sure there's more, it's a big mess of a website). The only thing that puts me off is some of the philosophy about spiritualism (reminds me of Scientologisty v. psychology), Richard's not-so-subtle messiah complex peppered throughout, and just the overall terrible writing. I'm willing to look through all that stuff, but the bad writing is really hanging me up : )

 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/12/14 6:16 AM as a reply to Psi.
Sorry Psi but i have no interest in discussing me here. I'm just clarifying what AF is and why it cannot be compared to jhanas stages, Dharma paths and various states of 'Being' as so many people keep doing.

Discussing and debating beliefs and theories may be a part of dharma practice but actualism is the exact opposite. it is a purely sensate experiential practice that cannot proceed until the goal of AF is understood, for which the AFT site was formed. 

Some actualists are blogging their journey and sharing their difficulty in deleting the human condition's habitual states of consciousness. but denying those states exist and only wishing to discuss and debate what AF is without reading the AFT site is of no interest to me. 

I cannot stress enough, AF has nothing to do with The Dharma. it claims to lead in the opposite direction to all mystical notions that nothing is actually happening. 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 9:04 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel,

       You may find interest in Antonio Damasio's writings. He is a neuroscientist who has spent decades studying emotions/brain/body/subjectivity. He defines emotions as separate but related to subjective feelings. He says emotions are primary, and are the body's response to stimuli, and the subjective feelings are when we identify with the primary response of the emotions in the body.
Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 9:52 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Discussing and debating beliefs and theories may be a part of dharma practice but actualism is the exact opposite.

Hi Alin. Please don't take this as me challenging you or trying to win an argument - I'm really trying to understand the teaching and I'm pretty sure I've experienced PCEs that I can remember (as Richard says most people have). Considering that AFT clearly has a large detailed philosophy wrapped around it, do you think adopting that philosophy matters at all when it comes to practice or is it totally unnecessary? Can one keep a Buddhist philosophy and make the same progress experientially? 

it is a purely sensate experiential practice that cannot proceed until the goal of AF is fully understood, for which the AFT site was formed. 

I consider Vipassana also very much a sensate practice. Would you say the major difference between the two is that Vipassana also observes thoughts and habits?

I cannot stress enough, AF has nothing to do with The Dharma. it claims to lead in the opposite direction to all notions that nothing is actually happening.

This is not my understanding of the Dharma at all Alin, although many do in fact have a nihilistic interpretation of the teachings, so it is correct that some do think this way. As far as I understand Buddhist texts point out the truth of anicca, that everything in the natural world is coming into existence and out of existence so rapidly we can't begin to perceive it until the mind is stilled to very deep degrees. The texts don't say things don't exist or things don't actually happen, they just don't happen in the way that our senses perceive that they do. Science seems to agree that impermanence of phenomenon is a fact at the subatomic level. Is this understanding in conflict with Actualist teachings or would you consider that an extraneous philosophy that doesn't really matter? 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 9:47 PM as a reply to Bill F..
thank you Bill,
I've seen him discussed here and will check it out!

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 10:14 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Sorry Psi but i have no interest in discussing me here. I'm just clarifying what AF is and why it cannot be compared to jhanas stages, Dharma paths and various states of 'Being' as so many people keep doing.

Discussing and debating beliefs and theories may be a part of dharma practice but actualism is the exact opposite. it is a purely sensate experiential practice that cannot proceed until the goal of AF is fully understood, for which the AFT site was formed. 

Some actualists are blogging their journey and sharing the difficulties of removing of the human condition's habitual states of consciousness. but if you are still denying such states exist and only wish to discuss and debate what AF is, it means you're not willing to read the AFT site which would answer your queries better than I. 

I cannot stress enough, AF has nothing to do with The Dharma. it claims to lead in the opposite direction to all notions that nothing is actually happening.

How can you be so sure that I am not practicing what you are preaching, and maybe have been for quite a while now?  My only problem with AFT is the malicious pompous attitude towards other spiritual practices, which in and of itself seems 180 degrees opposite to AF as claimed.  If AFT persons would stop bashing practices that they are not qualified or knowledgeable thereof, I wouldn't feel the urge to post anything, and bash back a little to see how you like it.  I just think false statements are harmful and childish.  

I actually resonate quite a bit with what Richard and Vineeto are saying and describing, with the one caveat, they don't have an inkling of Buddhsim in it's full richness, and I myself am still learning, but what I have learned does not resonate with what is being stated as fact on AFT, which leads me to the conclusion of lack of wisdom on the matter. For, I don't consider myself to be that wise, yet I see through the arguments against Buddhism as coming from lack of wisdom and expereince in such matters.  Yet, I hold no malice towards anyone, people can say what they want, descibe what they want, preach what they want.  But prepare to be investigated as to what is true or not true, that is what protects the innocent.  Just stating something as a fact doesn't make it impervious to wisdom.  

Again , I am not saying AF isn't real or not true, just some things stated about other practices is not true.


 Ego subsisto te subsisto


Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 10:51 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
I think it is better to present the full picture and that means the results should be included as well of the methods one is presenting. What methods Vineeto used produced results in the end and those should be known to everybody who reads this thread so that they can decide if the method works as advertised or not.

Do you want some things to remain hidden?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/9/14 11:37 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Hey Daniel,

Since you are asking different questions I'll chip into this conversation again since I think I have an answer.

Something I've been working with recently is the idea that emotions are the manifestation of cognitive dissonance - or the manifestation of two conflicting opinions.  When I take this view and stop suppressing the emotional feeling, it allows the conflict to be resolved.  What generally happens is, my opinions remain, but they are simply cognitive.  The feeling of, "holy crap, my car doesn't work, this is awful!" becomes, "my car won't start, this is an obvious inconvenience."  Recognizing the inconvenience doesn't have any emotional impact, though.  It doesn't feel like a bad thing - just unforseen extra work.

With this in mind, I would predict actual freedom not to be without opinions, personality, or will, just to be without the urgency and conflict inherent in emotions.  This is backed up by the PCEs where I've noticed I still have the intentions and interests I did before, just without the emotions that usually present along with the opinions.

Consider the word "belief" - a belief is something you FEEL to be true.  When the feeling aspect goes away, things are simply acknowledged to be true.  It's very easy to change these things, as well, when new evidence presents itself.

Compassion isn't a dirty word.  Compassion is both necessary and admirable for a "feeling being" - or someone who has to contend with instictual passions.  That's part of the relief of the PCE - that compassion is no longer needed to live peacefully with other people.  You are focusing on actions to describe compassion, so in that way someone without feelings can do compassionate acts.  They don't feel compassionate, though.  These are two separate issues.

Also, emotions are not suppressed in Actualism.  The method is to watch your feelings, feel them completely, and keep questioning why you feel them, if they're necessary, and what beliefs you are holding on to to support them.  The effect is exactly the opposite of suppression - it's the complete dissipation of emotion.  So it seems impossible to me that someone who's practice it was to watch their emotions closely and stop suppressing all of them whould somehow end up unaware of their emotions.

I'd really recommend spending some time on the site if you're interested in all this.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not sure what philosophy you're talking about apart from the claim that this moment is "still in time", which is experientially true in the PCE.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/11/14 4:44 AM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:
Alin Mathews:
Discussing and debating beliefs and theories may be a part of dharma practice but actualism is the exact opposite.

Hi Alin. Please don't take this as me challenging you or trying to win an argument - I'm really trying to understand the teaching and I'm pretty sure I've experienced PCEs that I can remember (as Richard says most people have). Considering that AFT clearly has a large detailed philosophy wrapped around it, do you think adopting that philosophy matters at all when it comes to practice or is it totally unnecessary? Can one keep a Buddhist philosophy and make the same progress experientially? 

it is a purely sensate experiential practice that cannot proceed until the goal of AF is fully understood, for which the AFT site was formed. 

I consider Vipassana also very much a sensate practice. Would you say the major difference between the two is that Vipassana also observes thoughts and habits?

I cannot stress enough, AF has nothing to do with The Dharma. it claims to lead in the opposite direction to all notions that nothing is actually happening.

This is not my understanding of the Dharma at all Alin, although many do in fact have a nihilistic interpretation of the teachings, so it is correct that some do think this way. As far as I understand Buddhist texts point out the truth of anicca, that everything in the natural world is coming into existence and out of existence so rapidly we can't begin to perceive it until the mind is stilled to very deep degrees. The texts don't say things don't exist or things don't actually happen, they just don't happen in the way that our senses perceive that they do. Science seems to agree that impermanence of phenomenon is a fact at the subatomic level. Is this understanding in conflict with Actualist teachings or would you consider that an extraneous philosophy that doesn't really matter? 

Greetings Daniel,

claimants of AF say all philosophies are non actual concepts which have no actual existence. like emotional feelings they are psychological manifestations that filter (dull) the body's apperceptive awareness of sense data.  

I would suggest going to the horses mouth and reading the AFT website -- if what the actualists are saying here really interests you. it will answer all your questions better than i. 

Yes it's a heavy read but only because even the best thinkers on the planet have beliefs (psychological filters) which make it difficulty to read what is 'actually' written on the page in front of them especially something as discordant as actualism. thus everything is repeated ad nauseum on the AFT site to help override cognitive dissonance.  

you could start by googling  .  site actualfreedom.com.au philosophy  .  likewise with any other key words -- if your interested

Alin 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/12/14 7:09 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Paweł K:
Alin Mathews:
Basically actualism claims that without the sense of a subjective me/ego/identity/soul/entity/witness one is then *only* the universe experiencing itself as a mortal apperceptively aware human body. just as the universe also experiences itself as a dog or a tree etc. *except* now the universe has an update, an apperceptively aware human brain enabling it to explore and experience even more of itself, possibly even the actuality of it own infinitude. so apperception is a new non filtered sensate awareness, enabling nature to see and go where its never gone before.

Which would then make sensate awareness a tool of the universe and not about a subjective 'me' living its passionate self centred dramas. its about an actually existing universe waking up and exploring itself as an apperceptive, highly intelligent, human brain.

simple and to the point, I like it

Alin Mathews:
Whereas the apperceptive awareness has no sense of being an inner 'Being' or an outer body. they are neither joined/not two nor nondual. the inner sense of Being required to concieve of nonduality no longer exists. and it never did. it was a figment of the thinking brain.

yes and it is totally different thing than being actual universe that is experiencing itself!

those nihilistic buddhists are stupid because they are trying to escape world into their nirvana state and they should instead seek to open to fairy tale-like world around which is totally not like nibbana, 180 degree different. Just to make my point more clear lets look at Zen tenth bull poem and how nihilistic it is and how it describe someone who is dissociated from the world:
Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees
become alive


we should all be appreciative to God Actual Universe for Richard existence and his fresh and totally unheard of before insights that illuminate our blank a and worthless existence and that can undo some damage done by Buddha and his poisonous enlightenment teachings

It is possible that the brain's awakening intelligence owes more to it's natural curiosity than any particular individual or teachings, in that every mental discipline requiring contemplative thought is an exercise in activating and exploring new neural pathways.

There may be no other way for our early intelligence to awaken than to take on complex passed down cultural belief systems, explore the heck out of them in relation to sensate facts, see through their incongruities, take on new ones, see through those (instead of just living by them) until eventually human intelligence can explore it's full creative potential without any passionately believed cognitive systems whatsoever. 

In that regard the limitations of structured schools of thought, religions, philosophies, revered psychological characters etc. could be serving an important role as scaffolding which when finally dismantled will reveal a benign astute intelligence capable of functioning beneficially as both a standalone operating system and a network to humanity.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 11:24 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Okay, so why on earth would anyone want to attempt such a seemingly lackluster goal as AF which is the extinction of all instinctual passions plus the psyche that morphed out of them. 

Is it because those who resonate with actualism cannot imagine that an intelligent body alone would ever commit these atrocities going on in our world? has it made sense to them that what bullies the intelligent human brain body into committing them really is the outdated primal instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire? 

Have they come to the conclusion that the loving spiritual passions that care for the afflicted are just the flip side of those same ancient passions that murder children and fight for home and country? is remaining in the spiritual psyche enabling the oppressed to become the oppressors when push comes to shove? 

Are actualists just people looking for another way out of these endlessly unsuccessful, controlled and controlling rotations of love and aggression?

What if amongst the flowers laid and heartfelt gatherings for these endless slaughterings, there lay banners imploring each other to examine the infantile irrational passions that committed them, writ large on backdrops festooned with natures beauty?

Is it time each and every one of us asked: are these atrocities being committed by the self same suite of survival passions we ALL inherit? are we all walking time bombs to some degree or other? can we use this new intelligence and our new communication networks to delete those irrational drives and the beliefs they fuel, *permamently*? because it seems to me that sentiment, extra police, better security, larger armies more precise weapons are just fueling our survival passions more.

And who can't help but notice the huge reluctance amongst those examining this dark side of the human condition to speak out about it, on their own social networks? Is this also perpetuating the violence and self inflicted suffering of our fellow human beings? are we allowing the "don't get so psychological about it" "thats too deep for me" brigade to bully us into silence? 


RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 5:17 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin: As the poster who formerly stated that he was not here to discuss or debate theory, I find this post, or perhaps that one, to be insincere. People will probably not be swayed by the promotion of your philosophy. Honestly, probably nobody cares, not even the people you are closest to, what your beliefs are. The same is true for me. Can you offer experiential descriptions of things you have done in your life that have been beneficial to the way you experience reality? If so, I am interested. Be well.  -Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 6:18 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
Alin: As the poster who formerly stated that he was not here to discuss or debate theory, I find this post, or perhaps that one, to be insincere. People will probably not be swayed by the promotion of your philosophy. Honestly, probably nobody cares, not even the people you are closest to, what your beliefs are. The same is true for me. Can you offer experiential descriptions of things you have done in your life that have been beneficial to the way you experience reality? If so, I am interested. Be well.  -Bill

Greetings Bill,

I can assure you my intention remains sincere which is "I have no interest in discussing me here" i'm simply sharing my understanding of what actualism is. everyone is using theory until such time as they are experiential facts. likewise beliefs are not facts, so why you would want me to share personal beliefs on a thread such as this, doesnt make sense. you may see what i think is possible though, in the questions i ask. that doesnt make them beliefs. I'm also well aware that many like yourself don't care to examine possible alternatives to the on-going ills of the human psyche which spirituality and mysticism hasn't yet solved. nothing can be confirmed by examining me, but by each of us examining our own experience of reality - if that is - one genininely wishes for all to be well.  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 5:55 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Psi,

Thusness An Eternal Now says the PCE is the ground of being and a state of non-dual realization.


You are completely mistaken, I have never said such a thing.

If you want to know my point of view I suggest studying my document carefully:  http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 6:06 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:

Apperception is not non-dual, and it is not de-objectified awareness.  Thinking still happens as well.

I never state that Apperception is a de-objectified awareness, nor did I state that thinking does not occur. In fact I specifically addressed that Apperception is Subject-less (sans self/Self) consciousness of the senses, including thoughts, which happens without a feeler, sensor, and thinker. All things are experienced in their vivid aliveness and intensity without a background (someone standing behind that experience, looking out of a vantage point in one's head or one's heart), center, boundary, or distance (hence 'intimacy' or gaplessness).

This is very different from resting in a Self or a 'ground of being' behind everything. Conceiving a 'Self' is based on delusion.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 6:07 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Bill F.:
Alin: As the poster who formerly stated that he was not here to discuss or debate theory, I find this post, or perhaps that one, to be insincere. People will probably not be swayed by the promotion of your philosophy. Honestly, probably nobody cares, not even the people you are closest to, what your beliefs are. The same is true for me. Can you offer experiential descriptions of things you have done in your life that have been beneficial to the way you experience reality? If so, I am interested. Be well.  -Bill

Greetings Bill F,

I can assure you my intention remains sincere which is "I have no interest in discussing me here" . This doesn't mean i can't share my observasions regarding it here and the reasons why AF is being examined by so many for reasons that aren't theory. they can be confirmed by reading the AFT site and yahoo groups discussing it. I'm also fully aware that many like yourself don't care to examine what may well be a viable alternative to the on-going violations of the human psyche, which anyone can see spirituality and mysticism has failed to end. none of this can be confirmed by examining me, but by examining your own experience of reality. May you be even more well then.  
Violations of human psyche? What are the violations of human psyche? Its a pretty bold claim that spirituality has failed something without definitions. And from reading about actuality i would group it as spirituality and mysticism as well. Just look at the language you use to describe it. There are claims of truth, a decree that others has failed to realise this true, this is the one true path, if you just look the truth is obvious, a fatherfigure, rolemodel is used who went up the mountain and brought down tablets, a method and teaching provided, there are desciples as well. It got all the markings of a religion or a cult depending on which definitions you use.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 6:26 PM as a reply to Andreas.
Andreas:
Alin Mathews:
Bill F.:
Alin: As the poster who formerly stated that he was not here to discuss or debate theory, I find this post, or perhaps that one, to be insincere. People will probably not be swayed by the promotion of your philosophy. Honestly, probably nobody cares, not even the people you are closest to, what your beliefs are. The same is true for me. Can you offer experiential descriptions of things you have done in your life that have been beneficial to the way you experience reality? If so, I am interested. Be well.  -Bill

Greetings Bill F,

I can assure you my intention remains sincere which is "I have no interest in discussing me here" . This doesn't mean i can't share my observasions regarding it here and the reasons why AF is being examined by so many for reasons that aren't theory. they can be confirmed by reading the AFT site and yahoo groups discussing it. I'm also fully aware that many like yourself don't care to examine what may well be a viable alternative to the on-going violations of the human psyche, which anyone can see spirituality and mysticism has failed to end. none of this can be confirmed by examining me, but by examining your own experience of reality. May you be even more well then.  
Violations of human psyche? What are the violations of human psyche? Its a pretty bold claim that spirituality has failed something without definitions. And from reading about actuality i would group it as spirituality and mysticism as well. Just look at the language you use to describe it. There are claims of truth, a decree that others has failed to realise this true, this is the one true path, if you just look the truth is obvious, a fatherfigure, rolemodel is used who went up the mountain and brought down tablets, a method and teaching provided, there are desciples as well. It got all the markings of a religion or a cult depending on which definitions you use.

I did consider using "self inflicted suffering" but decided "violations of the human psyche" covers the violations us thinking feeling humans inflict on others as well. Please quote where i made any "claims of truth" or any sentence where i used the word truth, thanks.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 6:36 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin: In writing about our beliefs, we are always writing about ourselves. If you tell me you had an experience, you will still be using language to construct a reality, but at least this is what can be called first order knowledge. It too is not flawless in its representation. In writing about a proposed future utopia and your beliefs as to the ills of the world, you are guessing at what might be. It is not that there is anything wrong with this in a malicious sense, and it may act as a lure in the same way that the promise of heaven lures anxious non-believers from their sleep of doubt, but it does little to actually benefit others, and could possibly harm those who take up a path that may fail to lead to the proposed results. -Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 7:11 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
Alin: In writing about our beliefs, we are always writing about ourselves. If you tell me you had an experience, you will still be using language to construct a reality, but at least this is what can be called first order knowledge. It too is not flawless in its representation. In writing about a proposed future utopia and your beliefs as to the ills of the world, you are guessing at what might be. It is not that there is anything wrong with this in a malicious sense, and it may act as a lure in the same way that the promise of heaven lures anxious non-believers from their sleep of doubt, but it does little to actually benefit others, and could possibly harm those who take up a path that may fail to lead to the proposed results. -Bill

I think it would be more correct to say "in writing about what we examine, we are writing about what interests us. cars run better on experiential knowlege than a mechanics beliefs. 1st order knowledge is your own sensate experience not someone elses.

your post reads amusingly like a: woa be it for those gullible souls lured into examining their own 'anxious' instinctual passions least it harm them. actually remaining a "non-believer" has tremendous benefits. the body's own sensate experiential knowledge needs no beliefs laid over them.  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 7:25 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin,
Exactly. You have stated with your final sentence  -"the body's own sensate experiential knowledge needs no beliefs laid over them"- what I have been saying is useful all along. What you wrote about initially provoked no feeling of irritation or anxiety in me, it's just sort of self serving. It's just your ideas about things. Who cares? Probably no one. I don't mean that in an offensive way. I would hope if I began to write my thoughts about what was wrong with civilization in picturesque fantasy language someone would point that out to me.
No one had written on this thread for a while, and then you returned to share with us your beliefs. What happened earlier in the day that led you to return with your understanding?
If you have something concrete to share based on what you have experienced awesome, but if you are just another AF apologists, in the words of K. West, "We done heard all that loud ass talking, we're used to it". Hopefully that is less archaic.


RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 8:12 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
Alin,
Exactly. You have stated with your final sentence  -"the body's own sensate experiential knowledge needs no beliefs laid over them"- what I have been saying is useful all along. What you wrote about initially provoked no feeling of irritation or anxiety in me, it's just sort of self serving. It's just your ideas about things. Who cares? Probably no one. I don't mean that in an offensive way. I would hope if I began to write my thoughts about what was wrong with civilization in picturesque fantasy language someone would point that out to me.
No one had written on this thread for a while, and then you returned to share with us your beliefs. What happened earlier in the day that led you to return with your understanding?
If you have something concrete to share based on what you have experienced awesome, but if you are just another AF apologists, in the words of K. West, "We done heard all that loud ass talking, we're used to it". Hopefully that is less archaic.


Bill, it's obvious from your responses that nothing i am writing is being read without intensely adverse (to actualism) psychological overlays so i'll leave you to re-read rather than repeat myself.

I've never read anyone here say they wonder why a thread has reappeared ? or what happened to a member earlier in the day to want to write here ? regardless of the topic. and plenty of folks here use a much more "picturesque fantasy language" (another nation's even) than i. Your filtered reading is not conducive to sensible correpondence at all.   

 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 9:11 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
My problem is not with Actualism, but evangelicals. There is an Adam here who practices actualism, and reports his findings in an experiential, direct way. He is a useful member of the community, and has important things to say in my opinion.
Further, I can report that the "intensely adverse" response you imagined was a product of your imagination. I did not get angry, my body did not tense, I did not take your writings personally. It is possible to disagree, even strongly, without having to turn it into an emotionally intense experience.
I find your communication style to be insincere, condescening, hypocritical and not useful for anyone. For an example of this you ask Andreas to point out where you have laid claim to truth when he asserts that you have done so, when your first post today was a series of rhetorical questions laying out your belief system. You can not claim that these rhetorical questions were sincerely questions, since you often answered your questions with further questions that gave us your answer to the previous question in the form of a different belief. You also claim that you did not come here to discuss theory or yourself when all you have posted here are your perspectives and theories.-Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 11:30 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
My problem is not with Actualism, but evangelicals. There is an Adam here who practices actualism, and reports his findings in an experiential, direct way. He is a useful member of the community, and has important things to say in my opinion.
Further, I can report that the "intensely adverse" response you imagined was a product of your imagination. I did not get angry, my body did not tense, I did not take your writings personally. It is possible to disagree, even strongly, without having to turn it into an emotionally intense experience.
I find your communication style to be insincere, condescening, hypocritical and not useful for anyone. For an example of this you ask Andreas to point out where you have laid claim to truth when he asserts that you have done so, when your first post today was a series of rhetorical questions laying out your belief system. You can not claim that these rhetorical questions were sincerely questions, since you often answered your questions with further questions that gave us your answer to the previous question in the form of a different belief. You also claim that you did not come here to discuss theory or yourself when all you have posted here are your perspectives and theories.-Bill


Bill, is there anything you'd like to ask on this thread about "understanding actualism"? if not i shall bow out, as this is not my practice blog.    

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 10:27 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Bill F.:
My problem is not with Actualism, but evangelicals. There is an Adam here who practices actualism, and reports his findings in an experiential, direct way. He is a useful member of the community, and has important things to say in my opinion.
Further, I can report that the "intensely adverse" response you imagined was a product of your imagination. I did not get angry, my body did not tense, I did not take your writings personally. It is possible to disagree, even strongly, without having to turn it into an emotionally intense experience.
I find your communication style to be insincere, condescening, hypocritical and not useful for anyone. For an example of this you ask Andreas to point out where you have laid claim to truth when he asserts that you have done so, when your first post today was a series of rhetorical questions laying out your belief system. You can not claim that these rhetorical questions were sincerely questions, since you often answered your questions with further questions that gave us your answer to the previous question in the form of a different belief. You also claim that you did not come here to discuss theory or yourself when all you have posted here are your perspectives and theories.-Bill


Bill, is anything you'd like to ask on this thread about "understanding actualism"? if not i shall bow out, as this is not my practice blog.    


I have a question:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole?  Hypothetically speaking.  

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 11:05 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
[quote=
]
Bill, is there anything you'd like to ask on this thread about "understanding actualism"? if not i shall bow out, as this is not my practice blog.    


Psi: I have a question:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole?  Hypothetically speaking.  



Alin: the practice of actualism doesn't deal in hypotheses. but if such a person exists i am sure those studying actualism would welcome her/him with open arms. but so far no one comes forward. meanwhile monks still bicker and tibetan buddhism still has a social structure of inequality and on and on.  

if the brain is as neuroplastic as cognitive-neuroscience suspects then a habitual non-response to the instinctual emotional reactions that animals, children and adults display would probably be overwritten eventually, by the new consciously chosen more sensible response until eventually it became automatic.

but whether that response is related to sense data is another thing altogether as most of the wisdom (wise and appropriate responses) we value are not, they relate to maintaining metta, a loving benevolence for all feeling Beings including oneself. no one (can you name someone?) seems to have succeeded in expressing *only* loving feelings.      

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 11:12 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
[quote=
]
Bill, is there anything you'd like to ask on this thread about "understanding actualism"? if not i shall bow out, as this is not my practice blog.    


Psi: I have a question:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole?  Hypothetically speaking.  



Alin: the practice of actualism doesn't deal in hypotheses. but if such a person exists i am sure those studying actualism would welcome he/she with open arms. but so far no one comes forward. meanwhile monks still bicker and tibetan buddhism still has social structure of inequality and on and on.  

if the brain is as neuroplastic as cognitive-neuroscience suspects then a habitual non-response to the instinctual emotional reactions that animals, children and adults display would probably be overwritten eventually, by the new consciously chosen more sensible response, until eventually it became automatic.

but whether that response is related to sense data is another thing altogether as most of the wisdom (wise and appropriate responses) we value are not, they relate to maintaining metta, a loving benevolence for all feeling beings. no one (can you name someone?) seems to have succeeded in expressing *only* loving feelings.      
I did not mention Metta, nor did I mentioned any maintaining of any emotional state such as Metta, nor did I mention anything about loving feelings, fabricated or unfabricated.  

I asked:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole? 

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/21/14 11:41 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
[quote=
]
Bill, is there anything you'd like to ask on this thread about "understanding actualism"? if not i shall bow out, as this is not my practice blog.    


Psi: I have a question:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole?  Hypothetically speaking.  



Alin: the practice of actualism doesn't deal in hypotheses. but if such a person exists i am sure those studying actualism would welcome he/she with open arms. but so far no one comes forward. meanwhile monks still bicker and tibetan buddhism still has social structure of inequality and on and on.  

if the brain is as neuroplastic as cognitive-neuroscience suspects then a habitual non-response to the instinctual emotional reactions that animals, children and adults display would probably be overwritten eventually, by the new consciously chosen more sensible response, until eventually it became automatic.

but whether that response is related to sense data is another thing altogether as most of the wisdom (wise and appropriate responses) we value are not, they relate to maintaining metta, a loving benevolence for all feeling beings. no one (can you name someone?) seems to have succeeded in expressing *only* loving feelings.      
I did not mention Metta, nor did I mentioned any maintaining of any emotional state such as Metta, nor did I mention anything about loving feelings, fabricated or unfabricated.  

I asked:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole? 

Psi

I wasn't 'quoting you' with my use of the word metta. you asked a question and i gave you a response 'in my words'. if that wasnt satisfactory to you so be it. i did my best.  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 12:40 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
[quote=
]
Bill, is there anything you'd like to ask on this thread about "understanding actualism"? if not i shall bow out, as this is not my practice blog.    


Psi: I have a question:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole?  Hypothetically speaking.  



Alin: the practice of actualism doesn't deal in hypotheses. but if such a person exists i am sure those studying actualism would welcome he/she with open arms. but so far no one comes forward. meanwhile monks still bicker and tibetan buddhism still has social structure of inequality and on and on.  

if the brain is as neuroplastic as cognitive-neuroscience suspects then a habitual non-response to the instinctual emotional reactions that animals, children and adults display would probably be overwritten eventually, by the new consciously chosen more sensible response, until eventually it became automatic.

but whether that response is related to sense data is another thing altogether as most of the wisdom (wise and appropriate responses) we value are not, they relate to maintaining metta, a loving benevolence for all feeling beings. no one (can you name someone?) seems to have succeeded in expressing *only* loving feelings.      
I did not mention Metta, nor did I mentioned any maintaining of any emotional state such as Metta, nor did I mention anything about loving feelings, fabricated or unfabricated.  

I asked:

What if one has trained themselves in such a manner that instinctual emotional responses were no longer a problem for themselves or others, and that instictual emotional reponses either no longer arose, seldom arose, or if arose were easliy remedied with an appropriate and wise response instead of an inappropriate responsive and unwholesome reaction. What then would an Actualism practice provide to be of any benefit to such a person, or peoples as a whole? 

Psi

I wasn't 'quoting you' with my use of the word metta. you asked a question and i gave you a response 'in my words'. if that wasnt satisfactory to you so be it. i did my best.  

Okay, when Actualism has been practiced to fulfillment, one then needs to drop the conceit of Actualism as the next step.  That is what has been shown, and that is as far as Actualism as a path has gone thus far.  But, first , one should practice Actualism to fuflillment.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 8:39 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
[quote=
]

Psi: Okay, when Actualism has been practiced to fulfillment, one then needs to drop the conceit of Actualism as the next step.  That is what has been shown, and that is as far as Actualism as a path has gone thus far.  But, first , one should practice Actualism to fuflillment.


Alin: AF claimants say their body is free of instinctual emotions which means it is no longer possible for any psychological emotion (which conceit is) to be the "next step".

Have you ever tried insisting on actual evidence for everything a person says? to a feeling being such an MO is a mark of mistrust, arrogance and conceit. for example, can you provide a link to where "That is what has been shown" . thanks

Most feeling beings will completely ignore the appreciative "thanks" and begin a process of feeling self righteously insulted for not being believed, even suspect theyve been accused of lying rather than simply provide evidence to backup their statement.

 
What makes AF is so hard to understand are the smoke screens the emotional psyche throws up to avoid seeing how it keeps its imaginary self and ideals insitu. for this reason alone the study of actualism is priceless.

I don't call myself an actualist and don't plan to claim AF. I simply want to come to my senses and live a sensate experientially factual life. neither conceit nor its opposite, humility, have anything to do with it.  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 9:53 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
[quote=  
]I do not think AF is hard to understand at all, it seems very basic.  What gives AF, a bad front, is the tribal clinginess to AF, and that AF in and of itself is deemed ro be better than and different to other people and their mind states, i.e. that it is a special achievment that no one has done before.  And, in my humble opinion, that seems to be incorrect.   While it may be new to one person, does not mean it is anything new to all of humanity.  That's just my opinion, there is no harm intended, just sayin'.


Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 11:25 AM as a reply to Psi.
Hey Psi,

I haven't noticed much clinginess from the member here who practice Actualism, just a general frustration about the misinformation and misunderstanding that is constantly passed off as Actual Freedom.  For example, our many conversations about the emotionlenss quality of the PCE actually being repressed, ignored, or a different style of emotion; the misconception that Actualist practice is related to holding sensory awareness or concentration practices; the idea that the PCE is related to non-dualism; the idea that Actualism will be enhanced or supported by vipassana practice; the idea that Actualism can be found somewhere on the progress of insight; etc, etc.

I've been involved in a lot of these arguments and they always seem to devolve into character attacks on Richard and friends, or the people I'm debating will latch onto a single sentence or concept laid out by Richard and simply repeat it as if it's new evidence to support their ideas.  Personally, in most of the arguments I've had, I see the other side clinging to the idea that their path is perfect, and whatever Actualism is, it's either inferior, delusional, or just another method that leads to the same results.

Honestly, I don't even think of myself as an Actualist, but I understand it well enough to know there are a number of fundimental differences from Burmese/Theravada Buddhism.  Maybe it isn't as easy to understand as you think, reguardless of whether it's similar to your own practice or not.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 11:45 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
[quote=  
]
I do not think AF is hard to understand at all, it seems very basic.  What gives AF, a bad front, is the tribal clinginess to AF, and that AF in and of itself is deemed ro be better than and different to other people and their mind states, i.e. that it is a special achievment that no one has done before.  And, in my humble opinion, that seems to be incorrect.   While it may be new to one person, does not mean it is anything new to all of humanity.  That's just my opinion, there is no harm intended, just sayin'.

Psi



Sure, but then you do know what they say about opinions ;)  

In my research so far Richard's claims are very different.

have you ever found anyone pointing directly at the instinctual passions as the driving force behind the emotional unsubstantiated beliefs humanity holds so dear? have you ever found anyone, other than Richard, corresponding in detail about their journey which they claim culminated in the deletion of their entire suite of instinctual passions and the psyche that felt them? no documents so far have ever been found of an even remotely similar undertaking that released the mortal body (and those relating to it) of the kneejerk tyanny of instinctual passions.  

Like Richard, all I have found so far are people parrotting what he calls borrowed wisdom and claiming to be free of their thinking ego - never the emotional feeler as well.  no one else even discusses that the body's innate intelligence is now developed enough to totally replace them. and upon closer examination i too discovered the instinctual passions motivating our every thought, making it impossible to observe actuality as it sensately is. instead we see what we think and feel is here.

To be free of of both emotional, not just mental filters *is* an "achievement that no one has done before". and if it has been achieved before and was as beneficial as Richard claims, then it would be too senseless for such a finally sensible body to not document it in some way for the benefit of all.     

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 11:44 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Hey Psi,

I haven't noticed much clinginess from the member here who practice Actualism, just a general frustration about the misinformation and misunderstanding that is constantly passed off as Actual Freedom.  For example, our many conversations about the emotionlenss quality of the PCE actually being repressed, ignored, or a different style of emotion; the misconception that Actualist practice is related to holding sensory awareness or concentration practices; the idea that the PCE is related to non-dualism; the idea that Actualism will be enhanced or supported by vipassana practice; the idea that Actualism can be found somewhere on the progress of insight; etc, etc.

I've been involved in a lot of these arguments and they always seem to devolve into character attacks on Richard and friends, or the people I'm debating will latch onto a single sentence or concept laid out by Richard and simply repeat it as if it's new evidence to support their ideas.  Personally, in most of the arguments I've had, I see the other side clinging to the idea that their path is perfect, and whatever Actualism is, it's either inferior, delusional, or just another method that leads to the same results.

Honestly, I don't even think of myself as an Actualist, but I understand it well enough to know there are a number of fundimental differences from Burmese/Theravada Buddhism.  Maybe it isn't as easy to understand as you think, reguardless of whether it's similar to your own practice or not.


Hey Not Tao, 

Maybe it is or is not easy to understand, I just think it is.  It seems this clinging and comparison contrast is part and parcel of isms and religions in general, whether one calls a practice a religion or an ism or not.

And at this point I am going to get beyond the labelling and conceit of whether this method was new or invented by such and such, and stay to the methods, results and practices themselves, whatever is beneficial.

True freedom goes beyond all that mucky muck anyway, so perhaps that is all there is to it.

In reality there is no such thing as a Buddhist , a Christian , an Atheist, or an Actualist, these are mere concepts we impose or overlay upon reality, and ultimateley not that important when all is said and done.  And I have seen people use any one of the above paths to improve upon our born into condition. Though we can be grateful and respectful to be able to learn from those that have tread before us and are willing to share their knowledge, wisdom and experiences.

There is a fervor in clinging to these rafts, and that too requires a realization thereof and the abandonment of the fervor.  That is all I am really pointing to.  The fervor itself is the hypocrisy of being Actually Free.  Without that, it's pretty cool, but then it would be something else.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 1:41 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
have you ever found anyone pointing directly at the instinctual passions as the driving force behind the emotional unsubstantiated beliefs humanity holds so dear? have you ever found anyone, other than Richard, corresponding in detail about their journey which they claim culminated in the deletion of their entire suite of instinctual passions and the psyche that felt them? 

Hi Alin. It has been said ad naseum before with slightly different verbiage, from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html#fn-1-11

Regarding the experience of the arahant, the Suttanipaata states that by the destruction of all feelings/sensations a monk lives desireless and at peace.[11] Once Saariputta was asked what happiness there can be when there is no feeling/sensation.[12] He explained that the absence of feeling/sensation itself is happiness.[13] It is relevant to note here that the Buddha says that he does not speak of happiness only with reference to pleasant feelings/sensations. Wherever there is happiness or pleasure, that he recognizes as happiness or pleasure.[14]

Here we are reminded of the statement that all mental states converge on feelings.[15]What is meant by this statement seems to be that all mental states are translated into sensations in the body. It is possible to understand the import of this statement if we pay attention to a gross emotion, such as anger. When we are angry we experience a variety of bodily sensations: feeling hot, being restless, breaking out in a sweat, trepidation, etc. When we are sad, tears come into our eyes. These are brought about by changes in body chemistry through the discharge of various glandular secretions. If intense emotions bring about such gross sensations, we might conjecture that all thoughts cause subtle sensations in the body resulting from changes in body chemistry. We are hardly aware of these sensations which, however, become noticeable with the development of vedanaanupassanaa, contemplation of sensations. Thoughts are endless and continuous; therefore, if this interpretation that thoughts are translated into sensations is correct, sensations too should be endless and continuous. The Vedanaasa.myutta states that just as diverse winds constantly blow in different directions, numerous sensations pass through the body.[16]An arahant has full control over his thoughts;[17] therefore he must have full control over his feelings/sensations too. What is meant by the statement that "a monk lives desireless and at peace by the destruction of all feelings/sensations" seems to be that he has destroyed all psychogenic feelings/sensations.

It actually blows my mind that defenders of AF seems pretty smart yet they think this is a new teaching or totally divorced from Buddhist practice. I would invite you to consider that you may have a major blind spot directly in front of you. One thing to understand - there is not one 'spiritualism' or one 'Buddhism'. Because Richard or others became disaccociated from their emotions from 'spiritual practice' does not mean there is something wrong with that practice, it means they were either practicing incorrectly and/or they did not take the practices to their final competion. Or they did, but then decided that they invented something totally new never before known to humanity. Unfortunately for AF those wrong views have not gained more traction with the general public as many have other blinds spots not related to this subject, but see these distinctions clearly
@Not Tao, I think that in addition to people sometimes not understanding Actualism fully (as you point out) many do not understand Buddhist practice fully - and so there are arguments like this. AF and Buddhism share eerily similar views on anatta, science agrees with Buddhism on annica, and dukkha is the reason there are so many characters (in more ways than one) on this forum
Where is the 180 degree separation excepting the conceit of views?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 2:35 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Too be honest there is literally no one on this thread, or forum, with a good enough grounding in Buddhist theory and view (specifically from the Pali Canon), and an orthodox enough understanding of Richard's AFT teachings to compare and contrast the two.

This is compounded by several problems, members of this forum often get into actual Buddhism only after the fact, and not before the fact. They then read the suttas or Pali Canon in an effort to reinforce their own views as opposed to correcting them.

But anyways here's some key differences and points:

-Richard does not understand Buddhism as it is taught in the Pali Canon.

-Richard seems to believe that all religions or spiritual traditions posit (as in positively assert) the existence of a "Spirit" that transcends matter. But the point of Buddhism is far more subtle than that, and something he fails to grasp.

-Richard posits the existence of an identity, namely feeling, which he sees as the cause of the manifold forms of sorrow. The Buddha is silent on the existence of an entity, and posits the arising of sorrow to causes and conditions.

-Richard states the eternal nature of matter, time, space and universe, as well as their infinitude. The Buddha remains silent on these questions.

-For Richard, AF is contingent on the existence of a physically eternal, perdurable universe. For the Buddha, final nirvana is contingent on the existence of an unborn, unoriginated.

-For Richard, sensuality is both the means and the goal. For the Buddha, sensuality is a thorn.

-For Richard, consciousness is pure and eternal (perceives the timeless, in other words in a PCE, there is no passage of time). For the Buddha, consciousness is an aggregate that arises dependent on conditions.

-For Richard, death is annihilation. For the Buddha, there is the assertion of becoming. The Buddha does not preach annihilation.

If one does not read the Pali Canon in detail and corrects one's views, there is no possibility of skillfully refuting Richard's views, which are rather pernicious.

Cheers.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 3:16 PM as a reply to James Yen.
With Richard, he posits the existence of things he cannot prove. Namely a perdurable universe, as well as the annihilation of the entity. Yet, contradicting himself, he states that no philosophy or view is necessary for his liberation.

Contrasted with Buddhism, view is of the utmost of necessity for liberation because it determines the destination. Within Buddhism, the end of suffering is known and experienced directly within the body, somatically. (Note: Keep in mind that view in Buddhism does not necessarily mean cognitive or intellectual conception, although it may be that at first, rather it refers to "seeing", literally, ditthi means "seeing", or "sight", direct knowing in other words.)

For Richard, the end of suffering is not known or experienced through feeling because for him, salvation is the end of a hypothetical "feeling".

Richard does not penetrate sakkaya-ditthi, therefore there is no way he can understand that the kaya is not the cause of suffering, but rather that clinging to the view of the kaya is what causes doubt and confusion.

Richard states that the body's liberation is sensate, pure perception, without interference of feeling (i.e liberation is cold). The Buddhists state that liberation is felt within the body, that liberation is warm, not cold and that is accompanied by the presence of the indriya.

Richard states that the body has an intelligence that knows, the Buddhists state there is in fact agency.

Richard provides no basis for the arising of consciousness, other than matter.

Buddhists understand that consciousness arises from the heart center, and that it can be trained.

Richard's behavior and agenda are with obvious motivation. Yet Buddhas act with intelligent compassion.

Richard claims harmlessness, but condones physical violence, both to humans and animals. The Buddha claims the existence of virtue, which can be mastered, and that physical harmlessness is an essential component of it.

I could go on.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 4:40 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:
Alin Mathews:
have you ever found anyone pointing directly at the instinctual passions as the driving force behind the emotional unsubstantiated beliefs humanity holds so dear? have you ever found anyone, other than Richard, corresponding in detail about their journey which they claim culminated in the deletion of their entire suite of instinctual passions and the psyche that felt them? 

Hi Alin. It has been said ad naseum before with slightly different verbiage, from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html#fn-1-11

Regarding the experience of the arahant, the Suttanipaata states that by the destruction of all feelings/sensations a monk lives desireless and at peace.[11] Once Saariputta was asked what happiness there can be when there is no feeling/sensation.[12] He explained that the absence of feeling/sensation itself is happiness.[13] It is relevant to note here that the Buddha says that he does not speak of happiness only with reference to pleasant feelings/sensations. Wherever there is happiness or pleasure, that he recognizes as happiness or pleasure.[14]

Here we are reminded of the statement that all mental states converge on feelings.[15]What is meant by this statement seems to be that all mental states are translated into sensations in the body. It is possible to understand the import of this statement if we pay attention to a gross emotion, such as anger. When we are angry we experience a variety of bodily sensations: feeling hot, being restless, breaking out in a sweat, trepidation, etc. When we are sad, tears come into our eyes. These are brought about by changes in body chemistry through the discharge of various glandular secretions. If intense emotions bring about such gross sensations, we might conjecture that all thoughts cause subtle sensations in the body resulting from changes in body chemistry. We are hardly aware of these sensations which, however, become noticeable with the development of vedanaanupassanaa, contemplation of sensations. Thoughts are endless and continuous; therefore, if this interpretation that thoughts are translated into sensations is correct, sensations too should be endless and continuous. The Vedanaasa.myutta states that just as diverse winds constantly blow in different directions, numerous sensations pass through the body.[16]An arahant has full control over his thoughts;[17] therefore he must have full control over his feelings/sensations too. What is meant by the statement that "a monk lives desireless and at peace by the destruction of all feelings/sensations" seems to be that he has destroyed all psychogenic feelings/sensations.

It actually blows my mind that defenders of AF seems pretty smart yet they think this is a new teaching or totally divorced from Buddhist practice. I would invite you to consider that you may have a major blind spot directly in front of you. One thing to understand - there is not one 'spiritualism' or one 'Buddhism'. Because Richard or others became disaccociated from their emotions from 'spiritual practice' does not mean there is something wrong with that practice, it means they were either practicing incorrectly and/or they did not take the practices to their final competion. Or they did, but then decided that they invented something totally new never before known to humanity. Unfortunately for AF those wrong views have not gained more traction with the general public as many have other blinds spots not related to this subject, but see these distinctions clearly
@Not Tao, I think that in addition to people sometimes not understanding Actualism fully (as you point out) many do not understand Buddhist practice fully - and so there are arguments like this. AF and Buddhism share eerily similar views on anatta, science agrees with Buddhism on annica, and dukkha is the reason there are so many characters (in more ways than one) on this forum
Where is the 180 degree separation excepting the conceit of views?
Nothing in the above is even remotely similar to the deletion of the entire suite of instinctual passions and all sense of Being. how can you compare: "an Arahat has full control over his thoughts: therefore must have full control over his feelings/sensations too" to actual freedom which has nothing left to control?

I agree with Not Tao, this blindness is too strong, i don't have enough hours in the day for it. I've kept my english at the level of a child's and still the words cannot be read.  

Good day to you Sir. 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 5:09 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
dude, that was an interpretation of an interpretion that you responded to
I am referring to the emotional perfection models of Buddhism and the actual suttas that talk about ridding oneself of all reactional emotional sensations, not ridding oneself of all thoughts. Isn't that the goal of AF as well?
Anyhoo, good day to you too, and don't forget to be happy and harmless. btw, is respect for other people part of that? or is part of your training picturing yourself as the adult talking to children that just can't wrap their little minds around your advanced concepts? (rhetorical Q)

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 8:49 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:
dude, that was an interpretation of an interpretion that you responded to
I am referring to the emotional perfection models of Buddhism and the actual suttas that talk about ridding oneself of all reactional emotional sensations, not ridding oneself of all thoughts. Isn't that the goal of AF as well?
Anyhoo, good day to you too, and don't forget to be happy and harmless. btw, is respect for other people part of that? or is part of your training picturing yourself as the adult talking to children that just can't wrap their little minds around your advanced concepts? (rhetorical Q)

Thanks Daniel, but i've never had to remember to be something as sensible as happy and harmless. that was the first resonance that attracted me to actualism.  

I find it amusing to be asked by respondents showing very little respect themselves, whether i respect other people ? and i don't find it insulted to acknowledge the fact that the level of intelligence of the human psyche *is* whilst it's so emotional, that of a child. i have no child adult complex and never speak rhetorically. all my questions are asked to encourage more and especially of oneself. I mean what i say and re-edit often so my words reflect that. 

that you and others here keep bringing up your issues with the messenger instead of the message speaks more about your own mileage than mine.

PS actually the emotional need for "respect" is - like self esteem and admiration - another thing the practice of actualism wipes out. they have no raison de'tre in a person who never allows themselves to feel trashed. a benign intelligence wouldnt beat itself up like that. the body has an innate sense of well being in the bucketloads, it doesnt need reassuring. it knows it's a valid member of humanity, we all are.  

Most of the emotional needs people value more than 'actual' life, make little sense to me now.   

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/22/14 8:51 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
my questions are asked to encourage more, as the well being of humanity is far too important to fluff on about. I mean what i say and re-edit often so my words reflect that. 

Fair enough Alin - if I was disrespectful I did not mean to be so and I apologize
I also know that these philosphical discussions veer off course pretty quickly and the only way they pertain to actual practice (the purpose of it all) in my mind is in establishing right view
Right View has been a contemplative subject for me recently and I've come to the conclusion (being influenced by my readings at An Eternal Now's awakening to reality blogspot) that it's an important aspect of practice, I wasn't so sure before (these new views of mine are subject to change anyway, a tagline that should be inferred on every sentence written IMO ;)
So, in that vein, I'd like to ask a few questions that are more practice-based and view-based without an emphasis on being rhetorical at all, hopefully it will be valuable to me at least (can't comment on what it will do for humanity though : )
1.) Is it your understanding that the Actualist teachings of no-self line up closely with the Buddhist concept of anatta?
2.) Does Actualism hold any sort of permanence view (as opposed to the anicca view of Buddhist teachings)? If so, what in the phenomenal world is not subject to the (Buddhist and scientific) laws of impermanence?
3.) What is your practice like? Are you up for describing it?
thank you - I hope this is more in line with Not Tao's OP and useful for lessening dukkha - oops that was meant to be #4 : )
Daniel

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 8:16 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel Leffler:
Alin Mathews:
my questions are asked to encourage more, as the well being of humanity is far too important to fluff on about. I mean what i say and re-edit often so my words reflect that. 

Fair enough Alin - if I was disrespectful I did not mean to be so and I apologize
I also know that these philosphical discussions veer off course pretty quickly and the only way they pertain to actual practice (the purpose of it all) in my mind is in establishing right view
Right View has been a contemplative subject for me recently and I've come to the conclusion (being influenced by my readings at An Eternal Now's awakening to reality blogspot) that it's an important aspect of practice, I wasn't so sure before (these new views of mine are subject to change anyway, a tagline that should be inferred on every sentence written IMO ;)
So, in that vein, I'd like to ask a few questions that are more practice-based and view-based without an emphasis on being rhetorical at all, hopefully it will be valuable to me at least (can't comment on what it will do for humanity though : )
1.) Is it your understanding that the Actualist teachings of no-self line up closely with the Buddhist concept of anatta?
2.) Does Actualism hold any sort of permanence view (as opposed to the anicca view of Buddhist teachings)? If so, what in the phenomenal world is not subject to the (Buddhist and scientific) laws of impermanence?
3.) What is your practice like? Are you up for describing it?
thank you - I hope this is more in line with Not Tao's OP and useful for lessening dukkha - oops that was meant to be #4 : )
Daniel

No worries Daniel, no apology required. your good will never went unnoticed.      

first i should make it clear that although i ask my questions to encourage more, i'd rather they not all be directed at me only. it's the questions we ask ourselves that reveal the most.

for your 1st question; once again you've asked whether actualism lines up with a "concept" (this time the concept of anatta) even though i've already explained AF has nothing to do with concepts, philosophies nor any subjective state of no-self. for more info on that please search the AFT site. eg  site actualfreedom.com.au anatta

your 2nd question is also researchable at:  site actualfreedom.com.au anicca  . many buddhists questioned Richard, Tarin was one. you should be able to recognise his posts by the quality and depth of his questions.   

Your 3rd question has also been answered in my reply to Bill "this thread is not my practice blog".  

Have a great festive season all

Alin   

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 12:17 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin: In acknowledging that you are not AF, you are acknowledging that the existence of AF is a concept for you. As it is not your experiential knowledge that this exists in a permanent way, you only believe it to be so. Though you claim you are not here to talk about beliefs, as you are not AF there is no way for you to know that it factually exists, and as such all the ideas you have put forth before are your beliefs. Many here have taken up the practice of AF. It's success rate is 0% if success is defined as continous seamless freedom. All those who previously claimed AF recanted with time.
Like any good evangelical spreading the good word I know that anyone who does not agree with you must be dismissed as "blind" to what you "see", but can you asnwer this: What was your intention in posting here? Was it successful?
Be well. -Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 6:01 AM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
Alin: In acknowledging that you are not AF, you are acknowledging that the existence of AF is a concept for you. As it is not your experiential knowledge that this exists in a permanent way, you only believe it to be so. Though you claim you are not here to talk about beliefs, as you are not AF there is no way for you to know that it factually exists, and as such all the ideas you have put forth before are your beliefs. Many here have taken up the practice of AF. It's success rate is 0% if success is defined as continous seamless freedom. All those who previously claimed AF recanted with time.
Like any good evangelical spreading the good word I know that anyone who does not agree with you must be dismissed as "blind" to what you "see", but can you asnwer this: What was your intention in posting here? Was it successful?
Be well. -Bill

Thats correct, I'm not here to talk about beliefs. how many times do you need it repeated? i am here to correct the astonishing misinterpretations going on on this forum about something as simple to understand as AF.

Bill, the fascinating thing about actualism for me has not been AF -- and this seems to be the case for many looking into it. the practice of actualism is not just feeling felicitous, it is the "experiential" examination of (whilst bearing in mind the possibility that you may very well be a flesh and blood body *only* -- which spirituality does not encourage) why you feel and think the way you do. in that examination so much nonsense arises and falls away that compared to the spiritual quagmire and emotional dramas one once believed were cast in stone, one suddenly finds oneself virtually free! and then it starts; new realisations and insights begin to arise at a magical pace.

Was my reason for posting here successful? is yours? is anyone's? my goal is to enhance mental clarity, what's your reason for posting here? 

  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 6:28 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
That all sounds very buddhist to me.

And you have spoken mostly about your beliefs. I have said that repeatedly, and just presented the reasons why, which you partially addressed, but it does not account for many of the descriptions above which were not factual but were large scale misinterpretations of what many members here take the purpose of meditation to be -which has nothing to with reifying the ego or the Self as immortal, unchangable, Watcher- and what you belive the state of the world to be, my favorite still remaining: "What if amongst the flowers laid and heartfelt gatherings for these endless slaughterings, there lay banners imploring each other to examine the infantile irrational passions that committed them, writ large on backdrops festooned with natures beauty?" Yes, Alin, what if? And yet you write above that you never write rhetorically. When you asked me how many times did I need it repeated you were not actually asking me to give you a number of how many times to repeat your statements. This is an example of rhetorical speech. It is indirect and expresses your own frustration, but does not move the communication forward in a meaningful way.
On beliefs, are you claiming virtual freedom? If not, what you have written about it is a belief. Saying you do not wish to talk about yourself, while continuing to expressing one's ideas, is insincere and demonstrates an underdeveloped awareness of personal motivation and communication.

As for your questions: I don't know. If your reason for posting here was to "enhance mental clarity", this supposes that your "mental clarity" is superior to that of others who share a different opinion, and so "enhancing mental clarity" means agreeing with you, which almost no one seems to be doing who didn't already, so no, probably you were unsuccessful. To the extent that your post was meant to engender more feelings of superiority and righteousness in yourself probably you were successful.
As for whether or not I am successful, I tend to stay away from grand scale summations of the superiority of any particular religous group. I don't consider myself a Buddhist in the strict sense of the word, but I know enough to know that grouping all practitioners together into one in order to make points about how my way of seeing is superior is an easy, arrogant and ultimately ignorant way to try to make a point. 
In this particular case my intent was to point out what I see, which is that you are a person unskilled in matters of persuasion as well as obvious contradiction, and to point out why. 
Yes, other people are successful to the extent that they help or are helped by others to better understand something that allows them to live their lives in a different way. I can't know this, but I doubt your post did either. Your writing style is poor, you don't express yourself well, you come off as condescending, and you care to share very little that is applicable to others in your own words and experience. People who come here claiming superiority of their belief system and shallow understanding of the real, life experiences of others are generally not taken too seriously.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 8:03 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
That all sounds very buddhist to me.




Be well Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 4:14 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Hi, Bill,

I surely understand some of Alin's responses as it's clear that some respondents here insist on keeping their misconceptions and shoehorning their buddhist ideas into actualism.

It's only a matter of visiting the AFT's website to find the answers to all the questions made here, but it's clear to me that not so many are interested in sincerely finding out about actualism per se, and just keep trying to see everything with their agenda, many of it founded on false assumptions from the DhO. For instance, you regurgitate the old:

Many here have taken up the practice of AF. It's success rate is 0% if success is defined as continous seamless freedom. All those who previously claimed AF recanted with time.

While it's been proven and documented here that Tarin and others "who previously claimed AF and recanted with time" weren't precisely practicing actualism. In that same link you could see also that, to previous actual actualists, there is no 0% rate of success.

Another leitmotif of this forum and many spiritual groups, also suggested by you in the last post, is that of being ecumenical, inclusive and politically correct, usually to retain the warm feeling of connection and community under the old belief that "we all are one", and "there are many paths but the goal is the same".

Despite the effort of some actualists here, only a few seem to accept the possibility that the Buddhist ticket takes you to a very different destination than the Actualist one. I'd suggest to anyone who refuses to see this at least as a possibility to ask if there is some belief/feeling behind this reactive veil: Why do I hold this belief that everything must be under the same umbrella? Is this unification a fact or a temptation/fear? Is there really no space for human innovation in terms of personal consciousness and freedom?

tl;dr: go to the AFT website and read everything with both eyes opened and with an open mind (after all, it was the original purpose of Not Tao in this thead).

Regards,
Felipe

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/23/14 11:25 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe C.:
Hi, Bill,

I surely understand some of Alin's responses as it's clear that some respondents here insist on keeping their misconceptions and shoehorning their buddhist ideas into actualism.

It's only a matter of visiting the AFT's website to find the answers to all the questions made here, but it's clear to me that not so many are interested in sincerely finding out about actualism per se, and just keep trying to see everything with their agenda, many of it founded on false assumptions from the DhO. For instance, you regurgitate the old:

Many here have taken up the practice of AF. It's success rate is 0% if success is defined as continous seamless freedom. All those who previously claimed AF recanted with time.

While it's been proven and documented here that Tarin and others "who previously claimed AF and recanted with time" weren't precisely practicing actualism. In that same link you could see also that, to previous actual actualists, there is no 0% rate of success.

Another leitmotif of this forum and many spiritual groups, also suggested by you in the last post, is that of being ecumenical, inclusive and politically correct, usually to retain the warm feeling of connection and community under the old belief that "we all are one", and "there are many paths but the goal is the same".

Despite the effort of some actualists here, only a few seem to accept the possibility that the Buddhist ticket takes you to a very different destination than the Actualist one. I'd suggest to anyone who refuses to see this at least as a possibility to ask if there is some belief/feeling behind this reactive veil: Why do I hold this belief that everything must be under the same umbrella? Is this unification a fact or a temptation/fear? Is there really no space for human innovation in terms of personal consciousness and freedom?

tl;dr: go to the AFT website and read everything with both eyes opened and with an open mind (after all, it was the original purpose of Not Tao in this thead).

Regards,
Felipe

Hey all, 

I feel like expressing an emotion to be Actually Free for a moment, and I just want to say one word.

Baloney.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 2:33 AM as a reply to Felipe C..
Despite the effort of some actualists here, only a few seem to accept the possibility that the Buddhist ticket takes you to a very different destination than the Actualist one.


Well said Felipe. There are 3 things that baffle me the most when it comes to all the 'Buddhists' i've come across :

1. How are they so confident about rebirth.

2. Assuming that they somehow are convinced of rebirth, then they fail to take the final goal of Buddhism into serious consideration - i.e to cut the cycle of birth and death and thus to never come back(because one does not want to be here anymore)..insight, jhana, abandoning self-view etc etc is all done because of this one goal. Most of them get hung up on this and that and what not.

3. If one accepts that the goal is to never come back, then why on earth will there be any similarity with Actualism whose goal
is to completely want to be here on earth,

Unless one is motivated and driven by the final goal of the practise, the results will obviously not match up.


RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 11:41 AM as a reply to Shashank Dixit.
Shashank Dixit:
Despite the effort of some actualists here, only a few seem to accept the possibility that the Buddhist ticket takes you to a very different destination than the Actualist one.


Well said Felipe. There are 3 things that baffle me the most when it comes to all the 'Buddhists' i've come across :

1. How are they so confident about rebirth.

2. Assuming that they somehow are convinced of rebirth, then they fail to take the final goal of Buddhism into serious consideration - i.e to cut the cycle of birth and death and thus to never come back(because one does not want to be here anymore)..insight, jhana, abandoning self-view etc etc is all done because of this one goal. Most of them get hung up on this and that and what not.

3. If one accepts that the goal is to never come back, then why on earth will there be any similarity with Actualism whose goal
is to completely want to be here on earth,

Unless one is motivated and driven by the final goal of the practise, the results will obviously not match up.

1. Could you please explain rebirth to me in Theravedan Buddhists concepts?

2. Could you explain the final goal of Buddhism, and do Buddhist practioners really have goals as you have stated?

3. Does Actualism really have as a goal to completely want to be here on Earth?  And if so, isn't that an instinct? In other words an illusionary me that wants to be here, of which Richard, Direct Pointers, and Buddhists have tried to explain , There is no me existence after liberation, so back to rebirth , what exactly is reborn?

4. Have you attained Nibbana here and now, are you Actually free, and if not how do you know what you claim is true or not true?

5.  If I said to you that Pure Awareness, Bare Attention and the Pure Consciousness Experience are the same thing, how do you know that what I say is or is not true?  

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 2:03 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

1. Could you please explain rebirth to me in Theravedan Buddhists concepts?

2. Could you explain the final goal of Buddhism, and do Buddhist practioners really have goals as you have stated?

Not directed to me, but sure thing! 

From "The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (emphasis with bold mine, but read the whole thing quoted here and the original text, as it throws a lot of light in regards to the differences between Buddhism and Actualism):

Introduction  

Each time you choose one course of action over another, you're making a wager as to the consequences of your choice. This is especially true if the choice is between something easy that promises pleasant short-term rewards, and something hard that promises great rewards but only after a long time. Will the harder choice be worth the effort? Will the easier one be irresponsible in the long run? As a person embedded in time, there's no way you can know for sure.

To begin with, there are the particulars of your own personal future: Will you or those you love live long enough to experience the results of your choices? Will disaster interfere to wipe out everything you've done?

Then there are the larger uncertainties of life in general: Do we even have choices in our actions, or are all our choices predetermined by some past or outside power beyond our control? If we do have choices, is it worthwhile to struggle over difficult ones? Do they really matter? And even if our choices do matter, how far into the future should we calculate the consequences? Do they shape only this life, or can they shape lives after death?

Arguments based on logic or reason have never been able to settle these issues conclusively, the world's great religions don't agree on their answers, and the empirical sciences have no way of answering these questions at all. Yet we all keep having to grapple with these questions. We don't leave it at, "I don't know," and refuse to entertain them, for even the refusal to think about these things is a wager: that ultimately they won't matter.

The Buddha taught, however, that they do matter a great deal, and that awakening — in going beyond the dimensions of space and time — gives perspective on how choices operate within those dimensions.You see that choices are real, that they do make a difference, and that the consequences of your choices can shape not only this life but also many lifetimes in the future — as long as the mind still has the craving that leads to rebirth after death. Prior to awakening, you can't know these things for sure, but as the Buddha states, if you want to gain awakening and to minimize suffering in the meantime, it's wisest to assume these principles as working hypotheses.

Questioning Assumptions  

Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition. The earliest records in the Pali Canon (MN 26; MN 36) indicate that the Buddha, prior to his awakening, searched for a happiness not subject to the vagaries of repeated birth, aging, illness, and death. One of the reasons he left his early teachers was because he recognized that their teachings led, not to the goal he sought, but to rebirth on a refined level. On the night of his awakening, two of the three knowledges leading to his release from suffering focused on the topic of rebirth. The first showed his own many previous lives; the second, depicting the general pattern of beings dying and being reborn throughout the cosmos, showed the connection between rebirth and karma, or action.

When he did finally attain release from suffering, he recognized that he had achieved his goal because he had touched a dimension that not only was free from birth, but also had freed him from ever being reborn again. After he had attained release, his new-found freedom from rebirth was the first realization that occurred spontaneously to his mind.

When teaching the path to awakening to others, he defined the four stages of awakening achieved by the path in terms of how many rebirths remained for those who reached them: up to seven for those reaching the first stage; one return to the human world for those reaching the second; rebirth followed by total liberation in the Pure Abodes for those reaching the third; and no rebirth for those reaching the fourth (AN 3.86). On occasion, when one of his disciples who had not reached full awakening passed away, he would comment on the disciple's rebirth — as when Anathapindika the householder, after his passing, appeared to the Buddha as a heavenly being (MN 143). When any of the Buddha's fully awakened disciples passed away, he would state that one of the amazing features of their passing was that their consciousness could no longer be found in the cosmos. Rebirth, he said, happened to those who still had clinging, but not to those who didn't (SN 44.9). And one of his own amazing attainments as Buddha, he said, was that after the end of this life, the world would see him no more (DN 1).
Modern Ironies  

People who hold to a modern materialist view of the world and the self tend to react to these canonical descriptions of what is known in awakening by offering three main reasons for resisting them.

The first is that these descriptions, in their eyes, go beyond what a human being could possibly know. Sometimes this argument is supported by the claim that the Canon's descriptions violate the Buddha's own criteria, stated elsewhere in the discourses, for what can and cannot be known. The passage most commonly cited in this argument is this:

"What is the all? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is termed the all. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this all, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

— SN 35.23

The argument maintains that "beyond range" here means "beyond the range of possible knowledge." Therefore, the existence of a dimension lying beyond the six senses — such as that of consciousness without surface described in MN 49 — is impossible to know. This would invalidate any claim that one has known such things — and, by implication, the freedom from rebirth that such a knowledge would imply.

However, there is clear evidence that "beyond range" here simply means "beyond the range of adequate description," for there are other canonical passages indicating that even though the dimension beyond the six senses cannot be adequately described, it can still be known.

MahaKotthita: "With the remainderless ceasing & fading of the six spheres of contact [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?"

Sariputta: "Don't say that, my friend."

MahaKotthita: "With the remainderless ceasing & fading of the six spheres of contact, is it the case that there is not anything else?"

Sariputta: "Don't say that, my friend."

MahaKotthita: "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?"

Sariputta: "Don't say that, my friend."

MahaKotthita: "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?"

Sariputta: "Don't say that, my friend."

MahaKotthita: "Being asked... if there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked... if there is not anything else... if there both is & is not anything else... if there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of this statement to be understood?"

Sariputta: "Saying... is it the case that there is anything else... is it the case that there is not anything else... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else... is it the case the there neither is nor is not anything else, one is objectifying the non-objectified. However far the six spheres of contact go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six spheres of contact go. With the remainderless ceasing & fading of the six spheres of contact, there comes to be the ceasing, the allaying of objectification."

— AN 4.174

"Monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye ceases and the perception of form fades. That dimension should be experienced where the ear ceases and the perception of sound fades... where the nose ceases and the perception of aroma fades... where the tongue ceases and the perception of flavor fades... where the body ceases and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the intellect ceases and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That dimension should be experienced."

— SN 35.117

So there's nothing in the Pali discourses to indicate that the Buddha would have agreed with a modern materialist view that experience is limited to the six senses. And it's doubtful that he would have tried to justify his claims in terms that a modern materialist would accept. After all, he noted that the Buddha-range of a Buddha, and the jhana-range of a person in jhana are "inconceivables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them" (AN 4.77). This means that he wouldn't encourage the sort of conjecture that a materialist — or anyone else — might make about what a mind trained to master jhana or attain the supreme level of awakening could or couldn't know.

A second modern argument against accepting the canonical accounts of what's known in awakening — and in particular, the knowledge of rebirth achieved in awakening — is that one can still obtain all the results of the practice without having to accept the possibility of rebirth. After all, all the factors leading to suffering are all immediately present to awareness, so there should be no need, when trying to abandon them, to accept any premises about where they may or may not lead in the future.

This objection, however, ignores the role of appropriate attention on the path. As we noted above, one of its roles is to examine and abandon the assumptions that underlie one's views on the metaphysics of personal identity. Unless you're willing to step back from your own views — such as those concerning what a person is, and why that makes rebirth impossible — and subject them to this sort of examination, there's something lacking in your path. You'll remain entangled in the questions of inappropriate attention, which will prevent you from actually identifying and abandoning the causes of suffering and achieving the full results of the practice.

In addition, the terms of appropriate attention — the four noble truths — are not concerned simply with events arising and passing away in the present moment. They also focus on the causal connections among those events, connections that occur both in the immediate present and over time. If you limit your focus solely to connections in the present while ignoring those over time, you can't fully comprehend the ways in which craving causes suffering: not only by latching on to the four kinds of nutriment, but also giving rise to the four kinds of nutriment as well.

This narrow focus places an obstacle in your ability to develop right view — and in particular, your ability to see dependent co-arising as a self-sustaining process. If, in line with the standard materialist view, you regard consciousness as a mere by-product of material processes, then there's no way you can appreciate the full power of consciousness and craving to generate the food that can sustain the processes of suffering indefinitely. And if you don't fully appreciate this power, there's no way that you can effectively bring it to an end.

A third argument against accepting the knowledge of rebirth as a necessary part of awakening is that many modern people who claim to have experienced the levels of awakening described in the Canon gained no knowledge of rebirth or of the end of rebirth as part of those experiences. The fact that people in the Buddha's time claimed to gain this sort of knowledge in the course of their awakening can thus be written off as a cultural artifact: They were primed to see it because of their cultural background, and so it wasn't really an essential part of the experience.

There are, however, two problems with this argument. The first is that, as we have seen, rebirth was not a universally accepted assumption in the Buddha's time. An important part of any person's experience of awakening — then as now — would be to prove for oneself whether the Buddha was right on the topic.

The second, more telling, problem with this third argument is that it actually defeats itself. If one's experiences of awakening don't agree with the Canon's descriptions of the levels of awakening, why would one want to claim the Canon's labels for those experiences? An essential part of even the first level of awakening described in the Canon — stream entry — confirms the rightness of right view (MN 48), which includes the understanding that there is a deathless, birthless dimension (Mv.I.23.5), and that there is a level of craving that, if not abandoned, will lead to repeated birth. The distinguishing mark of the attainment of arahantship — as opposed to the lower levels of awakening recognized in the Canon — is that it has put an end to that craving, thus putting an end to birth. If the Canon is wrong on these points, then the terms it uses to describe the levels of awakening are bogus as well.

This means that if one's experience of awakening doesn't match the descriptions in the Canon, one would do well to examine one's motivation for wanting to claim a canonical label for that experience. If one's teacher has certified that experience with a canonical name, the teacher's knowledge and motivation should be examined, too. And if one seriously wants to put an end to suffering, one would do well to take to heart the Canon's insistence that if one's awakening has not put an end to becoming and birth, the possibility for continued suffering remains.

The irony in all three of these arguments against the teaching on rebirth is that the people who make them all assume that the Buddha was incapable of questioning the views of his time, and yet the fact is that they themselves are unwilling to accept the Buddha's challenge to step back and question their own. We know how the Buddha responded to materialism in his own time, and there's no reason to assume that he would respond any differently to materialism today.

Some people might object that modern materialism is much more sophisticated now than it was in the time of the Buddha, and so it deserves a more serious hearing. But is that really the case? The questions that neurobiologists presently bring to issues of consciousness — "What is personal identity? What sort of thing is consciousness? How can consciousness be measured in material terms?" — are precisely the questions that the Buddha listed under inappropriate attention. Even though modern scientific experiments may be more sophisticated than Prince Payasi's experiments on criminals, the scientists who conduct them are just as wrong-headed in thinking that a phenomenological process — consciousness and mental events as experienced from within — can be captured and measured in physical terms. Although rebirth is often presented as an unscientific view, the material sciences actually have no way at all of proving the issue one way or the other.

As for the efficacy of human action, the scientific method can never prove whether the scientists applying it are actually exercising free will in designing their experiments. It also can't prove whether their actions in designing and running an experiment actually have an impact on the experiment's results. Scientific inquiry and peer review certainly act as if these assumptions are true — the idea of criticizing a poorly designed experiment would make no sense if scientists had no free will in designing their experiments. And if we can judge by appearances, the assumption of free will and the responsibilities it carries have been crucial in enabling scientific knowledge to advance. But the scientific method itself can't prove whether the appearance of free will and efficacious action is anything more than an appearance. And of course there's the irony that many scientists assume that the phenomena they observe operate under strict deterministic laws, while the method they employ assumes that they themselves are not driven by such laws in applying that method. This means that science is in no position to prove or disprove the Buddha's teachings on the range and powers of human action.

Finally, there's the whole question of how valid it is to divorce the Buddha's psychological insights from his cosmological teachings. As we noted in chapter one, we in the West — beginning with the European Romantics and American Transcendentalists — have long assumed that cosmology is the rightful sphere of the physical sciences, while religion should limit itself to the care of the human psyche. But one of the central insights of the Buddha's awakening is that events on the micro scale in the mind actually shape experiences on the macro scale in time and space. If we can't question the clear line our culture draws between psychology and cosmology, we won't be in a position to appreciate the ways in which the Buddha's insight on this issue can actually help bring suffering to an end.

So we're faced with a choice. If we're sincere about wanting to end suffering and to give the Buddha's teachings a fair test, then — instead of assuming that he was a prisoner of his own time and place, unable to question his cultural assumptions — we have to examine the extent to which, in adhering to our own cultural assumptions, we're imprisoning ourselves. If we don't want to drop our self-imposed restrictions, we can still benefit from any of the Buddha's teachings that fit within those limitations, but we'll have to accept the consequences: that the results we'll get will be limited as well. Only if we're willing to submit to the test of appropriate attention, abandoning the presuppositions that distort our thinking about issues like karma and rebirth, will we be able to make full use of the Canon's tools for gaining total release.

Metaphysics much?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 2:36 PM as a reply to Shashank Dixit.
Or... you are just westernizing, modernizing, rationalizing and psychologizing Buddhism. It's better to look at the actual cannonical and academical evidence, no? I just posted some of it.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 4:03 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe C.:
Psi:

1. Could you please explain rebirth to me in Theravedan Buddhists concepts?

2. Could you explain the final goal of Buddhism, and do Buddhist practioners really have goals as you have stated?
You responded with Thanissaro's response.

I specifically asked for an answer from those that are speaking here and now on this forum that seem to claim to know rebirth from direct experience.  

The same with question 2.

Have you had any memories of past lives, either yours or anothers?  Do you believe in an I or me entity within your body?  Do you still have emotional reactions? Also, is Joy and Unconditional Friendliness as a wholesome emotion something you feel you must rid yourself of?  And if so, why?  Are Actualists scared of Human Emotions or unable to accept they are human in a human condition?  Do you feel ashamed of being Human?
If you do, why?

Are you Actually Free, or is this a concept and a belief based on faith alone?



If you can not explain them from personal experience why do you try to pass judgements about something you do not know about?

@ Felipe:

If someone describes the taste of a Mango and you recognize the taste of  Mango, then you try to describe the taste of a Mango, but all you get as a response is that an Apple is an Apple, and an Orange is an Orange, and why do you try to shoehorn an Apple into the form of an Orange.  When I am speaking of a Mango?

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 4:07 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe C.:
Or... you are just westernizing, modernizing, rationalizing and psychologizing Buddhism. It's better to look at the actual cannonical and academical evidence, no? I just posted some of it.
Pawel is correct, rebirth is the rebirth of the Me consciousness mind moment to mind moment, once that delusion is dispelled completely there are no future rebirths.  That is what I know at this point in time, any other realms or future possiblities are of things I do not know.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 7:05 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

Does Actualism really have as a goal to completely want to be here on Earth?  And if so, isn't that an instinct? 

The goal of actualism is freedom from the psychological quagmire of the human condition, which you can read about on the AFT site ;). the body doesn't have to 'want' to be here on earth, it's awesomeness already is haha.     

until then i'd rather have an instinct that makes me want to examine the facts than one that blinds me from being able to consider whether my meditations are just hyping me into an altered state of conscious that will make me oblivious to them.
 
what use is Anatta and Madhyamaka Emptiness (and the rarer the better) if it makes one unable - more likely reluctant - to read whats in front of one's eyes? sounds like an peer admiration seeking ego trip to me. here's an example of just how independent the forces of nature are from human consciousness and what happens when we forget to stay aware of that fact   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-parker/japan-tsunami_b_1335737.html  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 7:59 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Dear Alin Mathews:

I was resonding to this comment from Shashank Dixit:

3. If one accepts that the goal is to never come back, then why on earth will there be any similarity with Actualism whose goal
is to completely want to be here on earth,


[quote=]
Psi:

Does Actualism really have as a goal to completely want to be here on Earth?  And if so, isn't that an instinct? 

The goal of actualism is freedom from the psychological quagmire of the human condition, which you can read about on the AFT site ;). the body doesn't have to 'want' to be here on earth, it's awesomeness already is haha.     

until then i'd rather have an instinct that makes me want to examine the facts than one that blinds me from being able to consider whether my meditations are just hyping me into an altered state of conscious that will make me oblivious to them.
 
what use is Anatta and Madhyamaka Emptiness (and the rarer the better) if it makes one unable - more likely reluctant - to read whats in front of one's eyes? sounds like an peer admiration seeking ego trip to me. here's an example of just how independent the forces of nature are from human consciousness and what happens when we forget to stay aware of that fact   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-parker/japan-tsunami_b_1335737.html  
So why don't you direct your corrections to Shashank?  Why are you attacking me?  Is it some instinct you havn't worked out?  If I point out that my experiences in life line up with what is both in Buddhism and on the AF website, why does that irritate you?  Because it does not line up with your gospel?  Sorry, I can not change what I have experienced, the psychological quagmire is about gone here, you do not have to agree with me. it does not matter, I have nothing to prove, I am just discussing similarities of two practices that have been observed by direct experience.
You can like it or not like it, believe it or not believe it.  Maybe I have experienced what Actual Freedom has had to offer, and more, maybe one can be able to switch between modes of consciousness without being permanently disconnected, you do not know.  Why not? Are you open minded enough to consider such possibilities for the human mind?

Psi 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 8:05 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
"In that same link you could see also that, to previous actual actualists, there is no 0% rate of success."- Felipe

Felipe, 

       I see that you share Alin's talents for verbal acuity. Like Alin, for a person working towards ridding identity and feelings, you seem to have a lot invested in others understanding you, or your way of thinking. That this seems to contradict your stated goal either does not occur to you, or is ignored as incovenient.
      Ignoring for a moment issues of intelligence and gullibility, let's look at this logically: You put forth this link 
here  and said through this link we could confirm that there is a success rate, and you pointed out that this link also shows Tarin's recanting. The only reason that Tarin's recanting is made public on that site and at that link is because the very same site had previously publicly announced that Tarin was actually free. And yet for you this page is credible evidence of people who are also listed as being actually free as credible reporters. That the illogical nature of this escapes you says much about your relationship to Actual Freedom. Tarin himself, on 1/19/2012, on the dharma overground, when questioned about his recanting in light of the fact that the announcements page listed him as actually free wrote the following: "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)." I know you are aware of this because you are in the same thread, and yet this is ignored, because it does not agree with your agenda, your faith. 
      You are a lowest common denominator debater. You pick out something that agrees with your views and ignore context. Your suggestion to Pawel that he should not re-interpret the suttas ignores that those texts are believed to be recorded centuries after the buddha's death, in a specific context very different from our own. To ignore context is to reduce everything to easily digestible parts that limit understanding. That it does not occur to you that you have referred to me in the same post as favoring inclusivity, and also urging me to be more open minded, is indicative of the discernment you bring to your interactions here. You wrote that I suggest a pattern of thought in line with "we are all one" philosophies of religion, but what I actually wrote is the opposite: that there are differences and it is not useful to group everyone together. You read, but you do not read. 
      I actually think AF is quite different from just about every strand of Buddhism. I find some of the methodologies to have some similarities, but I think it basically ends there, and philosophically I think they are quite different. In full discolsure I do not believe that Actual Freedom exists. That it might exist is not outside the realm of possibility, but I find no credible reason to believe the claims put forth. How free are you? You seem to be in the same place as a couple years ago. It is interesting to me that I watch those who favor AF become easily frustrated when someone doesn't agree with them, yet my own practice, primarily framed within Buddhist meditations, has led to an incredible diminishment in emotional reactivity such that what would have formerly been agitation expressed as a mind state and a body sensation is absent in those same circumstances that seem to fluster you (and Alin) so. I like to get in here and mix it up with you, but mostly I just think AF, it's philosophy and followers are funny (see previous  message board discussion where I called you a "pernicious liar" and referenced Lenny Kravitz repeatedly), and not to be taken seriously. I feel like the community has been infected with evangelical, fundamental Christians, and it's funny to kind of watch all the dynamics of that play out. And the overwrought religious language is funny to. Hey Alin, "What if...". I'm just playing. Do your thing.
      As a philosophy Actual Freedom died Here on the dharma overground, but as referenced in the same discussion, there will always be those who still want to tell you that the world is round, you just don't see it correctly.
       And Alin, if you are reading this (which I'm sure you are, because your identity is linked up with you having the right opinion about AF), I hope you have a really shitty Christmas, I just hope it's absolutely the worst for you. I'm not sending you anything.
       Hope you are both well, and enjoy your holiday (sincerely).
Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 10:28 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Dear Alin Mathews:

I was resonding to this comment from Shashank Dixit:

3. If one accepts that the goal is to never come back, then why on earth will there be any similarity with Actualism whose goal
is to completely want to be here on earth,


So why don't you direct your corrections to Shashank?  Why are you attacking me?  Is it some instinct you havn't worked out?  If I point out that my experiences in life line up with what is both in Buddhism and on the AF website, why does that irritate you?  Because it does not line up with your gospel?  Sorry, I can not change what I have experienced, the psychological quagmire is about gone here, you do not have to agree with me. it does not matter, I have nothing to prove, I am just discussing similarities of two practices that have been observed by direct experience.
You can like it or not like it, believe it or not believe it.  Maybe I have experienced what Actual Freedom has had to offer, and more, maybe one can be able to switch between modes of consciousness without being permanently disconnected, you do not know.  Why not? Are you open minded enough to consider such possibilities for the human mind?

Psi 



Psi! whatever you're practicing man it's making you paranoid. you're not being attacked. you didnt request only Shashank answer your actualism questions, why so personal? you do the same with my correspondences because this is a public forum. are you okay?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 11:41 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
       And Alin, if you are reading this (which I'm sure you are, because your identity is linked up with you having the right opinion about AF), I hope you have a really shitty Christmas, I just hope it's absolutely the worst for you. I'm not sending you anything.
       Hope you are both well, and enjoy your holiday (sincerely).
Bill


Thanks mate. glad you're not sending me any of that metta shite, it ain't working. wouldnt even be able to hock it on ebay hahaha

Nah sincerely, have a great xrissy

Alin

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 8:50 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
Dear Alin Mathews:

I was resonding to this comment from Shashank Dixit:

3. If one accepts that the goal is to never come back, then why on earth will there be any similarity with Actualism whose goal
is to completely want to be here on earth,


[quote=]
Psi:

Does Actualism really have as a goal to completely want to be here on Earth?  And if so, isn't that an instinct? 

The goal of actualism is freedom from the psychological quagmire of the human condition, which you can read about on the AFT site ;). the body doesn't have to 'want' to be here on earth, it's awesomeness already is haha.     

until then i'd rather have an instinct that makes me want to examine the facts than one that blinds me from being able to consider whether my meditations are just hyping me into an altered state of conscious that will make me oblivious to them.
 
what use is Anatta and Madhyamaka Emptiness (and the rarer the better) if it makes one unable - more likely reluctant - to read whats in front of one's eyes? sounds like an peer admiration seeking ego trip to me. here's an example of just how independent the forces of nature are from human consciousness and what happens when we forget to stay aware of that fact   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-parker/japan-tsunami_b_1335737.html  

So why don't you direct your corrections to Shashank?  Why are you attacking me?  Is it some instinct you havn't worked out?  If I point out that my experiences in life line up with what is both in Buddhism and on the AF website, why does that irritate you?  Because it does not line up with your gospel?  Sorry, I can not change what I have experienced, the psychological quagmire is about gone here, you do not have to agree with me. it does not matter, I have nothing to prove, I am just discussing similarities of two practices that have been observed by direct experience.
You can like it or not like it, believe it or not believe it.  Maybe I have experienced what Actual Freedom has had to offer, and more, maybe one can be able to switch between modes of consciousness without being permanently disconnected, you do not know.  Why not? Are you open minded enough to consider such possibilities for the human mind?

Psi 

Psi! whatever you're practicing man it's making you paranoid. you're not being attacked. you didnt request only Shashank answer your actualism questions. why so personal? you do the same with my correspondence, have at it, it's a public forum. are you okay?


Felicitous

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 9:54 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

Psi! whatever you're practicing man it's making you paranoid. you're not being attacked. you didnt request only Shashank answer your actualism questions. why so personal? you do the same with my correspondence, have at it, it's a public forum. are you okay?


Felicitous

Psi

good, you'll need it. coz if you ever practice actualism (for want of a better term) you'll be treated like a hardened crim by badass mystics cops shootin up anything that materialises emoticon      

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 9:49 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

I specifically asked for an answer from those that are speaking here and now on this forum
Oh, sorry. That wasn't clear. You just wrote "Could you explain" no "Could you explain from your own experiences" or whatever. Regardless, if the topic here are definitions (and comparisons and contrasts) of Buddhism and Actualism, I'm curious about why, to settle that, do you need descriptions from beginner or intermediate practitioners rather than those coming from the very horse's mouth, ie: Richard and the Buddha.

Psi:
Have you had any memories of past lives, either yours or anothers?  

No, and if I had them, I'd think that it's a lot more probable that I was allucinating or having a vivid dream than actually considering those memories as real.

Psi:

Do you believe in an I or me entity within your body?  Do you still have emotional reactions?

I don't believe I'm an identity. I'm certain that I'm an identity until I'm free from the affective faculty and emotional reactions, which I still have/am.

Psi:

Also, is Joy and Unconditional Friendliness as a wholesome emotion something you feel you must rid yourself of?  And if so, why?  

You'll have to define those with more precision for me. If they are unilateral, open-ended, not driven and not self-aggrandizing emotions, sure, they can be wholesome and useful to appreciate this moment. If they are related to love, empathy, compassion, bliss I wouldn't call them wholesome and useful in regards to appreciating this moment.

Psi:

Are Actualists scared of Human Emotions or unable to accept they are human in a human condition?  Do you feel ashamed of being
Human? If you do, why?

I'd say that, on the contrary, it's a more mature and sensible response to recognize and accept that I'm possesed by human emotions and the human condition, and feel and see directly the bugger formed thereof for what it is, and actually do something about it (ending it completely), rather than denying it á-la-Buddha, arguing that they are impermanent and empty of self. 

I'm not afraid nor ashamed of being what "I" currently am, because it's not even my fault that "I" am this way (It's just the way we come to this world), and also I know that shame and fear are only barriers and excuses that "I" create and use in order to look away from seeing my emotions and instincts. It actually takes courage to face the problem and do something radical about it. Why do I do it? Because I've suffered enough and I prefer to not suffer at all, and I have enough evidence to know that there are better ways to experience life. It's as simple as that.

Psi:

Are you Actually Free, or is this a concept and a belief based on faith alone?

I'm not actually free, but I've had a bunch of PCEs and my perception is, progressively, changing towards experiencing life that way than ever before. I speak from the confidence of seeing this pattern.

Psi:
If you can not explain them from personal experience why do you try to pass judgements about something you do not know about?

What judgement? If we are going to make judgements about these two methods and their results, again, I'd ask the authorities, and that's what I did: the Buddha and Richard say things that are very different, as you can appreciate in the canonical texts quoted by Thannisaro and the texts showed in the AFT Website.

Psi:

@ Felipe: If someone describes the taste of a Mango and you
recognize the taste of  Mango, then you try to describe the taste of a
Mango, but all you get as a response is that an Apple is an Apple, and
an Orange is an Orange, and why do you try to shoehorn an Apple into the
form of an Orange.  When I am speaking of a Mango?

Just to put a couple of examples, the first ones in regards to diagnosis/methods, and the second ones in regards to results:

The Buddha: "Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

Is this a mango or an orange to you?

Richard: ‘I’ exist inside the body only because all human beings are genetically endowed at conception with a package of instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which gives rise to emotions (such as malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) and this emotional and passional package is ‘me’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’)."

Is this a mango or an orange to you?

The Buddha: "Monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye ceases and the perception of form fades. That dimension should be experienced where the ear ceases and the perception of sound fades... where the nose ceases and the perception of aroma fades... where the tongue ceases and the perception of flavor fades... where the body ceases and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the intellect ceases and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That dimension should be experienced." — SN 35.117

Is this a mango or an orange to you?

Richard: "Then the ‘self’ and the ‘Self’ no longer exist as an identity to wreak its mischief. One then lives in the actual world as this flesh and blood body. Then one is the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me."

Is this a mango or an orange to you?

So, it's pretty obvious, going by the fruit authorities, that if I buy a mango tree from one of them and take care of it for some years I will have mangos, and that if I buy a orange tree from the other and take care of it for some years I will have oranges. 

Psi:

Pawel is correct, rebirth is the rebirth of the Me consciousness mind moment to mind moment, once that delusion is dispelled completely there are no future rebirths.  That is what I know at this point in time, any other realms or future possiblities are of things I do not know.

So, what you're saying here is that you and Pawel have a better grasp of the buddhist term of rebirth than the Buddha himself and a dedicated practitioner/scholar/pali conoisseur who has been a monk for almost 40 years such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 10:21 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Pawel, I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just going by the words written in the Pali canon and from experts such Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. Did you actually read what he had to say?

Let me repeat some relevant quotes:

Thanissaro: 
3) He also made rebirth an integral part of his explanation of the
four noble truths and the understanding of causality — dependent
co-arising — on which those truths are based. Because dependent
co-arising contains many feedback loops — in which one factor reproduces
the factors that feed it — it's a self-sustaining process with the
potential to maintain itself indefinitely
. This is why birth has the
potential to keep repeating as rebirth until something is actively done
to cut the feedback loops that keep the process going
. At the same time,
because dependent co-arising operates on many scales — from the micro
level of events in the mind, to the macro level of lifetimes across time
in the cosmos — it shows how micro events can lead to rebirth on the
macro scale, and, conversely, how the practice of training the mind can
put an end to all forms of suffering — including rebirth — on every
level.What this means in practice is that no matter how much you observe
the events of dependent co-arising in the present moment, if you don't
appreciate their potential to sustain one another indefinitely, you
don't fully comprehend them.
And if you don't fully comprehend them, you
can't gain full release from them.

And:

Thanissaro:
In addition, the terms of appropriate attention — the four noble truths — are not concerned simply with events arising and passing away in the present moment. They also focus on the causal connections among those events, connections that occur both in the immediate present and over time. If you limit your focus solely to connections in the present while ignoring those over time, you can't fully comprehend the ways in which craving causes suffering: not only by latching on to the four kinds of nutriment, but also giving rise to the four kinds of nutriment as well.

This narrow focus places an obstacle in your ability to develop right view — and in particular, your ability to see dependent co-arising as a self-sustaining process. If, in line with the standard materialist view, you regard consciousness as a mere by-product of material processes, then there's no way you can appreciate the full power of consciousness and craving to generate the food that can sustain the processes of suffering indefinitely. And if you don't fully appreciate this power, there's no way that you can effectively bring it to an end.


So, if we remind the origin of this discussion (literally, Psi's question: "Could you please explain rebirth to me in Theravedan Buddhists concepts?" in the context of a larger thread in which we discuss the differences between Actualism and Buddhism), and given that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is the one who actually has been practicing one of the most reminiscent version of such Theravada school, and that has been a monk for almost 40 years, and a translator and scholar of pali, I don't see how my opinion on the "theravadan buddhist concept of rebirth" is of any significance for this discussion, in comparison.

Rather, I would put the words of the actual theravadan authorities. If we were to compare here, do you practice Theravada Buddhism or a western/psychological sectarian form? Would you address and dismiss Thanissaro Bhikkhu the same way you addressed/dismissed me, even though he has not only the canonical/academical credentials but also the meditative and way of life of a Theravadan monk for 40 years?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 10:25 PM as a reply to Felipe C..

Mango , but Richard doesn't explain it exactly  in the last section by saying I see it, I hear it etc, He is correct in the first of the paragraph, there is just seeing nad no I , etc.  no me, no feeler.  

But then the last statement he makes corrects the confusion to the reader.
 
it was just that ‘I’/‘me’ was standing in the way of the meaning of life being apparent.


From Richard:

Thus the search for meaning amidst the debris of the much-vaunted human hopes and dreams and schemes has come to its timely end. With the end of both ‘I’ and ‘me’, the distance or separation between both ‘I’ and ‘me’ and these sense organs – and thus the external world – disappears. To be living as the senses is to live a clear and clean awareness – apperception – a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as a thinker (a little person inside one’s head) or a ‘me’ as a feeler (a little person in one’s heart) – to have sensations happen to them, I am the sensations. The entire affective faculty vanishes ... blind nature’s software package of instinctual passions is deleted. There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not happening to an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To live life as these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and magic. Consequently, I am living in peace and tranquillity; a meaningful peace and tranquillity. Life is intrinsically purposeful, the reason for existence lies openly all around. Being in this very air I live in, I am constantly aware of it; I breathe it in and out; I see it, I hear it, I taste it, I smell it, I touch it, all of the time. It never goes away – nor has it ever been away – it was just that ‘I’/‘me’ was standing in the way of the meaning of life being apparent.

To me, this is just a first step, not the end, this is an insight, perhaps a realized and integrated insight, but there is more that can be done, if this is all one wants to do , fine , do this, it is beneficial.

So, yeah, a mind state,  same , just a partial form of Buddhism, Buddha just goes alot deeper and explains a fuller path, past conceit, past partial awareness of the mind and body phenomenon.

If you don't see it, fine, I tire of pointing out the obvious, keep practicing, I intend to. Does not matter what words one calls the practice, just practice.  Or do not practice, whatever, everybody has to do the work themselves.

Keep arguing if you want, but you are just pushing water.

Psi



RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 10:29 PM as a reply to Psi.
1. Could you please explain rebirth to me in Theravedan Buddhists concepts?

Consciousness ceases in this life..something passes on from this particular body and 'ignites' a new life(i.e being conscious) in some other realm - be it physical or non-physical. 

2. Could you explain the final goal of Buddhism, and do Buddhist practioners really have goals as you have stated?

I explained already the final goal of Buddhism, but I've not seen anyone so far talking so much about it - i.e to cut the cycle of birth
and death. You do not want to experience birth, ageing, illness and death and a host of other sufferings.

3. Does Actualism really have as a goal to completely want to be here on Earth?  And if so, isn't that an instinct? In other words an illusionary me that wants to be here, of which Richard, Direct Pointers, and Buddhists have tried to explain , There is no me existence after liberation, so back to rebirth , what exactly is reborn?

Yep, one of the goals of Actualism is to be completely be here on earth by wanting to be here on earth..one needs a resounding YES against this fundamental resentment - "I didn't ask to be born!"

Whats wrong in that being an instinct ? 

4. Have you attained Nibbana here and now, are you Actually free, and if not how do you know what you claim is true or not true?

Yeps, I have tasted both nibbana and a PCE..but even though I am neither an Arhat nor AF, I do know very well from these experiences where the final goal lies. One is totally out of the world in a timeless and spaceless dimension and the other is totally
here in time and space.

Look it is this simple : If you do not want to be here(i.e get disenchanted with everything),
eventually you will enter nibbana land - timeless, dimensionless, while if you are fascinated by this universe,
you will enter PCE land - totally in actual time and space. The problem with nibbana-land is that once 
you are there, you experience yourself as out of the world(which does live up to the stated goal of Buddism - i.e it ends the cycle 
of birth and death - because one is out of the world)...and since one is timeless
and spaceless, then what about the physical body moving in time and space ? This is why its a massive hallucination.

5.  If I said to you that Pure Awareness, Bare Attention and the Pure Consciousness Experience are the same thing, how do you know that what I say is or is not true?  

In other words, are you saying that some practices of Buddhism will lead one to a PCE ? Is that the goal of Buddhism or 
if not, what was the goal of Buddha then ? 

Now back to my question - How are you so confident about rebirth ?















RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 10:39 PM as a reply to Shashank Dixit.
Shashank Dixit:
1. Could you please explain rebirth to me in Theravedan Buddhists concepts?

Consciousness ceases in this life..something passes on from this particular body and 'ignites' a new life(i.e being conscious) in some other realm - be it physical or non-physical. 

2. Could you explain the final goal of Buddhism, and do Buddhist practioners really have goals as you have stated?

I explained already the final goal of Buddhism, but I've not seen anyone so far talking so much about it - i.e to cut the cycle of birth
and death. You do not want to experience birth, ageing, illness and death and a host of other sufferings.

3. Does Actualism really have as a goal to completely want to be here on Earth?  And if so, isn't that an instinct? In other words an illusionary me that wants to be here, of which Richard, Direct Pointers, and Buddhists have tried to explain , There is no me existence after liberation, so back to rebirth , what exactly is reborn?

Yep, one of the goals of Actualism is to be completely be here on earth by wanting to be here on earth..one needs a resounding YES against this fundamental resentment - "I didn't asked to be born!"

Whats wrong in that being an instinct ? 

4. Have you attained Nibbana here and now, are you Actually free, and if not how do you know what you claim is true or not true?

Yeps, I have tasted both nibbana and a PCE..but even though I am neither an Arhat nor AF, I do know very well from these experiences where the final goal lies. One is totally out of the world in a timeless and spaceless dimension and the other is totally
here in time and space.

Look it is this simple : If you do not want to be here(i.e get disenchanted with everything),
eventually you will enter nibbana land - timeless, dimensionless, while if you are fascinated by this universe,
you will enter PCE land - totally in actual time and space. The problem with nibbana-land is that once 
you are there, you experience yourself as out of the world(which does live up to the stated goal of Buddism - i.e it ends the cycle 
of birth and death - because one is out of the world)...and since one is timeless
and spaceless, then what about the physical body moving in time and space ? This is why its a massive hallucination.

5.  If I said to you that Pure Awareness, Bare Attention and the Pure Consciousness Experience are the same thing, how do you know that what I say is or is not true?  

In other words, are you saying that some practices of Buddhism will lead one to a PCE ? Is that the goal of Buddhism or 
if not, what was the goal of Buddha then ? 

Now back to my question - How are you so confident about rebirth ?















Thank you for your response.

The wanting to be here as an instinct question was questiong the goal of AF, pertaining to the claim of getting rid of all instincts, and survival is an instinct, sounds either contradictory or hypocritical.

And to answer your question about rebirth, I know nothing personally about any rebirthing process beyond the one that occurs from one moment to the next.

Which is kinda whay I asked how you knew if it was or was not real.  You sound confident that rebirth does not exist and I wanted to know how you knew this for a fact.

PCE, Pure Awareness, Bare Attention, Right Mindfulness, same descriptions to me, guess it depends on each individual's practice style.

But, thanks again for your time.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 11:46 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

So, yeah, a mind state,  same , just a partial form of Buddhism, Buddha just goes alot deeper and explains a fuller path, past conceit, past partial awareness of the mind and body phenomenon.

No, your rearrangements and relativizations don't hold water at all, when looking at the facts logically, that is:

"I am my feelings and my feelings are me" ≠ "I'm not my feelings (nor my thoughts, nor my form)"

"Freedom is realizing I am a body only in this material Earth, living as my senses" ≠ "Freedom is living in a dimension beyond my senses and therefore stopping the cycle of rebirth.

You just can't be ambivalent about those statements. Or please explain me how on Earth am I going to reach that I'm not my feelings via thinking that I'm my feelings, or how on Earth am I going to get to that dimension beyond the senses while I think that this material body is what I'm fundamentally am. Being a perfect path towards enlightenment, how the Dharma would justify having such detours or corrections along the way?

Also, show me textual evidence that those Actualist statements are part of the Buddhist canon and if they could be seen as a correct view or a valid/partially valid mind state within the Buddhist framework.

It makes more sense to just accept that there are things in human consciousness which are not Buddhist and are not compatible with Buddhism. Why is it so hard to accept that?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 11:38 PM as a reply to Shashank Dixit.
Shashank,

         There is more than one Buddhism. Even within the three major sects Theravada, Vajrayana, and Mahayana, there are subsets that highlight different aspects. Some do highlight the aspects that you have highlighted, but people will not take you or your opinion seriously if you generalize what others know to be more complex: Tantric (Vajrayana) Buddhism, the branch with which I suppose I'm officially aligned, though more by methodology than faith, is quite different from what you are presenting. If you would like to orient yourself with comparative differences you can consult this chart: Tantra  . Whether you do or do not is periphery, but if you wish to speak intelligently about Buddhism to include one stance as being inclusive of the whole tradition is dishonest, or, if you were unaware of other stances, ignorant.
       
Bill
        

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 11:45 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe,

       I am still curious why you included that link to the AF announcements page, and wrote that page showed that some were successful in attaining AF when you knew those people had self-reported, and Tarin's name had been on there too as having attained AF. You have yet to addresss this. Until you do, we are enemies.

Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/24/14 11:50 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe C.:
Psi:

So, yeah, a mind state,  same , just a partial form of Buddhism, Buddha just goes alot deeper and explains a fuller path, past conceit, past partial awareness of the mind and body phenomenon.

No, your rearrengements and relativizations don't hold water at all, when looking at the facts logically, that is:

"I am my feelings and my feelings are me" ≠ "I'm not my feelings (nor my thoughts, nor my form)"

"Freedom is realizing I am a body only in this material Earth, living as my senses" ≠ "Freedom is living in a dimension beyond my senses and therefore stopping the cycle of rebirth.

You just can't be ambivalent about those statements. Or please explain me how on Earth am I going to reach that I'm not my feelings via thinking that I'm my feelings, or how on Earth am I going to get to that dimension beyond the senses while I think that this material body is what I'm fundamentally am. Being a perfect path towards enlightenment, how the Dharma would justify having such detours or corrections along the way?

Also, show me textual evidence that those Actualist statements are part of the Buddhist canon and if they could be seen as a correct view or a valid/partially valid mind state within the Buddhist framework.

It makes more sense to just accept that there are things in human consciousness which are not Buddhist and are not compatible with Buddhism. Why is it so hard to accept that?

You are not understanding what Richard is teaching, he specifically states:

There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not happening to an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. And then his next statement:To live life as these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and magic. But, what you are missing is THERE IS NO I AM MY FEELINGS or I AM MY SENSATIONS in the equation. There is no I involved, Anatta. He has to use the I am verbage later to come back to the mundane worldy level to try to explain this to you, because of the poverty of the English language to explain concepts and experiences that are basically wordless.  This is so crazy, I just can not see how you can not see this...  Just take the extra little step, drop the I, and just be the sensation....Is that not PCE in Actualist terms?  But, there is no I and the sensation, or I am a sensation.  Can you feel it?  I know you are close....Psi  


RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/25/14 12:59 AM as a reply to Bill F..
Hello, Bill,

I see that you share Alin's talents for verbal acuity. Like Alin, for a person working towards ridding identity and feelings, you seem to have a lot invested in others understanding you, or your way of thinking. That this seems to contradict your stated goal either does not occur to you, or is ignored as incovenient.

Is this my horoscope? emoticon

     Ignoring for a moment issues of intelligence and gullibility, let's look at this logically: You put forth this link here  and said through this link we could confirm that there is a success rate, and you pointed out that this link also shows Tarin's recanting. The only reason that Tarin's recanting is made public on that site and at that link is because the very same site had previously publicly announced that Tarin was actually free. And yet for you this page is credible evidence of people who are also listed as being actually free as credible reporters. That the illogical nature of this escapes you says much about your relationship to Actual Freedom. Tarin himself, on 1/19/2012, on the dharma overground, when questioned about his recanting in light of the fact that the announcements page listed him as actually free wrote the following: "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)." I know you are aware of this because you are in the same thread, and yet this is ignored, because it does not agree with your agenda, your faith. 

Did you actually read the whole page? It's not just Tarin recanting here, but a huge block of evidence saying that Tarin didn't get it completely. Also, said evidence is about fundamental issues such as pure intent. In his interactions here, Tarin showed incongruences between his claim and his written realizations, while you won't find such incongruences in Peter's and Vineeto's ones.

Actually, your point plays against you. If Tarin renounced his claim, and there was enough textual evidence that his renunciation was legitimate and founded, and the AFT directors made the correction, it implies that if someone else is as adamant to renounce his claim, and there is proof, then there would be more corrections in the page by now if it were the case. So far, it's only Tarin's and it's very clear because what he said and because of said textual evidence.

Further, there is also behavioral and personally reviewed evidence by Richard on those other AF claimants who haven't renounced, which also has been put to proof by various actualists visiting Australia, at least in the case of Peter, Vineeto and Grace.

So, you are free to believe or not believe what the others and Richard say, but that doesn't mean that your 0% figure is accurate. 

You are a lowest common denominator debater.

Is this still part of my horoscope?

You pick out something that agrees with your views and ignore context. Your suggestion to Pawel that he should not re-interpret the suttas ignores that those texts are believed to be recorded centuries after the buddha's death, in a specific context very different from our own. To ignore context is to reduce everything to easily digestible parts that limit understanding. 

So, you could use the same argument of context and Buddha's death to refute anything I say about Buddhism, no? It's just a hollow argument. What you or your correspondents are practicing now is Buddhism according or most likely just partly according to those very texts of which value you are trying to relativize right now.

Further, if you read the words of the text I quoted, the actual pali/Buddhist scholar here, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, writes about context and culture, and writes about how rebirth in Buddhism transcends the cultural argument, arguing that it's actually pretty fundamental to take rebirth literally to understand Buddhism and have higher realizations, and he actually backs it up with scriptures. 

Maybe, just maybe, you are the one ignoring the whole context and choosing to believe that Buddhism is more like the psychological/western/selective version practiced here than that from the ancient texts and traditions.

That it does not occur to you that you have referred to me in the same post as favoring inclusivity, and also urging me to be more open minded, is indicative of the discernment you bring to your interactions here. You wrote that I suggest a pattern of thought in line with "we are all one" philosophies of religion, but what I actually wrote is the opposite: that there are differences and it is not useful to group everyone together. You read, but you do not read. 

Oh, sorry if I misunderstood you on that one. Maybe I got confused when you wrote to Alin "That all sounds very buddhist to me." Could you explain what you meant by that?

   I actually think AF is quite different from just about every strand of Buddhism. I find some of the methodologies to have some similarities, but I think it basically ends there, and philosophically I think they are quite different.

Agreed.

In full discolsure I do not believe that Actual Freedom exists. That it might exist is not outside the realm of possibility, but I find no credible reason to believe the claims put forth. How free are you? You seem to be in the same place as a couple years ago.  It is interesting to me that I watch those who favor AF become easily frustrated when someone doesn't agree with them...

Welp, your beliefs and assumptions are just that. Actually, I remember you now. You are the one who threw assumptions in debates and then acted goofily, as if there were no debate, and say things such as "you're trying to hard, bruh" and then abandoned the whole thing.  

yet my own practice, primarily framed within Buddhist meditations, has led to an incredible diminishment in emotional reactivity such that what would have formerly been agitation expressed as a mind state and a body sensation is absent in those same circumstances that seem to fluster you (and Alin) so.

The keyword here is "seem".

I like to get in here and mix it up with you, but mostly I just think AF, it's philosophy and followers are funny (see previous  message board discussion where I called you a "pernicious liar" and referenced Lenny Kravitz repeatedly), and not to be taken seriously. I feel like the community has been infected with evangelical, fundamental Christians, and it's funny to kind of watch all the dynamics of that play out. And the overwrought religious language is funny to. Hey Alin, "What if...". I'm just playing. Do your thing. 

Hehe, and calling this thing a religion just shows your ignorance about it. There are no hierarchies and one works to dismantle the very substance of any faith, devotion and gratitude, some of those feelings by the way highly rated by Buddhism. Kinda ironic. 

If debating and trying to separate that which is obviously different to once-spiritualists-now-actualists as us is evangelical to you, well, so be it, but at least please show me when I tried to "evangalize" or convert someone.

 Hope you are both well, and enjoy your holiday (sincerely).

Same to you!

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/25/14 7:59 AM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe,

         If "There are no hierarchies" within AF who determines who is or is not AF? How many of those people on the site have you actually hung out with, or are you trusting in the discernment of Richard, which you keep referring to as evidence?

Bill


Edit: After visiting AF Yahoo group I can see there are many, many others (meaning almost all) whose claim is on the page who later reported emotions ( for ex. Justine") and Richard describes the process as such: 
"As I have already said, any acknowledgement is entirely upto that person (I decline to be a probity policeman) and if it be an inaccurate assessment -- or a falseclaim -- publicly made then such a fooling of others only makes a fool out of oneself (one's sufferingstill goes on privately)"Richard

Justine is never mentioned on the announcements page to have recanted, which suggests Tarin took it upon himself to do so, something most would not do to spare the public embarassment. The passage above shows that you misrepresented the process of claims, and also that you were lying when you said it was only Tarin. You, Felipe, are a lying liar.

You, assuming you are the same Felipe, actually wrote, in 2013: "Note how I wrote "and" and not "by". What I'm saying here is that if we accept affective feelings in the equation of an AF person just as Drago suggests and maybe (MAYBE) also Justine, and the claim of Justine continues to be validated as actual freedom in the AFT website even when he says that he experiences feelings such as "overwhelming love" (if this is true and not a misunderstanding in communication), then we can have a watering down effect, indeed. And, then, that version is (could be) used by you and Ed to justify your own opinions of actualism and actual freedom. So, I'm not suggesting that you're attempting to present anything watered down. You are just commenting about it with your own agenda in mind." Felipe 2013

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/25/14 1:52 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Richard himself is a liar so what could you expect from other Actualists. Richard wrote in one section of AFT website that 'mindfulness' is a term that he never uses but he had used it on a number of occasions on the same website. When I pointed that out, someone from the AFT team who manages the website removed some of the references but I think few are still there. So when Richard was busy plagiarising Buddhist writings he was not being very attentive as to what he was doing and so were the editors of the AFT website.

Regarding Justine, once he did want Richard to remove his name and his daughter's reference from the AFT website but that was not done. Then after some time AF Justine came back on the Yahoo group and when people started asking him questions which he couldn't answer, he vanished once again.

There was a wealthy couple who is part of the people who are announced  as being AF which were supposed to fund the MS Actualis (a sea vessel which was being planned by Richard) but then they left the AF ship and the MS Actualis couldn't get beyond the drawing board stage.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/25/14 2:35 PM as a reply to Change A..
Thanks Change for that info.
I have been perusing the Yahoo forum as I wait for my family to arrive this evening for the holiday. The more I read the Yahoo forum the more this whole thing seems like a real dark comedy. I found the following in one message from someone named Aloha S who apparently knew Richard well, and wrote: 

““How can I be objective about a man whom I know so well; what I have to say is so contrary to the careful image that he has built that no one will pay heed. In any case, people are so used to listening to lies that truth passes by them without notice and falsity seems more authentic than the authentic itself. 

I do not see that Richard has made any vital contribution other than constructing a huge, well crafted public persona, a mask, in fact many masks to hide the perversity that has occurred in him due to psychological problems that predate his breakdown during the Vietnam war - a coping mechanism where he has erected a 'perfect' world around him to counter all of that. It is rife with self delusions - and when that mask, that picture gets affected - which happens to him every now and then - he withdraws into his own to regurgitate it. At that time he relies on his own website where, as a diligent reader, he has collected words and writings from all around the world, in his own words and style: to get back in the cave that he has build himself. Prior to his website he relied on his non-electronic writings.”
 
“He does have an Agenda. He is neither free from/of human condition nor of identity. He has major identity related issues as well as mood swings, anger, irritation, lack of confidence, (almost) a fear of meeting people. It takes him a while to prepare to meet people and interact with them, that is why he choose to live a life of seclusion which affords him 24x7 living in his AF delusional world, where he is happy to meet only those who are interested in AF. When he has the need to, he puts up a charming and pleasant personality as well, a richly cultivated mask. I am not reporting anything that I have not seen or known on my own. That is the only proof of authenticity that I can give.
I had no suspicion of Richard at all while it was unfolding in front of me. And even then, for a long time I kept on denying what was obvious and apparent because I could not believe that a person could be so deluded, so cold-blooded in his wheeling and dealings. This man, who proposes to be free of human condition turned out so deeply entrenched in it that it was unbelievable."

It seems Richard himself is quite far from freedom. 

The other thing that strikes me about the group is that people who are not aligned with the purposes of Actualism are not allowed to post, and get banned. The following written by Beoman is the groups manifesto:
"This group is moderated to create a place where those in alignment to what and/or open to what is actual can discuss without having to constantly deal with those opposed to what is actual. Members who demonstrate a consistent track record of unproductive discussion (e.g. being insulting with no cause, making assertions without backing them up, showing a disregard for and/or denying and/or refusing to acknowledge facts, etc.) will be asked to leave."
Though he writes "asked to leave" he also writes that he just banned two members who frequently disagreed with the group. This is how a cult reinforces itself. It limits itself to a small pocket of believers, and throws out anyone who disagrees. While I had thought AF movement might be bigger the group is mostly just the people who post here (Beoman, Felipe, Shashank) and a few others. I really believe at this point AF is mostly made up of those with emotional or mental issues they are running from. Continued research from people who know Richard and practice/d Actualism suggest this as well. 
 
 
 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/25/14 2:58 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Felipe: You wrote in January 2013:
"So, I've been doing a lot of investigation about my fear and my aggression towards people. Those parts of 'me' are indeed pretty cunning: for instance, the line between social anxiety and introversion seems pretty diffuse. But those investigations are never enough when 'I' am pretty present and the time of meeting people or go to work with people comes. At those times I feel a lot of tension and resentment with the pure idea of having to do that in the immediate future." Felipe/January 2013

Despite your declaration of progress it might be interesting to  evaluate how much these things are still at play for you, how much they influenced your decision to take up AF, and if your practice of AF is helping. I can't and won't answer this for you, and I am not being smug or making fun of you.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/26/14 12:37 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Hello, Bill,

About Justine, I said "enough proof" for a reason. As you quoted, I've never been sure about Justine's being AF. In fact, I've always been suspicious that he isn't, but then again, I'm not the expert here and I don't know Justine personally. Richard does know him, and although he refuses to validate claims all over the Internet, he has done similar tasks in the past, both virtually (trying to establish contact with Trent) and personally  (telling Drago he was repressing feelings rather than AF in his last trip to Australia). Also, to my knowledge, in his own trip to Australia, Tarin went into a deluded state similar to Drago's one, and he also was told by Richard about it. So, the fact is that I'm not sure if Justine's claim is true, but I don't have the whole picture either. If Richard had an agenda of spreading the word by validating attainments which therefore would validate actualism, he would leave such claims/beliefs as they were, and Tarin and Drago and many others would still be recognized as such. 

Be it as it may, returning to the main point, you're deciding to believe that there is 0% success rate based on these internet dramas, that have been going on for ages and that have been discussed ad nausseam. I also was skeptical and hypersensible about it, and caused me a great deal of doubt, but then, over the years, results spoke louder than all that. I have no reasons to believe that AF doesn't exist or that there is 0% success rate. What are your reasons? Because, you know, the Buddha had detractors all over the place in his time, but surely you'll answer me that you would try his method personally before to see if you become one of them. Here, you are becoming a detractor without the minimum benefit of the doubt, based on hearsay rather than sincere practice and impartiality towards both sides of the story.


About the actualist Yahoo! forum, that measure was taken for a reason. There were historical trolls and people repeating the same songs in there that were hindering the discussion. Unfortunely, Yahoo doesn't have the versatility to create special sections for different kinds of discussion. On the other hand, here at the DhO you have the battleground, where some (only some) of such discussions may be permitted. So, what happened was the main group was refocused to permit only sincere, practical, methodological, constructive discussion on actualism, and a second group was created with the same purposes that the battleground has here. Are you aware that there are similar rules and similar moderation in this forum? Did you notice how a pair of James Yen's posts suddenly dissappeared in this very thread? Would you allow trolling, chitchat and antagonism, say, in a practice thread?


As to my practice and progress, sure, you can unearth quotes from my distant and recent past. I have no problem whatsoever to accept that I'm still immersed in the human condition. In fact, I accepted that in this very thread. At the end, I have to accept my own emotional activity to fully see how I tick and then do something about it, rather than being busy denying it out of pride or fear. You ask why I took actualism and if it has brought help. Well, I've been 3.5 years into it, and I can sincerely say that I'm far from the hell in which I used to be, although there still a lot of work to do. If you are curious about the specifics, we can have a chat about it.

Cheers,
Felipe 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/26/14 1:04 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
Felipe,

       Thank you for your response. At this moment I do not see that much good would come from continuing this discussion, not that you are interacting in a way that seems disagreeable or irrational. I think before AF just struck me as a funny cult that had gotten credence it was not due because Daniel had taken it up. I don't see a need currently to poke holes in something that seems to have deflated to whatever extent rational thought would deflate it a long time ago. Having spent time now reading the Yahoo forum the whole system of AF and its adherent strike me as being as a sad group of indivudals in a sad enterprise. And yes, I do feel compassion for that situation, and I do care. 

Bill

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/26/14 1:37 PM as a reply to Felipe C..
As you say that Richard does know Justine and he has told the people who he doesn't consider AF to be so yet he didn't say anything like that to Justine that means he considers Justine as AF. You on the other hand are suspicious about him being AF.

The second convivium group was created where only people who are aligned with Actualism were to be allowed as members. But then there hardly used to be any conversations going on there and people would post only on the main Yahoo group. It was then that the main groups focus was changed. There was no need to refocus the main group when there was already a second group especially set up for allowing "only sincere, practical, methodological, constructive discussion on actualism". Also, there was no need to set up a third "ffa" group when the first and the main group was doing a good job for all kinds of discussions.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/26/14 1:35 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill,

Fair enough. You may think as you like. I see your condescension and unwillingness to impartially trying to understand this thing, but I don't find that as sad,  nor do I feel compassion for it.

I wish you the best in your own path.

Regards,
Felipe

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/26/14 1:53 PM as a reply to Change A..
Hi, Change,

About Justine, yes, going by his writings I don't find enough elements to categorically accept his claim, yet I don't know the guy personally nor do I have the whole picture of conversations nor am I an authority on the topic.

About the new group, this is the link: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/actualfreedom_ffa/info
Unfortunately, the virtualconvivium group 1) never gained traction among actualists, 2) it doesn't have the rich and historical archive of discussions and contributions as the original one, and 3) it lacks the occassional Richard's appearences. 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
12/26/14 3:47 PM as a reply to Bill F..
AF does seem to have a low success rate, one need only look at this from an objective standpoint:

Prior to the whole culture of AF swooping down into this forum, there were zero people who claimed Richard's state. After AF popped up on this forum and started spreading like a meme, it meshed with the DhO culture of openly claiming, working towards and bragging about attainments and we had a whole influx of people claiming AF.

Now this is not, I repeat, not, because there were secretly a shit-ton of people claiming AF who were just quiet about it due to a mushroom factor.

This solely, I repeat, solely, is due to the influence of the DhO cultural attitude and meme of claiming attainments.

It's also really funny how there were only claimants after Richard announced that his two sidekicks (Peter and Vineeto) were confirmed as being AF.

Tarin actually never rescinded his claim of being happy and harmless, rather he simply rescinded his claim of being "actually free", seeing as that Richard was the ultimate arbiter of what an "actual freedom from the human condition" was, and since Tarin was not sure what that actually was, according to Richard, he rescinded his claim.

After the fact, Richard developed magical 20/20 hindsight vision, and subsequently explained how Tarin was in fact "not AF".

AF is necessarily political, even though it presents itself as rational. The whole thing, though Richard claims to be free from "powers", is a power play, for Richard.

tl;dr

Claiming AF only became a thing, after claiming AF became a thing. After this happened, a variety of claimants rushed into fill the void. Making it obvious that claiming AF was a social phenomena, and not some phenomena based in actual reality.

Peace.

Thread Split
Answer
12/28/14 1:57 PM as a reply to Bill F..
I just split the discussion regarding J.J. off into its own thread.

The new thread can be found at http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/5641222.

Cheers,
Florian (in mod role)

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/1/15 9:46 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews
Like Richard, all I have found so far are people parrotting what he calls borrowed wisdom and claiming to be free of their thinking ego - never the emotional feeler as well.  
As far as parroting goes, ever wonder that maybe, just maybe, when one person explains phenomenon from their experience ,and it sounds the same as another who explains phenomenon from their own experience, that , maybe , just maybe, they could be repeating the truth?  

And, maybe , just maybe, someone else who had not had the same experience of phenomenon, and upon hearing such similar speech, may be inclined to think that it sounded like parroting.

But, indeed , there is the parroting phenomenon of which you describe, but the parroting phenomenon is not an applicable description or an accurate labeling of all circumstances, especially that in which involves people with similar experiences.

But, parroting would be a fine example of people repeating what one person claims to have attained from one website or one source of material, so in that vein, I would agree that parroting does exist.

As to the emotional feeler, just what and where is an emotional feeler?  What part of the flesh and blood body is the emotional feeler, flesh and blood includes the brain matter, of course.  Why is the Feeler differentiated from the Thinker?  Is there , or was there a Feeler and a Thinker?  Or , perhaps a Thinker/Feeler.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/2/15 6:10 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Alin Mathews
Like Richard, all I have found so far are people parrotting what he calls borrowed wisdom and claiming to be free of their thinking ego - never the emotional feeler as well.  


As to the emotional feeler, just what and where is an emotional feeler?  What part of the flesh and blood body is the emotional feeler, flesh and blood includes the brain matter, of course.  Why is the Feeler differentiated from the Thinker?  Is there , or was there a Feeler and a Thinker?  Or , perhaps a Thinker/Feeler.

Psi

I'll address this part for the moment. The emotional feeler is nowhere, as buddhism comprehends, it is a non-actual process, a comprehension. but instead of going deeper into that nothingness actualism rejects it and cognition is rerouted to sensate awareness instead until a permanent effortless bodily awareness arises.  

Yes it seems more like an inseparable Thinker/Feeler or feeling-thinker (emotional reactions being the earlier development) as inseparable as their neural chemical charges seem to be.

actualism's goal is to achieve a 'permanent' freedom from all reactive emotions and fabricated thoughts (unrelated to sense data). the practice may have as yet undefined stages - like buddhism - but with the ability to cycle back and forth intentionally denied access by the newer developing rational thought until sensate awareness is the 'only' option.  

when you consider it, not only doubts about ones actual existence would vanish upon attainment of AF but even the certainty that one is actually free, otherwise something non existent (non-actual) is remaining to comprehend it as such. what is not clear to me is what an actual (sensate only) thought is, as awareness, even sense data awareness, 'seems' to be a non-actual cognition. 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/2/15 4:12 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
Alin Mathews
Like Richard, all I have found so far are people parrotting what he calls borrowed wisdom and claiming to be free of their thinking ego - never the emotional feeler as well.  


As to the emotional feeler, just what and where is an emotional feeler?  What part of the flesh and blood body is the emotional feeler, flesh and blood includes the brain matter, of course.  Why is the Feeler differentiated from the Thinker?  Is there , or was there a Feeler and a Thinker?  Or , perhaps a Thinker/Feeler.

Psi

I'll address this part for the moment. The emotional feeler is nowhere, as buddhism comprehends, it is a non-actual process, a comprehension. but instead of going deeper into that nothingness actualism rejects it and cognition is rerouted to sensate awareness instead until a permanent effortless bodily awareness arises.  

Yes it seems more like an inseparable Thinker/Feeler or feeling-thinker (emotional reactions being the earlier development) as inseparable as their neural chemical charges seem to be.

actualism's goal is to achieve a 'permanent' freedom from all reactive emotions and fabricated thoughts (unrelated to sense data). the practice may have as yet undefined stages - like buddhism - but with the ability to cycle back and forth intentionally denied access by the newer developing rational thought until sensate awareness is the 'only' option.  

when you consider it, not only doubts about ones actual existence would vanish upon attainment of AF but even the certainty that one is actually free, otherwise something non existent (non-actual) is remaining to comprehend it as such. what is not clear to me is what an actual (sensate only) thought is, as awareness, even sense data awareness, 'seems' to be a non-actual cognition. 

Okay, so say one becomes Actually Free, and cuts off all awareness of the Glandular and Nervous Systems, then they would be Actually Free.

But, one wold still have Glandular and Nervous Systems intact, within their flesh and blood body, and they would still act out their responses with or without conscious awareness.

Case in point:

There are 100 million neurons in the brain, and there are 100 million neurons in the stomach area, connected by the Vagus Nerve, and 90% of the data transmitted comes FROM the stomach area.

See link:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/

Now, since this is a scientific fact, not AF speculation, one can see that while one may tink and feel disconnected, and may have actually trained themselves to believe they are Actually Free of the Glands and the Nervous System, this is not the case, for the Glands and Nervous System work without regards to conscious awareness anyway, these things are happening beyond consciousness.

So, while one may think and feel actually free, they are actually just unaware of entire sections of reality, or at best only partially aware, and ignoring alot of what goes on within the human body, except that in which is only perceived through the sensate experience.

This may be beneficial to the individual, and actually free them up, and they may think they are happy and harmless, but since they are disconnected permanently from emotions they would never really be aware of how they may or may not be tromping upon the emotions of the normal sub-AF Human, the Actual Free, just would not know.  

Perhaps that is why Malicious statements and callous remarks about Humanity and other traditions seem so prevalent on the AF website, not to mention a high level of conceit, and delusions of grandiosity.  

I mean , really, not all Humans are warlike and not all Humans are hateful and nasty, instinctual, I know some really nice people, of which, I am sure you are, yourself.

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/2/15 4:54 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Alin Mathews
Like Richard, all I have found so far are people parrotting what he calls borrowed wisdom and claiming to be free of their thinking ego - never the emotional feeler as well.  
As far as parroting goes, ever wonder that maybe, just maybe, when one person explains phenomenon from their experience ,and it sounds the same as another who explains phenomenon from their own experience, that , maybe , just maybe, they could be repeating the truth?  


Psi

Followers of Richard's propositions (actualism) make a distinction between conceptual truths (which never see the light of day) and sensate experiential facts. so they would try reading that sentence as " ....that maybe, just maybe, they could be repeating the facts?" there's no 'maybe' to sensate experiential facts. 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/4/15 8:02 AM as a reply to Psi.
[quote=Psi
]
Okay, so say one becomes Actually Free, and cuts off all awareness of the Glandular and Nervous Systems, then they would be Actually Free.

But, one wold still have Glandular and Nervous Systems intact, within their flesh and blood body, and they would still act out their responses with or without conscious awareness.




Claimants of AF don't say the functions of the glandular and nervous systems have completely shut down. they remain but only to serve actual bodily functions. they just can no longer activate emotive fabricated thoughts.  

Richard so far refuses to be examined for actual evidence of his claim that his adrenal glands no longer trigger emotional imaginings, so we can't know whether he's just dissociated and unaware that he's still reacting emotionally. his behaviour often seems that way. He just claims that the non-actual feeling being that jerked the nervous system around with them via neural configurations/conditionings, is now extinct and we have to do our own experimenting to find out whether AF is a fact or not. likewise his libido (although there are reports to the contrary) without the feeling being's desires and mental imagery also vanished, but the body's sex hormones for health, growth and reproduction remains.

Testing for such evidence is an expense he cannot afford. But even if it did prove beyond a doubt that his hormones no longer generated or responded to emotional and imaginary thoughts, he claims it would make no difference as most people do not want to come to their senses and be a flesh and blood body only. This venture can only proceed when the last instinctual passion; altruism (which he claims is stronger than the emotional survival instinct) activates to bring the Feeling Being (thus all sense being a Being) to an end. this altruistic sacrifice of the sense of Being ends all mental-emotional suffering for "this body that body and every body". iow one more human body is 100% incapable of war.       

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/3/15 7:16 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

Now, since this is a scientific fact, not AF speculation, one can see that while one may tink and feel disconnected, and may have actually trained themselves to believe they are Actually Free of the Glands and the Nervous System, this is not the case, for the Glands and Nervous System work without regards to conscious awareness anyway, these things are happening beyond consciousness.

So, while one may think and feel actually free, they are actually just unaware of entire sections of reality, or at best only partially aware, and ignoring alot of what goes on within the human body, except that in which is only perceived through the sensate experience.

This may be beneficial to the individual, and actually free them up, and they may think they are happy and harmless, but since they are disconnected permanently from emotions they would never really be aware of how they may or may not be tromping upon the emotions of the normal sub-AF Human, the Actual Free, just would not know.  


Finally a post that does the title of this thread justice! I now understand Actualism.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/3/15 7:20 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:

I'll address this part for the moment. The emotional feeler is nowhere, as buddhism comprehends, it is a non-actual process, a comprehension. but instead of going deeper into that nothingness actualism rejects it and cognition is rerouted to sensate awareness instead until a permanent effortless bodily awareness arises.  

Yes it seems more like an inseparable Thinker/Feeler or feeling-thinker (emotional reactions being the earlier development) as inseparable as their neural chemical charges seem to be.

actualism's goal is to achieve a 'permanent' freedom from all reactive emotions and fabricated thoughts (unrelated to sense data). the practice may have as yet undefined stages - like buddhism - but with the ability to cycle back and forth intentionally denied access by the newer developing rational thought until sensate awareness is the 'only' option.  

when you consider it, not only doubts about ones actual existence would vanish upon attainment of AF but even the certainty that one is actually free, otherwise something non existent (non-actual) is remaining to comprehend it as such. what is not clear to me is what an actual (sensate only) thought is, as awareness, even sense data awareness, 'seems' to be a non-actual cognition. 

I would like to know how Buddhism "goes deeper into that nothingness."

Are you saying AF people don't think? Or aren't conscious? I'm confused why getting rid of conscious perception of emotions would get rid of thought or awareness.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
1/4/15 4:04 PM as a reply to J C.
J C:
Alin Mathews:

I'll address this part for the moment. The emotional feeler is nowhere, as buddhism comprehends, it is a non-actual process, a comprehension. but instead of going deeper into that nothingness actualism rejects it and cognition is rerouted to sensate awareness instead until a permanent effortless bodily awareness arises.  

Yes it seems more like an inseparable Thinker/Feeler or feeling-thinker (emotional reactions being the earlier development) as inseparable as their neural chemical charges seem to be.

actualism's goal is to achieve a 'permanent' freedom from all reactive emotions and fabricated thoughts (unrelated to sense data). the practice may have as yet undefined stages - like buddhism - but with the ability to cycle back and forth intentionally denied access by the newer developing rational thought until sensate awareness is the 'only' option.  

when you consider it, not only doubts about ones actual existence would vanish upon attainment of AF but even the certainty that one is actually free, otherwise something non existent (non-actual) is remaining to comprehend it as such. what is not clear to me is what an actual (sensate only) thought is, as awareness, even sense data awareness, 'seems' to be a non-actual cognition. 

I would like to know how Buddhism "goes deeper into that nothingness."

Are you saying AF people don't think? Or aren't conscious? I'm confused why getting rid of conscious perception of emotions would get rid of thought or awareness.
nothingness was referring to emptiness.

From the size of Richard and Vineeto's website it looks as though AF claimants still think a lot, so no, thats not what i'm saying.

Regarding the non-actuality of thoughts and awareness. What I'm expressing is my difficulty in understanding why only thoughts sans the Feeling Soul and Egoic Thinker are considered actual by AF claimants. because thoughts whether generated by emotional ego or not still seem non-actual to me.    

AF claimants say it was only upon the demise of their non-actual Feeler that all instinctual passions and the emotions they surfaced as, vanished. This suggests that that which feels the ancient passions (inherited from our animal ancestry) forms the qualia of the emotions expressed. There is sensible reason to consider that the body may still have instinctual passions after such a claim, but if thats the case and there really is no longer any sense of being a subjective feeling entity (aka Soul) then for what purpose and in what form would emotional feelings still arise? iow what would be the purpose in unconscious emotional expression? are animals expressing instinctual passions only, or are they surfacing as affective feelings like ours? Was it because they could only react to raw survival passions which saves but also endangers their life that intelligence developed automatically once a life form was adept enough to do without them? i.o.w. could the emotional reactions of the primal brain eventually be superceded by a benign intelligence?   

The question to ask when examining actualism is; why would one want to eliminate the Feeler of love and compassion? are they really only antidotes to malice and sorrow? Richard claims the 'actual' conscious intelligent body is innocent of emotional suffering (and bliss) thus incapable of doing to itself what the non-actual feeler of love, malice and craving etc. forces upon it. my example would be; i doubt a suicide note has been written saying "for some senseless reason this body has chosen to kill itself, put a rope around it's neck, stand on a bucket and kick it away thus ending this emotionally blissful life".  

Doesn't happen because the intelligent aware body is automatically geared to survive, even mutate, to relieve it's cells and nervous system of stress. It is the emotionally stressed, mentally deranged psyche (the fabricated sense of being an important non actual Feeling Being) that murders the actual body prematurely and commits atrocities with it. The intelligent body freed of an emotional psychological controller would surely be innocent of such unnecessary harmful drives. 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/30/15 8:16 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
sometimes the difference between the dharma and actualism is so pronounced it's like the difference between driving through New York traffic and silently walking across the Simpson Desert with a bunch of friendly camels.

one stays up all hours then closes their eyes and sits when the sun rises and tries to free themselves of shite that never made any sense adopting. the other sleeps when the desert sunsets fade and rises at the crack of dawn.

one is a mind made practice, the other is simply an intelligent body that found the core, not so hard after all.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/30/15 9:49 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Edit: Deleted for potentially inflammatory nature. 



RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/30/15 9:16 PM as a reply to Bill F..
I have to say, this sounds good to me too.

But the perennial dilimma, which path will best lead to walking through the silent desert?  Because I have indeed achieved a measure of that through the dharma.

This might be covered in the 141 posts above that I haven't read all of, but what do actualists think of mahamudra/dzogchen practices?  Because I find those quite conducive to peaceful forest walking (I'm partial to forests).

-T

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/30/15 9:33 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
sometimes the difference between the dharma and actualism is so pronounced it's like the difference between driving through New York traffic and silently walking across the Simpson Desert with a bunch of friendly camels.

one stays up all hours then closes their eyes and sits when the sun rises and tries to free themselves of shite that never made any sense adopting. the other sleeps when the desert sunsets fade and rises at the crack of dawn.

one is a mind made practice, the other is simply an intelligent body that found the core, not so hard after all.

I agree , a Buddhist can be at peace in both situations, as can the Actualist, excellent point Alin.  

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
8/16/16 9:37 PM as a reply to Teague.
TeagueI have to say, this sounds good to me too.

But the perennial dilimma, which path will best lead to walking through the silent desert?

that would depend on whether you are referring to a psychological desert or an actual one which is only silent relative to city life. 
 Because I have indeed achieved a measure of that through the dharma.

This might be covered in the 141 posts above that I haven't read all of, but what do actualists think of mahamudra/dzogchen practices?  

they consider such practices merely attempts to placate the psyche not dethrone it and free the body. whereas an actualists intention is to delete the psyche entirely to bring an end to it's ancient insatiable drives and controlling practices. they are attempting to free the sensate body of any sense of Being, be it mental (ego) or emotional (soul) for the benefit of all life. it is not being done for subjective emotional comfort, bliss, sense of identity/self/presense/spiritual growth/teaching prowess/mystical knowledge etc.etc.etc.  it is similar to UG but goes further.    
Because I find those quite conducive to peaceful forest walking (I'm partial to forests).

-T
sure i understand.  

10 years after publishing his website it came to light that Richard [Last Name Redacted], who claimed to have been the first person to have glimpsed the potential for the human body to be free of all psychological conditioning (the psyche included) and become what he called Actually Free, might not himself be entirely free due to a prior emotional disorder (PTSD) which had initiated his search for an unmedicated cure. My assessment is that its very possible AF cannot cure neurological disorders but freedom from the psyche (the human condition) might no longer exacerbate it. 

Whether he is 100% free or not, it is certainly worth examining for the sake of peace on earth (the end of all this unnecessary suffering) whether its possible to 'permanently' calm, even delete entirely the subjective qualia that the instinctual passions surface as. rather than endlessly control emotional aggression and instability with antidotal metta practices, mind training, meditation techniques, ethics teachings and ancient dogmas. 

what actualist are examining is whether their intelligence (benign sensibility) has an automatic (untrained) beneficience when freed of the psyche and its harmful emotional reactivity. the goal is to be permanently out from psychological control. no rising from the ashes eg when 'my' monastry is attacked emoticon . just harmless (malice free) sensible caring of the body and its environment. 



   

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/31/15 1:49 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
sometimes the difference between the dharma and actualism is so pronounced it's like the difference between driving through New York traffic and silently walking across the Simpson Desert with a bunch of friendly camels.

one stays up all hours then closes their eyes and sits when the sun rises and tries to free themselves of shite that never made any sense adopting. the other sleeps when the desert sunsets fade and rises at the crack of dawn.

one is a mind made practice, the other is simply an intelligent body that found the core, not so hard after all.

I agree , a Buddhist can be at peace in both situations, as can the Actualist, excellent point Alin.  

Psi

your goodwill is appreciated Psi

most actualists come from buddhist practices then discover, to their dismay, that actualism offers no peace to 'who' i feel i am. actualism is out to anihilate that subjective sense of being, so the intelligent body can be the peace it always was - for the benefit of all bodies. it is not a self-serving venture, thus most unwelcome emoticon to the psyche that nurtures all sorts of grandiose delusions about itself emoticon  

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/31/15 8:48 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
sometimes the difference between the dharma and actualism is so pronounced it's like the difference between driving through New York traffic and silently walking across the Simpson Desert with a bunch of friendly camels.

one stays up all hours then closes their eyes and sits when the sun rises and tries to free themselves of shite that never made any sense adopting. the other sleeps when the desert sunsets fade and rises at the crack of dawn.

one is a mind made practice, the other is simply an intelligent body that found the core, not so hard after all.

I agree , a Buddhist can be at peace in both situations, as can the Actualist, excellent point Alin.  

Psi

your goodwill is appreciated Psi

most actualists come from buddhist practices then discover, to their dismay, that actualism offers no peace to 'who' i feel i am. actualism is out to anihilate that subjective sense of being, so the intelligent body can be the peace it always was - for the benefit of all bodies. it is not a self-serving venture, thus most unwelcome emoticon to the psyche that nurtures all sorts of grandiose delusions about itself emoticon  

The practice you are describing sounds very wholesome.  To cut through the delusion of the ego, self or idea of a soul.  The cutting off of the sense of the delusionary Me, or I, and in doing so cutting off the selfish, instinctive problems the I concept entails along with it.  And, it seems there is no losing of an I or ego self, since it was never really there in the first place.  But, to be sure there is a body and a mind, also, the brain is a body part, the brain is flesh and blood, there is sense contact with the universe, and at the same time the universe contacts the senses.  Actually, there really is no separation. 

But, out of compassion, if you are in New York, one could simply ride in an air conditioned taxi, and read a book, listen to music, or simply enjoy the sights of crazy human traffic...  

And , one does not have to go to the desert to be with the universe, one is already ...

jokin' with ya

emoticon

Psi

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/31/15 11:47 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Can someone sum up what has gone on here? I scrolled through and the places I stopped and read consisted of rhetoric and seemingly unintended semantic games. Why does it seem that most people are just talking at one another?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
4/1/15 12:03 AM as a reply to wwyww.
wwyww:
Can someone sum up what has gone on here? I scrolled through and the places I stopped and read consisted of rhetoric and seemingly unintended semantic games. Why does it seem that most people are just talking at one another?

youre right no one is intentionally playing semantic games here. what youre observing is the human condition in action. we are only writing reams of words seemingly at each other all over the globe, because humans are so psychologically isolated they can barely comprehend each other. we are literally blind to what's being written, whats actually happening and therefore "what has gone on here?".

to break this barrier psyches with similar conditionings seek each other out and together inadvertently reinforce their blindnesses. those working on deleting the psyche in total are the least comprehended of all. that thread "the isolation of blowing it" did nothing to encourage Tarin to continue sharing his insights here. it was published so close to his declaration that his experience of Actual Freedom was not a mirror image of Richard's and he was therefore retracting his claim, that one could not help but conclude it was referring to him. and later even more comments all of which revealed more about the writer (to me anyway) than Tarin. 

this thread Understanding Actualism arose because at this point in time many westerners seeking to become harmless are following the teachings of Buddhism and each time Actualism comes up they attempt to translate it's english into buddhist terminologies then argue they mean the same thing. they don't and a quick scroll through this thread won't help either. i would suggest (if youre really interested that is) that you slow down and take some time to read the AF website and/or join the Yahoo actualfreedom mailing list where you can find out 1st hand what actualism is.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/31/15 9:42 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
What is subjective experience like for an actually free person?

I ask because you seem to describe an experience of actual freedom as being sensate, situated in the body, with maybe more sensual acuity, or whatever. And you also say that the psychological experience of spirituality has more to do with 'Being' and calm.

But when subjectively experienced, how are they different, I am genuinely curious. For example, I cannot imagine having no inner experience, because that would make it seem like my inner experience is sterile and empty, and that I am ignoring it. I feel like the experience of sensate reality, has more to do with being receptive to the motility of the body and its functions, and not neglecting and ignoring one's "inner world" as if there were some sort of distinction, and just looking out.

That would seem to reinforce the duality.

But I am curious to hear of your own experiences of actual freedom and/or other people's experiences you've met or heard about.

Cheers.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
3/31/15 10:45 PM as a reply to Echo 10.
Echo 10:
What is subjective experience like for an actually free person?

I ask because you seem to describe an experience of actual freedom as being sensate, situated in the body, with maybe more sensual acuity, or whatever. And you also say that the psychological experience of spirituality has more to do with 'Being' and calm.

But when subjectively experienced, how are they different, I am genuinely curious. For example, I cannot imagine having no inner experience, because that would make it seem like my inner experience is sterile and empty, and that I am ignoring it. I feel like the experience of sensate reality, has more to do with being receptive to the motility of the body and its functions, and not neglecting and ignoring one's "inner world" as if there were some sort of distinction, and just looking out.

That would seem to reinforce the duality.

But I am curious to hear of your own experiences of actual freedom and/or other people's experiences you've met or heard about.

Cheers.

as i've repeated often on this thread Echo "this is not my practice thread".  but should i decide to create one i'll be sure to let you know.

meanwhile to satisfy your curiosity you might like to try that link in my last post to where many people are already sharing their experiences of actualism.

other than that, the rest of your questions have already been answered in this thread ... much to everyone relief emoticon emoticon and many other threads on actualism in this forum and the horses mouth, the AF site.   

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
4/1/15 6:46 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Paweł K:
Why not describe your mind state and perception improvements here on DhO so that people with ancient passions still intact can post bitter comments?

ps. no one reads practice logs

haha emoticon .  truth be known they don't need to read practice logs. i only mention them to those who still think they are necessary to see that everything we say, how we say it, the way we write, what we respond to, logs our mind state and is an instrinsic aspect of our highly literate 21st century practice emoticon



 

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
4/3/15 1:43 AM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
What is the connection between pursuit of actualism and using all lower case letters (http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1633464) Is it like, "I, powerful I", etc., and moving away from that while still needing to retain some descriptor or something else entirely?

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
4/3/15 5:25 AM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F.:
What is the connection between pursuit of actualism and using all lower case letters (http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1633464) Is it like, "I, powerful I", etc., and moving away from that while still needing to retain some descriptor or something else entirely?

It was something Tarin did all along, and for him it was just a habit... had no semantic significance. Others picked up the habit... dunno why, maybe as a kind of symbolic "coming out" as actualists. Actualists do like to distinguish between the 'I' with scare quotes, which denotes the psychic/emotional/psychological 'being', as distinct from the I without scare quotes, which refers to this body as distinct from that body. But the case thing was irrelevant to that.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism
Answer
4/3/15 6:32 AM as a reply to John Wilde.
John Wilde:
Bill F.:
What is the connection between pursuit of actualism and using all lower case letters (http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1633464) Is it like, "I, powerful I", etc., and moving away from that while still needing to retain some descriptor or something else entirely?

It was something Tarin did all along, and for him it was just a habit... had no semantic significance. Others picked up the habit... dunno why, maybe as a kind of symbolic "coming out" as actualists. Actualists do like to distinguish between the 'I' with scare quotes, which denotes the psychic/emotional/psychological 'being', as distinct from the I without scare quotes, which refers to this body as distinct from that body. But the case thing was irrelevant to that.

mine's just laziness its the grammar i'm pedantic about, because i've seen what i'm clarifying (actualism) misinterpreted more often than not so i edit often. btw never could figure out why people footnote their # of edits here emoticon