I've just heard about AF and it sounds very intriguing. Doubly so because some of the members here who are experienced and further down the path than I am are interested in it or actively practising it.

I was wondering if anyone can recommend ways to integrate AF with meditation? I'm currently mostly doing concentration practise - Jhana focussed. This was was taught to me by the GWV and Jhanananda. I have since tired of Jhanananda dogmatic, rigid and humourless stance but I have a great deal of respect for his command of the jhanas. I do very little to nil insight practise and am not really familiar with it. Perhaps a lot of this comes from Jhanandas contempt for vipassana type practises, seeing them having no suttic validity etc. Also insight practises seemed a lot more boring than concentration ones. It was was helluva a lot more fun for me to 'groove' to the 2nd jhana than to painfully spend time watching arising and passing. No dissrespect meant - this was my view. However having chanced across this forum and also MBCT, my interest in it is re-kindled.

Funny but interest in insight practise started with Richard Rose who seem to me to be enlightened. He had his own idiosyncratic way of furthering insight that appealed but found a bit chaotic.

My questions are:

1) Can anyone point me to sources, posts, books or provide comments on ways in which I can integrate jhana practise, insight and AF?

2) AF is something totally alien and weird to me but does have an intuitive appeal. The AF website is hard-going. Not the most user-friendly website to negotiate. I was looking at an all in one practise manual of sorts. I did find Richard's writings and Justine's ebook to be useful but heavy on inspiration and experiential material and lacking specific practise techniques. I think they are buried in there somewhere. I have speed-read a bit. Will try and find it but some helpful pointers would be most welcome.

Hi, Srinath,



Check these out for starters...

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/thismomentofbeingalive.htm

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/attentivenesssensuousnessapperceptiveness.htm

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

http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/path2.htm

Also, if spirituality hasn't delivered the results you were waiting for, you should consider trying actualism out wholly, without mixing with Buddhism, for a couple of months and see if it works for you. That's the way it has worked better for a bunch of us who were mixing before but then realized it was counterproductive.

Regards,

Felipe

Hi Srinath

Excellent links there by Felipe.

I would strongly suggest *not* to integrate AF with meditation at all - not even a part of it -
I did this a lot earlier and as a result
, only lost time and resulted in frustration again and again. The central question that finally cleared up
things for me was this :- Do I want to be here on earth or not ? As a meditator I was only seeking
a release from the physical world and the physical world/universe was seen as the culprit as there
is just an endless pointless flow of arising and falling of phenomena. Compared to this , actualism
appreciates this universe and its not about seeing the physical world/universe as the culprit. When
you can see that this physical world is magical and not-inert - as if it is alive and not dead/selfless,
then actualism begins to make more sense.

Here is a short gist from the AFT :-

1. Activate the long-ago buried sincerity so as to make possible a pure intent to bring about peace and harmony sooner rather than later.
2. Set the standard of experiencing, each moment again, as feeling felicitous/ innocuous come-what-may.
3. Where felicity/ innocuity is not occurring find out why not.
4. Seeing the silliness at having felicity/ innocuity be usurped, by either the negative or positive feelings, for whatever reason that might be automatically restores felicity/ innocuity.
5. Repeated occurrences of the same cause for felicity/ innocuity loss alerts pre-recognition of impending dissipation which enables pre-emption and ensures a more persistent felicity/ innocuity through habituation.
6. Habitual felicity/ innocuity, and its concomitant enjoyment and appreciation, facilitates naïve sensuosity ... a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight.
7. Naiveté, in conjunction with felicitous/ innocuous sensuosity, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is to operate more and more freely.
8. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.
9. Sit back and enjoy the ride of a lifetime!

Regards
Shashank

You can't integrate them. They are fundamentally different approaches to life. Do one or the other. If you try to integrate them you'll just end up doing meditation with some strange focuses.


For some sources as to why you cannot integrate jhana practise, insight and AF, read the following page: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/180-degrees.htm. Once you are done, further read all the related discussions linked on the bottom: Richard, Peter, Vineeto 1 and 2.


Felipe & Shashank provided some good stuff. Note that the way I navigate the site is by searching it through google. e.g. here's all the links to pages on the site containing the word technique.

Really the site is a huge collection of conversations and articles. The picture sort of comes together gradually. I've tried a few times to find the "one thing" that summarizes it all but then it inevitably leads into explanations of other things which lead to other things etc. So you gotta take it piece by piece. It's a lot to digest. Though pretty simple once it's all come together.

Cheers sir,
- Claudiu

Felipe, Shashank and Claudiu thank you! Yes I'm beginning to see now how opposed Richard is to mixing things. '180 degrees opposite' as he never seems to tire of saying. That puts an end to any ideas of syncretic practise. I'll try and do it by itself.

I've been reading Felipe's quick and dirty list and all the links posted. Slowly getting my head around actualism. I guess in a way its practise and principles are fairly simple, which does make me do a double take.

I've been practising HAIETMOBA for the last two days. Its weird how that sentence has a way of making me prick up and notice things in a very particular sort of way. It seems to put a smile on my face. Obviously I've just started doing it and I'm no expert but this phrase seems calculated to induce awareness, awareness of self and connect you to the spectacle of perception all at the same time. I was riding my motorcycle today having some glum thoughts when I said haietmoba and I felt a kind of lightness of being and all the lights on the street began glowing - like after a meditation or mindfulness practise.

Still much reading to do. Haven got down to techniques yet.

I guess where I'm getting stuck is how actualism differs from insight. From what I can see insight has a much more laborious and meticulous process to it - fine chunking reality until it becomes granular. I'm wondering how the approach to insight differs from actualism in other details.

Also I am finding that when I have negative feelings, its hard to know what to do with them. Richard seems to suggest that having an attitude of this being 'a human feeling' and imagining it living you is the way to go. This is interesting and does work, but I'm wondering how further to deal with thoughts, feelings etc. especially when they are particularly strong.

This has created some debates about how to go about it: "do I return to felicity before investigation? do I take advantage of this opportunity to investigate this feeling in real-time now that it is here?" I've been using both ways, and my decision depends really on the circumstances and how overwhelming are those feelings. I think this will come to you naturally as you progress in your practice.

What I would say that is the first and most important step is making sure you are not evading your task of accepting them, feeling them, being aware of them and investigating them. It's very probable that factors like your social identity and your intuition will try to advice you that is a bad idea to start looking at those bad feelings and their mechanisms. You'll note all this in the shape of guilt, shame, fear, pride and others that serve as an armor to each of those feelings (and to "you" because "you" are your feelings and your feelings are "you"). All this is indeed a mechanism of "you" to keep "you" intact, alive. If you don't dare to question those "protection" feelings and beliefs you inevitably won't be able to do the job because you are going to be so busy denying them, dissociating from them, repressing them or even expressing them (this last one, mostly with the "good", loving feelings). So, when a feeling arises, good first questions would be: "am I trying to run away from this feeling? am I trying to push this feeling away? why? what should I do from here in order to get closer to this feeling?" Once you gain some confidence, you won't have any problems to investigate the whats, hows, whys of those feelings and be fully aware of them (I think this actually responds in part to your previous doubt: "I guess where I'm getting stuck is how actualism differs from insight", so you may want to think about that).

Also, keep reading the Vineeto's "How to investigate feelings" link in order to refine your understanding.

Good luck!

Thanks Felipe yes, Vineeto's post was good. Things seem to be clearer now that I have given them a second reading. Here's what I seem to be learning about actual freedom. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I would like to check my understanding.

1) A core thing with AF is the focus on the fact that there is no 'mystical force' outside the universe outside which we as flesh and blood beings are a part. This fact is itself is a wondrous thing, the clear perception of which will blow our minds or at least our 'I's'. William Blake's quote regarding the doors of perception etc. seems relevant here. There is no re-incarnation. All the efforts to get subtly get away from the moment are diversions.

2) 'I' is a false self. A bit of software, rough and ready stuck in us by nature to give us a start in life. Parasitical as Richard calls it - its existence maintains our unhappiness and sense of separation. It must 'self-immolate' in order for actual freedom to come about. (How does this differ from advaita?)

3) Meditation by emphasizing the need to get away from our lived experience gets in the way of enlightenment. Again this does remind me of a lot of neo-advaita teachings.

4) How does one differentiate insight practices from af practises? The main difference is that the actualist maintains and attitude of felicity, innocuity, attempting to keep gentle happiness as his default and probing whenever there is any interference with this. Insight pracitioners may also be felicitous and innocuous given Buddhism's focus on ahimsa but this is less core and the emphasis on happiness in the moment is less pronounced. Also insight seems to look at reality in a different way. More dispassionate perhaps. A more 'de-constructionist' attitude to awareness. A focus on slowing the process right down. AF doesn't seem interested in taking apart reality in this level of detail. Perhaps doing so is getting away from our humanity and is a form of escape as well? AF requires that we focus on experience more holistically and emphasizes its sensuousness and apperceptiveness.

Again apperceptiveness is reminiscent to me of 'bare-awareness' in zen / mindfulness practises - is it any different ?
What are the other differences between insight and AF?

5) When exploring feelings rather than looking at their arising and passing, as bits of information ... we look at when the feelings of peace stopped. We look at whether those negative feelings are important enough to merit interference with our happiness in this moment. If not we explore the feelings - looking at accepting them, exploring their root cause and relating them to our core fears and 'ego' or social identity. This seems to be easier said than done I guess. So far, I seem to be able to defuse a lot of bad feelings by just using HAIEMATOBA. But surely the time will come when I can't and I will need to delve in. Looking at Vineeto's technique it looks like the psychotherapy I've undergone will come in handy. Of course psychotherapy does not rest on the tenet that the 'I' is dispensable or that felcitiy and harmlessness are necessary.

This is just to clarify my own thinking. Apologies if you guys have already hashed this out earlier.

Hey Srinath,


Right-o!


You got it!


You might like to read Richard and Vineeto's correspondences on Advaita.


Well it gets in the way of actual freedom, yes. That might also apply to neo-advaita & enlightenment, but the goals are different (see #2).


You got it! (bolded).


Might be worth reading Richard's correspondence on Zen.

Consider that the experience of actuality (as in a PCE) is that of an inherently existing world, with you as a flesh-and-blood body actually existing and perceiving that actually-existing world. That is not the same as the bare-awareness of zen is it? They might say these notions of existence are imputations/concepts overlaid onto the experience - subtle or coarse forms of identification - and you would have to train yourself to not let those arise anymore before you could get to 'bare awareness'.


Consider a big one of, when meditating, training yourself to see feelings & emotions as not-me/not-self (anatta), vs. the actualist approach to feelings ('I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me').


Very few people seem to get it all. I'm glad to try and help you see it so long as you're open to it! You might like to participate on the actual freedom yahoo group as that's where all the actualists are hanging out these days.

Thanks for that Cladiu. I'm begining to wrap my head around this AF stuff however much is uncertain. You seem to have a good facility for this sort of enquiry so I hope you can clarify for me a few points:

1) Vineeto's post seemed to suggest that she looked at her emotions from the point of view of social identity, ego clinging, 'I' projections etc. I can see myself getting lost in a froth of my own neuroses and chasing my own tail if I try to do this. Insight would seem to provide a structure - but its methods are frowned upon by AF. Do you have any concrete suggestions for how emotions can be explored this way? Something about this seems more psychoanalytical than insight meditation. Of course psychoanalysis entails certain beliefs in a self, ego structure, belief that a healthy human being should express his feelings and make conscious what is unconscious, containment by therapist etc. but there seem to be similarities in that feelings are not observed in a regimented and 'small chunking way.

Can you recommend a practise method for exploring feelings as well as sensations the AF way? Its hard to find this in the AF's meandering correspondences but I'll keep reading, cause I find a nugget every now and then that makes me go 'ah!'

2) Its also hard to wrap my head around the fact that Richard believes that only he and a handful of people have ever been free in an absolute sense. This is hard to swallow. I can see I'm not the only one!

3) Its also weird that Richard and others who have become actually free were previously enlightened by some definition of that word. Its strange how AF seems to be a finishing school for arahats and yet Richard says that buddhism is a 180 degrees the opposite. You'd think that someone with no great Buddhist training or hardcore meditative experience ( hint: moi!) would be a better candidate but I guess the drive and advanced nature of people who are already enlightened must mean that they only require a nudge off the precipice of self-immolation.

4) I had a quick look at the URL for the group earlier and it seemed there wasn't much action there. Can you point me to the right one?

5) Can you recommend a few solid tips for me to start off my AF practise?

Sure, I'll do what I can.


Heh "meandering correspondences" is a good way to put it. Consider they were all created by exchanges such as the one we're having now, then being filed under some topic page or other.

First thing is to realize that sensations are never ultimately the issue. Sure, feeling angry can elevate your heart rate & give you a headache, both of which are unpleasant *sensations*... but the real issue is the anger you are feeling, which then leads to those changes. So don't try to address the effect, rather, address the cause.

Next thing to realize is that thoughts are never *ultimately* the issue, either. Thoughts can loop in on themselves and be quite a nuisance, but they only do that as an effect of an underlying emotion. Again, don't try to fix the problem by stopping thoughts - because then the problem (the underlying emotion) will still be there. And it might get stronger because you won't allow yourself to consciously address it, which lets it fester.

So it's really the feelings you gotta look at. The next thing to realize is that you can't just *stop* feeling entirely. You can't force yourself to no longer feel a feeling. The most that can happen is that it gets buried subconsciously and then it's the same issue as with stopping thought.

It's like... have you ever had the experience in your life of noticing an emotional reaction starting? And then it's almost like, you could choose to keep going there & revel in it & fuel it, etc., or you could choose to just not, instead. A lot of the time it's irresistible - you can be like oh I don't want to be upset about this, again, but then end up being upset anyway. But has it happened at least once where you saw you could just not go there, and didn't? If so, that's essentially what it's about. Realizing that it's just not worth it to go down the path of following most feelings - they don't go anywhere - and instead choosing to feel happy, instead.

When you're trapped in the middle of a painful feeling then it's a bit too late to do that, of course. At this point I'd recommend you apply normal real-world techniques of calming down/relaxing, and then come back to it later.


Nothing else I've read has ever been indicative of describing actual freedom. At some point you'll put it together & realize that this is a new thing. Until then just avoid mixing methods.


No I agree with you actually. I think you're a far better candidate for not having had hardcore meditative experiences. I've definitely suffered as a result and it's made it a lot harder for me. Of course I also wouldn't know the things I do now if I went another way but that's how life goes. In any case, it's definitely not worth it to go do meditation first & then come back to it later.


That is the one. There's not much activity. You might like to read Jon's recent posts, though (titled Day 10, Day 11, etc...) he is currently visiting Richard & Peter & Vineeto and reporting his days with them. It's good stuff.


Make being happy and harmless as high a priority as you can. The more you enjoy your life, the easier it will be. Don't be afraid to do 'mundane' things to enjoy it, like read books, watch TV, hang out with people, take walks, etc. There's no 'morality' or 'thing I should be doing' with actualism. Everything you do is entirely your choice.

May I ask how you came across this website & the actual freedom site?

Cheers sir!
Claudiu

Srinath, in regards to this and your questions about the differences between the actualist and buddhistic awareness, you should consider that the actualism method is about being down-to-earth; so down that it can be confused with being simplistic:



In other words, you don't need to develop beliefs and moralities, but, more importantly, you don't need to create new layers in your mind, nor segment your mind in order to create witnesses, nor sublimate noble feelings nor applying opposite feelings as antidotes, etc. You just need the intent to be 100% happy and harmless (free from sorrow and malice). To do so, you need to consider what I said and remember:

Richard:



Another important thing to consider is that, in actualism, the means are the same as the end. So fun is going to lead to fun; enjoyment to enjoyment, etc. I mention this, along with the down-to-earth part before, because it's important to drop all the grandiose and high tones, the philosophizing, the guilt and the solemnity that usually comes with spirituality, and be sincere about your intent to both leaving those qualities and fomenting the enjoyment of this moment of being alive:

Richard:



This sincerity will lead to naiveté, which is an amoral awareness full of wonderment and delight that appreciates each moment without prejudices of any kind.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Felipe

This is good. Yes I have deliberately not 'scratched the itch' many times in the past Claudiu. Especially in the last few weeks and since reading about AF and practicing the 'being happy all the time' thing, I can see myself preparing to work myself up into a lather about something or the other but not going there. Often this defuses the feeling. As it turns out there is often no compelling reason to get worked up. You see I didn't see a compelling reason for not being unhappy before. Apart from some Tony Robbins types and some silly New Agers, no one else was really saying that. Now I'm getting a philosophy that's pointing all the way to ultimate truth.

Sometimes though the emotional charge is quite strong esp. at work when I'm doing longer hours or someone is being difficult/annoying. I guess you're going to suggest repeatedly letting go of my anger, irritation, fear etc.?

At these times I use more in-depth tools (once I can get away) and try an assess what is going on from the ego's point of view. self's idea of deservedness, status, social identity etc. and then try and let that go. I guess seeing that AF places more of a premium on negative experiences being a creation of 'I' then going after sense data and thoughts are like the tail wagging the dog? Going after feelings - perhaps better cause its more central to the 'I' we're getting closer to it. Feeling states emanating from the 'I' strongly effect sensum and thoughts too. Is this right?



The happy part I get. Harmless I'm not so sure. It means what it says I suppose. Not being obnoxious or hurtful for whatever reason. Being 'sweet'?

I think I just stumbled across DHO searching for some Jhanananda posts on the web. I came across some arguments on here. That was when I first heard about MBCT and AF and I looked up both of those.

Felipe, one thing I wonder about is how indulging in fun and justifying this as actualism may lead to just gratifying instinctual passions and diving headlong into materialism.

The Buddhist moralising with regards to sex and the byzantine complexity of the vinaya always struck me as weird, unnatural and unnecessary. So I'm definitely not one for prudery or morality. On the other hand I wonder about whether there are 'skillful' or 'wholesome' gratifications so to speak.

Shashank's comment of cultivating felicity/inncocuity and ensuring it is not being usurped by either negative or positive feelings I don't really get.

My gripe is why positive feelings if we're supposed to be happy?

Hehe this reminds me of a time many years ago when I was doing Jhana meditation and was experiencing the world as really sensuous and delightful. Someone told to me be careful not to enjoy it too much, cause sense desire leads to clininging leads to suffering etc. That really through a spanner in the works and for a long time it was the fly in the ointment of my enjoyment. Infact it just sits there to this day being somewhat unresolved like a thorn in my side. The idea that I need to on guard for clinging and remember all is impermanent etc. etc. AF seemed to loosen the thorn.

I just wrote this on the yahoo group:



Also try reading this FAQ on the difference between good feelings & feeling good.


That's good! Life is meant to be enjoyed =). Although careful with the jhana-delight. That's a different beast than felicity. Though jhana-delight feels good (blissful), you can't enjoy jhana-delight when you're not in a jhana, and getting into jhana requires a lot of concentration and withdrawal from the world, so it's rather incompatible with being out & about in the world. And as your "someone" pointed out, you tend to want to get back into jhana-delight once it stops... all of this rather usurps the goal of feeling felicitous come-what-may and come-what-may includes not being in meditation.

Sweet. You might like to read this FAQ on the meaning of life.


Hmm maybe... as you notice it's definitely easier to not scratch the itch from the start. If you've been in the midst of it for hours it'll be hard if not impossible to will your way out of it. and there's always the tendency to dissociate from it if you try to do it that way. One approach might be to just distract yourself/do something fun. do what normal people do to de-stress. Then when you've managed to shake it off, look back at what it was that made you so upset. Look at it until you figure it out. Then when you notice yourself starting to get upset for that reason again, it'll be easier not to scratch that itch.


Hmm basically. It's not so much that negative experiences are a creation of 'I' but rather that it's a *manifestation* of 'I'. They are part of how 'I' take shape. 'I' also take shape as positive experiences. Note very well that feeling happy is also a manifestation of 'I'. It is a feeling. But it's a type of feeling that most closely approximates the experience of a PCE. So it leads more readily there (to where there is no 'I', and thus, no manifestation of 'I', and thus no feelings. Though still sensory experience of course.)

And yeah feeling states absolutely affect sensum and thoughts!


Well if you're not harmless you're harmful. (Here assuming 'neutral' is basically harmless.) As in malicious. Obnoxious or hurtful as you said. That might "feel good" - people can and do get off on hurting others. But it's not felicity. It won't lead to the PCE or to actual freedom. It keeps 'me' around. And I think it's just not as good - overall I prefer to feel happy vs. to feel good for having hurt someone.


Oh nice. Jhananda is an interesting character. That dude knows how to get his bliss on. Well, glad you made it here!

I like the way you put it Claudiu, you make it sound like just making these little decisions whilst going about your day, rather than making it sound like a 'practise'. I think when I started I tried to apply the intensity of vipassana meditation rather than treating it as a real-life kind of thing.

How would you define felicity then compared to 'good' feelings. I assume you wouldn't cultivate it like you would a brahma vihara state, but more like just chilling and enjoying your walk or whatever (again, not a 'practise' as such)?

I think none of the messages show up unless you log in. I think there's an option to log in with gmail if you don't have a yahoo account.

Srinath Jellybaby:



Look how materialism implies a desire (an instinctual passion) and therefore the joy you feel in a materialism framework only comes when your desires are fulfilled. Therefore, it's a conditional, impermanent, extrinsic fulfillment. You need the external object to feel the feeling. Now take a look at felicity which acts actually in the reversed way: when there's felicity/harmlessness as a baseline, one is already virtually fulfilled and whatever materials that come will be more appreciated (specially in the sensuous pleasure department) as added values. Note, however, affective felicity is still conditional and compounded at some level (actual felicity, the felicity one has when one is actually free, is unconditional) but it's vastly less than the one that comes from passions/feelings such as desire, love, compassion, bliss, sympathy, etc. All that being said, there is nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" or "dangerous" in seeking felicity in the material, ordinary things as sources, provided that you are using them as tools to sincerely develop felicitous states. You just need to be sincere in your intent and intelligent on how you approach and relate to those things.

Also, it's useful to investigate why one goes for and emphasizes the material answers. The answer may be that one is trying to avoid or counter some negative feeling, which will produce, again, an attachment to that false answer (alcohol, drugs, television, religion, etc.). Actually, a good way to cultivate felicity is not by countering the negative feelings but by investigating and diminishing the passions that originates them. When both "good" and "bad" feelings are diminished, a spontaneous and natural harmony arises as your default state. Consider again that happy and harmless means no-sorrow and no-malice. Then, the free affective energy that comes from the liberation from those good/bad feelings can be used to stimulate felicitous/innocuous feelings. So, there are two very interrelated approaches to cultivate felicity: fueling it directly to develop your velocity and momentum, but also eliminating the obstacles that slow it down (investigating good and bad feelings).

If it's of any use, the following points illustrate how I've been experiencing/approaching reality during three phases: 1) normal, pre-spiritual mode; 2) spiritual mode (Tibetan Buddhism, which emphasizes compassion and putting the others before oneself); 3) actualist mode. All this with the disclaimer: this is how it's been for me personally, others may or may not relate to this.

1) Normal mode
I see an attractive female body --> Lust, desire arise --> "Man, I'd like to fuck her!" (I use "fuck" to convey all the energy involved)
Self-centered. This implies the compulsive materialistic pursue in order to fulfill a sexual desire. The following feelings could be frustration, attachment, increased libido.

2) Spiritual mode
I see an attractive female body --> Lust, desire repressed/sublimed into beauty, kindness, compassion, love arise --> "I'm glad for her that she's attractive."
Other's-self-centered (applied as an opposite to self-centered, but self-centered nonetheless). This implies the avoidance/sublimation/sugarcoating of sexual desire. The following feelings could be self-satisfaction, feeling good about oneself.

3) Actualist mode
I see an attractive female body --> Low levels of lust, desire; instead, an aesthetic, pleasant appreciation --> "oh, look, that's pleasant to see."
Felicity-centered. This implies an aesthetic appreciation, a lot more free from attachment, desire, lust, shame, guilt. The following feeling could be keep feeling happy with whatever comes next to your sight, as you simply move on.

In summary, when in doubt, ask yourself when you do/think something pleasant but your not sure about its nature: Why am I doing this? Am I focusing on the fun or the object itself? Am I trying to fulfill some desire? Am I trying to avoid/oppose/sublimate some negative feeling with this? In what way an instinctual passion is involved here (is there some component of reproduction/survival that guides my behavior)?

Such an amazing ride!

- Felipe

A very good question imho. The problem with the positives is that they give us hope that when the negatives come,
we can always strive and do something to get to the positives
and so in effect they are supporting covertly the very existence of the negative which means, in short,
it keeps malice and sorrrow alive. Its a trap. Its all about eliminating rather than controlling and the positive feelings
support the latter. When one experiences innocence, one is free from having to control.

That said, a crucial thing to understand is that actualism is not at all about about repressing a feeling - I did this
for a while and realized this is not the right way.

Also, just a question - do you see the physical world as inert and meaningless ? This is the
materialist viewpoint. For a long time I was
having this perspective and it requires a change in perspective to see that it can as well be seen as not-inert,
dynamic , vital - as if it is alive, but one does not have to force this - a PCE can reveal all of this

Regards
Shashank

From Tarin:

Shashank to answer your question. No I don't believe the universe is inert. My psychedelic experimentation has supported my intuition that we're all part of a self aware universe that is peering at itself. That's one of the reasons I found Richards ideas so appealing. Now I want to see what I can know for a fact experientially sans drugs.

You guys have answered a lot of my doubts with regards to where desire, positive feelings and negative feelings sit in the AF model. So I got how positive feelings like love, compassion etc are 'bad' in a sense and how they can be differentiated from feelings of wonder, amazement etc.

Big question here - what exactly is meant by the term felicity? Is it a composite word meaning acceptance, wonderment and happiness?

Also it seems like there would be a thin demarcation (but nevertheless an abyss) between repression and dissociation on one hand and being in now, being happy on the other. How does one avoid falling into this trap? Takes a great deal of knowing oneself I guess to realise what is what. Felipe's examples of what to do with a sexy girl who walks last you .... I can see how trying to aestheticise a primal urge or a hard-on may on occasion just cause us to dissociate more? I'd think sometimes you'll have to just accept that this is your bodies reaction to being sexually stimulated?

Richard those diagrams are awesome. Does finding perfection in the here and now (seen in 1st box) imply a PCE or just your garden variety enjoying the moment?

Claudiu yes I'm seeing that the 'I' is inseparable from feelings as it is part if its makeup. To borrow Tolles term and use it in a different way 'pain body'

I'm not really an AF practitioner but when I did HAIETMOBA I got the sense of excitement joie de vivre but at the same time a lot of the emotions eventually drained away. I was just in the senses and thoughts were blocked so I'm not sure if I did it right. I think the PCE is simply from doing the above long enough that it just happens. Maybe when Daniel finishes his next book it will include his experiences because I remember him and others having to spend hours and hours in this state in order to trigger a PCE.

As opposed to looking at the 3 characteristics you just try and enjoy the happiness of existence.

Sorry if the example created confusion. I should clarify... I was relating how I experience that kind of circumstance after 2 years of practice, now that my libido is diminished. Of course I had to do a lot of investigation on my beliefs and feelings around desire, lust and sex to get to that point. In other words, just how I wrote on the other post, once feelings and beliefs are diminished, the remaining is a more stabilized, unconditional calm and appreciation. But one needs to do the job to swim in feelings, and that means firstly accepting they exist in a friendly manner and then investigating them. Never dissociate, repress, lie to yourself about them, surrender. Also, again, always question meta-feelings such as shame and guilt if they arise when you become aware of your lust or whatever feeling.

Specifically about your question on dissociation, contemplate how the actualist awareness is an affective awareness and that 'I' am my feelings and my feelings are 'me'. If you start from there, 'you' are the feeling you are currently experiencing. See how that realization affects you and your behavior, because you are in the presence of your feeling of being in real time. Since 'you' are your feelings, this implies that it's entirely your decision how to experience this moment of being alive, and if you are sincere in your intent to be happy and harmless then you are going to guide yourself to that route each time again. And that means 'morphing' your feeling X into your feeling Y (not pushing one away and creating another) by investing your energy towards Y but also removing obstacles to get to that --such as said feeling X-- via investigation. A little note... the investigation is the best way to get chronic felicity because it will guide you to the realization that 'good' and 'bad' feelings are not worth your energy as they are illusions and false ways to get to your aim of being happy. Once you are aware of the shitty nature of such feelings, it's going to be a lot easier to automatically get to felicity because that's obviously always the right way to go in this, your only moment of being alive.

Now, compare that approach to the buddhistic one

The Buddha:



Can you see how the first leads to take responsibility and control on your feelings as they are the ones that form 'you' and the latter leads to dissociation from them?

Your explanation about how actualist awareness does not lead to dissociation is wrong because to be aware of affect is to be dissociated of it. Otherwise what is it that is aware that 'I' am my feelings and my feelings are 'me'. The awareness that is aware of that is dissociated from the feelings.

Hey, Aman,

Perhaps you would understand this better experientially if you remember how you perceived and felt the world before meditation. Do you remember how everything felt more unified, as a single layer, and not as a watcher witnessing something from the third person? It's like that simple experiencing from before, but with the difference that an actualist wouldn't react to feelings but instead would look at them curiously to see how and why they operate.

Furthermore, I don't think dissociation is our capacity for awareness of our own internal processes per se as you are putting it. That would mean that our modern brain's capacity for self-awareness is the problem itself and then every human being in this planet would be condemned to live in a constant and inevitable state of dissociation. Rather, dissociation is an intentional or unintentional inclination to do so that can indeed shape our awareness, and one great thing about actualism is that it guides one's intelligence to question everything, including the factors behind one's inclination to dissociate or repress.

EDIT. And I think all that sounds a lot more like an attempt to getting closer to feelings and not distancing from them as some kinds of meditation do. I remember this was an excellent read on those dangers from meditation. A couple of fragments...





.

I don't experience the watcher witnessing effect.

When the body and mind are one, that is the state when there is no dissociation. Thinking in itself has a component of dissociation to it. As I'm typing this, my fingers flow without me needing to think about what I have to type.

If actualism indeed was that great, stuff like "pure intent", "psychic web" etc. wouldn't be there. Because of this, I'm sure that it is an altered state of consciousness (aka ASC).

Edit: Richard himself has been diagnosed as having several disorders.

I'm curious, how many people are currently "officially" recognized as being actually free?
This isn't an attempt to start an argument, just sincere curiosity.

Thanks, and Metta.

Brian

Being a psychiatrist myself I would say that psychiatry is a science that finds it hard to describe non-normative states of being without pathologising them. Until very recently the achievements of meditators, mystics and monks were similarly disparaged.

I'm curious if anyone has seen or read any of the AF books and videos? I'm finding Richards olde worlde prose more than a little annoying to get through and was hoping for material presented in a less flowery style.

Here's the score as of January 14, 2013:


Also note however that Richard does not claim to be the final arbiter in these matters - the final arbiter is the person themselves - e.g.:

I've read Richard's journal & seen all the AF DVDs. Richard's journal is in much the same style as the prose on the website - perhaps even more flowery. The DVDs are pretty great because it's two people interacting and it helps to see the tone of voice & body language with which Richard says the things he says.

Try reading Peter & Vineeto's correspondences also. Their style is different from Richard's.

Well, at least Richard is consistently ridiculous in his writing:
love's fusion?? WTF?
Why use one word when thirty seven can be used?

On second thought don't even answer... I probably am better off not knowing.

Brian.

Just read the entire January 14 2013 message to get the relevant context. He didn't come up with that.

Beoman,
Thanks for the reply.
I started reading the material from the 14th, and then stopped when it fell into the kind of BS soap opera the yahoo group so often is(or was, I gave up entirely on that ... drama). Friends from India, lost and found memory sticks, into and *through* (gasp) insanity. I don't watch "the desperate sister housewives of lower slobobia" either, just not my cup of meat.
I was really looking for something like...6, or 42, or 189. My best guess from skimming my way through the 14th is 8. Hopefully they aren't all drama queens.

Brian.

Justine has asked Richard to remove his name from the website as being actually free. But it is still there. Also, he asked him to remove his daughters name as well but her name was not there to begin with. But I think she is being counted in the number 8 as well as Justine. Also, another probable candidate has told that she does have affect.

Justine did create a lot of drama on his blog before making it private. Check out his message #13651 on Yahoo forum to find out what he thinks of Richard. He considers Richard to have "unsteady mind", considers his AF to be 180 degree opposite to spirituality as delusion, that his writings are full of immature and wrong guidelines.

Don't believe what is on the AF website one bit. The conversations between Richard and other correspondents are highly edited and show a completely different picture. I haven't seen anyone rational enough while they are practicing AF including myself. AF practice makes you deluded.

hhmmmm... so 5 ish... maybe?
It would be so much easier to take AF seriously if Richard didn't seem like such a loon, and write in the same style as google translate.
Oh well, I guess it worked for 5 people, so good for them!

Brian

i don't want to get drawn into personal politics around the AF movement. spirituality in any form tends to cast a large shadow. however i'm keen to know how different people who became actually free see Richard. as far as i am aware Justine was very protective and laudatory of Richard, so it seems strange to me that they have had a falling out. its certainly not something i was aware of. Beoman can you clear this up?

I don't know exactly, but my guess is that Peter & Vineeto see him often, Grace not so often (based on Jon's reports on the yahoo group), Pamela I don't know at all how often, and the rest quite rarely.

It's not so much they had a falling out, it's that Justine decided, not prompted by any particular interaction with Richard as far as I can tell, that Richard was insane and that nobody should listen to him.

For a a little bit of context and background, these are some of the arguments from Justine:

Justine:



Justine is involuntarily correct (by starting from a false premise) in this one because Richard has written many times that he's not a god, master, guru, etc. Richard is certainly not an avatar either:

Avatar (Oxford Dictionary)
1: the incarnation of a Hindu deity (as Vishnu)
2
a : an incarnation in human form
b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
3
: a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity

He's never mentioned he is an incarnation, deity, embodiment or entity representing "actual peace", but just a fellow human being without malice and sorrow:

Richard:



I can't accept Richard as the ultimate avatar of any kind either because he's simply not one.

Justine:



And:



I think Justine was referring to something close to my last Richard's quote (where he equals enlightenment, god qualities and other spiritual ideas with delusion) but mostly to this (bold mine):

Richard:



So, yeah, Richard is insane by the real-world's book. But if the definition of an "insane" person is a case where one is completely free from malice and sorrow, and sincere enough (by not being falsely humble or politically correct) to warn about the differences between spiritual and real-world solutions and actual freedom, and therefore guiding his fellow human beings to that happy and harmless state, then I want to be "insane" too.

Justine:


That's correct. An actually free person can not maintain relationships of any kind because there is no one to do the relating or to relate with. Again if that "psychological problem" is the total elimination of any sense of being (and therefore, the elimination of the possibility of suffering) then that psychological problem seems desirable, doesn't it?

On the other hand, it seems Justine has chosen, at the end, the intuitive (and "sane") love and empathy over the ("insane") actual intimacy.

Regards,

Felipe

Felipe and Beoman it seems to me that Justine was more likely referring to Richard's claims of exclusivity regarding his condition and actual freedom being the epitome of awakening, rather than any textbook definitions of the words 'ultimate avatar'. Also it seems like he's a warm hearted sort of dude and finds the lack of emotion which is the cornerstone of AF off-putting. On the other hand, being actually free (for a period) himself, how could he then choose to go back to an affective state? i'm pondering imponderables suppose.

None of the criteria mentioned by Richard are DSM 4 or even 5 criteria for psychosis. See: http://behavenet.com/node/21565

Rather they are phenomenological terms for describing psychopathology, none of which by themselves (or even taken together in this case) are diagnostic of a mental illness. Certainly one could try and ham-fistedly categorise mystical experience and states of being using phenomenological criteria. Coming from the POV of white bourgeois western orthodoxy and that psychiatry is rooted in, these could easily lead to the wholesale pathologizing of just about anything. Functioning and cultural congruence are very important for this reason. if Richard were to walk into my clinic, even if i threw the DSM 4 and Fish's psychopathology at him i'd find it hard to give him a bonafide diagnosis. Despite the weird state he has been left with he remains articulate, content, functional and his beliefs are well within the realms of the spiritual subculture that he and others have professed.

i guess i'm wondering more about what Justine saw in Richard that gave him such a strong reaction after their initial honeymoon? Even during that honeymoon stage Justine described Richard as seeming like an 'alien' and acting like an 'idiot savant'. Clearly there were things that didn't sit well with him even then. These must have lead to branding him 'brain damaged'.

insanity is not the issue for me as Richard does not by definition meet the criteria for it. its more a question of whether Richard has wandered into another blind alley like the spiritualists he accuses which has left him in a state that in some respects seems undesirable. Obviously this is all mental masturbation at this stage but i need some faith at this stage in my practise.

i really was hoping the doubts with AF wouldn't crop up before i was well and truly into my practise. i need to base my practise on experience i know, but these accusations are undermining my faith, prior to fully engaging in the practise. Help you guys please!

i'm on holiday in Thailand and practising AF techniques has been very good and interesting up to now. i've had quite a few EE's and hope this will continue when i go back to my humdrum life

Well it's a good question whether someone who becomes actually free could go back to an affective state. They wouldn't be able to, no. That would mean that they weren't actually free in the first place - it would have been a PCE at most. Or perhaps just a matter of fooling themselves. From what I gather, though, the "newly free" stage can be a confusing one. For Richard it was a 30-month period of intense cerebral agitation - there was no anxiety or physiological symptoms that would be indicative of anxiety, yet he had to come to terms with the fact that he seemed to have lost the plot entirely. In Justine's case, note that Richard asked him a few questions in order to ascertain what he is going through - whether it is really affect, or something else that Justine is using terms for that usually refer to affect.


That's quite interesting, thanks for sharing. I don't have much experience with the professional field of psychiatry. For what it's worth a licensed psychiatrist is the one who officially diagnosed Richard with "a chronic psychotic disorder entailing depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia and anhedonia" (quote from here though references to this official diagnosis appear all over the site).

It's remarkably easy to ascribe negative qualities to Richard. I think fundamentally it's that each person has a notion of what perfection would really be, and when Richard doesn't exhibit all the characteristics of that perfection to the T, they are dissatisfied, and perhaps react negatively to seemingly having been fooled... the key here is that perfection lies outside of what 'I' think or feel it is. And the additional key here is that Richard is not yet another identity with 'his' notion of perfection that 'he' then tries to push on everyone else.

Faith, you say? You will find that actualism will fail for you, sooner or later, if you rely on faith... but perhaps you meant it in a colloquial manner, as in, you just need a reason to keep investigating it & not to give up on it now. What about those EEs you mention later in your post? Aren't they indicative of something going well with actualism?

Yea there's really a ridiculous cloud of 'negative stuff' which stands between any 'newcomer' to actualism... I encountered it myself. How to get past it? Maybe try investigating all those doubts, themselves... remember an experience of actuality (a PCE) to help guide you to what the facts are, perhaps... if you'd like to PM me to talk about these things more freely in private then go ahead, I'd be happy to help... really it's just a matter of wanting to enjoy one's life more, and seeing if actualism does lead to enjoying one's life more, and if it is, then good, and if it isn't, then the question is - why not?

It's only up to you, ultimately!

Another one from Justine...



Unfortunately Justine took down his website but I remember his first post against Richard stating what he repeated constantly on the Yahoo List later, that is basically... 1. Richard is a saint (or avatar, or a tapaswin) 2. Richard is insane (or his lifestyle is insane or his writings like 'everyone is insane but me' is insane).

Now, I can't really understand Justine but those two ideas have been the common themes of his discourses. The rest is speculation but it's not the first time someone changes their opinion about Richard by reading his words, because, as Claudiu said, he didn't have any recent personal interaction with Richard.

In other words, it seems Richard's online behavior stopped matching Justine's expectations about how a free person should be or should communicate. To me, when Richard seems firm in making distinctions and strong remarks about spirituality and real-world methods, he's just being sincere according to his own experience and given well-meaning advice on how to free yourself from the human condition. Those words can indeed seem harsh to us beings with feelings and identities.

If you want a more recent report about Richard's actual behavior in real life you can read the reports from Mike, Claudiu, Jon and Srid, who met him and crew in Australia. Everyone has been reporting the same... him living exemplary what he writes.



This is not the first time that this happens either. Irene, a former Richard's companion, experienced a similar return to good feelings when she was virtually free. And it's difficult to blame them as the instinctual passions are pretty powerful and seductive. I find myself constantly tempted to follow the love path but, fortunately, there's been enough confidence and pure intent to get back to my senses.



Everyone has doubts for a variety of reasons, mainly if you are at the beginning of the dismantlement of your beliefs and feelings. In those days I felt afraid, desperate, disappointed, cheated, alienated, etc. by all the sayings around actualism and Richard, mostly because I was operating on faith rather than confidence... faith in actualism as a belief system and faith in Richard as a sacred authority. It sometimes felt like my last hope in that there is a better way of living was being crushed.

Remember that you are doing all this to be autonomous, happy and harmless based on facts and not false refuges and delusions, and that everything is about 'you', not about a person in Australia nor about an ideology. You need to dare and to be utterly sincere in order to investigate the roots of all that doubting and how and why they are keeping you away from how one experiences life during a PCE. Consider all the illusions behind the internal mechanisms of your doubts, but also consider that the external reasons are pretty much illusions as well (they come from hearsay, lies, uncertainties, emotional interpretations... in the end, human beings being human beings).

You'll see how all this will be worthy.

Keep it up!

Felipe

it is possible that Richard met the criteria for a mental illness during the most turbulent and acute phase of his condition. But its difficult to see how one could diagnose a well defined mental illness at this stage and his psychiatrists are understandably at a loss - lacking the paradigms and vocabulary to do anything but shoe-horn him in a very crude way. There is a remarkable lack of sophistication among psychiatrists when it comes to describing fairly non-spectacular human problems. How much harder would it be for my colleagues in the profession to wrap their heads around a Richard, a Gopinath or a dark nighting meditator?

Anyways i don't want to get into an abstract debate of the deficiencies of the psychiatric profession. Beoman i would appreciate a bit of help and support as i'm trying to practise AF. i will definitely pm you.

Felipe thanks for your kind words which are indeed heartening.

i will set up a practice journal on here and also do a lot of reading of the AF site and AF related threads on DHO