D C:
A clear and forthright response is great, although, not limited to those who've attained AF surely..
there is also a
thoroughness in responding, line by line, to much of what one's respondent writes that is of value (when done in a clear and forthright manner).
to be sure, i am nowhere claiming that it is the attainment of an actual freedom that produces this scrupulous attention to detail (though it helps to be able to see clearly in the first place what is actually written to respond to it) ... there might, however, be some connection the other way 'round: might a scrupulous attention to detail help produce an actual freedom?
if so, then perhaps more than merely
clinical, the style of response in question is
clinique - in that, in addition to nourishing health, it also promotes a cheerful complexion[1]?
D C:
it may be relevant here to point out that there is a tripartite division, in the context of actualism, between good feelings, bad feelings, and felicitous feelings.. and to point out that the practice advocated does not involve the cultivation of feelings which are blissful or loving or trusting ('good' feelings), but the cultivation of those which are happy or joyful or delightful (felicitous feelings). understanding the difference is key, as the former group only antidotally pacify the 'bad' feelings (the hostile or fearful or lonely ones), whereas the the latter group makes those feelings obsolete.. and paves the way to excellence and the pce.
Ah yes. Thanks. I need to consider these differences. It does raise the question, however, of the elimination of feeling/affect and with that being. I would have thought that felicitous feelings are just as much affect as anything other feeling.
felicitious feelings are indeed just as much affect as are '[any] other feeling' ... yet, they are worth cultivating, because their maximisation (practised together with the minimisation of the 'good' and the 'bad' feelings) lessens one's dependence on 'being' by rendering it increasingly unnecessary (and increasingly uninteresting). hence, the actualist endeavour is really to eliminate
being, and with that, feeling/affect, rather than the other way 'round.
D C:
I will return to this presently, as you suggest. I doubt I’m the only one a little unclear about this.
you may be correct in saying that you are not the only one a little unclear about this.. there may also be others here who are interested in these matters yet have not taken the time to carefully read the AF trust website. whether or not there are, let me direct your attention to one of richard's articles in particular:
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aprecisofactualfreedom.htmnote what is written toward the bottom of the page (down past the image of the leafy vine with what look like magenta flowers):
Richard:
Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings.
*
D C:
so, daniel thinks one think, while trent thinks another. as you have had, by now, two more days in which to think about the matter, then let me ask you this: what do you now think?
Now, some five or so days later, after expressing my disquiet and reading John and Steph in reply, along with your 'make a decision rubric', I have decided that the practice of actualism is actually not that far removed from what seems to emerge naturally in my own practice.
perhaps not, though actualism has a markedly different emphasis (which is not elective) from insight practice: the intent here is to get in touch with *how* one is experiencing this moment of being alive (rather than to disidentify with such experience). without this intent, i wouldn't expect that any direct progress toward actual freedom would be made.
D C:
Moreover, actualism is rewarding to practice. I'm not going to give up my insight practice just yet, however; John's post above on his mix of insight and actualism provides a good outline of where I'm at presently: Continue with morning insight practice, then during the day practice actualism. We’ll see how it goes.
what exactly do you mean by 'practice' here, for which you have found actualism to be rewarding?
D C:
hm.. what are you supposing i saw past? i read that website (the actual freedom trust homepage).
The unattractive nature of the site – from aesthetic and organization, to unconvincing treatment of other traditions, to the self-regarding nature of Richard’s personality has been commented on by many people. I’m afraid this was my impression, too. Once again, kudos to you for seeing other than that.
all it took to for me be able to read his writings clearly without projecting my baseless imaginings onto them was a little naivete.
and all it took for me to be able to read his writings clearly
despite projecting my baseless imaginings onto them was a little sincerity.
while i can understand that naivete might be uncommon in most adults (and might be difficult for them to acquire), surely sincerity is not?
*
D C:
what modification of metta is this (which you suggest might be used to concurrently bring about both path-attainment and an actual freedom)?
I spoke very loosely, perhaps without really knowing what I was talking about; Still, I recently came out of a two week Mahasi style retreat with the feeling that metta was a very necessary and powerful mode of practice for me. Firstly, I could see how much better my attention and noting was when actively done in a 'positive/relaxed' mode. As to metta practice, itself; seeing the object of metta clearly, and then skillfully wishing peace, happiness, joy, strength, growth, thriving et al, doesn’t seem that far removed from some aspects of actualism. It feels like a practice of delight and joyful energy. And what else is it doing but wishing others to be happy and harmless? And metta as I practice it, is certainly much closer to cultivating ‘felicitous’ feelings, rather than ‘good’ feelings as you define them both above. Perhaps it (metta) can serve for a while as a bridge for my attempt to practice both noting and actualism. It has to be said, of course, that metta seems to have almost no place in insight practice as promoted here.
insofar as a metta practice can serve to get people who are not very much in touch with their feelings into them, and insofar as people being in touch with their feelings enables them to experience a stable sense of well-being that then affords them the opportunity to go into those feelings further and further until (poof) - its intimacy becomes actual, such practice can indeed be useful to them in bringing about an actual freedom (or a pce).
however, of a metta practice which serves, rather, to bombard people with passionate vicissitudes (which they must then cope with either by clinging to the 'good' feelings, or by numbing back out, or - and this is the solution i see proffered so regularly in these parts - by 'not identifying' with all feelings which arise) or of one which serves to engender in people the sense of connection between all beings in a loving and/or compassionate ocean of feeling, neither will be useful in bringing about an actual freedom (or a pce).
D C:
Why more integration/context for AF?
Lets not forget that this site here where we're being introduced to AF is a Buddhist ‘hardcore dharma’ practice forum. Buddhism/Actualism? It’s the difference between a system of spiritual practice, that has endured and developed over thousands of years and been contributed to by thousands of yogis while retaining its core teachings and outcomes, versus the very very new (?) claims of one individual.
it may be more pertinent to bear in mind, rather, that while the founder of this website and most of its participants in these few years since its inception have been practising buddhists - that is, they are people who have implemented buddhist meditation techniques and thought about their efforts and results using buddhist conceptual frameworks - this by no means makes the dharma overground a buddhist website. in fact, its
main page makes no mention of buddhism, and were it not for the (rather loose) uses of the word 'dharma' and brief mention of jhanas and of the stages of insight, there would be no denotative indication of its affiliation with such at all.
further, the claim that buddhism is a system of practice which has, in having endured and developed over thousands of years and in having been contributed to by thousands of yogis, retained its core teachings and outcomes is highly contentious. where do you consider that it has done so? even setting aside the devotion-only buddhism practised on a wide scale in asia and setting aside the non-denominational feel-good buddhism popular in the modern west, there are entire traditions of practitioners who have based their practices on texts which were composed later than, and which put forth teachings which are radically divergent from, the oldest buddhist texts extant (which purport to be transcriptions of the historical buddha's actual discourses) and who have been taught by teachers whose own practices have been based on those same later, differing, texts. whether those newer traditions teach what the older traditions teach (and what is far more likely that the historical buddha taught) or something different is debated, and both claims have been put forth on by both authorities within both the newer and older traditions. further, there is no small number of buddhist teachers who propagate essentially brahmanic views (which are dismissed in the pali canon); those who attempt to intermingle buddhism with vedantism today are a good example of this, and they are many, as such syncretism appeals to many and so affords those teachers and their teachings much clout. this has probably also been the case historically, as indicated by the many divergent traditions which have arisen (not all of which have survived).
given the above, the best that anyone can do for themselves is to investigate, scrupulously and sensibly, without credulity, without being swayed by pleasing rhetoric, without being wowed by tradition and pomp, without being entangled in the power struggles of social politics, without being enamoured by charismatic teachers,
and heedless of the ignorant testimony of all those who have been, exactly what constitutes a mode of experience worth achieving and exactly what the means are by which it can be achieved.
D C:
It is only the evident sincerity and ability of yourself, Trent, and Daniel that has so many of us interested.
yet, back when i became interested, i did not have the testimony of myself, trent, or daniel... all i had to go by was a claim on the af trust website put forth by a man whose writings i found, upon close and careful reading, evidently genuine, about a mode of experience which struck me as clearly worth establishing.
i also had a penchant for obsessive and largely independent reflection.
D C:
There are many reasons why onlookers might be wary of Richard and actualism.
considering how many charlatans and fools there are and have been, there are indeed reasons to be sceptical of richard's claims. yet, there are also reasons why an onlooker might be wary of buddhism, some of which i have discussed above. further, given how much of a chimera this ~2500-year old conglomerated exposition of whatever it was in the beginning has become, i would think that a practitioner would value a lucid and well-written account of a still-living person's own experience all the more... but perhaps that is a difference between an onlooker and a practitioner?
*
D C:
Who says Mayhayana has developed beyond Theravada?
In the interview linked below we have Daniel Brown saying that what Mahayana offers beyond Theravada is the Timeless realms/Buddha bodies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJwTT-6ox0I&feature=channel
He begins to talk about these differences about 4 minutes into the clip, Daniel Brown, ‘The Great Way’ #4. I think its well worth a listen.
i watched that video, and watched the first few minutes of the next installment (#5) as well, and found nothing in what daniel brown talked about to be anything i didn't already have direct experience of by the time i was an anagami. to be sure, none of what he mentions - the sea of interconnection (and so the interconnection of awakening), the 'vast all-at-once-ness', the ocean of awareness and loving-kindness (all of which he characterises as 'the great awakening of the mahayana') - is, as he asserts and you parrot, 'beyond [the] Theravada'.
yet, i am not surprised that he conceives as he does, as much of mahayana intellectual training is a dialectic which uses weak and incomplete theravadan perspectives as their foil or counterpoint.
daniel brown's website indicates that in his earlier years, he trained with, among others, mahasi sayadaw and ajahn chah.. given how he in this video characterises the school in which they taught, he clearly didn't get anywhere near as much out of it as they had to offer.
D C:
Listening to this it is easy to see how we might get the charge that AF is no more than a variant of the timeless realms, that, poorly understood by Richard, has been spun by him into the latest and greatest development ever in human consciousness. Now, this may be quite false, or it may be true. Do you feel quite sure you can say which it is? On what basis? Would you agree that the mere fact that AF feels like the ultimate in human consciousness – or anything else - doesn’t make it so?
would you agree that nowhere else do we find accounts of practitioners who report, in no uncertain terms, an entirely passionless mode of experience, completely devoid of any anxiety or worry (let alone fear), any irritation or aggression (let alone anger), or any melancholy or gloom (let alone grief)[2]? further, would you agree that of the many practitioners in buddhist traditions which make use of the term 'perfection', none of them use it to refer, firsthand, to their ongoing experience as an apperceptive flesh and blood body living an entirely blithe and benign existence on this wondrously fresh and vividly striking earth, intimately aware of - and so at peace with - their fellow human beings as they actually are, and with nary a tinge - not a tinge - of ill-will or discontent about any of it, ever?
if no, i would appreciate if you could substantiate a claim to the contrary with textual evidence, rather than speculation about, say, who might or might not have accomplished this at some point in the past, or who else might or might not be currently living in this condition but somewhere remote, such as in the himalayas or in the southeast asian jungle or on mars, etc. i mention this specifically, by the way, so it is clear that i have no interest in debating the issue with those who are predisposed to insist that, due to the epistemological uncertainty inherent in not knowing everything that has ever happened in the universe, we cannot, when asked if something has had a precedent, answer 'no' for sure (because in theory, we may always be able to say 'maybe'). while i acknowledge the theoretical truth in this claim, i find it practically irrelevant and misleading, and find its espousal to be symptomatic of a compulsive agnosticism which only serves to get one nowhere fast (which may, in fact, be the whole point - 'i' am rather inclined to stay in existence).
D C:
My aim is not to debate this issue - which I'm not qualified to do - but rather to point out that AF/actualism is vulnerable to these doubts. And its quite valid to level questions at the practice. Of course, in the meantime, we can still get on and practice.
as what is, by far, most vulnerable to doubts is the steadiness of one's own heart, i thoroughly recommend that you do 'get on and practice' and confirm for yourself what is truly possible for a human being intent on peace and perfection to achieve.
D C:
Ok, ‘nuff said for now. I feel it really is time for me to get on and do more of that practice. Times a wastin'. At its most simple all I was suggesting is that the rather scattered accounts and approach to AF, currently in evidence, be gathered together and given a bit more of a solid ground here at DharmaOverground. I see this is happening. Great! I will return to my questions about self/being, affect/feelings in time.
ok.. and perhaps you will have answered some of them by then.
tarin
[1]
here i am punning both on the word
clinique (which, aside from meaning 'clinic' is also the name of a well-known manufacturer of skincare products), and on
complexion, which means both '[the] natural color, texture, and appearance of the skin, especially of the face' and '[a] general character, aspect, or appearance', as well as '[a] viewpoint, inclination, or attitude'.[3]
[2]
certainly not in the mahayana... as for the pali canon suttas which may indicate accounts of similar claims, they are two thousand years old and, to the best of my knowledge, there are yet to be clear reports of the successful reproduction of such standards by theravadan practitioners in modern times.
[3]
and here, clinically explaining the joke.
Sorry no time to rewrite...
