hi k a,



i am not sure i qualify as 'jhanic folk', having myself no access to jhana as is ordinarily conceived, yet i do have some comments to make which are relevant to (the points) you (raise).

the first comment i have is that what you are referring to throughout your post as 'AF' simply does not exist[1].. at least, not with regard to actualism or an actual freedom. what 'AF', as an abbreviation, actually stands for - and so what it ought only to be used to refer to - is the condition of actual freedom, which, being a condition, is not a practice, nor a tool, nor a methodology. it is a mode of experience made on-going and permanent.

the practice of actualism, on the other hand, is a means by which one (as this human being) can become 'AF' (actually free).. it is a practice, it is a tool, it is a methodology. the practice involves, among other things, cultivating felicity, aiming at being happy and harmless, and entering into the pure consciousness experience (the pce). an actually free human being does not practice actualism, does not cultivate felicity, does not aim at being happy and harmless, and does not enter into pure consciousness experiences; as the ends have been achieved, those means are no longer relevant.

are these distinctions[2] clear? it is important to be as clear as possible here, for you are no more likely to think precisely than you are to communicate precisely.. and thinking imprecisely about what an actual freedom is and what actualism entails will not lead to much that is of use (excepting, perhaps, an opportunity to sense the opacity inherent therein - and so to learn from it).


*




ok.. for those who use the progress of insight, to what point do you suppose they must already be advanced before the practice of actualism will be functional for them?




as the practice of actualism does not make use of map which values the three characteristics (or great a&p moments), then this is like saying to someone in france that going to spain is a tool for the avoidance of going to england.

to which i reply: yes.. spain is more sunny.




what is disingenuous about seeing, for yourself, that feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does nothing to actually end (or even improve) such cruelty and suffering?

or do you not see this?

tarin

[1] this has been pointed out before by guilherme in another thread.

[2] it is worth noting here that daniel ingram has contributed heavily to the confusion on the dho about this matter by referring to both his practice of actualism and the experience of a pure consciousness experience (pce) and/or excellence experience (ee) as 'AF-mode'. as far as i can tell, he no longer does so (having replaced his usage of the misleading term 'AF-mode' with the less-misleading term 'PCE-mode). from what i understand, his practice has also advanced by leaps and bounds.

as none of the definitions of actualism is 'actual freedom', and as none of the definitions of actual freedom is 'actualism', the distinction is indeed important.




1
1.1
assuming that doing x = <the thing-really-reminiscent-of-what-I-am-hearing-about-AF> = doing <seeing, for yourself, that feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does nothing to actually end (or even improve) such cruelty and suffering>

and assuming situation y= <advancing dark night>

and assuming feeling z = <disingenous>


1.2
then your statement which read:

'I dropped this thing-really-reminiscent-of-what-I-am-hearing-about-AF when advancing dark night would have made it use feel disingenuous'.

would read:

'doing x during situation y causes feeling z'.


1.3
and so what i am asking is:

how does doing <seeing, for yourself, that feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does nothing to actually end (or even improve) such cruelty and suffering> in situation <advancing dark night> cause feeling <disingenuous>?[1]




2. yes.




3. oh yes, to the extent that 'being' anything can end or improve cruelty and suffering.

meanwhile, to be grim, or glum, or otherwise miserable, is to be cruel[2] and to suffer[3].





you're welcome.

tarin

[1]
perhaps something-even-more-reminiscent-of-actualism is needed to fit into doing x in order to get feeling z = <ingenuous>?

[2]
cru·el
adj.
Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

[3]
suf·fer
v.intr.
To feel pain or distress[.]

hi katy,



ok... what causalities have you understood? what is it which causes you to be cruel and to suffer?





having experienced tooth decay nerve pain which has occurred in the past, one can remember for oneself that there is good reason for brushing one's teeth. having found one's own breathe malodourous when not brushed for some time in the past, one can remember for oneself that there is good reason for brushing one's teeth. hence, no pain - and certainly no cruelty or suffering - is needed here and now at all, and certainly no cruelty or suffering is needed even in memory, as a cognitive memory (rather than one which is affective) is all which is required, by the standards of your analogy, to effectively clean one's teeth.





are you able to distinguish between physical pain and affective pain?

it is, roughly, the difference between a physical sensation and an emotion.

it is the difference between a circumstance which is ultimately beyond your control and a circumstance which is entirely of 'your' own making.





hmm.. what you are saying seems more like this:

'being pain-misery develops (my) conviction that (i am necessary for) tooth-cleaning practices (to occur as appropriate). therefore, being pain-misery in awareness of cruelty suffering develops (my) conviction in awareness practices (by which i continue to survive).'





fight fire with fire, eh?

tarin

Thanks for the clarification. It's still not clear to me, however... What is the "actual world"? Is it experienced in a PCE? Or, is the actual world not accessible except through a complete actual freedom (and therefore a PCE is still a virtual reality of the actual world)?

As, I sit here, I would like to say that I am actually typing on the actual keyboard of the actual computer that actually sits in front of this actual flesh and blood body. So, is this the actual world I'm describing? Or, since there is an affective component to my experience as I sit here and type, and therefore an identity/being... is this not the actual world? It seems that the actual world is accessible in every experience, as we all experience the actual world first before our superimposed reality is placed on top a split second later. But, I would like to know what the phrase "actual world" is specifically referring to.

I would appreciate your thoughts (or anyone else)

Thanks,

Daniel

no, what i did was point out that your statement:

"feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does something to actually end such cruelty and suffering"

..is nothing but a declaration of intent to perpetuate cruelty and suffering further still; as your purported attempt to end cruelty and suffering is meant to somehow achieve its ends by bringing into existence more of the same (for what is it to feel miserable/feel disgusted/feel angry if not to be cruel and to suffer?), then the reasoning here is bizarre, and the irony, apparent[1].

by justifying your perpetuation of the very thing you pay lip service to wanting to end as being instrumental in ending it, 'you' continue 'your' masquerade behind the scenes... and so it is no wonder if the suffering (dark night-related or otherwise) goes on... and on... and on. the surest thing misery leads to is more misery.


*




the term 'happy and harmless', as used in the context of actualism (and as perpetually experienced in the condition of actual freedom), refers to the state of being without malice and sorrow.




i can assure you that, however improbable fixed states of existence may seem to you, i don't ever experience even an iota of either malice or sorrow... or anxiety, for that matter. this state of affairs is as fixed as can be... and with no persona to apply cosmetics to.

life is really, really good.




i suggest reading a particular selection of richard's correspondence from about twelve years ago here. i recommend starting where the passage begins, 'That which is alive can hardly breath without bringing harm...' and continue to the end of the letter.

tarin


[1] and so i replied with an ironic statement of my own: 'fight fire with fire, eh?'. here, the irony was in that statement being literally a suggestion, but contextually meaning the opposite.. i certainly don't advocate fighting fire with fire (or suffering with suffering).

--

ps- in case you missed the first question i asked in my last reply:



what causalities have you understood? what is it which causes you to be cruel and to suffer?

no; i have indicated that by operating on the premiss that "feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does something to actually end such cruelty and suffering", you are declaring your intent to perpetuate cruelty and suffering.

perhaps if i were to put it this way: by intending to make use of feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry, rather than dropping them like the hot coals that they are, you intend what causes suffering to continue.

or: by intending to make use of feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry in any way that is not simply abandoning them, you continue to suffer.




no; were we to follow along the my line of reasoning, the argument would look like this:

if, when you have a flu and feel miserable, you decide that, because you have a flu and feel miserable you will persist in unhealthy behaviours which perpetuate both the flu and the misery, then you are essentially declaring your intent to perpetuate your flu and misery.




ok... how does (cruelly and sufferingly) feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and suffering (in the world and in yourself) actively reduce such cruelty and suffering?




what i understand is that you apparently misunderstood what i wrote. has the above cleared it up any?


*




what are the perceptions which add up to the dissatisfaction of the perceiver? are they perceptions of conditions which occur in the world.. conditions that are inherently overwhelming/repulsive/saddening or causing of impatience or despair? or are they perceptions of your own innate and uncontrollable tendencies to feel overwhelmed/repulsed/saddened/impatient/powerless/etc.?

if you mean that they are perceptions of conditions which occur in the world, then you are locating the causes for your feeling overwhelmed, repulsed, saddened, impatient, powerless, etc. outside yourself/beyond yourself.. you are locating them in the conditions of the world (in the events that occur, in the things that others say and do).

if you mean that they are perceptions of your own innate and uncontrollable tendencies to feel overwhelmed/repulsed/saddened/impatient/powerless/etc., however, you are onto something entirely different.. namely, that those miseries are matters of your own heart (they are existences of your own making).

which is it?

if you mean that the perceptions which add up to the dissatisfaction of the perceiver are perceptions of conditions which occur in the world (outside yourself/beyond yourself), then your priority is to change the state of the world into something which you do not find overwhelming/repulsive/saddening or causing of impatience or despair (and if that is what makes the most sense to you to do, ok).

if you mean that the perceptions which add up to the dissatisfaction of the perceiver are perceptions of your own innate and uncontrollable tendencies to feel those undesirable ways, then, as you see that those miserable feelings are matters of your own heart (and existences of your own making) and that there is nothing inherently repulsive or saddening or causing of impatience or despair about the actual world, you can take matters into your own hands: you can learn to stop fabricating distortions which wreck your heart and delusions which condition those miserable modes of experience.

the way to stop fabricating these distortions and delusions is to first stop repeating to yourself that feeling sad or bad is necessary. the way to stop repeating to yourself that feeling sad or bad is necessary is to stop justifying to yourself that feeling sad or bad is helpful. the way to stop justifying to yourself that feeling sad or bad is helpful, is to see for yourself that it is not.

see that feeling sad or bad is not helpful and you will make obsolete whatever use feeling sad or bad (seemed to ever have) had. see that there is no use in feeling sad or bad and you will make obsolete any desire to feel sad or bad. make obsolete any desire to feel sad or bad and you will no longer feel sad or bad. rather, you will be free to feel ways which are not obsessed by hurt, trapped in harm, and perpetuate misery and sorrow.

in feeling ways which are not obsessed by hurt, trapped in harm, and perpetuate misery and sorrow, either you will find hurt and harm, which perpetuate misery and sorrow, to be absurd and abhorrent when and where they arise, or you will eventually forget how to hurt, how to harm, and forget the perpetuance of misery and sorrow. if you find hurt and harm to be absurd and abhorrent when and where they arise, you will see their true nature, and they will cease to arise. if you forget how to hurt, to harm, and the perpetuance of misery and sorrow, and you forget how to maintain the capacity for those things completely, then all hurt or harm or perpetuance of misery and sorrow will cease to arise, because the condition upon which their arising depends will no longer arise.



*




as the context in which i initially used the phrase in this discussion was this:

'the practice of actualism, on the other hand, is a means by which one (as this human being) can become 'AF' (actually free).. it is a practice, it is a tool, it is a methodology. the practice involves, among other things, cultivating felicity, aiming at being happy and harmless, and entering into the pure consciousness experience (the pce).'

..then what i meant here by 'happy and harmless' is the state of feeling felicitous (feeling innately well and well-wishing). it is a state which does not necessarily arise simply because the malicious and sorrowful tendencies are not clearly roused.. a lifetime of conditioning will see to it that such feelings can be locked quite deeply away. if they are, an active and engaging investigation is best suited to retrieve them.. or, at the very least, deepen them.

so, in that context, i was explaining that the practice of actualism involves actively aiming at feeling innately well and well-wishing, thereby both depriving oneself of any opportunity to feel malicious and sorrowful and indicating towards the very real possibility that one will discover how truly and very deeply well and well-wishing one can be (and that it is always appropriate to be). i was explaining the practice in this way because it is helpful to define not only what one is best served aiming away from but also what one is best served aiming at. simply put, actualism functions best when one not only minimises the bad (and good, antidotally pacifying) feelings, but also maximises the felicitous ones.

i do understand that these points are more difficult to initially appreciate when one is feeling grim or glum (or numb).





and as 'i' was, for a time, one of those creeps, i can understand very well how that is possible. 'i', despite being often happy, still routinely experienced, among other things, pockets of resentment and spite and antagonism and irritation and frustration and anger.. and so was in no way inherently free from malice. it was only when 'i' was committed to being harmless, to being free from ill-will here and now, that this situation took a clear turn for the better. further, 'i' was only empowered to consistently and steadfastly do this by genuinely wishing well.. a sincerity which was made available to 'me' by finding myself feeling likeable and liking. therefore, i can say with practical certainty that without the intent to abandon feeling invidious, malice (and so sorrow) will run the show... and without the intent to feel friendly and well-wishing, feeling invidious will not be abandoned.





i have lumped 'this happy-harmless desire' in with the 'pure consciousness experience' because the desire to be happy and harmless, when deeply and sincerely felt, leads quite directly to the pure consciousness experience.. being happy and harmless is an identity's surest way to its own obsolesence, for when things are running very, very well, then (the feeling of) 'i' becomes unnecessary.. and just sort of wanders 'off'.. and then things are perfect.

i have included the qualifier 'without malice and sorrow' because a pure consciousness experience is entirely without malice and sorrow.

i suppose you could think of the clause 'without malice and sorrow' as being a sort of barrier to certain modes of experience, yes. but, so what? would you prefer pure consciousness experiences to possibly include malice and sorrow?





have you ever had a pure consciousness experience?


tarin

i have. the reason why i have not replied to zhi lin is because i am still mulling over what to write. thank you for the prompt nevertheless.





in addition to responding to your speculations about what may or may not be a functional method of practice for other people, i addressed the only thing you wrote, in that original post, which was directly about your own experience:

'Despite having perceived some great benefits of this thing-really-reminiscent-of-what-I-am-hearing-about-AF it did not in any way prevent or resolve the ensuing misery/disgust/anger so-called Dark Night stages resulting from my perception of cruelty-suffering in the world/self. Further, I dropped this thing-really-reminiscent-of-what-I-am-hearing-about-AF when advancing dark night would have made it use feel disingenuous.'

as our subsequent discussion has been chiefly about what you have found to be something helpful[1] and not helpful[2] in resolving your misery/disgust/anger/cruelty/suffering, and about what you have yet to try[3], which is a very practically-oriented topic, then could it be that you have found our discussion here pedantic not because it is actually 'marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects', but because i have not successfully conveyed/you have not successfully understood the practicable, down-to-earth, field-tested suggestion[3] that i put forth?

tarin

[1] digesting/ingesting the three characteristics / being pain-misery in awareness of cruelty suffering, which develops (your) conviction in awareness practices.

[2] doing the thing-really-reminiscent-of-what-you-are-hearing-about-AF.

[3] seeing, for yourself, that feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does nothing to actually end such cruelty and suffering.

i did not prioritise thus... but seeing as you did, perhaps you ought to have answered it?




sure.. but as what i choose to write and to whom is my decision to make, not yours, then surely i can answer whosever queries in the manner i best see fit, can i not?

as i am not driven by nurture instinct anymore (for example, a wounded person - or a baby - crying gets my attention but does not make me experience anxiety), then i am able to judiciously determine how to act (or not act) accordingly. not being thus driven, i find myself in a far, far better position to know how to help someone than i have been before, as unblinded by ignorance and misery, i am now in a better position than ever to discern actual causality and conditionality.

with no passions operating, there is no basis for knowing 'right' from 'wrong' (that illusion is ended, forever) ... and while there is no 'right' thing to do (not even as a subconscious feeling), i do have a regard for my fellow human beings .. one that makes me opt for conditions that i consider most favourable for us all.

by the way, the most approximate instinctually-driven imitation of fellowship regard is probably altruism.. yet that is also not quite it. feeling caring feelings is not the same as actually caring.


*



oh, the condition upon which internal conflict arises dependent can be abandoned entirely... there is a clear difference between digesting it and excreted it.

similarly, there is a big difference between leaving a splinter or fragment embedded in one's foot, having that splinter or fragment grow over and become infected, and passively letting the foot swell and possibly force it out ... and soaking a foot with a splinter or fragment embedded in it in a tub of hot water, care-fully using a sterilised needle to remove it, and caring for it so that it heals rapidly and can reissue its full use and sensitivity.




yet, if everyone there were simultaneously offered a way better place to live, a community where their basic needs would be completely met and their lives would be completely dignified, and where they would be no animosity toward each other at all and so there would be no murder rate, would they not have rather opted for that?

'you' are that simultaneous everyone.




oh yes, 'i' was self-indulgent to the hilt... and indulged whatever passions arose without aim or discretion.

eventually, 'i' learnt a little aim and got stream-entry.

then, 'i' grew to appreciate discretion and progressed through the paths.

then, 'i' discovered that the body-mind has an innate capacity to manage very well (and to treat others very well) on its own without 'my' interference ... a discovery 'i' could have only made by meaning as well as 'i' had learnt to. i learnt to mean well, deeply and sincerely, by being as sensitively engaged as 'i' could be... and as 'i' learnt that attentiveness becomes scattered, and sensitivity dulled, by living in conflict within 'myself', 'i' learnt to value being sensitively engaged, and to de-value being in conflict, at whatever apparent cost... for the benefit of everyone involved.

you don't escape the dark night for yourself, katy... you do this for everyone.


*




you view purity of consciousness as the cessation of conditions (which is ultimately cessation of consciousness).. and view the experience of this world as an impurity. that is exactly what 'i', at its most extreme, does.

while knowing what the cessation of consciousness is (and what the cessation of suffering inherent in it is) can be helpful, it is only the cessation of suffering which evinces the purity of conscious experience, here and now, on this very planet, as this apperceptive flesh and blood body, that will cause suffering to end here and now, rather than in a glorified state of (non-)consciousness.

seek the cessation of suffering anywhere other than as this fathom-long body... and the illusion and suffering goes on.




well, you say you recognise being in the dark night, which means you should have some insight into what the dark night is, which means you should know, at least in theory, that suffering is not caused by external conditions, which means you should know that suffering is, rather, caused by the conditions upon which it dependently arises.

do you understand the second noble truth?




as the mitigation or avoidance of suffering which is already going on can only ever be superficially enjoyable, then that is not what i would advise anyone do at all. rather, it is knowing what makes one tick that leads to suffering's end, and that is what i endorse fully.

a mind afflicted with conflict and desire cannot know what makes it tick, what drives it to suffer.. it is too preoccupied by the suffering. for this reason, a mind afflicted with conflict and desire hardly even knows it is suffering, let alone knows the cause of suffering, let alone knows that the cause of suffering is utterly unnecessary and can rightly come to an end.

only by suffering less can more of the remainder of suffering be seen. understanding this is understanding the unequivocal path to the end of suffering. understanding the unequivocal path to the end of suffering, one sets one's intent one-pointedly on that path and at that end.

you are not even seeking the end of suffering when you conceive reasons for continuing to suffer.

it just so happens that you can't think your way out of this one.

and on the other hand, feeling caring feelings is not the same as caring.


*




one cannot 'be the end of cruelty' - one can only bring cruelty towards an end; but when cruelty comes to an end, so does one... entirely.

that is the cessation of suffering that evinces the purity of conscious experience, here and now, on this very planet, as this apperceptive flesh and blood body conceiving no 'i' whatsoever.


*


well, until you feel ready to be done dark nighting, here's a quote from the pali canon (MN 63) that may be worth considering:

'"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."'

to that, rather than continue as the sutta does[1], i would instead add: 'in the same way, if anyone were to say, "I won't stop suffering until i find the root cause of suffering" or, "i won't stop suffering until others stop perpetuating cruelty", then such a person would suffer until they die and those problems would still remain unsolved.'

what also comes to mind is the example of a person caught amidst a forest blaze who, rather than fleeing it, remains in place and tries to figure out what caused it.


*


at the end of the day, i do not claim to know the precise details about what is definitively better for any other person in any situation, because i do not have a total and exhaustive comprehension of causality. all i can comment on clearly and distinctly is what suffering is, what suffering inevitably arises dependent on, what suffering comes to a permanent cessation in, and the way to bring that about.

tarin


[1] the sutta actually continues:
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.


ps- i just noted that you have edited your reply since i began writing and removed some comments and inserted new ones. i will keep my responses as they are and respond to the new sections later.

i do understand where you're coming from, by the way.

a person who finds themselves in such a condition cannot achieve freedom from it without examining it. yet, as the freedom is evitably found in seeing that remaining in the dark night, for any reason, is futile, then i am, in short, indicating toward this insight: see, for yourself, that remaining in the dark night, for any reason, is utterly futile.




bleak/angry/disgusted biases cannot be entirely exhausted... if they could be, there would be no need for a total escape. these biases arise dependent on a condition that is not itself exhausted by the biases' exhaustion.. and so the biases will continue to arise (re-generate).

regardless, supposing you are here correct.. is it the case that you have no other insight?


*



and probably longer/deeper still, where you are willing to leave aside the feelings that motivate those thoughts and narratives which you propose suspending.

while what you describing here is sensuous attentiveness, and while this is not what is meant in actualism by a 'pure consciousness experience', a facility for this way of experiencing is instrumental to proceeding in the direction of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible.




i think you do not allow this state when witnessing cruelty because you are not allowing yourself to feel well when others are suffering. this is nurture instinct in operation.. moved by feeling, you allow your blind nature to run its course. we have already seen that feeling caring feelings is not the same as actually caring, and this is an example of that. further, the problem is sometimes compounded by the belief that one ought not to feel well when others suffer.. and it is taboo to be otherwise.

yet, by not allowing yourself to not suffer here, you inadvertently perpetuate within yourself the very sort of thing which lies at the root of what you would like to see gone from the world.




despair (powerlessness) does give rise to anger/depression/non-acceptance... but at the core of despair are tacit assumptions about what 'i' am and what 'i' must be/must do.




it is quite a hairy affair to be 'me' ... the experience can be deeply scary, and irritation can be difficult to endure. but it is possible to be more gentle with oneself.. the means of being, truly and sincerely, best friends with 'me' lies in acknowledging that 'i' am 'my feelings', and that 'they' are 'me'. 'we' do this thing together.

let's see what we can do to bring all cruelty, whether in hearts or in spades, to an end, shall we?

tarin

i most definitely read your words.. though without, by the way, always realising that some of those words could mean multiple things, including things i have not considered. and i say that as an aside because my declaration of rightful prerogative here (above) was a direct response to your attestation (further above) that '[you] do not think of these points that we've discussed as trivial, appreciate [my] time and thoughts, and can wait for answers in view of another's whose queries [you] triage higher.'

in other words, i was merely pointing out that whatever thoughts motivated your words, i did not share them; i did not, unlike you, triage another person's queries more highly than yours.




assuming 'watermelon' is here actually caring, then there are ways one can want watermelon that will cause one to remain watermelon-less.. and there are ways one can want watermelon that will deliver it. it is overly simplistic (that is, inaccurate and unrealistic) to think of the relationship between the two overall ways of wanting as a linear progression from the former to the latter that necessarily happens. one can certainly remain watermelonless.




i am thinking of the difference between being resigned to cycle in and out of misery, however light or sporadic the load may be... and being out of the entire cycle completely.

being purely intent on the latter leads to it.

seeing misery for what it is - utterly futile (as it is caused by a process which is not beneficial), yet not inevitable (as it is caused by a process which is not necessary) - leads to this pure intent.




i ended up conflating two points there; let me re-write that:

(1) yet, if everyone there were simultaneously offered a way better place to live, a community where their basic needs would be completely met, where the peaceable character of the community meant that animosity were rarely funneled into physical rage, and where murder was a scarce occurrence rather than an everyday fact of life, would they not have rather opted for that?

(2) similarly, if everyone were offered a means by which they could make their lives completely dignified, in which they would have no animosity toward each other, and so there would be no murder rate at all, would they not also rather opt for that?




i meant that, in a sense, 'you' are simultaneously 'everyone' that is 'in' your psyche ... and that this sense of things is relevant and applicable to the situation because if 'you' were to see this, and so 'you' were to care about 'everyone', then 'everyone' would care about 'everyone' (including 'you').

when 'you' are the 'everyone' that cares about 'everyone', 'you' will naturally, sincerely, mean well (you will be the well-meaning).

to do this, all 'you' have to do is care about 'everyone' (including 'you').

the way to care about 'everyone' in such a manner is to realise that one is one's feelings, and that one's feelings are oneself.




yes, self-indulgence is the default setting.. whereas it takes a closer discernment of the facts (what is going on in the world?) and of one's feelings (what is it that i really want?) to reveal that the body-mind has an innate capacity to manage very well (and to treat others very well) on its own without 'my' interference.

along the way, the closer discernment reveals the value of meaning well.. which is found in being the meaning (that is, in being well-meaning).

the difference between being the well-meaning and having good intentions is the difference between being caring and having caring feelings.

just as 'i' am 'my feelings', and 'my feelings' are 'me', 'i' am 'my intentions' (my desires), and 'my intentions' (my desires) are 'me'.


*




ha, no... however, for me, the relevant distinction is between reading what my fellow human beings write and reading what my fellow human beings write in a way that conveys the correct understanding of what those words were selected (by them) to mean.




as guilherme, above, notes, a cause of confusion here has been our different uses of the phrase 'pure consciousness experience', due to our using different meanings of the world 'pure'.

i affirm what guilherme reports, namely that:

'... in the term "pure consciousness experience" [richard] did not mean it as an experience of only consciousness at the exclusion of sensations, which, as I understand is what the term "pure consciousness event" refers to. The "pure" in "pure consciousness experience" refers to the absence of feelings and self, which are considered the impurities not the sensations.'

...and that, as i use the term the same way as does richard, then that too (that 'pure' refers to the absence of feelings and self) is what i mean by 'pure consciousness experience'

to re-iterate, the way i used the word 'pure' (in the phrase 'pure consciousness experience') was to refer to a mode of experience one can have while conscious, but not to refer to consciousness as a substance, and so not to refer to a mode of experience one can have while conscious wherein all that one is conscious of is consciousness (to the exclusion of all other phenomena).




in noting the 6 senses as comprising sight, sound, taste, feeling, smell, and consciousness, where would you then place thought and other mental processes (such as recognition, the use of language, or decision-making) of which you are conscious?

i ask so as to get a better understanding of what you would consider a 'pure consciousness experience' (devoid of any physical percept) to be.

so far, an experience of that sounds like the buddhist formless realms.

needless to say, that's not what i'm talking about when i say 'pce'.




thank you for this clarification and i apologise for the misunderstanding.

if you don't mind? let's put all our cards on the table. what is it that you value? what would you like to be the case, or to achieve?

what i value here is for a continuous and durable peace to exist for every individual man, woman, and child on this planet who chooses it. i have already achieved that for myself.

hence, i refer to the pure consciousness experience in those terms ('pure' and 'conscious') because it is a mode of experience in which the purity of the world, when consciously experienced, becomes apparent ... and i bother referring to such a mode of experience at all because this experience enables to become apparent the way for a continuous and durable peace (for every individual man, woman, and child on this planet who chooses it) to exist.


*




i cannot make sense of that question.. could you please explain it?




does this master of amazing feats in the zen parable also feel sad when he feels sad, and feel angry when he feels angry?

does he also tautology when he tautologies?[1]


*




yes, and no.

to use your example, can you see how, by believing that 'feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) does something to actually end such cruelty and suffering', you keep walking into the same (kind of) screen door again and again?

and can you see how, if you were to understand the second noble truth (that suffering is caused by the conditions upon which it dependently arises), you would understand, once and for all, that feeling miserable/feeling disgusted/feeling angry about the cruelty and the suffering (in the world and in yourself) only serves to perpetuate the cruelty and suffering in yourself, and by extension, the world?




neither.. i have no such feelings whatsoever.




if i thought you were not interested in removing the poisoned arrow, i would probably not be corresponding with you here.

further, if i thought you were not interested in seeing why your interest in removing the poisoned arrow remains merely an interest (rather than has effected the arrow's removal), i would probably not be corresponding with you here in such a fashion (as to indicate that an interest in indulging feeling miserable/disgusted/angry for any reason whatsoever is sufficient to obstruct the poisoned arrow's removal).




no, not at all.




as i have answered your question negatively, then perhaps you will not raise my MN 63 with one MN 38 after all.. yet, if you wish to make that reference anyway, you may have to explain its relevance, as it appears to me to have here no currency.


*




it would be useful to me to know how you have found it useful to you, as knowing that much may indicate to me what sorts of things are useful to say, and what things to leave aside, at least for another day.

tarin

[1] if guns don't kill people, people kill people, does that mean that toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast?

at the end of the day, i do not claim to know the precise details about what is definitively better for any other person in any situation, because i do not have a total and exhaustive comprehension of causality. all i can comment on clearly and distinctly is what suffering is, what suffering inevitably arises dependent on, what suffering comes to a permanent cessation in, and the way to bring that about.

that is to say, i can only mend buttons, and i prefer to sleep on the floor (others can lie where they like).

tarin

well, if i were you, i'd be interested to know what that uneasy sense of 'living fakely' is, and why it is that wanting to feel well produces (or reveals) an uneasy sense. also, what is the alternative, 'living real-ly'? i'm just guessing here, but is it the intuition that you must feel unwell in order to feel real?

if so - and i'm not just barking up the wrong tree - what value is there in feeling real?

tarin

yes, exactly. there is no world 'over there' to be connected to or consumed by anyone 'over here'.

no separation.. and so no need for a bridge.




it sounds to me like you are doing it, but no one else can ever fully it confirm it for you. regardless, whatever it is you are doing, i am fully supportive and appreciative to the extent that it makes your life better here and now.. and leads to/through happiness for its own sake. that, you seem to be doing well, as evidenced by your own experience:



it speaks volumes.

tarin