Message Boards Message Boards

Insight and Wisdom

The Story vs. Reality

Toggle
The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 2:07 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality This Good Self 9/20/15 6:03 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 8:39 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Chris Marti 9/20/15 11:17 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/20/15 11:36 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Eva Nie 9/20/15 12:10 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 3:48 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/20/15 3:36 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Chris Marti 9/20/15 5:31 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 11:52 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Eva Nie 9/21/15 1:22 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/21/15 4:03 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/21/15 3:02 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/22/15 2:14 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/22/15 1:49 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/22/15 2:03 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/25/15 12:04 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/25/15 12:57 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/25/15 1:31 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Eva Nie 9/21/15 11:56 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Chris Marti 9/21/15 9:42 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/22/15 2:29 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Chris Marti 9/23/15 8:22 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Chris Marti 9/23/15 8:43 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/23/15 6:58 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Chris Marti 9/24/15 6:05 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/24/15 8:45 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/25/15 12:32 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 9/20/15 2:37 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/21/15 12:00 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 9/21/15 9:25 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 9/21/15 10:08 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/20/15 3:08 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/20/15 3:37 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/20/15 3:51 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/20/15 5:01 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/20/15 5:33 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/21/15 12:48 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/21/15 4:31 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 12:24 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 2:29 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Bill FI 9/21/15 5:01 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 5:08 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Bill FI 9/21/15 6:22 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/22/15 12:11 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/21/15 5:07 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Bill FI 9/21/15 5:52 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/21/15 6:00 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Bill FI 9/21/15 6:31 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/21/15 7:10 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 5:58 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Bill FI 9/21/15 5:57 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 12:22 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 9/21/15 3:21 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Eva Nie 9/22/15 12:18 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Banned For waht? 9/22/15 6:38 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/22/15 12:05 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Banned For waht? 9/23/15 9:59 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/23/15 9:56 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Banned For waht? 9/23/15 10:33 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 4:11 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 1:04 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/20/15 3:35 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/21/15 12:05 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/21/15 12:28 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality CJMacie 9/30/15 6:17 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/20/15 3:39 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 3:54 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/20/15 4:51 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 4:55 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/20/15 4:53 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Not Tao 9/20/15 4:57 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Daniel - san 9/20/15 5:05 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Lasse 9/20/15 4:42 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality John Power 9/21/15 4:21 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Noah 9/21/15 4:24 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 9/21/15 3:41 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Eva Nie 9/22/15 12:16 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality J J 9/23/15 12:29 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Vince 9/30/15 9:25 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 9/30/15 12:13 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Vince 9/30/15 7:38 PM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Psi 10/1/15 12:25 AM
RE: The Story vs. Reality Eva Nie 10/1/15 9:00 PM
The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 2:07 AM
So, this is pretty simple and obvious, but the full implication of it has only hit me recently and I'm going to try to say something about it.

Basically, the story isn't real.  The story is my name, my gender, how old I am, where I work, what nationality I am, how attractive I am, who my friends are, who my family is, everything I own, the opinions anyone has of me, how much money I have, how I feel, what I think is important, what sort of legacy my life will leave, how I fit into the culture and the world, on and on and on.  All I am is a single moment of experience happening.  It doesn't matter if I die because nothing is really lost.  I have no potential because there is nowhere better to go.  It doesn't matter if everything were to simply disappear right at this moment and never return because all I am is this moment of experience happening.

There is no story of the planet or the people who live on it.  Rocks don't have stories, they sit in some place, then they blow or tumble to some other place.  They liquify, they explode, they congeal.  It just happens, there's no purpose, no reason, no meaning to it.  I am no better or worse than the rocks.  I write a story in my head and I identify with the main character, but I have nothing to do with him.  This story is no different from any other book.  It is completely meaningless what's happened in my past, and it doesn't matter what will happen in my future because neither of those memories or predictions are me.  I am just this moment happening.

This is so dumb because I've read all this before and I didn't absorb it at all.  I mean, it's so obvious considering the nature of the universe.  Most of the stuff happening is completely unconscious.  Somewhere in the rings of saturn ice particles are colliding and making rainbows right now.  This isn't beautiful or tragic or awe inspiring or stupid - it's just happening.  Everything is just happening and none of it matters.  Every emotion I feel is a distortion of the truth - the universe is neither bad nor good, it just exists.  Meaning and purpose and progress are all part of the story - they don't exist.  There is nothing better I could ever be doing, and nothing worse.  I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose.

Maybe what's happened is I kept holding my life and my feelings against this lense over the last few months and everything finally broke.  There's nothing serious about life, nothing sacred.  There is nothing to protect.  The story isn't a "thing" - it's just an imaginary world and I don't believe in it anymore.  You could kill me right now.  I won't mind a bit as long as there isn't a bunch of pain, haha.  How is it different from going to sleep?

Anyway, everyone here already know about this, right?  It probably won't make any difference if we talk about it. emoticon

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 6:03 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Knowing this intellectually is one thing!

Suffering is the problem.  Suffering is the one and only thing that needs solving.  The problem remains (although I do take your point on the other thread and I'm working on it).

If you were a Syrian refugee with kids who need feeding, and all you have is the clothes on your back and you're staring at a barbed wire fence, and you're surrounded by filthy, unruly crowds, intellectual understanding is hard to put to use.  "Hunger is unimportant" - yes, it can work to a small degree.  "Homelessness is unimportant in the scheme of things" - yes will work for a while if you really work at it.  Problem solving won't work - the problem has no solution.  You're trapped.  It's an unfortunate truth, but the Syrian refugee problem is quite mild compared to some things people have to endure in life.

For some unknown reason, evolution has created a bunch of really shitful human minds which are very prone to suffering.  It would be nice to be able to blame evolution or god or ...whatever, but there's nothing there!  All there is is a bunch of really shitty minds.  Even the good minds turn shitty when you deprive them of food and shelter.  Even if a mind is fair and honest, it will suffer just as much.  The most wonderfully equanimous buddhist turns into a monster if you take away all those things he uses to feel complete (his wife, house, money, job etc etc).

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 8:39 AM as a reply to This Good Self.
I'm not a syrian refugee.  I'm also not a wolf, or a pig in a slaughter house.  I'm not a rock or a cloud.  There are a lot of horrible or pleasant situations I could be in - any number of feeling states.  Right now I'm sitting on a couch typing a message.  That's just it.

Being a syrian refugee with a family to feed is a story.  Being a hungry guy looking at a fence is the reality.  The syrian refugee could benefit from this viewpoint as much as I have.  Probably more so considering his life is so unstable.  It's not that hunger is unimportant - when you're hungry it means your body needs food and you're going to feel pain until you feed it.  The idea of "hunger" as a thing, an object lurking on the horizon that will soon jump out at you, is a story - as is "world hunger" or "starving children."  There will always be starving children.  Maybe we learn to feed all the humans, but baby deer will still starve.  Baby rabbits will be ripped apart by wolves.  The idea that humans are somehow more important than animals is part of the story.  The idea that children are more important than adults is part of the story.  The idea that the syrian's family is something he needs to take care of is part of the story.  When faced with the uncaring meaningless reality of nature, the story will be challenged endlessly.  It's best to stop "feeling" the story and simply thinking about it as a useful way to organize your life.  If the story breaks down it isn't a tragedy.  No tears need to be shed, it's just make-beleve and pretend.  Death isn't tragic.  Suffering sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it.  Live the story, by all means, it works to make life more easy - but don't take it seriously because it isn't real.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 11:17 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
From my perspective everything is a story, including the story that there is a difference between stories and no stories. "No story" has just as as much meaning as "story."

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 11:36 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
From my perspective everything is a story, including the story that there is a difference between stories and no stories. "No story" has just as as much meaning as "story."

Exactly what I was thinking Chris. It's like when people talk about their mind - my mind does this, my mind does that. That's their mind's view - it's just more mind! (more distortion)
It's funny, I've had this insight about stories as well, I think when I did acid when I was 14 - later I realized (just like mind) there is nothing outside of that. Every single thing is a story - including the story that it's just a story. Without the story there is no world, there is nothing - not even nothing but not not nothing or - how does that one go?
First, there was the Word...

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 12:10 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
[quote=
Chris Marti]From my perspective everything is a story, including the story that there is a difference between stories and no stories. "No story" has just as as much meaning as "story."

And think about every story humans make.  When you go to the movies, how much violence, suffering, anxiety, etc are in those movies?  We never make movies that are all happy with no conflict.  In the same way, our day to day stories also are played out.  IMO, that's why you see so much sufferring, because that is the kind of stories our current consciousnesses make.  If you want a different world, you must first dream a different dream.  For your life to change, you must first change the story you tell yourself.  
-Eva 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 2:37 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
So, this is pretty simple and obvious, but the full implication of it has only hit me recently and I'm going to try to say something about it.

Basically, the story isn't real.  
Anyway, everyone here already know about this, right?  It probably won't make any difference if we talk about it. emoticon
When there is no story in the mind, there is no suffering.  None, Nada, Mu. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5gGxyfkeS4

Psi

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:08 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
This is a relevant topic for me, currently.

I agree that those things aren't real. Well, with a minor nitpick: there are things that are factually true - this body is of a certain biological age and has this particular set of genitals and people call it "Claudiu" (the body, not the set of genitals), and I go to this physical office space every weekday, etc. These things are real. But the identities on top of everything, which I think is what you were drawing attention to, are indeed not real. (In actualist terms they are real but not actual).

I also agree that those things aren't ultimately meaningful - there's no meaning of life or ultimately satisfying purpose to be found in those things.

But I don't agree that the existence is meaningless/purposeless. There is ultimate meaning, and that's to be found in this moment of being alive. That is indeed the only place to find meaning.

I'm seeing how it makes no sense for 'me' to take anything other than that as meaningful. Or to seek meaning in anything other than this moment. Or to paste 'my' meaning on top of anything else. The meaning of life is outside of 'me' - it's the experience of actuality - and that seems to be the only sensible thing to do, to aim for experiencing that, each moment again.

I'm still working on tying this back with enjoying and appreciating each moment of being alive. How to reconcile something that apparently has to do with continuity, and thus a past and a future, which aren't actual, with there being no meaning in anything other than what is actual (i.e. this moment)?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:48 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
From my perspective everything is a story, including the story that there is a difference between stories and no stories. "No story" has just as as much meaning as "story."


This is just pseudophilosophical nonsense. There's no need to try to make this complex, it's a very simple concept.

EDIT: Sorry if this was mean.  I just don't think it adds anything to the concept.  Obviously is you're identified with having "no story" then you still have a story you're living.  It's like saying, "I'm enlightened."  I thought this was implicit in the original post.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:37 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
this is all great and true in at least one sense BCD..., but
what some people call the relative truth of the world, or 'real' but not 'actual' or vice versa or whatever - well, it has some inherently flawed and arrogant presuppositions - the main one being, I see clearly now, or I see more clearly or 'actually' than you, or than I used to, or than I will in the future. Really?
Life has no meaning at all. Life has no meaning outside of this moment. Life is full of inexpressible inexhaustible meaning everywhere always as its very nature. Are any of these statements more true than the other? People find meaning in life, and we are part of life, so doesn’t that mean that meaning is real in a sense (at least in the sense that anything else you conceive is real)
Arguing over whether everything is real or false is like arguing over perfection. Some see everything as perfect, some see imperfection everywhere – and some only see imperfection as a human invention. Where is perfection or meaning to be found? Do you know the answer to that? Yes?! That must be very assuring – it sounds like a new religion – or maybe just modify an old one and draw up some maps.  Do either of you guys actually live the way of your professed philosophy, and can you imagine structuring a fulfilling human life around such a nihilistic philosophy as your guiding principle?
Do you think your philosophy is more true than the other? This reminds me of Kenneth Folk, who tried to express his deep insight here that no sensation or phenomenal occurrence is to be preferenced over any other – then he proceeded to preference one view over another. If everything is perfect, everything is imperfect also. If there is only now-ness and no meaning whatsoever to this momentary flickering mysterious lightshow called life, then there is no view or philosophy to preference over any other – that life has meaning or none or a combo etc. Does anyone really plan on cracking this nut here haha?
It’s like a thicket of Views and we are either concerned with the one that is true (if one view is even true, doubtful IMO) or the one that makes us feel all nice and cozy. So which one is it?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:35 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
I'm still working on tying this back with enjoying and appreciating each moment of being alive. How to reconcile something that apparently has to do with continuity, and thus a past and a future, which aren't actual, with there being no meaning in anything other than what is actual (i.e. this moment)?


May I borrow from spiritual semantics, for a moment, to suggest that the integration of these two things be thought of as 'movement towards stillness'?

Or perhaps that the imitation of life in the actual world, and life in the actual world itself, are both very worthwhile ways of experiencing?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:36 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
This is just pseudophilosophical nonsense. 


C'mannn, let's play nice dude.

-emphasis mine

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:39 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Gordo . .:
Its been a long time since I've done the sort of thinking you do. Everyone has stories, and they seem to be realistic. After all they are not just random ideas you've pulled out of thin air. They have been a process of deduction. You've developed them by weeding out all the non-truths, built them brick by brick on solid foundations. You believe them. You don't believe other stories that have not been developed, have none of your bricks or foundations, that would be absurd. You do have some flexibility in that other stories that fall within a certain threshold of your paradigms can be absorbed into your stories. You're being tricked, and the only way that i know that will reveal this is-
Drop all your current stories and beliefs and choose a new set of stories and beliefs that fall outside of your paridigms. Choose someone elses set of stories and beliefs and each day look for some truth in them. Give them some small benefit of the doubt, so to speak. Try and understand how they could be true. Practice this every day. Observe what happens.
Your not being brainwashed or tricked, that is what is is happening now. You will to see the magical quality of stories and why there are so many off them, and how there was no logic or governing system to stories. It just appears that way. 

Wow!  Really well said.  Your exercise makes me uncomfortable.  I feel like it pokes holes in my soul, lol.  

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:54 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Gordo . .:
Its been a long time since I've done the sort of thinking you do. Everyone has stories, and they seem to be realistic. After all they are not just random ideas you've pulled out of thin air. They have been a process of deduction. You've developed them by weeding out all the non-truths, built them brick by brick on solid foundations. You believe them. You don't believe other stories that have not been developed, have none of your bricks or foundations, that would be absurd. You do have some flexibility in that other stories that fall within a certain threshold of your paradigms can be absorbed into your stories. You're being tricked, and the only way that i know that will reveal this is-
Drop all your current stories and beliefs and choose a new set of stories and beliefs that fall outside of your paridigms. Choose someone elses set of stories and beliefs and each day look for some truth in them. Give them some small benefit of the doubt, so to speak. Try and understand how they could be true. Practice this every day. Observe what happens.
Your not being brainwashed or tricked, that is what is is happening now. You will to see the magical quality of stories and why there are so many off them, and how there was no logic or governing system to stories. It just appears that way. 


I think the stories are just cultural beliefs. Our own narrative is a nexus of many others we've absorbed. All of my emotions are unoriginal. It's the fact that there isn't a solid foundation that makes it all so funny. The solid foundation is just strong feelings. At the heart of right and wrong is a strong physical/mental reaction of attraction or disgust. If you ask yourself why they're there, it's often hard to find anything at all. Eventually I started to find my parent's belief systems - even when my own feelings completely conflucted with theirs. It's interesting to see how the thing evolves like that.

Your idea of adopting conflicting stories really can have some interesting results. I like to propose to people that they listen to a song from a genre they don't like 100 times with an open mind, haha. This kind of thing was my own entry point when I was young. I realized a lot of people had different ways they saw the world and they actually believed them - they weren't just pretending to be different from me and they weren't misguided somehow, they were actually logically consistent within their own beliefs that conflicted with mine. It makes most emotional reactions seem kind of silly.

Now, though, I'm just to the point where all of the stories just seem like too much effort. There's no need to adopt a conflicting viewpoint when you just don't have one. I think I'm just getting used to the idea of being lost, and I'm not trying to find my way home anymore. There is no home, really - no story I can say is original to me.  (Even "no story" as chris pointed out.)

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 3:51 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:
this is all great and true in at least one sense BCD..., but
what some people call the relative truth of the world, or 'real' but not 'actual' or vice versa or whatever - well, it has some inherently flawed and arrogant presuppositions - the main one being, I see clearly now, or I see more clearly or 'actually' than you, or than I used to, or than I will in the future. Really?
Life has no meaning at all. Life has no meaning outside of this moment. Life is full of inexpressible inexhaustible meaning everywhere always as its very nature. Are any of these statements more true than the other? People find meaning in life, and we are part of life, so doesn’t that mean that meaning is real in a sense (at least in the sense that anything else you conceive is real)
Arguing over whether everything is real or false is like arguing over perfection. Some see everything as perfect, some see imperfection everywhere – and some only see imperfection as a human invention. Where is perfection or meaning to be found? Do you know the answer to that? Yes?! That must be very assuring – it sounds like a new religion – or maybe just modify an old one and draw up some maps.  Do either of you guys actually live the way of your professed philosophy, and can you imagine structuring a fulfilling human life around such a nihilistic philosophy as your guiding principle?
Do you think your philosophy is more true than the other? This reminds me of Kenneth Folk, who tried to express his deep insight here that no sensation or phenomenal occurrence is to be preferenced over any other – then he proceeded to preference one view over another. If everything is perfect, everything is imperfect also. If there is only now-ness and no meaning whatsoever to this momentary flickering mysterious lightshow called life, then there is no view or philosophy to preference over any other – that life has meaning or none or a combo etc. Does anyone really plan on cracking this nut here haha?
It’s like a thicket of Views and we are either concerned with the one that is true (if one view is even true, doubtful IMO) or the one that makes us feel all nice and cozy. So which one is it?

Hey Daniel, I see what your saying.  Your words certainly pack a power and punch that demonstrate a source bolstered by some serious, direct experience.  The bottom line does seem to be what works in practice, which is a whole other axis of discussion from the one you have engaged.  What I choose to emphasize with my attention is what will most subjectively improve my subjective experience over time.  I do not choose to emphasize, with my attention, the lack of meaning involved in the wholly empty process of perception, which is the only way anything can ever be known (this being the real usage of the word 'phenomenology', methinks).  The reason I'm using such a weird phraseology in the above sentences is that I'm trying to honor the incredibly profound level you have just brought this discussion to.

In terms of my actual lifestyle (I do not know if I the phrase "either of you guys" referred to Claudiu and NT or Claudiu and I), I would say, yes, I do think I am in the eternal process of structuring a fulfilling human life around the seemingly nihilistic ideas of actualism.  On the broader, more macro-level, I have moved to a new city, looking for adventure, discovery and excitement (and with the ever-present notion of grabbing my youth by the horns, as suggested to me by many an elder), and on a more micro-level, I would say that the way I direct my attention, moment by moment, is evermore guided by the mission of enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive.

Cheers,
Noah

p.s.- Just sharing thoughts here, with the understanding that you might not have been addressing me directly- lol.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 4:11 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
"Meaning" is just a feeling.  When something feels "right" or "good" it's meaningful. This actually has nothing to support it.  Once you remove the concept, there is no distinction.  You could say "everything is meaningful" or "nothing has meaning" - it just means everything is the same.  I prefer to say there is no meaning - the universe isn't right or wrong, it just exists.

EDIT: I don't find Nihilism fulfilling, actually, I find it emptying.  There isn't much I care about anymore, which is a very pleasant way to live.  Fulfillment isn't something worthwhile to me because it can be taken away.  You can't take away nothing, though, and that's what nihilism is - a whole lot of nothing.  You can put stuff in the nothing, which is what I call "the story," but I've realized that no matter what I put in there, none of it makes the nothng any less nothing.  Everywhere I turn, I see worthlessness, pointlessness, unfulfillment, and I've come to realize that's not a bad thing.  It's just a peaceful thing.  I don't have to do anything at all.  I can just sit here if I want to.

It's unfulfilment and the lack of meaning, specifically, that set me free.  It's like falling into an endless pit.  Evetually you realize you're not going to splat on the bottom so you make yourself comfortable.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 4:51 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Now, though, I'm just to the point where all of the stories just seem like too much effort. There's no need to adopt a conflicting viewpoint when you just don't have one. I think I'm just getting used to the idea of being lost, and I'm not trying to find my way home anymore. There is no home, really - no story I can say is original to me.  (Even "no story" as chris pointed out.)

You absolutely do have one NT and the idea that you do not is just that, another idea story - you just don't see it
You think you're outside the story Now? Outside the Matrix Neo?
EDIT: btw the newer insights that you are expressing sound like a type of anatta realization - no self. You are having trouble finding you - or something that is original to you, or whatever. The fact that you find this insight reassuring and not terrifying points to your development of panna, or penetrating wisdom, maybe also of samadhi. You aren't the first to follow this path here, it keeps going...
EDIT2: I didn't want that last part to sound patronizing, just mysterious : ) IMO many of your insights supercede mine, as does your written self-expression, I just think you're down a sidetrack with this existentialism bit

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 4:42 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
I think a better way to put it is that all ideas are wrong - including ideas such as no-story or no-meaning. 

The way I think about meaning is that nothing is for something else, but that everything is for itself - learning is for learning, working is for working, exercise is for exercise, seeing for seeing, life for living. So in this sense there is meaning. It's also a really nice way to live - to take a shower just to delight in the warm water flowing through your body, to learn just to delight in understanding, to paint just for having fun painting, etc.

I get way more productive actually when I make my purpose the activity itself. Things like exercise are way easier to do too when you're enjoying it - if you make the purpose of exercise losing weight, you'll just end up disliking it so you can't sustain it. 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 4:55 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:
Not Tao:

Now, though, I'm just to the point where all of the stories just seem like too much effort. There's no need to adopt a conflicting viewpoint when you just don't have one. I think I'm just getting used to the idea of being lost, and I'm not trying to find my way home anymore. There is no home, really - no story I can say is original to me.  (Even "no story" as chris pointed out.)

You absolutely do have one NT and the idea that you do not is just that, another idea - you just don't see it
You think you're outside the story Now? Outside the Matrix Neo?


You don't seem to understand what I'm saying Daniel. It's not that I am outside of the nexus of cultural tides, it's that they don't really matter to me. I just don't care (and I don't care that I don't care! Haha...)

EDIT: I forgot how much of a pissing contest this forum can be.  Calm down, Daniel, I'm sure your penis is very robust and would compare favorably to mine.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 4:53 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
ok NT, but you said you didn't need to make conflicting stories because you don't have one 
I thought 'one' referred to a story
So your new story is, life is meaningless - and that makes you feel good. The End.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 4:57 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Are you actually interested in any of this, or are you just here to cause trouble?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 5:01 PM as a reply to Noah.
Noah S:
Hey Daniel, I see what your saying.  Your words certainly pack a power and punch that demonstrate a source bolstered by some serious, direct experience.  

thanks for massaging my ego that I'm trying to kill Noah ; )

The bottom line does seem to be what works in practice, which is a whole other axis of discussion from the one you have engaged.  

Yes - I asked what is true. What is the dharma? Not what makes you feel good

In terms of my actual lifestyle (I do not know if I the phrase "either of you guys" referred to Claudiu and NT or Claudiu and I), I would say, yes, I do think I am in the eternal process of structuring a fulfilling human life around the seemingly nihilistic ideas of actualism.  

I was talking to BCD, but now I'm talking to you : ) I call bullshit. I say that when put to the test your viewpoint becomes just a nice thesis paper. There are instinctual drives that go down to the bones that can't (usually?) be purged by adopting a new philosophy. I'm sure your practice goes deeper than that, but intention is an all-powerful force in this life and in this spiritual game. So it's a good question - what is your intention? No bad emotions, happy and harmless regardless? That doesn't always seem like the appropriate response in all of life's varied situations IMO, but to each his own. Kinda reminds me of Switzerland in WW2 - and that pisses me off! : )

On the broader, more macro-level, I have moved to a new city, looking for adventure, discovery and excitement (and with the ever-present notion of grabbing my youth by the horns, as suggested to me by many an elder), and on a more micro-level, I would say that the way I direct my attention, moment by moment, is evermore guided by the mission of enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive.

Better : )

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 5:05 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Are you actually interested in any of this, or are you just here to cause trouble?

Seriously?
EDIT: Am I actually causing you trouble or do you think I'm trying? That is not my story or intention 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 5:31 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao --

This is just pseudophilosophical nonsense. There's no need to try to make this complex, it's a very simple concept.

You are missing the simplest thing of all: everything is a story. Meaning is always assigned, no matter what.

BTW -- I'm okay with you being angry, mean, whatever. No problem here.



RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 5:33 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel:

Yes - I asked what is true. What is the dharma? Not what makes you feel good


Its always interesting to observe the fluxing definition of 'dharma.'  For me, it has always meant 'the way things work', which includes an objective picture of reality and also a way to use that clear picture to get from a point A to a point B.  So I would include the means to feel good in a depiction of the truth.

I was talking to BCD, but now I'm talking to you : ) I call bullshit. I say that when put to the test your viewpoint becomes just a nice thesis paper. There are instinctual drives that go down to the bones that can't (usually?) be purged by adopting a new philosophy. I'm sure your practice goes deeper than that, but intention is an all-powerful force in this life and in this spiritual game. So it's a good question - what is your intention? No bad emotions, happy and harmless regardless? That doesn't always seem like the appropriate response in all of life's varied situations IMO, but to each his own. Kinda reminds me of Switzerland in WW2 - and that pisses me off! : )


But I think you are calling bullshit on a common misrepresentation of actualism.  I am trying to develop a term for my own usage: 'sterility.'  Sterility would be the idea that actual freedom (or enlightenment, for that matter) is about becoming a passive vegetable.  The mind can theoretically still do sooo many things without affective energy.  Harmlessness just means you aren't pummeling yourself and others with psychic vibes all the time.  Behaviorally helping oneself and others seems like it would only be enhanced with a freed-up intellect.  

Also, the thing you said was "better" (the description of my putting actualism into practice on multiple levels), is one-and-the-same with the thing you are calling bullshit on.  Meaning, choosing to live in a way the enhances enjoyment and appreciation without taking cues from some of the baser, fight-or-flight instincts, is synonymous with doing whatever it takes to get to that point internally (which can include improving my actions in the world, and not sitting out on WWII!!).  

Actualism is about a continuous lifestyle, not a method to get to an end point.  The method mimicks the end point.

In general, I think there has been a lot of misrepresentation of actualism on the DhO throught the years...

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/20/15 11:52 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Not Tao --

This is just pseudophilosophical nonsense. There's no need to try to make this complex, it's a very simple concept.

You are missing the simplest thing of all: everything is a story. Meaning is always assigned, no matter what.

BTW -- I'm okay with you being angry, mean, whatever. No problem here.




Alright, I'll explain where I'm coming from. I'm not missing anything - I understand the point you're trying to make - but the whole concept you're presenting is just a meta-version of what I already said. You're being very trite and explaining something back to me while claiming I'm missing the point.  I could just respond with, "actually, Chris, you're missing something even simpler! The fact that everything is a story is itself a story!" But this is just vapid and adds nothing to the concept. Mostly it just seemed like you wanted to point out something I didn't understand even though you had nothing else to say. Why don't you just discus the concept without entering teacher mode?  Then Daniel goes on to imply I'm "finally figuring everything out" again (even though this is exactly the same thing I've been posting about for months).  IDK, it's like you guys just want to one-up everyone all the time.

I kind of predicted this would happen and I wasn't going to post it at all, TBH. I couldn't find a new way to state the thing that I hadn't read already. This is so overly discussed in "spiritual" writings that it's probably impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it at this point. Mainly I just wanted to tell Noah about it but I thought I'd avoid mucking up his practice thread with my own ideas. He's seen the thread so I'll say mission accomplished and bail. You guys have fun.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 12:00 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Not Tao:
So, this is pretty simple and obvious, but the full implication of it has only hit me recently and I'm going to try to say something about it.

Basically, the story isn't real.  
Anyway, everyone here already know about this, right?  It probably won't make any difference if we talk about it. emoticon
When there is no story in the mind, there is no suffering.  None, Nada, Mu. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5gGxyfkeS4

Psi


Haha, I literally JUST got your pac reference. Well played.

EDIT: BTW, I like how you edited my post.  Makes me sound zen. emoticon

gate gate

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 12:05 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
@Beoman: Do you still meditate (or, I think Richard uses the term "contemplation") - like just sitting and doing nothing for a while, watching yourself breathe?  I know some places on the AFT Richard refers to a few people trying this out.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 12:48 AM as a reply to Noah.
Gordo . .:
I was waiting for this. The one general theme that always comes up with people doing A/F is that it has been misunderstood, misrepresented, interpreted wrongly. I find this a very poor show. No criticism of you personally, but this is getting long in the tooth. If i was to measure this using actual reference points, it appears that no human being to this day has ever understood it.


Yeah I see what your saying.  If its a pattern, its a pattern.  I honestly don't know.  I'm certainly not qualified to be a spokesperson for actualism, all thoughts are my own subjective opinion.  Its just working for me, ya know?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 1:22 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:

I kind of predicted this would happen and I wasn't going to post it at all, TBH. I couldn't find a new way to state the thing that I hadn't read already. This is so overly discussed in "spiritual" writings that it's probably impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it at this point.
Or maybe that's just your story.  ;-P  (I predict statements like I just made could quickly get very irritating but I just couldn't resist anyway.  ;-P)
-Eva

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 4:21 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
I am currently following the course: ´the science of everyday thinking´, so aside direct experience I also investigate the current science views.

Everyone has his/her own world view, everyone interprets the world in his own way. There are a few billion worlds on the earth. There are so many biases and heuristics that we as human beings have. To name a few:
- Confirmation bias: We see what we expect to see.
- Fundamental cognitive error: The idea that we don´t recognize that we interpret something and that it can be interpret in a million different ways.
- Naïve realism: The idea that we think that the world is as we perceive.
- Above average effect: We see ourself as above average on every area.
- Intuitive Statistics: The estimates that humans make about certain chances (these are prone to faults, it is better to use calculations)
- Achoring: Somebody puts information in your head, a word or a nummer, then after a while it sounds logical.
- Availability heuristic: When you hear/see (experience) more of something, the more you think that it is common.
- Representativeness heuristic: Think/take a action/make a choice with representativity as a base instead of averages and chances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

So in my opinion the art is knowing that we have our own world view and that the world exist out of concepts. Some are usefull for living in the world and others are not that usefull. For example: knowing that the world values money and that there is the view the more money the better and the more you are worth. When you know this and also know that this is just a view, then you can make the choices bases on your own reflections. Then you can choose not to blindly follow this view or you can consciously decide to follow that view. As a rule to not follow the concepts(story) is not freedom. As a rule to always follow the concepts is also not freedom. Freedom is in my opinion knowing your mind, your world view, the concepts, and then decide what you think is best (apart from the desire or aversion). To know what is going on there comes mindfulness in to play, then you can stop running after desire and running away from aversion. Then when noticed desire or aversion then you can choose what you think (based on your world view) what is wholesome.

Another thing I am slowly more broadly incorporating is that the journey is more important then the destination. Live life to live. Incorporate your life with verbs instead of with nouns.

Well just my reflections. Hopefully this added to the discussion.

EDIT: Gave a link of an animated review of Danny Kahneman(nobelprice winner) his book ´Thinking, fast and slow´.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 4:03 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
I didn't reply to your thread to one-up or attack you personally NT, I was being cheeky, or trying to be, not mean. I actually find this subject pretty interesting – that was my motivation. I don't think the story is versus reality, as you put it, I think reality is composed only of stories. I was also trying to make light of the fact that you had figured everything out once again, because you've done that before, just a pattern I perceive, that's all. It's nothing to get upset about, unless you want to - it's actually sort of funny no?
I'll try another way – isn't it ironic that you are getting upset and somewhat offended in the same thread that you are claiming to be ending all personal storytelling?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 4:24 AM as a reply to John Power.
John:

Another thing I am slowly moqre broadly incorporating is that the journey is more important then the destination. Live life to live. Incorporate your life with verbs instead of with nouns.

Well just my reflections. Hopefully this added to the discussion.


Heard.  I agree with the process-oriented approach.  For me, these days, its all about mimicking my final destination.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 4:31 AM as a reply to Noah.
Gordo:

From what I've seen i might try a different way and use my instincts. 


I think I know what you mean here.  Using instincts is basically what I do.  It is the allowing of a sense of 'what feels right' to slowly turn your path towards the right direction.

Do you know anything about Richard such as age, location, any general background. Do you know where A/F operates. Or someone who does.


Richard is middle-aged and lives in Australia.  Beyond that, I don't know, and don't care too, in the interest of preserving his privacy.  There are pictures of him, as well as a detailed bio, on the AFT website.  Peter and Vineeto are the other operators of the AFT and also live in Australa.  I have never met Richard, but there are a handful of people who participate on the Yahoo AF group who have.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 9:25 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Psi:
Not Tao:
So, this is pretty simple and obvious, but the full implication of it has only hit me recently and I'm going to try to say something about it.

Basically, the story isn't real.  
Anyway, everyone here already know about this, right?  It probably won't make any difference if we talk about it. emoticon
When there is no story in the mind, there is no suffering.  None, Nada, Mu. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5gGxyfkeS4

Psi


Haha, I literally JUST got your pac reference. Well played.

EDIT: BTW, I like how you edited my post.  Makes me sound zen. emoticon

gate gate
Not Tao, 

Haha, Excellent!  Yes, it is much deeper than what appears on the surface.  

When fiends meet, they recognize one another instantly.

And to all,

Once upon a time, 

Of course, to talk about the Reality requires the storytelling, there is no other way, Language is the story telling, so anything anyone writes here is just a story, I am sure we all agree, there is no way around this.  

But, the use of language can be used as a pointing to.... PCE, Nibbana, Bare Attention, Pure Mindfulness, Sunyata, Emptiness, yes?

And then when the story making, the I-making, the experience of self story making ends, and then there is always at least a small space in there before it all starts up again.  That is the space that is being pointed to, that is the pearl.  And to recognize that pearl, and to continue to recognize that pearl, to allow the expansion of the pearl in time, to allow the pearls to be, then there are many pearls.  Then one strings these pearls together, and then one day a chain of pearls forms, these pure moments start coming together.  But, that is just the story.  This does make sense, right?  Is not this how it works?  

“To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.”
― Dōgen

to forget the self

There is another spot beyond the storytelling, but until that is seen, all one can ever know is the storytelling.  Nothing else makes sense to the story telling mind, it can only be imagined.  But this space is always there, always has been.  Like at the end of the sound, before the next sound begins, What is there?  What is between the sounds?  What is between the stories?

But, these are just thoughts, just stories

Psi

The End 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjxf-eQWKoo

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 9:42 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Alright, I'll explain where I'm coming from. I'm not missing anything - I understand the point you're trying to make - but the whole concept you're presenting is just a meta-version of what I already said. You're being very trite and explaining something back to me while claiming I'm missing the point.  I could just respond with, "actually, Chris, you're missing something even simpler! The fact that everything is a story is itself a story!" But this is just vapid and adds nothing to the concept. Mostly it just seemed like you wanted to point out something I didn't understand even though you had nothing else to say. Why don't you just discus the concept without entering teacher mode?  Then Daniel goes on to imply I'm "finally figuring everything out" again (even though this is exactly the same thing I've been posting about for months).  IDK, it's like you guys just want to one-up everyone all the time.

Thank you for explaining. Not Tao. I can only go by what you post here, and honestly believed from your original coment that you were missing the point I made. If you're not, good for you. I wasn't intending to one-up you or be an asshole, but apparently I came across that way to you. 

The point, as I see it and as you seem to see it, is that there is no such thing as a reference model that stays the same (permanent) that we have to compare anything to. Even our models are stories. I apparently misread your original comment to be proposing a reference model that was somehow permanent or unchanging. You called it "no story." So I commented.

Feel free to punch me if we ever meet  emoticon



RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 10:08 AM as a reply to Psi.
[quote=
]
When fiends meet, they recognize one another instantly.Yes, there are indeed many, many fiends here on the DhO road....emoticon  If y'all catch my meaning in a Zen way.

Wanted to post this storytelling story, hopefully relevant... Another story, gaahh!!

See?  But then along with the colors, the sound goes down the scale in harmonic intervals, down, down, down, down, until it gets to a deep thundering base which is so vibrant that it turns into something solid, and you begin to get the similar spectrum of textures. Now all this time, you've been watching a kind of thing radiating out. 'But,' it says, 'you know, this isn't all I can do,' and the rays start dancing like this, and the sound starts waving, too, as it comes out, and the textures start varying themselves, and they say, well, you've been looking at this this as I've been describing it so far in a flat dimension. Let's add a third dimension; it's going to come right at you now. And meanwhile, it says, we're not going to just do like this, we're going to do little curlicues. And it says, 'well, that's just the beginning!' Making squares and turns, and then suddenly you see in all the little details that become so intense, that all kinds of little subfigures are contained in what you originally thought were the main figures, and the sound starts going all different, amazing complexities if sound all over the place, and this thing's going, going, going, and you think you're going to go out of your mind, when suddenly it turns into... Why, us, sitting around here.

https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/watts_alan_article4.shtml


Psi

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 1:04 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:
this is all great and true in at least one sense BCD..., but
what some people call the relative truth of the world, or 'real' but not 'actual' or vice versa or whatever - well, it has some inherently flawed and arrogant presuppositions - the main one being, I see clearly now, or I see more clearly or 'actually' than you, or than I used to, or than I will in the future. Really?
Life has no meaning at all. Life has no meaning outside of this moment. Life is full of inexpressible inexhaustible meaning everywhere always as its very nature. Are any of these statements more true than the other? People find meaning in life, and we are part of life, so doesn’t that mean that meaning is real in a sense (at least in the sense that anything else you conceive is real)

That's why it's useful, in actualist terms, to draw the distinction between 'real' and 'actual'. God, for example, is very real to the people that believe in the God. Identities are very real to the people who believe they are those identities. Santa Claus is real to a child. But none of these things are actual - meaning that which is experienced when 'being' has temporarily or permanently abdicated the throne (as in a PCE).

So yes, to the people that find meaning in life in their own way, that meaning is real to them, in that sense of 'real' I used above. But it isn't the actual meaning of life.

Daniel - san:
Arguing over whether everything is real or false is like arguing over perfection. Some see everything as perfect, some see imperfection everywhere – and some only see imperfection as a human invention.

Mm well if there is, factually speaking, such a thing as perfection, then they can't all be right. When it comes to facts, it is impossible to have a contradiction. Thus it cannot be simultaneously true, for example, that everything is perfect and yet that there is imperfection everywhere.

Daniel - san:
Where is perfection or meaning to be found? Do you know the answer to that? Yes?! That must be very assuring – it sounds like a new religion – or maybe just modify an old one and draw up some maps.

I do indeed - it is to be found nowhere other than this moment of being alive. It is indeed assuring* to know that there is a meaning to life and it is accessible by anyone from anywhere at any time whensoever. It is further assuring to know that this meaning has nothing to do with 'me' or with Richard or with anybody else, that it isn't invented by anybody, that it requires no belief, that it just exists just like the universe does. As to religion, it is additionally assuring to know that this meaning has nothing to do with any divinity or Gods whatsoever, which means it has never had anything to do with religion, it has nothing to do with religion, and it never will have anything to do with religion.

Daniel - san:
Do either of you guys actually live the way of your professed philosophy, and can you imagine structuring a fulfilling human life around such a nihilistic philosophy as your guiding principle?

As to philosophy, it likewise applies that it has nothing to do with philosophy - there is nothing thought-out or constructed about this meaning of life - it is experiential.

As to structuring a fulfilling human life around the actual meaning of life, I find that so far it is the only thing I have come across that could ever be ultimately fulfilling in every aspect. As to nihilism, it is also assuring to know that the actual meaning of life is intrinsically related to existence itself, and that there is indeed meaning in existence - which is pretty much the opposite of nihilism.

Daniel - san:
Do you think your philosophy is more true than the other? This reminds me of Kenneth Folk, who tried to express his deep insight here that no sensation or phenomenal occurrence is to be preferenced over any other – then he proceeded to preference one view over another. If everything is perfect, everything is imperfect also. If there is only now-ness and no meaning whatsoever to this momentary flickering mysterious lightshow called life, then there is no view or philosophy to preference over any other – that life has meaning or none or a combo etc. Does anyone really plan on cracking this nut here haha?

I never said that there is "no meaning whatsoever to this momentary flickering mysterious lightshow called life", so this paragraph doesn't apply.

Daniel - san:
It’s like a thicket of Views and we are either concerned with the one that is true (if one view is even true, doubtful IMO) or the one that makes us feel all nice and cozy. So which one is it?

Given my personality, I will take the true one every single time. In this case it appears that the actual one is also quite wonderful, so luckily there's no need to choose.

===
* I'm not sure assuring is the best word but I'll leave it in for rhetorical effect.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 12:22 PM as a reply to Noah.
Gordo . .:
I was waiting for this. The one general theme that always comes up with people doing A/F is that it has been misunderstood, misrepresented, interpreted wrongly. I find this a very poor show. No criticism of you personally, but this is getting long in the tooth. If i was to measure this using actual reference points, it appears that no human being to this day has ever understood it.

And yet, on the ActualFreedom Yahoo! group, there are at least ten active members that get it, not to mention the other actually free people besides Richard who have obviously got it as well. All of these people also understand that actualism is 180 degrees opposite from Buddhism and spirituality. Interesting...

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 12:24 PM as a reply to Noah.
Gordo . .:
I would have more confidence in your ability to get your head around it, you did well with Daniels stuff. Maybe you or someone could help me get my head around it. From what I've seen i might try a different way and use my instincts. So what i will do is profile Richard, investigate the demographics of the source or A/F, separate the components that make up the A/F philosophy, remove any pre existing components as i don't need an explanation of what they mean. What evers left should be Richards component and that should be the only explanation i should need.
Do you know anything about Richard such as age, location, any general background. Do you know where A/F operates. Or someone who does.
You might appreciate the following articles written by Richard: A Brief Personal History, Richard's Resume, and Richard's Personal Web Page. They should provide answers to your questions about things such as age and general background. 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 12:28 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
@Beoman: Do you still meditate (or, I think Richard uses the term "contemplation") - like just sitting and doing nothing for a while, watching yourself breathe?  I know some places on the AFT Richard refers to a few people trying this out.
I do contemplate, but it is neither meditation nor sitting and doing nothing for a while watching myself breathe. Contemplation is more like, I will sit and wonder existentially: does anything exist? Does what I'm experiencing right now exist? What does it mean that there is an actual world? Can I experience it now? Can I get "closer" to it now? And I don't look for thought-out answers but experiential ones and I investigate whatever comes up.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 3:21 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
 All of these people also understand that actualism is 180 degrees opposite from Buddhism and spirituality. Interesting...


Hi Beoman, there may be those that understand both Buddhism and Actualism, seeing through it all, 360 degrees compatibility.  Very Interesting, indeed...

Not claiming a full 360 degrees myself or anything....  Just saying...

emoticon              

Psi

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 2:29 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Gordo . .:
Thanks. 
Could you comment on this statement i have heard( its recommended to get 4th path first then do A/F). Richard doesn't seem very impressed with Enlightenment, why would he recommend such a path. Does he?

No, he doesn't recommend that. Richard would recommend dropping anything to do with spirituality (which would include Buddhism, MCTB, Meditation, 4th Path, 1st Path, Jhanas, etc.) from the start.

That advice likely ultimately came from either Tarin or Trent (not sure, I haven't tracked it down) and at some point became part of the accepted communal understanding of actualism in the pragmatic dharma circle (I've alternately heard either that 4th path makes it easier, or stream entry makes it easier, or you should get stream entry first then go for actualism, and here I found Tarin recommending to get jhanas if you haven't had success with actualism yet).

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 3:02 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:
I didn't reply to your thread to one-up or attack you personally NT, I was being cheeky, or trying to be, not mean. I actually find this subject pretty interesting – that was my motivation. I don't think the story is versus reality, as you put it, I think reality is composed only of stories. I was also trying to make light of the fact that you had figured everything out once again, because you've done that before, just a pattern I perceive, that's all. It's nothing to get upset about, unless you want to - it's actually sort of funny no?
I'll try another way – isn't it ironic that you are getting upset and somewhat offended in the same thread that you are claiming to be ending all personal storytelling?


Lol, honestly Daniel, saying something 100 times doesn't make it true. You're just taking what Bill F. said and blindly repeating it in every thread I've made since - in spite of the fact that he made the whole thing up. I'm pissy because it's fucking annoying! If you don't wan't me to think you're just trying to be an asshat, then stop doing that.

It's also fucking annoying that you say something specifically meant to be upsetting, then say I'm not allowed to get upset. Why can't I be annoyed and upset? It's obvious you don't take any time to think about what I'm writing or make any effort to actually understand it.

Ok, now I'm bailing - unless you come back and say more stupid shit that I feel a desire to correct. emoticon

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 5:01 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Good evening ladies and gentleman,

           Bill F. here. It's been so long I forgot my password and had to create a new account. But I could not resist Beoman's invitation to participate in this thread, offered through text while I was at a starbucks in southern delaware this afternoon. I have mainly questions and few answers.

Beginning with the following assertion:

But none of these things are actual-meaning that which is experienced when being has temporarily or permanently abdicated the throne.-
Beoman

My question would be "what falls outside of this"? Is it merely direct sensory perception, and if so why does language remain intact for those who claim actual freedom? If it is the cognitive labels we give to processes of perception surely these are not inherently existing and have developed over time, and vary within and between cultures, though perhaps the argument is that these fall outside of "beingness", but this explanation would fall flat. Language is relational based on positions within a system, and dependent upon being. Again perhaps there is something I am missing here.

What is surprising, and contradictory is that the above statement seems to suggest that at the pit of actualism is that which can be independently verified through direct experience. I then become troubled by the following assertions a short time later:

Richard is the one who succeeded via insanity. I can name four of the people who succeeded via the direct route: Peter, Vineeto, Pamela and Grace-
Beoman

Really? Says who? Dare you? All of a sudden a system that was based on experiential sensory experience is validated through hearsay, based on remarkable claims of subjective experience. How have you objectively validated another individuals seamless subjective experience such that you feel confident asserting the above as matters of fact and not articles of faith? Others who have apparently spent more time than you with Richard regard him as pathological and not at all what he claims, describing him as incredibly emotionally vulnerable*.  I'm tempted to merely hang up the phone right now, but I'll just say this:

Despite Beoman's assertion that misunderstanding of Actualism is overblown he himself acknowledged after his most recent trip that he had misunderstood Actualism (for years I believe). And this after his first previous trip to Australia to visit Richard to learn about the Actualism method. During that first trip to Australia he also learned that at that time he had been misunderstanding and mispracticing Actualism for an extended period of time, based on information relayed to him from Tarin (who had travelled to Australia, spent some time with Richard, and found out eventually that he had misunderstood it). All that is from memory. Happy to provide direct quotes, but I'm on a time crunch right now. Please correct anything misconstrued. there may be. Why believe you've got it understood now such that you can speak about it with certainty?

I've got so much more to give but I think we start there. Thank you. It feels so good to be back! And on Not Tao's thread no less, where everytime an inisght occurs another angel rediscovers with aplomb the law of gravity, or that the tap in their kitchen releases water or that their car keys start their car (much rejoicing). Remember NT, whatever you might feel about that, just a story, and one you are no longer bought into. God bless.

Bill

*Taken from AF Yahoo group, poster Aloha S:

““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."

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 3:41 PM as a reply to John Power.
John Power:
Well just my reflections. Hopefully this added to the discussion.

EDIT: Gave a link of an animated review of Danny Kahneman(nobelprice winner) his book ´Thinking, fast and slow´.
Yes, indeedy, your post adds a nice flavor to understanding our storymaking minds, very relevant, it is good to see some solid rational stuff from time to time...  Well, all the time is nice too....  But, sometimes our stories are so amusing...

Psi

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 5:08 PM as a reply to Bill FI.
Good evening Bill!

Bill FI:
Bill here. It's been so long I forgot my password and had to create a new account. But I could not resist Beoman's invitation to participate in this thread, offered through text while I was at a starbucks in southern delaware this afternoon. I have mainly questions and few answers.

Just something odd to start with, I don't recall sending you an invitation via text to participate in this thread? If you got a message from me then it wasn't from me. If you are just speaking poetically (as in, my posting here is an open invitation to anyone to reply and you took it) then I get it.

Bill FI:
Beoman:
But none of these things are actual-meaning that which is experienced when being has temporarily or permanently abdicated the throne.

My question would be "what falls outside of this"? Is it merely direct sensory perception, and if so why does language remain intact for those who claim actual freedom? If it is the cognitive labels we give to processes of perception surely these are not inherently existing and have developed over time, and vary within and between cultures, though perhaps the argument is that these fall outside of "beingness", but this explanation would fall flat. Language is relational based on positions within a system, and dependent upon being. Again perhaps there is something I am missing here.

By 'being' I mean the affective faculty entirely - self & Self & identities & emotions & moods & passions etc. Not to existence itself or literally the gerund of the verb "to be". So there remains an intelligent flesh and blood body being conscious still capable of understanding, appraisal, language, etc. Cognitive labels don't inherently exist in that a rock isn't capable of cognitive labeling, for example, and surely they are learned and put together as a result of one's experience through life. It is the intelligent flesh and blood body's way of understanding the universe. You do not need an affective faculty for these cognitions to exist. I suppose they are more or less the same except for an actually free person they are no longer being influenced by 'being'.

Bill FI:
What is surprising, and contradictory is that the above statement seems to suggest that at the pit of actualism is that which can be independently verified through direct experience. I then become troubled by the following assertions a short time later:
Beoman:
Richard is the one who succeeded via insanity. I can name four of the people who succeeded via the direct route: Peter, Vineeto, Pamela and Grace

Really? Says who? Dare you? All of a sudden a system that was based on experiential sensory experience is validated through hearsay, based on remarkable claims of subjective experience. How have you objectively validated another individuals seamless subjective experience that you feel confident asserting the above as matters of fact and not articles of faith?

I don't see how it is contradictory to say that "at the pit of actualism is that which can be independently verified through direct experience" yet at the same time to name people who I think have succeeded in that task. How would this be any different than, say, considering who has succeeded in attaining 4th path? From my interactions with Peter & Vineeto I consider them to be living what they are saying. I could be wrong, though obviously I don't think I am. It is true that the bit about Pamela and Grace is hearsay. I haven't met them so it is true that I have no experience to back the claim that they succeeded. I was reporting it off of the AFT site and from what Richard & Peter & Vineeto said when I visited them. I said it confidently because I think they are good judges of such things. This seems quite reasonable and again not at odds with actual freedom being something which can be independently verified.

Bill FI:
Despite Beoman's assertion that misunderstanding of Actualism is overblown he himself acknowledged after his most recent trip that he had misunderstood Actualism (for years I believe). And this after his first previous trip to Australia to visit Richard to learn about the Actualism method. During that first trip to Australia he also learned that at that time he had been misunderstanding and mispracticing Actualism for an extended period of time, based on information relayed to him from Tarin (who had travelled to Australia, spent some time with Richard, and found out eventually that he had misunderstood it). All that is from memory. Happy to provide direct quotes, but I'm on a time crunch right now. Please correct anything misconstrued. there may be. Why believe you've got it understood now such that you can speak about it with certainty?

Well fuck, what can I say man? It is hard to get. Layers and layers of stuff and all that. I had to go halfway around the world twice to be at the level of understanding I am now. This certainly doesn't reflect that well on me =P. Or maybe on the human condition? Vineeto made a comment to the effect of how all-pervasive the human condition is that that's what it took for me to get what is really a pretty simple point: the actualism method is the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive. What really is so hard about that to get? Great question.

The way I'd summarize my understanding historically is this: the first trip corrected my misunderstanding of actualism as something spiritual. The second trip dispelled the notion that I had been doing anything remotely close to practicing actualism for the past few years. I did write after my first trip that it was about enjoying life. But I managed to fool myself into believing that I had been doing that. The second trip dispelled that entirely. I wouldn't say between the first and the second that I misunderstood it, not like before the first trip. It was more fooling myself that I was doing it. I was understanding it and gaining some tangential benefits from that understanding, but not actually employing the actualism method.

So now I understand it and also know whether I am doing it. And I find a lot of stuff still comes up, there's a lot to go through. It is a work in progress indeed. I am confident I will figure it out. Why is that? Donno man, actuality is like - right there. And feeling good feels good and makes a lot of sense. How much longer can I really go on avoiding these things? =P.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 5:07 PM as a reply to Bill FI.
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes your repressed rage to surface this time, Bill, haha.  Don't mind me, I'll pop some corn while waiting for the fireworks. emoticon

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 5:58 PM as a reply to Bill FI.
Bill FI:
*Taken from AF Yahoo group, poster Aloha S: [...]
Well if yer gonna bring bring this old news up, it's only fair I repost Richard's latest words on this matter (available here):
Richard:
‘Tis unfortunate the wealth of experience obtained by Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish[1] is not available for the elucidation of all feeling-beings – I am reluctant to make public knowledge of the details of an experiment unique in human experience/ human history[2], wherein a rather daring feeling-being deliberately and with knowledge aforethought fell deeply in love with a resident of the actual world (a process she publicly declared to be “a viable course” in becoming actually free via the ‘fusion’ aspect of love), due to the entire five-month experience having afterwards left her hurt, hurting and hurtful; e.g.: vindictive and vengeful[3] – as considerable light was thrown, for instance, on the fundamental necessity of possessiveness (a non-negotiable insistence on exclusivity) being an integral part of love’s maintenance.

Howsoever, despite this unfortunate lack of detail the outcome of that rather daring experiment has already been made public in the most melodramatic manner possible (i.e., via that seditious attempt to stop the global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks – via the dissemination of all manner of made-up stuff about “Richard & Associates” until the outright ridiculousness those salacious fabulations brought about its ignominious melt-down – recently referred to in Message № 20220 [link]).

===
[1] Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish:
Vis.:
        Inglish=Indian English.
        (Manglish=Malayalam English; Tanglish=Tamil English; Benglish=Bengali English; Tenglish=Telugu English; Singlish=Singapore English; Ingrish=Japanese English).

[2] An Experiment Unique in Human Experience/Human History:
• [Richard to No. 4]: That ‘same murky territory’ you are referring to is the human condition in action – currently being played-out, on computer screens, to the mutual benefit of all concerned – and which is gradually unfolding, step-by-step, as this onscreen, and thus public, melodrama builds towards its ultimately happy ending.

Now, the reason why I say melodrama – which is ‘a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions’ according to the Oxford Dictionary – is because the genesis of all those stories that have been bandied about was a rather daring person’s decision to set in motion an experiment (her word exactly) to find out whether an alternate route to an actual freedom from the human condition could be forged via the (affective) fusion of love.

Viz.:
Google Groups Forum:
        On Wed, Apr 21, 2010,
        • [Respondent No. 6] wrote: Greetings, No. 19 yes, i was able to meet Richard. [...snip...].
        Further more, i have discovered something else that can facilitate my freedom and it is marvelous. It is like being intoxicated on every moment of life, packing it with wonder and life, each moment again.
        [...snip...].
        P.S.: ccing No. 14 and Richard since they do not subscribe to this group mailing system.
*
        On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:41 PM,
        • [Respondent No. 29] wrote: And what is that ‘something else’...not sure you have described it ...
        On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:04 PM,
        • [Respondent No. 6] wrote:
        companionship, love, relationship – fusing yourself with the love of your life. this fusion is not being with the person, but is more like merging and fusing so that separation does not exist and operates even when physically apart. to my mind, that is the best way that a relationship can be lived. It is not a surrender but fusion. I have long held the theory and /knew/ that it was possible, but i am putting it in practice now. My exploration is now slightly different from actualism per se. I make use of understanding of actualism and methods etc, but i am on my own trip , in some ways. Just an experiment to see where it leads me to.
        To come back to meeting with Richard:
        It is essential for anyone who is interested in actualism to read from the website sans biases – as in suspend them all for a while – to derive understanding. Else a reader will end up projecting and misunderstanding the whole premise. As regards the person, Richard is totally and utterly dedicated to bring suffering of people to end and put himself under unabashed scrutiny. it is better to scrutinize and understand what is being posited before rushing in to criticize. The reason i say so is that the first response to something radical tends to be in opposition to the idea.
*
        On Mon, May 17, 2010,
        • [Respondent No. 6] wrote: greetings, [No. 29] [...snip...].
        • [Respondent No. 29]: And why you have gone in this route? Is it an underlying fear of losing that person of love? You know this is not an intellectual query for me. Neither is this idle curiosity. So please to explain if you can. And what and how exactly is this ‘fusion’ consist of ?
        • [Respondent No. 6]: I have taken this route because a person is now a part of my life and it seems like a viable course to me. ‘fusion’ really means giving myself 100% to the person, as in aiming for ‘no separation’. If i am able to do this, then i will be giving myself and the person the best of me, the whole of me, 100% undivided attention and locked open intimacy.
        As a fringe benefit everyone and everything else will receive the same attention.
        As for any apprehension that if an actually free person can sustain a relationship with a non-actually free person (a feeling being). In my experience, it is not only possible but something to look forward to – imagine being with a person who is 100% sensible, not given to moods, does not have any anger/ aggression, regards you as a fellow human being and does not curb your independence or freedom, is 100% attentive and intimate 24 x 7. No man or woman (feeling being) could resist such a proposition.
*
In view of the public interest in experimenting with various routes – such as Srid’s current experiment with an ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice (based upon Mr. Satya Goenka’s misunderstanding of the Pali word vedāna) – it is timely to append the score thus far. Vis.:

        1. Via insanity.................0 f. & 1 m.
        2. Via direct-route...........4 f. & 1 m. (NB.: updated on 08Aug2015).
        3. Via aff practice............0 f. & 0 m.
        4. Via love’s fusion..........0 f. & 0 m.
        5. Via equanimity............0 f. & 0 m.

Regards, Richard.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
P.S.: So as to give some idea of what played a significant part, in motivating all that made-up stuff, an email of mine at the following URL is worth a close reading (including and particularly the post-script). Vis.: [link(List D, Rick, 31 December 2011)

In case you miss that postscript here it is:

• Richard: ‘Vineeto took efficacious advantage of a serendipitous ‘window-of-opportunity’ opening up in early September last year – upon me being able to make myself accessible on a day-to-day basis, with the specific intent of having the situation move itself forward to fruition, after flying to Australia from India when my travel visa for there was due to expire – whereby she interacted intensively with me over a 40-day period, making herself utterly permeable (her word) along the way, and which culminated in a purifying ‘shower-of-blessings’ (my phrase) that enabled her to be in the exact-same place where I have resided, so to speak, all these years.

Here is the relevant part of what she wrote afterwards’:

        • Vineeto: ‘(...). After many interactions with Richard [after he arrived in Australia from India] in regards to moving my process forward the next event on the 19th of October was equally breathtaking – in an analogy to the film ‘Space Odyssey 2001’ I likened the experience to flying on a rocket ship into the sun, which luminosity purified the last skerrick of whatever remnants of ‘dust’ had hung around. My head was filled with the universe ablaze with light from infinity to infinity and the pristine purity of this infinite and eternal universe became instantly apparent. I was also distinctly aware that I could indeed find no trace of impurity in me ...’. [link] (List D, No. 4, 14 January 2013)

[3] leaving her hurt, hurting and hurtful; e.g.: vindictive and vengeful:
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative
• [Richard to No. 15]: [...] Indeed, that is the very reason for my ‘just a quick note’ to [No. 3] (#14174)[4] wherein I made it abundantly clear that it was indeed a real-life drama (aka melodrama) and provided textual evidence which demonstrates the primary reasons as to why it is all taking place before our eyes as we all type out our respective words ... namely: love and its failure to deliver the goods (with its resultant blaming of the ‘love-object’, in lieu of facing the fact that love itself failed, along with its attendant resentment/ hatred and/or jealousy/ envy and/or bitterness/ vindictiveness and so on and so forth). [...]. [link] (Richard, List D, No. 15, 24 June 2013)

[4] My “Just a Quick Note” to [No. 3] (#14174)
Viz.:
Re: Popcorn anyone? emoticon
RICHARD: G’day No. 3, Just a quick note as I am still in the process of composing my next post (being of epic proportions, as befits this stage of the melodrama, it is taking a while to collect all the quotes, links, URLs, &c.).
Although terms such as ‘fun soapy’ (#14112) and ‘live, unscripted soap-opera drama’ (#13929) and ‘soap opera’ (#138xx) are all entirely applicable I personally prefer the word melodrama as it better describes the character and temperament of the lead actress around whom this current scene (??Act Three; Scene Two??) all revolves.

Vis.:
        [... snipped by Claudiu, same message as in footnote [2] ...] [link]

Although the excerpt provided above is sufficient for the purpose (explaining why the word melodrama) it is, of course, best read in context at the link just above (the little yellow rectangle with the capital ‘L’ in it).
If you do read that context – the entire post – then it will be of supplementary benefit to read what Claudiu had to say at the following URL.

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/13341 [5]

‘Tis best not to access that second URL before the first, though, as all of the further above context is essential for comprehension. [link] (Richard, List D, No. 3, 20 June 2013).

[5] it will be of supplementary benefit to read what Claudiu had to say at the following URL:
CLAUDIU: Oh I think I just made the connection... Were you saying that she was, uh, jealous?

And the part of Message № 20220 he linked to is this:
Richard:
First of all, when that “A Long-Awaited Public Announcement”, prominently linked-to on the homepage of The Actual Freedom Trust website, was first published there were two major reactions to that ‘good news’ about how not only had Richard’s condition been replicated, and by a female as well as by a male, but that a ‘direct-route’ to what lies on the other side of insanity had also been established, per favour an epoch-changing opening in human consciousness, thus obviating the need to otherwise make one’s personal contribution to global peace-on-earth dangerously, via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, as the trail-blazer had done ... namely:

(1.) a subversive attempt to maintain the status-quo vis-á-vis the human condition via confecting and popularising a much watered-down and bastardised facsimile of actualism (known as ‘affism’ due to its confectioners referring to ‘aff’ when communicating with other ‘affers’), via a meditative detachment-dissociative technique and/or a meditational affective-repression procedure, in which ‘I’ as ego/ ‘me’ as soul survive to wreak ‘my’ malicious-sorrowful and, antidotally, loving-compassionate damage as beforehand (i.e., affectively/ psychically) ... and:

(2.) a seditious attempt to stop the global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks via disseminating all manner of made-up stuff, both clandestinely (surreptitious private emails) and unaccountably (anonymous public emails), about “Richard & Associates” until the outright ridiculousness their salacious fabulations – known to all in the post-modernist world and its ilk (a creative mind-space where ‘truths’ not only trump facts but where facts are ‘truths’ to be dissed at will, or even whim, at times) as “narratives” rather than the ‘lies’, the ‘bull’ or, even, the ‘spin’ they are – brought about its ignominious melt-down.

Needless to add, of course, is how actualism/ actual freedom sailed-on serenely throughout – being actual, unlike materialists’ ego-centric philosophies and spiritualists’ soul-centric religiosities, it is invisible to all and every auto-centric ‘being’ (whose automorphic missiles, being thus of the ‘heat’-seeking variety, can never, ever reach their mark)[1] – completely unscathed, utterly unsullied and totally unaffected.

===
[1] Can Never, Ever Reach their Mark:
• [Respondent № 7]: “(...). P.S. Cursed be the one that breaks it...”.
• Richard: “Ha ... just a quick note to let you know, as that was me (#8041), your curse is currently languishing in the unfathomable depths of the intraversable abyss – aimlessly searching for its intended target – which lies at the extreme edges of the ‘real-world’ (the world of the psyche).
P.S.: With the total absence of any psyche whatsoever, in this flesh and blood body, neither curses nor blessings can ever hope to reach their mark ...”. [link(Richard, List D, No. 7, 10 December 2009)

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 5:52 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes your repressed rage to surface this time, Bill, haha. Don't mind me, I'll pop some corn while waiting for the fireworks. emoticon

Dare you, child? The sickness is in you. I do this with glee.

You could kill me right now. I won't mind a bit as long as there isn't a bunch of pain, haha- Not Tao

Killing you is on the table, but disagreeing with your viewpoint sends you to extreme reactions like those I'll detaill below. I'll pass on the kool aid. Children starving to death in Syria? Fuck em', their story is invalid. Someone disagreeing with you on the internet? That's a story deserving attention and emotion. I boo you.

To begin with, you say you have internalized the following:

There is nothing to protect. The story isn't a "thing" - it's just an imaginary world and I don't believe in it anymore. Now though Im just to the point where all the stories seem like too much effort.

 In response to others criticizing you, you offer the following stories: 

This is just pseudophilosophical nonsense.

Are you actually interested in this, or are you just here to cause trouble.

You're being very trite.

Why don't you discuss the concept without entering teacher mode?

I'm pissy because it's fucking annoying!

It's also fucking annoying that you say something specifcally meant to be upsetting.

-unless you come back and say some stupid shit I feel a desire to correct.

And then, the worst offense of all: 

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes your repressed rage to surface this time, Bill, haha. Don't mind me, I'll pop some corn while waiting for the fireworks. emoticon

Your philosophies are meaningless because it's just you lying about where you're at. Remember when "not caring" solved all of your problems, and yet here you are caring about minor things though you think Syrian refugees should just carry on with what they got to do without regard to the existensial circumstances of their lives. But Not Tao on the internet is worthy of intense emotional pandering. Remember upstream where you asserted you had entered this new phase where there was nothing to protect and here you go protecting what, exactly? A point of view. On the internet. I doubt you fare much better in your day to day interactions outside this web the gods of weather and technology have spun for us. But we should heed your advice? Your into some deep shit? Please. I sneeze on you. And I don't say "excuse me". I just walk away. No kerchief. And this post was a pleasure to write, no anger. I smile often and frequently and am a friend to many.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 5:57 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
I can't read this in a meaningful way. Perhaps my comprehension skills are waning. Can you summarize what you see as the relevant parts, and why we should give added credence to this recanting as opposed to the one posted earlier? That post is not the only one to make the claim by those who have spent time with Richard that he is quite a ways from who you say he is. And I thank you, sir. Carry on.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 6:00 PM as a reply to Bill FI.
Yeah, exactly, it's meaningless.  Being angry isn't any different from not being angry, haha.  It wouldn't be freedom if I couldn't be angry for some reason.  I'm not interested in creating a story, self-control, etc.  I'm just existing.  It's very nice not caring. emoticon

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 6:22 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Good evening the Dragon,

      Regarding the text since it came with a video of you riding a bicycle in some North Eastern city (won't blow your anonymity) I am not confused about the nature or identity of the sender. Now to business:

      My copy and paste isn't working so I'll have to summarize and we will go from there. I am satisfied mostly with your explanation of language, and I think the hypothesis mostly makes sense, or at least is not worth quibbling over.


I don't see how it is contradictory to say that "at the pit of actualism is that which can be independently verified through direct experience" yet at the same time to name people who I think have succeeded in that task. How would this be any different than, say, considering who has succeeded in attaining 4th path? From my interactions with Peter & Vineeto I consider them to be living what they are saying. I could be wrong, though obviously I don't think I am. It is true that the bit about Pamela and Grace is hearsay. I haven't met them so it is true that I have no experience to back the claim that they succeeded.

Respectfully, this is not logical. Since the claim of Actual Freedom is built on the idea of a seamless subjective experience you can not as an external observer confirm that they have succeeded. Secondly, you've changed your own language here to make it less a matter of belief. It was orignally stated as factual that they had "succeeded" and above you have written it to reflect it is people who you "think have succeeded". That you "think" this rather than know it is crucial. It demonstrates that you are somewhat certain about things that you actually can't be certain of. Many a religious believer will tell similar stories about the perfection of their guru/teacher/etc. and validate them in the same way based on personal experience. Why should we believe in your Santa Clause (I don't mean this pejoratively, just borrowing your term) and not theirs? Because you find it believable that a system you have devoted your life to is the real deal? So do they. You think the people you trust "are good judges". There is nothing unique in that and yet with other reports that counter what you claim about those parties, people have a right to be suspicious, and not take this on faith alone. I actually doubt the reports of many people who claim 4th path. I see inconsistencies in some of what Daniel describes as well, so this isn't just picking on actualism. If someone wanted to defend 4th path then hopefully we could talk about incosistencies there as well.

Regarding the final portion, I am fairly certain that you yourself wrote that you had "misunderstood" actualism for years(I have an almost photographic memory for writing, but it's not perfect, so I may be wrong, let me know if you want source) upon returning this most recent time.Also, you are an intelligent individual, and I find it more likely that the blame in misunderstanding comes not from you but an inconistent system.

B.t.w- I hope you are well, and I do wish you success with actualism. I do want you/others to be happy however that may come about. I have my doubts that AF is way to go and I think people would do well to be suspicious of claims that seem flimsy to me, but if it is making you happier and less harmful I am sincerely happy about that, and hope you will continue with actualism.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 6:31 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Yeah, exactly, it's meaningless. Being angry isn't any different from not being angry, haha. It wouldn't be freedom if I couldn't be angry for some reason. I'm not interested in creating a story, self-control, etc. I'm just existing. It's very nice not caring. emoticon

No one believes you don't care. And all that above is a story.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 7:10 PM as a reply to Bill FI.
I'm not trying to convince anyone.  Just trying to help people understand.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/21/15 11:56 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:

I don't think the story is versus reality, as you put it, I think reality is composed only of stories.
Ding ding ding!  This is where I cast my vote too.  ;-P  Maybe enlightenment is when you offload most of your stories and only a few light weight ones remain.  They you can see other peoples' stories much more clearly because your own story is no longer blocking the view. 
-Eva

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 12:16 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Is this the first time this was posted?  It looks familiar.
-Eva
[quote=
Gordo . .]Its been a long time since I've done the sort of thinking you do. Everyone has stories, and they seem to be realistic. After all they are not just random ideas you've pulled out of thin air. They have been a process of deduction. You've developed them by weeding out all the non-truths, built them brick by brick on solid foundations. You believe them. You don't believe other stories that have not been developed, have none of your bricks or foundations, that would be absurd. You do have some flexibility in that other stories that fall within a certain threshold of your paradigms can be absorbed into your stories. You're being tricked, and the only way that i know that will reveal this is-
Drop all your current stories and beliefs and choose a new set of stories and beliefs that fall outside of your paridigms. Choose someone elses set of stories and beliefs and each day look for some truth in them. Give them some small benefit of the doubt, so to speak. Try and understand how they could be true. Practice this every day. Observe what happens.
Your not being brainwashed or tricked, that is what is is happening now. You will to see the magical quality of stories and why there are so many off them, and how there was no logic or governing system to stories. It just appears that way. 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 12:18 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

And yet, on the ActualFreedom Yahoo! group, there are at least ten active members that get it, not to mention the other actually free people besides Richard who have obviously got it as well. All of these people also understand that actualism is 180 degrees opposite from Buddhism and spirituality. Interesting...
Who are the other actually free people other than Richard? 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 2:14 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Jesus you're a drama queen Hardly Tao. You took a whole lot of shit personally that wasn't delivered in that spirit, bc you're emotionally reactive and overly sensitive and/or you don't like your publicly stated views being challenged 
Look through my posts again and see if I said anything insulting to you (until now)
I told you clearly that I didn't post to piss you off, but you called my statement into question - so am I a liar? Now we both have the same stories - you're an asshole! lols & hahahas
D

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 6:38 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Gordo . .:
I was waiting for this. The one general theme that always comes up with people doing A/F is that it has been misunderstood, misrepresented, interpreted wrongly. I find this a very poor show. No criticism of you personally, but this is getting long in the tooth. If i was to measure this using actual reference points, it appears that no human being to this day has ever understood it.

And yet, on the ActualFreedom Yahoo! group, there are at least ten active members that get it, not to mention the other actually free people besides Richard who have obviously got it as well. All of these people also understand that actualism is 180 degrees opposite from Buddhism and spirituality. Interesting...
180 degrees to budhism and spirituality. Why not say it directly that AF is dark path.

Any special rituals, that not published but only insiders know?

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 12:05 PM as a reply to Banned For waht?.
Rist Ei:
180 degrees to budhism and spirituality. Why not say it directly that AF is dark path.

Any special rituals, that not published but only insiders know?

Nothing other than an occasional Blood Sacrifice. We started with chickens but we're up to goats now. Hopefully the Actual Ones don't become any thirstier ...

But to answer a bit more seriously: a "dark path" would be something like the opposite of a "light path" - Satanism, devil worship, etc. That would still be within spirituality, just the 'evil' side instead of the 'good' side. This comment is akin to Christians calling atheists immoral.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 12:11 PM as a reply to Bill FI.
Bill FI:
Regarding the text since it came with a video of you riding a bicycle in some North Eastern city (won't blow your anonymity) I am not confused about the nature or identity of the sender.
Hmm now I'm really confused. I've PMed you about this - please check your messages (email notifications seem to have stopped working).

Bill FI:
Beoman:
I don't see how it is contradictory to say that "at the pit of actualism is that which can be independently verified through direct experience" yet at the same time to name people who I think have succeeded in that task. How would this be any different than, say, considering who has succeeded in attaining 4th path? From my interactions with Peter & Vineeto I consider them to be living what they are saying. I could be wrong, though obviously I don't think I am. It is true that the bit about Pamela and Grace is hearsay. I haven't met them so it is true that I have no experience to back the claim that they succeeded.

Respectfully, this is not logical. Since the claim of Actual Freedom is built on the idea of a seamless subjective experience you can not as an external observer confirm that they have succeeded.
This is pretty much true. However, I can evaluate what they say and how they act based on what I understand actualism/actual freedom to be, and see whether it's consistent, whether what they say is consistent, etc. So I may not be able to confirm 100% that they have succeeded, me not being able to experience their minds directly, and me not even being actually free to be able to compare from my experience of that state, but it can at least be good enough for me to continue.

Bill FI:
Secondly, you've changed your own language here to make it less a matter of belief. It was orignally stated as factual that they had "succeeded" and above you have written it to reflect it is people who you "think have succeeded". That you "think" this rather than know it is crucial. It demonstrates that you are somewhat certain about things that you actually can't be certain of.
Yes, that's a good point. I did slot this knowledge into the "know" category vs. the "think as far as I can reasonably know" category.

Bill FI:
Many a religious believer will tell similar stories about the perfection of their guru/teacher/etc. and validate them in the same way based on personal experience. Why should we believe in your Santa Clause (I don't mean this pejoratively, just borrowing your term) and not theirs? Because you find it believable that a system you have devoted your life to is the real deal? So do they. You think the people you trust "are good judges". There is nothing unique in that and yet with other reports that counter what you claim about those parties, people have a right to be suspicious, and not take this on faith alone.
Hmm... the only answer I can find here is "You shouldn't." All I can do is report my experience, observation, understanding, and reply to what other people say and respond to their criticisms. So far for me no criticism has withstood my scrutiny. It doesn't mean I am necessarily right, so you or others shouldn't take it on faith, but that is my conclusion. And yeah I know there is nothing unique about them being "good judges", I didn't mean it as something unique.

Bill FI:
Regarding the final portion, I am fairly certain that you yourself wrote that you had "misunderstood" actualism for years(I have an almost photographic memory for writing, but it's not perfect, so I may be wrong, let me know if you want source) upon returning this most recent time. Also, you are an intelligent individual, and I find it more likely that the blame in misunderstanding comes not from you but an inconistent system.
I would like a source, if you could look it up.

Bill FI:
B.t.w- I hope you are well, and I do wish you success with actualism. I do want you/others to be happy however that may come about. I have my doubts that AF is way to go and I think people would do well to be suspicious of claims that seem flimsy to me, but if it is making you happier and less harmful I am sincerely happy about that, and hope you will continue with actualism.

Cool! I am enjoying my latest interactions with you on here.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 1:49 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Not Tao:
I forgot how much of a pissing contest this forum can be. Calm down, Daniel, I'm sure your penis is very robust and would compare favorably to mine.

Not Tao:
Lol, honestly Daniel, saying something 100 times doesn't make it true. You're just taking what Bill F. said and blindly repeating it in every thread I've made since - in spite of the fact that he made the whole thing up. I'm pissy because it's fucking annoying! If you don't wan't me to think you're just trying to be an asshat, then stop doing that.

It's also fucking annoying that you say something specifically meant to be upsetting, then say I'm not allowed to get upset. Why can't I be annoyed and upset? It's obvious you don't take any time to think about what I'm writing or make any effort to actually understand it.

Ok, now I'm bailing - unless you come back and say more stupid shit that I feel a desire to correct.

Daniel - san:
Jesus you're a drama queen Hardly Tao. You took a whole lot of shit personally that wasn't delivered in that spirit, bc you're emotionally reactive and overly sensitive and/or you don't like your publicly stated views being challenged 
Look through my posts again and see if I said anything insulting to you (until now)
I told you clearly that I didn't post to piss you off, but you called my statement into question - so am I a liar? Now we both have the same stories - you're an asshole! lols & hahahas
D

Perhaps I should have stepped in earlier, but better late than never - chill out guys! And this is coming from me as a moderator. Let's keep it civil. Venting emotions is fine just don't spill it over into insulting other people. For the record I see Not Tao as the sole instigator here, up until Daniel-san's latest message (as he admitted). Other than those it all seemed like legit even-keeled critique/discussion to me.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 2:03 PM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:
Jesus you're a drama queen Hardly Tao. You took a whole lot of shit personally that wasn't delivered in that spirit, bc you're emotionally reactive and overly sensitive and/or you don't like your publicly stated views being challenged 
Look through my posts again and see if I said anything insulting to you (until now)
I told you clearly that I didn't post to piss you off, but you called my statement into question - so am I a liar? Now we both have the same stories - you're an asshole! lols & hahahas
D


My anger was in response to you repeatedly commenting that I'm a hypocrite and inconsistent, not that you were challenging my views. I don't understand why you would think that wasn't annoying or insulting. I'm not being overly sensitive, I'm just reacting honestly. I like that you did here as well. Maybe in the future you could just openly state what you're thinking instead of being passive agressive.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/22/15 2:29 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
The point, as I see it and as you seem to see it, is that there is no such thing as a reference model that stays the same (permanent) that we have to compare anything to. Even our models are stories. I apparently misread your original comment to be proposing a reference model that was somehow permanent or unchanging. You called it "no story." So I commented.


Chris, I'd like to challenge what you're saying here. When you say, "there is no reference model that is permanent," isn't that, itself, a permanent reference model? I never said, "no story," or anything to that effect - I said what was a story and what wasn't a story. To wit - this moment of experience happening now isn't a story, it's everything I am, and the story is an imaginary narrative that this moment of experience identifies with.

So, when you say even the idea that there are no stories is a story - this creates a paradox that doesn't need to exist for the argument to mean the same thing. I'm using the word to differentiate between what is being experienced and what is being imagined. You seem to want to say that even experience is a story, but that actually negates itself - the argument that there is no reference point is itself a reference point. To accept this is to drop everything imagined and just experience what is happening now - which makes the paradox useless even for rhetorical effect. This is why I called it pseudophilosophical nonsense, it adds unessesary complexity to a very simple idea.

Or, to put it another way, you are still pointing to a reference point by making athe paradox - the reference point that isn't a point. It's much clearer to say this directly. It's like that story the buddha told about the light coming through the window. If you take away the floor, and then the ground, and then the water (or whatever else is left) the light just keeps going. You don't have to negate the light for the story to make sense.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 12:29 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Hey Not Tao,

There will become a point in your practice where it will be necessary to destroy/zap stories and archetypes, I'm not sure if you are at that point now, it seems, that for me, there came a point whereas I was able to recognize the form/conform (the way things are) of reality, and that after that moment attempted to utilize this knowledge (exploit it), to my advantage

I was not successful in doing this, and probably for the good of many people (I'm exaggerating here a bit), but basically had this gone through I would have started something reminiscent of a cult

Anyways, beyond the form/conform/ultimate-knowledge/non-duality/certainty-of-knowledge stage comes this barren, unknowing and dry stage, where you exit the the conform of reality (by conform I mean the mold that dictates that's possible and impossible within reality), this is troublesome because the yogi will try to use this conform knowledge to live in alignment with reality but find that this is not possible

Eventually a stage is reached where the yogi starts to do what he or she wants, because of the power of the archetype/story programming, the yogi will feel he or she needs permission to do certain things, to abide by certain frameworks, or tick off certain medals or accomplishments before doing anything, this is called the permission archetype

Please note that the above is my personal experience only and may or may not apply to anyone else at all, whatsoever

Because of these troublesome archetypes, rafts, structures or garbage, in the head, it is necessary for the yogi to demolish or eviscerate all of them, the unconscious fear is the yogi believes there is a higher truth he or she can align besides his or her own will, and needs the approval of this truth before he or she can act

For me the archetypes manifested in three large forms: Buddhism/spirituality/truth-seeking/Zen (garbage), PUA/NLP (seduction community advice), and the Reich and Lowen psychology tradition

I've had a lot of other thoughts, including but not limited to:

How consciousness is like a crystal ball, through which things (garbage) can experience themselves, but without the consciousness (light, theater, medium), there is no experience, thus making the process impersonal (this returns to the "if a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound" question)

In other words, a garbage/'contaminant' can enter the crystal ball, but that is the method by which the 'happening' or 'life' is experienced (in the theater), it is largely impersonal because it requires both the awareness (glass ball, which by itself does nothing) and the content (garbage), which by itself, experiences nothing (not itself)

But the issue arises when the story enters the ball, the yogi/person believes that it is happening to someone, yet the truth is funnier than that

Really the experience of it, is not you (just a screen, or crystal ball), and the content itself is foreign (a contaminant)

Anyways I didn't elucidate this crystal ball metaphor too well so I'll have to come back to it later

My other thoughts centered on the notion of identity, and how certain things (facts), like sexual orientation, are not an identity

This returns to the impersonal nature of who you really are, you can't know who you are (unfortunately), who you really are (fundamental, non-dual consciousness), is so base, baser than base, that it's less than a person, or a person, some might say it's impersonal, and it kind of is

This spark, of non-duality, is the non-reflective, non-absorbing, nothing-clings-to-it, uncontaminated, agency-less, thought-less, thing that transmigrates lifetimes

But the catch is, it's not you who transmigrates lifetimes, because this sticky-less-ness ball does not adhere anything, doesn't seem like a good way of putting it

This essentially means that when you are reborn, you could be anybody, and you will experience it as your first life (memories, actions thoughts from the previous life do not stick, unfortunately), so there is infinite variation in who you could be, and you will not remember who you are/were, in the previous life

It's not really eerie, it just means you cannot own or possess anything permanently (unfortunately)

It would not be judicious of me to not link some of the primary influences for my thoughts above, who are:

http://www.clarity-of-being.org/index.htm (Philip Goddard)

and

Jed McKenna

Philip Goddard contributed the zapping archetypes idea, and the black, sticky-less-ness ball to my line of thought above

Jed McKenna contributed the black, sticky-less-ness ball idea too, which he calls "Brahmanic Consciousness", in his "Theory of Everything" book

Philip Goddard speaks about the reflectiveness of consciousness and garbage a lot, he says that he was influenced by Tibetan Buddhism

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 8:22 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Chris, I'd like to challenge what you're saying here. When you say, "there is no reference model that is permanent," isn't that, itself, a permanent reference model? I never said, "no story," or anything to that effect - I said what was a story and what wasn't a story. To wit - this moment of experience happening now isn't a story, it's everything I am, and the story is an imaginary narrative that this moment of experience identifies with.

If I misunderstood your original post ( story vs no story) then... okay, I misunderstood. I accept that responsibility. As I said before, if your intent was to say that meaning (story) is always assigned and not inherent in "things," and that there is no permanence then we completely agree. Why argue about what we agree on?


RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 8:43 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
 You seem to want to say that even experience is a story, but that actually negates itself - the argument that there is no reference point is itself a reference point. To accept this is to drop everything imagined and just experience what is happening now - which makes the paradox useless even for rhetorical effect. This is why I called it pseudophilosophical nonsense, it adds unessesary complexity to a very simple idea.

Hi, Not Tao.

Okay, so carefully reading what you're saying here I think you're creating an absolute that doesn't exist. Let me try to explain:

Moment to moment experience is not permanent, not an absolute, and the meaning it carries is assigned. It's a story, or stories. I thought you would agree but I see now that we're using different definitions of the word "story." You seem to be using "story" to mean imaginary - things that arise in the mind with no physical correlate. I'm using "story" to mean having no inherent existence, no inherent meaning, not permanent. This makes all the difference in the world. I don't find anything that has inherent meaning, permanence or existence. So my view, to agree with your comment, is that yes, even experience is a story, according to my definition.

You seem to see imaginary things as a story, and existience from moment to moment as two separate things. Are they? When does imagination occur? When do imaginary things exist, and where? When do moment to moment things exist, and where? I find imagination is part of moment to moment existence and the "things" I imagine have assigned meaning just like all other objects in my experience. I find no difference between the senses - feeling, touching, hearing, seeing, tasting.. and thinking. Thinking is a sense, right? It's tied to all of our experience, just like all other sense-based experiences - which is all of our experiences.

Feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt, of course. They are the product of my own investigations.



RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 9:59 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Rist Ei:
180 degrees to budhism and spirituality. Why not say it directly that AF is dark path.

Any special rituals, that not published but only insiders know?

Nothing other than an occasional Blood Sacrifice. We started with chickens but we're up to goats now. Hopefully the Actual Ones don't become any thirstier ...

But to answer a bit more seriously: a "dark path" would be something like the opposite of a "light path" - Satanism, devil worship, etc. That would still be within spirituality, just the 'evil' side instead of the 'good' side. This comment is akin to Christians calling atheists immoral.
Light comes out of darkness. We avoid our shadow self and show only the part what we like and also like to enforce it. Dog eating not so good stuff, but if he gets raw meat and bone he becomes protective.

AF way: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/
------------

The way of becoming actually free is both simple and practical. One starts by dismantling the shadowy social identity which has been overlaid, from birth onward, on top of the innate self until one is virtually free from all the social mores and psittacisms (those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images, reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning). One can be virtually free from all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams. One can become aware of all the socialisation, of all the conditioning, of all the programming, of all the methods and techniques which were used to produce what one feels and thus thinks oneself to be: a wayward identity careering around in confusion and illusion. A ‘mature adult’ is actually a lost, lonely, frightened and very cunning entity. However, it is never too late to start in on uncovering and discovering what one actually is.

One can become virtually free from all the insidious feelings – the emotions and passions and calentures – which fuel the mind and give credence to all the illusions and delusions and fantasies and hallucinations which masquerade as visions of The Truth. One can become virtually free of all that which has encumbered humans with misery and despair and live in a state of virtual freedom … which is beyond ‘normal’ human expectations anyway. Then, and only then, can the day of destiny dawn wherein one becomes actually free. One will have obtained release from one’s fate and achieved one’s birthright … and the world will be all the better for it.

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

Bone is equal opponent, a shadow self. But you can't become harmless by throwing the bone away. Can't get fearless by switching the lights on.

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

RICHARD: 

The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

--------
 Ok i get it now. But does Richard have done it once or many times? i see he mentioned elimination but doesn't the thing "grow back"?Found:

VINEETO: Senses are operating but nobody is seeing or hearing and then there is no difference between me and the desk I am seeing, no distance, no ‘I’. Last night I experienced life beyond ‘being’, in a strange way hollow, but very alive and sensate. Now I slowly, slowly can examine the plastic between the stubbies, what it is made of, because recognised it disappears. Sometimes it is fear, sometimes a feeling, sometimes a sense of continuity, of having past and future and definition.

RICHARD: When there is no difference between ‘me and the desk I am seeing’ then this is the actual world ... as distinct from the real world that ‘I’ create by ‘being’ and wherein ‘I’ reside. Once again, I am interested in your description ‘in a strange way hollow’. Do you mean ‘hollow’ as in empty of ‘being’? (‘Hollow’ can imply a negative experience but I discount that as you say ‘very alive and sensate’ .) Your examination of the ‘plastic between the stubbies’ (great descriptive prose that) reveals, you say, fear (which I delineate as an instinctive passion all sentient beings are born with); feeling (by which I am assuming you mean emotion as distinct from passion); continuity (which is a feeling of ‘being’ over time); past and future (also continuity as in ‘being’ but more from thought than feeling) ... and definition. Your use of the word ‘definition’ brings me back to your ‘strangely enough no form’ description above and I relate ‘definition’ with ‘outline’ ... as I wrote in Article 9 of ‘Richard’s Journal’: ‘What one discovers, time and again, is that the personal boundaries that one feels so safely protected by, are made up of ‘my’ accrued beliefs as to who ‘I’ am. This is ‘my’ outline ... yet the outline of this construct creates an enormous distance between ‘me’ and the world ‘outside’. At those times of peak experience, the distance disappears all of a sudden as ‘I’ vanish and this actual world is right here, so close that there is no distance any more. This is closer than any affective intimacy ‘I’ have ever longed for. This is a direct experience of actuality ... and I have always been here like this ... so safely here. The outline, the boundary that created the distance, was all in ‘my’ reality. ‘I’ created a substitute security for this original safety ... a safety which has never known any threat, nor ever will. This genuine safety has no need for precautions’.

This brings me again to the point i don't understand the depth of the Richards I extermination experience.


RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 9:56 AM as a reply to Banned For waht?.
Rist Ei:
------------

RICHARD: 

The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

--------
B Ok i get it now. But does Richard have done it once or many times? i see he mentioned elimination but doesn't the thing "grow back"?

Just the once*. Once gone it doesn't come back. So that is pretty awesome.

* One caveat (all this as he describes it): he had two extinction events: one where 'ego' became extinct but 'Self/soul' remained, which is when he became enlightened. And the second where all of 'Self' became extinct and he became actually free. Here by 'I' he is referring to the whole package, which includes both (later people like Peter & Vineeto had the whole package go at once, without having to go through ego-extinction separately from soul-extinction).

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 10:33 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Rist Ei:
------------

RICHARD: 

The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

--------
B Ok i get it now. But does Richard have done it once or many times? i see he mentioned elimination but doesn't the thing "grow back"?

Just the once*. Once gone it doesn't come back. So that is pretty awesome.

* One caveat (all this as he describes it): he had two extinction events: one where 'ego' became extinct but 'Self/soul' remained, which is when he became enlightened. And the second where all of 'Self' became extinct and he became actually free. Here by 'I' he is referring to the whole package, which includes both (later people like Peter & Vineeto had the whole package go at once, without having to go through ego-extinction separately from soul-extinction).

The PCE for an example, do you work for it or it appears kind of randomly? Sorry for the editting meanwhile!

nvm, i found all answers from that gigantic website.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/23/15 6:58 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
 You seem to want to say that even experience is a story, but that actually negates itself - the argument that there is no reference point is itself a reference point. To accept this is to drop everything imagined and just experience what is happening now - which makes the paradox useless even for rhetorical effect. This is why I called it pseudophilosophical nonsense, it adds unessesary complexity to a very simple idea.

Hi, Not Tao.

Okay, so carefully reading what you're saying here I think you're creating an absolute that doesn't exist. Let me try to explain:

Moment to moment experience is not permanent, not an absolute, and the meaning it carries is assigned. It's a story, or stories. I thought you would agree but I see now that we're using different definitions of the word "story." You seem to be using "story" to mean imaginary - things that arise in the mind with no physical correlate. I'm using "story" to mean having no inherent existence, no inherent meaning, not permanent. This makes all the difference in the world. I don't find anything that has inherent meaning, permanence or existence. So my view, to agree with your comment, is that yes, even experience is a story, according to my definition.

You seem to see imaginary things as a story, and existience from moment to moment as two separate things. Are they? When does imagination occur? When do imaginary things exist, and where? When do moment to moment things exist, and where? I find imagination is part of moment to moment existence and the "things" I imagine have assigned meaning just like all other objects in my experience. I find no difference between the senses - feeling, touching, hearing, seeing, tasting.. and thinking. Thinking is a sense, right? It's tied to all of our experience, just like all other sense-based experiences - which is all of our experiences.

Feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt, of course. They are the product of my own investigations.




Yes, my opinion is that there's a major difference between imaginary things and real things - real things being something I don't manufacture but rather comes in through the senses. Thinking is more like a mirror of the senses - a simulation chamber, if you will - so I wouldn't call it a sense so much as a separate mode of experiencing. Reality is experienced directly, stories are experienced indirectly through simulation. The key, for me, is control. I can't control reality, but I can control the stories.

I think a lot of meditation practices discussed here are more focused on what I'm calling "reality" - breaking it down, trying to understand how it works. But the story doesn't need to be treated the same way. The story can be changed at will. I think this is what's often referred to as the ego. So maybe this is two sides of development. It may even be that only one side needs to be developed. A person who has changed their story to suit an ever-changing reality will be at peace with that reality. A person who breaks apart reality until nothing is left may not have a need to challenge the stories, since the imagination can only mirror reality - it can't create anything original.

One thing, though. Where you say "moment to moment experience is not permanent" - this isn't how I naturally percieve reality (and I'm guessing I'm not special). To me there are no moments, just this moment, and that fact never changes. This a permanent reference point for consciousness. When I'm not conscious, I have no idea that I'm not, so in my experience only a steady, unchanging, conscious experience is ever happening. This conscious experience is picked apart into objects - which is what I call "story" - but the experiencing itself is stable and permanent. Time doesn't flow over me or through me - I can't make out some kind of line between the past and the present - it just exists as part of the story; a way to order events in the past. Everything in the past is equally imaginary, as is eveything in the future. Reality is distinctly different from this, even if the object references themselves are also imaginary.

To put it another way, I can't experience or imagine not existing. I can understand the concept, but it isn't an experience. Apart from not existing, the fact that I exist is a permanent fixture of my experience (EDIT: Or, if you're tempted to use anatta against this idea, the fact that experience is happening is a permanent fixture of experience). It's always there as long as I am aware (awareness of experience is intrinsic). So, there is nothing that can accurately be called a "thing" - but this is always seen from a permanent vantage point.

But, yeah, I don't have "fingers" or "legs" - but this doesn't negate their existence. The story is any name or line, reality just is itself. If you see the experience of reality as equal to the imagination, then that is definately a disagreement.

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/24/15 6:05 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
I'm happy agreeing to disagree!  

I'm confident based on my personal experience and investigations that reality is not experienced directly but is always mediated and interpreted (what I am calling a story). We can agree on parts of the story if we are in the same place at the same time, or perceive the same "things" and agree on definitions and names, but all of it (experience/reality) is dependently originated with the meaning being stitched together by minds.

Good discussion. I'll ruminate over your latest comments and may come back to say something but, for now, off on a business trip for a few days.


emoticon

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/24/15 8:45 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
I'm happy agreeing to disagree!  

I'm confident based on my personal experience and investigations that reality is not experienced directly but is always mediated and interpreted (what I am calling a story). We can agree on parts of the story if we are in the same place at the same time, or perceive the same "things" and agree on definitions and names, but all of it (experience/reality) is dependently originated with the meaning being stitched together by minds.

Good discussion. I'll ruminate over your latest comments and may come back to say something but, for now, off on a business trip for a few days.


emoticon


The best way I can think to demonstrate what I mean here is to ask - what is experiencing the indirect experience? The fixed viewpont isn't the content of reality, it's the experiencing, itself. As long as you are conscious, experience is happening. This "experiencing" is what I'm referring to as reality. It doesn't matter what the experience of color is, it's just there, as itself, without interpretation.  It doesn't matter if color is an interpretation of something - it's the end point - the direct perception.

Put another way, as an analogy, language is an interpretation of ideas - the language doesn't have a form or any real content, but the ideas that enter the mind are there, as themselves, expressed without language - existing i their own right. (This is meant as an analogy for comparison. I'm not saying language is the story and ideas are reality.)

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/25/15 12:04 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
My anger was in response to you repeatedly commenting that I'm a hypocrite and inconsistent, not that you were challenging my views. I don't understand why you would think that wasn't annoying or insulting. I'm not being overly sensitive, I'm just reacting honestly. I like that you did here as well. Maybe in the future you could just openly state what you're thinking instead of being passive agressive.

I'm not sure where I said you were a hypocrite and inconsistent, but IMO everyone is
I also wasn't being passive aggressive, I hate that shit. I'm aggressive. I wasn't being that either
What I was saying in a funny way (to me, annoying to you) was that you have a pattern of presenting good insights (some call it dharma) as a final presentation, like you finally figured it all out - and you would like to present your findings to the public. That's awesome. But IMO everything being a story is a pretty run-of-the-mill insight (pardon me if you find that statement insulting). A deeper insight would be, what is not a story? 
Can you tell me what is not a story not tao?


Attachment to Views is dukkha, completing your practice will eliminate this – the Buddha

You will not make it through this lifetime without laughter – the Dalai Lama 

Don’t be a dharma pussy #dharmapussy – Daniel-san 

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/25/15 12:32 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
The best way I can think to demonstrate what I mean here is to ask - what is experiencing the indirect experience? The fixed viewpont isn't the content of reality, it's the experiencing, itself. As long as you are conscious, experience is happening. This "experiencing" is what I'm referring to as reality. It doesn't matter what the experience of color is, it's just there, as itself, without interpretation.  It doesn't matter if color is an interpretation of something - it's the end point - the direct perception.

I disagree. and I take back the comment that you had discovered Existentialism, because they disagree too. Color is subjective, everything is subjective. Awareness of color (what you are referring to?) is subjective - hence, magic
You can call awareness reality, but maybe better to call it your reality, and (scientifically) what's the use of that?

Put another way, as an analogy, language is an interpretation of ideas - the language doesn't have a form or any real content, but the ideas that enter the mind are there, as themselves, expressed without language - existing i their own right. (This is meant as an analogy for comparison. I'm not saying language is the story and ideas are reality.)

Agreed, and so we have art and poetry, to tell the truth slant, where logic can't go
But that reality, what you call the reality of the moment - how real is it? What is that reality composed of? Where is it etc? 
Your thread is called the Story vs. Reality. IMO it's just another perspective, another story. dig deeper into that moment of nowness through stillness. Vipassana emoticon

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/25/15 12:57 AM as a reply to Daniel - san.
Daniel - san:
Not Tao:
My anger was in response to you repeatedly commenting that I'm a hypocrite and inconsistent, not that you were challenging my views. I don't understand why you would think that wasn't annoying or insulting. I'm not being overly sensitive, I'm just reacting honestly. I like that you did here as well. Maybe in the future you could just openly state what you're thinking instead of being passive agressive.

I'm not sure where I said you were a hypocrite and inconsistent, but IMO everyone is
I also wasn't being passive aggressive, I hate that shit. I'm aggressive. I wasn't being that either
What I was saying in a funny way (to me, annoying to you) was that you have a pattern of presenting good insights (some call it dharma) as a final presentation, like you finally figured it all out - and you would like to present your findings to the public. That's awesome. But IMO everything being a story is a pretty run-of-the-mill insight (pardon me if you find that statement insulting). A deeper insight would be, what is not a story? 
Can you tell me what is not a story not tao?


Attachment to Views is dukkha, completing your practice will eliminate this – the Buddha

You will not make it through this lifetime without laughter – the Dalai Lama 

Don’t be a dharma pussy #dharmapussy – Daniel-san 
Everything was fine up until that part I bolded. Come on dude, don't push it. 

Cheers,
Claudiu the Mod

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/25/15 1:31 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
flag on the play - sorry if I offended anyone
this guy knows all about the stories we tell

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/30/15 6:17 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem
Not Tao@Beoman: Do you still meditate (or, I think Richard uses the term "contemplation") - like just sitting and doing nothing for a while, watching yourself breathe?  I know some places on the AFT Richard refers to a few people trying this out.
I do contemplate, but it is neither meditation nor sitting and doing nothing for a while watching myself breathe. Contemplation is more like, I will sit and wonder existentially: does anything exist? Does what I'm experiencing right now exist? What does it mean that there is an actual world? Can I experience it now? Can I get "closer" to it now? And I don't look for thought-out answers but experiential ones and I investigate whatever comes up.

One of the most popular things to do in DhO is to take someone else's description of something (like an experience or a practice),  put it in a box and slap a label on it. That tends to be also s/w unpopular from the viewpoint of the person so depicted, but then again, that stimulates no end of discussion.

Hoping to avoid those pitfalls, what Beoman… here describes does exhibit aspects that show up in (the many – there's one active right now) discussions here about what's mindfulness / sati /...: wonder and investigation as to immediate experience, the perceived meaning of things, the world, how to relate to it (this activity)…

It brings to mind the idea of a phenomenological framework (rather than a Buddhist, or Actualist,…). That is, investigating arisings of phenomena in terms of the experiential activity of it (to use the linguistic analogy, what's going on is a verb, action). And looking at aspects involved – is there a doer / subject of the activity? a target / object? are these independent or do they condition each other? or are these artifacts of the mental reflections that tend to immediately pop-up to account for sensations in awareness, which try to fit it all into some pre-given framework?  and that's in itself an immediate experience…

I won't pretend to take this much further, but part of what triggered this contemplation was the term "existentially", which, I think, came into usage mainly in the aftermath of WWII with "Existentialism", and was closely related to, expounded by many of the same people then who were also using the phenomenological frameworks, in philosophy, psychology,  literature...

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/30/15 9:25 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
I believe that a tell-tale sign that an insight is genuine is that it is reflected in one's behavior.  If this is indeed true, then this thread appears to be but a pseudo-intellecual musing without much substance behind it.

NT, I loved your Jhana threads btw.  Actually created a spoken track out of them (mainly your posts) and put it over some nice meditation music to listen to at my heart's desire.  Thanks for that!

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/30/15 12:13 PM as a reply to Vince.
Vince:
I believe that a tell-tale sign that an insight is genuine is that it is reflected in one's behavior.  If this is indeed true, then this thread appears to be but a pseudo-intellecual musing without much substance behind it.

NT, I loved your Jhana threads btw.  Actually created a spoken track out of them (mainly your posts) and put it over some nice meditation music to listen to at my heart's desire.  Thanks for that!
Hi Vince, 

It could be that an Insight is genuine, but when the mind state that the Insight was awakened to diminishes, then so too does the Insight fade into the background of the mind.  Insight perhaps has to be continually resurrected, so while it is true that an Insight is never truly lost, an Insight can become obscured again, and remain in the background of a mind not fully liberated.

And true as you said the Insight to be of any use would truly be reflected in one's behavior and actions.  But as Mind being the forebearer, somtimes it takes time for an Insight to fully saturate the Mind and Body at all levels.  In other words, there is Insight, and then there is the Practice of the Insight, so that what has been understood is put to good use in our daily living.

That is kind of how I am experiencing all this anyway, for me it is a gradual type of change, step by step.  And if one lets their guard down and quits praciticing, the backsliding commences.

So, to sum up , I am saying there Insight or Insights, then there is the actual using and functioning of Insight, or Insights.

Psi

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
9/30/15 7:38 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi

I totally agree broman.  Silly me for overlooking that.   Thanks!

RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
10/1/15 12:25 AM as a reply to Vince.
Vince:
Psi

I totally agree broman.  Silly me for overlooking that.   Thanks!

Well, yeah but, what you said is still correct also, if an Insight, such as Story vs. Reality is not both understood and implemented , then yes, it is just pseudo psycho babble (storytelling) .

If anyone wants to delve deeper than deep into Story vs. Reality, there is a really good book writtten by Bhikku Katukurunde Nanananda, it is called Concept and Reality.

http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/concept_and_reality.pdf








RE: The Story vs. Reality
Answer
10/1/15 9:00 PM as a reply to Vince.
Vince:
Psi

I totally agree broman.  Silly me for overlooking that.   Thanks!
Yeah, gotta agree, I don't always follow my own good sense.  That doesn't mean the sense is wrong, just that I'm not perfect.  ;-P
-Eva