You do not have the roles required to access this portlet.

Message Boards

Click here to understand Actualism

thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I've spent a lot of time reading on the Actual Freedom website, and I know a lot of people get lost there easily or dislike Richard's style of writing.  So here is probably the best page to read if you really want to understand Actualism.  If you've avoided the site up until now and only have a second-hand understanding of things, this is your opportunity to get it "from the horse's mouth" - so to speak - without delving into the guts of the site.

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

http://actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/vineeto/selected-writings/investigatefeelings.htm
Change A., modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 797 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
After Vineeto supposedly gained "Actual Freedom" somebody congratulated her and passed a comment about her body which made her reply in a way that somebody who isn't even anywhere close to freedom would do. Her outburst didn't suggest that she was free in any way in any sense.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
It would be nice if this thead could be about the methods presented, rather than the typical character attacks in threads about Actual Freedom.
Change A., modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 797 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
I think it is better to present the full picture and that means the results should be included as well of the methods one is presenting. What methods Vineeto used produced results in the end and those should be known to everybody who reads this thread so that they can decide if the method works as advertised or not.

Do you want some things to remain hidden?
Andreas, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 216 Join Date: 11/4/14 Recent Posts
Aint what she describes just a kind of mindfullness practice?

PS
I think the character attacks comes from lack of credible practioners of the method. Not that I know of any except Richard etc and their website is one big mess.
J J, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
But what if I dun wanna understand actualism?

jkjk
thumbnail
Daniel Leffler, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 292 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Click here to understand Actualism v. Buddhism:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152890353/Actual-Freedom-and-Buddhism
It's lengthy but worth it - tons of good stuff, particularly the proposition that in order to achieve a constant PCE state one first needs a compresive intuitive knowledge of Buddhist anatta, which, according to Thusness (according to the author), Actualist teaching provides quite well. But it's not the end of the path...
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Daniel, have you read about Actualism as well as that essay by Thusness?   I remember reading the paper a while ago and feeling that Thusness had completely missed the point of Actualist practice.  You seem to think that the PCE and non-dual ground of being are the same thing, so it makes sense that you would like Thusness's teachings.  The PCE is not rigpa, though.  There is no non-dual experience in the PCE.

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

EDIT: The article was actually by An Eternal Now, not Thusness.
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
My understanding of the non-dual is that it is experience without subject-object distinction. What is your understanding? Does the PCE contain a subject in your experience? If so, I have misunderstood. If not, where is the dualism? Where do you think Thusness has misunderstood? Not looking for a debate, just curious. Be well.-Bill
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
In the PCE, I am still a body and a pair of eyes looking out into the world that is separate from me. I don't look at a cup on the table in front of me and see it as a part of me. I don't feel that the seeing is happening on its own without me. I don't feel out of control of myself, and I don't experience any changes in where my perception is happening, how it's happening, or in what manner it arises or passes. I am not dissolved. I don't experience myself as non-being or even pure awareness. I don't experience vibrations of imperminance, and I don't see anything as lacking essence, being non-existant in some fashion, or being holographic projections.

My perceptual experience in the PCE is exacly as it always has been, minus all emotional feelings (all emotional tension has been resolved). Thoughts come and go like a disembodied voice as they always do. The sparkling perfection that fills the senses is, I believe, the imaginative faculty shutting down because there are no emotional scenes to rehearse. The mind's eye stops blocking the actual stream of vision in consciousness (same with mind's ear, etc.). The attention just stays in the sensory experience because it has nothing else to bother with.
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
O.K. Thank you. So in your experience of the PCE your identity is that you are the body and the eyes in the example given? Are you saying that thoughts always present to you regadless of state as a "disembodied voice"?
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Yes, thoughts are like a voice in the head - I am speaking without my mouth, and hearing the words I say without my ears.  There are mental pictures and sounds that form along with thoughts that distract from the senses.  These go away in the PCE along with emotional feelings.  The thoughts come and go as they would otherwise.  There is usually less to think about, though.

I am also still a "me" in every way.  I own my hands and body and am in control of them.  I am the one doing the thinking and the seeing and the hearing.
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Nice, thank you. So in the PCE as you experience it there is subject and object, the subject is just the sense rather than thoughts/feelings? So there is a solid identity looking out at a world of solid things that have an essence? 
Where do you think Thusness got it wrong? It's been a while since I read. Does he refer to PCE as the "ground of being" or "rigpa"? These are not rhetorical. It actually has been a while.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Yes, Thusness says directly that Richard is mistaking the ground of being as the end of the path.

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

EDIT: For hindsight, link isn't actually by Thusness, so nevermind that, haha.
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Are thusness and omega point the same person?
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Actually that's a good question.  I remembered reading that paper a while back and I seemed to remember it was credited to Thusness.  I just did a quick google search to find it and posted the link.
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Where did you see that? 
J J, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
Fairly certain Thusness and Omega Point are not the same person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Note: the author of the above essay is AEN)
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Ah, you've cleared it up.  AEN must have posted Omega's essay along with his own at some point and associated the whole thing with Thusness in my brain.

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

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


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

Oh, I can't go on from here because the website wants to charge me money...
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
I don't think that's correct either. Omega Point posts here occasionally and he submitted that essay himself. I understand your frustration man, I really do, but I think it's important to be careful when criticizing others points of view that we have done the research, or are speaking from our experience. Be well.-Bill
thumbnail
(D Z) Dhru Val, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 346 Join Date: 9/18/11 Recent Posts
Fairly certain Thusness and Omega Point are not the same person.

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

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

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

Also I think actualism at Stage 5 is more AEN's  idea since, he practiced Actualist stuff for a little while. Thusness didn't AFAIK.
An Eternal Now, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
(D Z) Dhru Val:
Fairly certain Thusness and Omega Point are not the same person.

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

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

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

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

AF in terms of the experiential taste is quite similar to phase 5, in terms of insight are not really the same.
An Eternal Now, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
Are thusness and omega point the same person?


No they are not. I do not know Omega Point personally, only read a bit of his (often very lengthy) posts.
Alin Mathews, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 182 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
William Golden Finch:
Nice, thank you. So in the PCE as you experience it there is subject and object, the subject is just the sense rather than thoughts/feelings? So there is a solid identity looking out at a world of solid things that have an essence? 
Where do you think Thusness got it wrong? It's been a while since I read. Does he refer to PCE as the "ground of being" or "rigpa"? These are not rhetorical. It actually has been a while.
From what i've gathered the Pure Conscious Experience is only a taste of Actual Freedom from the normal subjective controlling state of the human condition. iow the PCE is not the 'permanent' deletion of the subjective sense of being a thinking Ego and Feeling Being/Soul, those subjective controls are only temporarily in abeyance. during a PCE there is no sense of a subjective 'me' lording it over the body there is only an apperceptive bodily awareness, albeit without AF's permanent extinction of the ancient passions .

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

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

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

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

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

if AF from the human condtion really can be pulled off en mas Hollywood scripts will never be the same haha.   
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
If this is true, then why does Richard call enlightenment a delusion, and say he had to break free of that delusion to get to Actual Freedom?

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

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


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


The interesting thing about this to me is that it doesn't seem to line up with Vipassana or non-dualism in any way...  It's more like Richard improved on Hindu practices.
Alin Mathews, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 182 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
If this is true, then why does Richard call enlightenment a delusion, and say he had to break free of that delusion to get to Actual Freedom?

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

It is nothing like Buddhism which is a subjective practice tthats embedded in the psyche denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all.  
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:
It is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all. 

Psi: 

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

Psi
Alin Mathews, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 182 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
It is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all. 

Psi: 

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

Psi

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

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

AF it is just the sensible sensate conscious experiential intelligence of the actual mortal body *only* 
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:
Psi:
Alin Mathews:
It is nothing like Buddhism which remains embedded in the psyche, denying actuality exists and believing consciousness is all. 

Psi: 

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

Psi

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

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

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

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

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

Psi
Alin Mathews, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 182 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
Sorry Psi but i have no interest in discussing me here. I'm just clarifying what AF is and why it cannot be compared to jhanas stages, Dharma paths and various states of 'Being' as so many people keep doing.

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

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

I cannot stress enough, AF has nothing to do with The Dharma. it claims to lead in the opposite direction to all mystical notions that nothing is actually happening. 
thumbnail
Daniel Leffler, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 292 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:
Discussing and debating beliefs and theories may be a part of dharma practice but actualism is the exact opposite.

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

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

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

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

This is not my understanding of the Dharma at all Alin, although many do in fact have a nihilistic interpretation of the teachings, so it is correct that some do think this way. As far as I understand Buddhist texts point out the truth of anicca, that everything in the natural world is coming into existence and out of existence so rapidly we can't begin to perceive it until the mind is stilled to very deep degrees. The texts don't say things don't exist or things don't actually happen, they just don't happen in the way that our senses perceive that they do. Science seems to agree that impermanence of phenomenon is a fact at the subatomic level. Is this understanding in conflict with Actualist teachings or would you consider that an extraneous philosophy that doesn't really matter? 
Alin Mathews, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 182 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
Daniel Leffler:
Alin Mathews:
Discussing and debating beliefs and theories may be a part of dharma practice but actualism is the exact opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings Daniel,

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

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

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

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

Alin 
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:
Sorry Psi but i have no interest in discussing me here. I'm just clarifying what AF is and why it cannot be compared to jhanas stages, Dharma paths and various states of 'Being' as so many people keep doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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


 Ego subsisto te subsisto


Psi
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
[quote= they are neither joined/not two nor nondual. the inner sense of Being required to concieve of nonduality no longer exists. and it never did. it was a figment of the thinking brain. 
]
AF it is just the sensible sensate conscious experiential intelligence of the actual mortal body. 

If there is an inner sense of Being, it can not rightly be called non-dual as this is imposing a separation (inner/outer) that implies dualism. Did thou come to destroy the misunderstanding of others and spread one's own? You will be quite at home here. I'm just playing though, nothing worse than those radical non-dualists. Be well.-Bill
Adam . ., modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
Hey Alin,

Maybe you could introduce yourself? (not that you have to)
Do you practice Actualism/for how long?
thumbnail
Daniel Leffler, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 292 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Hi All,
I don't want to make this a philosophical S-Show, but really trying to get a basic understanding of Actualist practice, sometimes I can be a little snarky in the process
There was an interview with Shinzen Young (pretty sure it was batgap) where he generally questioned those that claim to have fully realized anatta. This was in a Buddhist context (I believe he was asked about D Ingram et all) where he used the Syrian prison scenario as an extreme example, saying we should be careful about claiming to be totally free of the self unless we could really test those claims under extreme hardships, he was throwing major doubt on those that claim to have finished/perfected the insight into anatta (as I believe D Ingram does and as Richard certainly does, but he's got other words). Sorry to lump you guys into the same sentence Daniel, if you're reading this
Seeing as AF claimants say they do not experience emotions anymore, and boredom being an emotion, what would happen if you put an AF person in solitary confinement with nothing whatsoever for a week. a month. a year. No boredom would arise? What about if you blasted the same Brittany Spears song over and over and over and... (ala Gitmo) - no aversion?
I was reading the Actualist website and it seems Richard and friends are building a ship to travel the world the world to spread the good news
Anyway, says Richard in that announcement (http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement1.htm)
he had generally declined personal meetings because he's 'not very keen on either formal meetings or scheduled appointments' and he's setting sail because he justs happens 'to particularly like the boating lifestyle'
Would it be safe to say that Richard has an aversion to scheduled meetings and a desire to live the boating lifestyle?
Wouldn't these be considered at least subtle emotions?
Also, would an Actualist person save someone that was drowing, or feed a starving child, or help an old lady across the street?
Isn't this compassion? Or, in Not Tao's case, choosing to be a vegetarian for the sake of reducing animal's suffering? Will that practice continue when actually free and why? Compassion? (I know that's a dirty word for some reason to AFers)
Now, don't get me wrong, I think supportive emotions are good things. But liking the boating lifestyle (or your wife) may be called love by some, unless you just like like her ; )
Helping someone out or going out of your way to reduce their pain and/or suffering might be compassion
Having an affinity for the boating lifestyle (or nature or vacations...) could be because you enjoy it
Many would call having a neutral attitude about likes and dislikes and life's inevitable vicissitudes equamimity
I'm not trying to be cute, but I think it's important to take a harder look at this teaching and to decide if we are 1.) redefing the word 'emotion' to either mean that no physical sensations related to thoughts arise in the body or 2.) that emotions are attenuated to the degree that they are extremely subtle and fly under the radar because practioners don't look inward so much (also a bad thing I gather in AF, not sure why)
Perhaps there are more options that I am not considering? I'm asking this question seriously 
I'm just throwing this out there, not to provoke, but to be even more precise in our words and to help the conversation so we're all on the same page. It could be that I'm just missing something major. I get that things aren't personal, I fully understand egolessness from my own experience. I don't have any beliefs or philosophies about the soul, I'm really not sure how important the various philosophical structures are to our bare experience either (I think Buddhists and Actualists agree that it's pretty important, but the Buddha warned against thickets of views)
I'm interested in exploring Actualist teachings some more because the training (that I understand so far) seems generally harmless and only good to bring oneself back to feeling good as much as possible (I'm sure there's more, it's a big mess of a website). The only thing that puts me off is some of the philosophy about spiritualism (reminds me of Scientologisty v. psychology), Richard's not-so-subtle messiah complex peppered throughout, and just the overall terrible writing. I'm willing to look through all that stuff, but the bad writing is really hanging me up : )

 
thumbnail
William Golden Finch, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 558 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Daniel,

       You may find interest in Antonio Damasio's writings. He is a neuroscientist who has spent decades studying emotions/brain/body/subjectivity. He defines emotions as separate but related to subjective feelings. He says emotions are primary, and are the body's response to stimuli, and the subjective feelings are when we identify with the primary response of the emotions in the body.
Bill
thumbnail
Daniel Leffler, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 292 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
thank you Bill,
I've seen him discussed here and will check it out!
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Hey Daniel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT: BTW, I'm not sure what philosophy you're talking about apart from the claim that this moment is "still in time", which is experientially true in the PCE.
thumbnail
Daniel Leffler, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 292 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
very nice explanation, thank you Alin
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Daniel,

That was a thoughtful post.

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

Is the word emotionless used on the AF website?


Yes, all over. emoticon

EDIT: I already regret posting this.  It's just more arguments, haha.  All of my posts lately reek of aversion, which is never good.  I'll let you guys have the last word.  Here's hoping I have a bunch of PCEs in the coming days, then I can write directly from experience and maybe confirm or refute your arguments in a more final and satisfying way for all of us.
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
[quote=
]
Is the word emotionless used on the AF website?


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




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


VINEETO: 

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


I will translate into Psi language:

PSI:

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

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

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

Psi

Alin Mathews, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 182 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
Paweł K:
Alin Mathews:
Basically actualism claims that without the sense of a subjective me/ego/identity/soul/entity/witness one is then *only* the universe experiencing itself as a mortal apperceptively aware human body. just as the universe also experiences itself as a dog or a tree etc. *except* now the universe has an update, an apperceptively aware human brain enabling it to explore and experience even more of itself, possibly even the actuality of it own infinitude. so apperception is a new non filtered sensate awareness, enabling nature to see and go where its never gone before.

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

simple and to the point, I like it

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

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

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


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

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

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

In that regard the limitations of structured schools of thought, religions, philosophies, revered psychological characters etc. could be serving an important role as scaffolding which when finally dismantled will reveal a benign astute intelligence capable of functioning beneficially as both a standalone operating system and a network to humanity.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Hey Not Tao,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
- Claudiu
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Beoman, yes that's correct.  I think this perception happens, though, because the imagination is no longer obscuring direct experience.  You can see that same perspecive in flashes if you just "be here now" for a moment.  That phrase tends to interrupt the imagination.

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

EDIT 2: I understand what you mean by things having an objectively "real" quality, but I'd prefer to say something like things seemed more solid, or more present than they usually do.  They are no longer obscured.  These are all perceptions, though, so I have no idea if anything really exists or not. :3
thumbnail
(D Z) Dhru Val, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 346 Join Date: 9/18/11 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
In the PCE, I am still a body and a pair of eyes looking out into the world that is separate from me. I don't look at a cup on the table in front of me and see it as a part of me. I don't feel that the seeing is happening on its own without me. I don't feel out of control of myself, and I don't experience any changes in where my perception is happening, how it's happening, or in what manner it arises or passes. I am not dissolved. I don't experience myself as non-being or even pure awareness. I don't experience vibrations of imperminance, and I don't see anything as lacking essence, being non-existant in some fashion, or being holographic projections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  Not strictly necessary to cross sides, but it does help disrupt the usual automatic imputations somewhat.
** Or something similar to a PCE-like state, otherwise it wont work becasue there is too much obstruction to senses.
Alexander Entelechy, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 27 Join Date: 4/7/11 Recent Posts
AEN desperately wants for Buddhism to be more advanced than AF, for there to be more to do to reach liberation. In a PCE though, the idea of there being more to do is incomprehensible. The thing that 'needs' more simply doesn't exist.

Also he states that Thusness still experiences emotions, so why's he trying to line up stage 5 with AF?
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Daniel, have you read about Actualism as well as that essay by Thusness?   I remember reading the paper a while ago and feeling that Thusness had completely missed the point of Actualist practice.  You seem to think that the PCE and non-dual ground of being are the same thing, so it makes sense that you would like Thusness's teachings.  The PCE is not rigpa, though.  There is no non-dual experience in the PCE.

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

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

Psi

P.S.   I cut out about seven other questions.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Psi:
This is not an Actualism attack or a Not Tao attack, but since you are taking a firm stand on being an Actualist Cognoscenti, I would like to pose some questions.

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

Psi

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

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

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

If so, does anything Vineeto wrote help to answer your questions?
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Psi:
This is not an Actualism attack or a Not Tao attack, but since you are taking a firm stand on being an Actualist Cognoscenti, I would like to pose some questions.

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

Psi

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

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

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

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


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

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


Psi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Psi, do you have emotionless experiences that arise from these practices?  If so, then I have no trouble saying we're doing the same thing.  The problem I have is that you keep telling me I am incorrect about my own experiences...
thumbnail
Psi, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 1093 Join Date: 11/22/13 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Psi, do you have emotionless experiences that arise from these practices?  If so, then I have no trouble saying we're doing the same thing.  The problem I have is that you keep telling me I am incorrect about my own experiences...


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

Is the word emotionless used on the AF website?

Psi
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
Psi,

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

I'm not basing this off the AFT either.  I have experienced a state with no feelings - and this aspect is what created all the other parts of the experience.  It happens to match Richard's descriptions.  So, it's kind of the main point of it all and it's why Actualism is focused 100% on examining feelings.
thumbnail
Daniel Leffler, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 292 Join Date: 9/9/14 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Daniel keeps saying he experiences compassion and joy in the PCE.  I keep telling him that, if there are feelings, it isn't the PCE - so that's why I believe he is mistaken.  The PCE has no feelings. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

My point is that different teachings and different words speak to different people more than others at different times. Everything on AFT most likely doesn't resonate with you - like Veneeto knowing there was no mysticism in creation because she just knew one day that the universe was infinite and that leaves no room for God (huh? says me). I also think that even a 'perfect' PCE experience is subject to subjectiveness and everyone may not experience it exactly the same way, express it exactly the same way, or resonate with the exact same words when trying to convey the tones of the natural state. In the end it doesn't really matter so much anyway (I think we'd both agree). I am interested in banishing afflictive emotions and all attachments - these are the goals of Buddhism as I understand (the second arrow) and I am happy to use any and all technologies toward that end
The results of our individual practices are the lamps we use to guide our ways, my practice of bare attention is very supportive of my goals but I am also incorporating things from here and there to be more happy and harmless in general. My flesh and blood body likes it too : ) 
An Eternal Now, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Not Tao:
Psi,

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


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

If you want to know my point of view I suggest studying my document carefully:  http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms
An Eternal Now, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Click here to understand Actualism

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Not Tao:

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

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

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

Announcements