Essence of Actual Freedom - Discussion
katy s:
Hi Heather -
Welcome to the DhO. It is quite practice-oriented. Do you practice some technic/method/school of thought/autodidacticism?
Welcome to the DhO. It is quite practice-oriented. Do you practice some technic/method/school of thought/autodidacticism?
Hiya Katy, I suppose the latter term would suffice... self learning, no technique - no dogma.
katy s:
You write:
Why? A sock is superficial and useful.
What sentences and words do you find as to be laughable?
Are you actually laughing? If not, then what is "to be laughable" with "so superficial" meaning?
"The whole Actual Freedom message (?) is so superficial as to be laughable. "
Why? A sock is superficial and useful.
What sentences and words do you find as to be laughable?
Are you actually laughing? If not, then what is "to be laughable" with "so superficial" meaning?
I'd suggest that a sock is a sock, other attributes are unnecessary.
As for the laughable and superficial reference... for anyone not familiar with the Actaul Freedim site, I landed on this page... Actual Freedom and from thereon it was just like, what is this guy rambling on about. Maybe it's me, maybe not, but I'm open to discussion. It would probably be more practical to take it chapter by chapter as I'd like to go through the whole page but have limited time.
Richard begins... "This Web Page is for anyone sufficiently motivated to explore into just what constitutes the Human Condition. It is about what one human being searched for in his own life and the discoveries he has made ... and what other peoples have done about ameliorating their present situation. All the articles on these pages should be sufficiently challenging to stimulate, inspire and initiate some preliminary investigation and discussion and, although the articles are specifically of interest to the spiritual aspirant who wishes to further their search into the area that lies beyond enlightenment (and any other form of an altered state of consciousness), the general tone of the text will be of immense appeal to any one interested in all matters pertaining to consciousness studies.
We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic – we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition – and we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence – we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition – and we want to know why. We all report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it.
I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition".
I found ameliorating very funny as it just stopped me dead my tracks. A competent communicator would have used an alternative such as - improve, as that would not impede the flow of the reader. It is typical of those who have philosophical pretensions to abuse the English language so as to appear other than they actually are. A simplified version gives the message continuity and clarity, a clarity that the average person can appreciate.
This line I found curious... "the spiritual aspirant who wishes to further their search into the area that lies beyond enlightenment (and any other form of an altered state of consciousness)".
Can there be "an area beyond enlightenment" or does he just mean after enlightenment? Also, he suggests that enlightenment is just another altered state of consciousness. Again, can that be, as consciousness is clearly a creation of our conditioning and of the way our body has come together. A simple example is colour perception. Some see colours differently due to the structure of their eyes. Another example is our approach to sexuality. Most are brought up to believe in the male/female union. Male/male or female/female is considered abnormal, and male/male/female, female/female/male is considered even more strange. Same goes for race or colour of skin. But that's cultural consciousness for ya.
From what I gather enlightenment is actually the transcending of the limitations of all forms of consciousness; whether physical, psychological or spiritual. Maybe I've just been talking to the wrong guy
Why do so many focus only on the bad stuff... "We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic – we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition – and we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence – we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition – and we want to know why".
We also find nurturing, laughter, pleasure, sharing, helping, empathy, gentleness, trust, etc, and these are pandemic, inherent aspects of the human being. So we wonder why? Well, it isn't so strange is it?
The war that has been raing on is obviously the pursuit of power. A pursuit which covers every aspect of human interaction, but not all. It is the simple non violent actions that we ought to really focus on and understand why. Just because most of human history is littered with dominance and destruction, doesn't necessarily write us off.
These are all just states of mind and/or body, either a state of disarray or a state of relative order. The causes of our states of mind and body can be many. There have been experiments giving the violent vitamins and their violent impulse subsides. There have been experiments giving the violent counselling, their violence subsides. There have been experiments with the violent practising meditation, the violence subsides. So we can't be too superficial about an essential problem which humanity has ignored for so long. If we face it, we'll understand it - totally.
How "intrinsic" and/or "inherent" is all the bad stuff to the human condition. I'd say it isn't intrinsic nor inherent at all, that gets us off on the wrong foot. I'd say, look at the conditions which give rise to the madness. Which came first? Can we know? Yep, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, however we can solve this one.
When people are born into violence, hate, etc, obviously they are going to think it normal, and that is the essence, they think it. Thinking can change, there is no set pattern. Nothing intrinsic. But then isn't Richard saying this too when he ends with... "I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition". Maybe he just doesn't understand what intrinsic implies or thought it would add a little drama. But words have to be use correctly, otherwise they mislead and then where are we?
Heather MacDonald:
This line I found curious... "the spiritual aspirant who wishes to further their search into the area that lies beyond enlightenment (and any other form of an altered state of consciousness)".
Can there be "an area beyond enlightenment" or does he just mean after enlightenment?
...
From what I gather enlightenment is actually the transcending of the limitations of all forms of consciousness; whether physical, psychological or spiritual. Maybe I've just been talking to the wrong guy
Can there be "an area beyond enlightenment" or does he just mean after enlightenment?
...
From what I gather enlightenment is actually the transcending of the limitations of all forms of consciousness; whether physical, psychological or spiritual. Maybe I've just been talking to the wrong guy
Well, there are enlightened folk here and at KFD (Kenneth Folk Dharma) that seem to still be meditating and looking for stuff to do, so it seems there is... as well as enlightened folk who went on to attain an Actual Freedom, so it seems something different than or superseding what people consider enlightenment nowadays (which may or may not be what it was considered to be in, for example, the Buddha's time).
Heather MacDonald:
So we can't be too superficial about an essential problem which humanity has ignored for so long. If we face it, we'll understand it - totally.
Heather MacDonald:
How "intrinsic" and/or "inherent" is all the bad stuff to the human condition. I'd say it isn't intrinsic nor inherent at all, that gets us off on the wrong foot. I'd say, look at the conditions which give rise to the madness. Which came first? Can we know? Yep, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, however we can solve this one.
When people are born into violence, hate, etc, obviously they are going to think it normal, and that is the essence, they think it. Thinking can change, there is no set pattern. Nothing intrinsic.
When people are born into violence, hate, etc, obviously they are going to think it normal, and that is the essence, they think it. Thinking can change, there is no set pattern. Nothing intrinsic.
it's not the social conditioning that is the issue, it's human nature itself.
Richard:
The instinctual passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the iceberg and not the main issue at all. All the different types of conditioning are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over countless aeons to seek to curb the instinctual passions. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and re-arrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition. [link]
Heather MacDonald:
But then isn't Richard saying this too when he ends with... "I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition". Maybe he just doesn't understand what intrinsic implies or thought it would add a little drama. But words have to be use correctly, otherwise they mislead and then where are we?
all the bad stuff (and the good stuff[1]) is intrinsic to the human condition. you can't have the human condition without the bad stuff. so he advocates being totally free from the human condition - removing it completely. the bad stuff is still intrinsic to the human condition.. it's just that you can exist as a human being without being subject to the human condition. in other words, having human nature is not intrinsic to being consciously aware as a flesh&blood body.
[1] EDIT: see below for clarification.
