the apex of kenneth's brand new model (as well as its penultimate stage) both have as a characterising factor a loss of the capacity to 'read' certain phenomena as affective rather than the necessary absence of those phenomena via the extinction of their potential (that is, the 'being' doing the reading). the latter's absence not only conditions a change in the way phenomena is experienced in general (as physical sensations, rather than as feelings/emotions) but also, more importantly, conditions a change in the very phenomena which winds up occurring. for a concrete illustration of this difference, no excruciating physical sensations or irritating bodily vibrations now replace anger and irritation in my on-going experience; kenneth does not report the same.

the stuff about jhana vs. no jhana, NS vs. no NS, is a red herring.[1]



because there is still a Self (that is invisible)... and so while the self-contraction is ended, the self-less (Self-)contractions continue.

tarin

[1] as was mentioned in the post you pointed out. (link)

Hi tarin

For the sake of being aboslutley clear on the difference between Kenneth's 7th stage and the final result of AF, could you expand a little on the above sentence "while the self-contraction is ended, the self-less (Self) contractions continue."

What are the self-less (Self) contractions that are continuing? Exactly what are they and how can one become aware of these contractions?

Nick

these questions might be better posed to kenneth, as what i am referring to is his report[1] of having recently experienced, for example, excruciating sensations and heavy perspiration when he was in a conversation with someone who was angry (in which conversation kenneth would have been angry as well were he not incapable of 'reading' those sensations as emotions[2]). nothing of this report indicates to me the absence of instinctual passions (as is experienced in an actual freedom from the human condition).

in any case, as near as i can tell (having no experience of them myself), these contractions are pretty much the same as what emotions were to he who felt them previously, but in a more subtle (rather than coarse), elemental (rather than aggregated) form. hence, these contractions are not likely to be anything other than the instinctually passional (rather than socio-emotional) activity of an identity that is still quite extant. as kenneth has reported looking for, but no longer finding, his sense of self (perhaps he has misplaced it), and as he says that the end of self-referencing is what has brought that self to an end (which begs the question - in both senses of the term's usage - as to what was doing the self-referencing in the first place[3]), i assume that he can only be speaking from the aspect of the identity that cannot be found in phenomena.

if the presence of these contractions, as kenneth indicates, are a feature of a developmental stage of his 7-stage model, then such a stage is one that i seem to have skipped over completely[4]; i have experienced no such contractions, no such unpleasant sensations (or vibrations) when i have been in association with others regardless of their manner or demeanour or the subjects of our conversations (and i would say that i have had ample opportunities for this).[5]

thus, these contractions are, near as i can tell, the consequence of not actually understanding how 'i' am 'my feelings' and 'my feelings' are 'me' ... which indicates to me a job done incompletely (assuming the job is to come to the cessation of suffering here and now by coming to the cessation of its cause). 'i' come from the passions, not vice versa. not understanding this is surely either a cause or an effect of insisting on adhering to the model of 'disembedding' from phenomena, which dissociative practice, as i have pointed out to you in private conversation previously (as well as have pointed it out to kenneth in same), cannot be expected to lead to an end to that which (dis)identifies.

speaking of 'disembedding', i am not even sure where the practice (of disembedding, or disidentifying, from phenomena) entered into the buddhist world. as far as i can make out, it's a post-buddha non-dualistic practice not found in the pali canon, in which the closest thing i have encountered to the method of 'disembedding' might be the instructions given in the mulapariyaya sutta (mn 1) about not conceiving (though it would take a real stretch to even begin to equate the instruction of 'disembedding' to that). not that i'm advising in the slightest against doing things that the buddha did not advise (though the irony in my doing so would be priceless), for in abandoning the buddhadhamma (and falling into what most buddhist pundits would probably characterise as annihilationism), i ended up with results much more closely resembling the strange mythical conditions some readings of the oldest texts would support (though sans the supernatural phenomena) than i could have conceivably otherwise done, and certainly more so than has done anyone who has attempted to conflate non-dualistic views with the pali descriptions. not delighting in conditions or conceiving an unconditioned means not having pesky contractions and physical reactions to deal with on the flip side i guess.

tarin

[1] i have no link for this report as it is information come from a description kenneth gave of his on-going experience during a conversation with daniel ingram which daniel later mentioned in a conversation with me.

[2] 'In my experience, pain is always physical and can come directly from a physical stimulus (like being stuck by a pin) or can arise along with a mental impression (like a thought that someone feels angry with me or hurt by something I've done) or from directly feeling another person's pain or anger when we spend time together. The pain that arises along with thoughts or while being with someone else who is in pain is as real to me as the pin-prick kind of pain.' (link)

[3] i know the answer but i'm not going to tell. oh all right, it's desire.

[4] which would not be surprising as, from a certain perspective (one i'm not particularly inclined to dispute), not only did i take a different road to get to where i am, i'm also somewhere entirely different from anywhere that kenneth's current model maps.

[5] nor, for that matter, have i felt such unpleasant sensations (or vibrations) anytime that i have been indoors (or outdoors) for extended periods of time, or anytime i have, for instance, been on a long hot bumpy overnight coach trip (during which trips i felt the sweltering heat, of course), or anytime i have, for another instance, fallen ill with fever or giardia or flu, in any other circumstance i have encountered since becoming actually free in february last year that did not involve ingesting a cognitive stimulant (as there was an unfortunately strong iced coffee some months later which made me seriously consider whether there was not something to the dopamine overload theory one of richard's doctors proposed to him as a means of explaining the symptoms he suffered during his early days of actual freedom.. but i digress). in fact, the utter absence of such unpleasant-emotion-replacing unpleasant sensations from my on-going experience is one of the only two things that prevent me from finding a deeper resonance than i have in the descriptions and views which have been shared with me by the buddhist practitioners with whom i have in recent days found the most resonance of the lot.. but these two things are both significant enough to note as places of clear divergence.

Kenneth attributes it to Ken Wilber.

"For me, that is the very essence of it, and I want to give yet another nod to Ken Wilber for that particular concept because I don’t see it anywhere else. I don’t see that in Buddhism. I don’t think they got that. " - Kenneth Folk
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/the-feedback-loop-staying-on-track/

Hi tarin,

Thanks for the explanation.


In my own experience, I think "disembedding" is related to "not conceiving" as talked of by the Buddha in the Mulapariyaya Sutta. Say a flow of unpleasant sensations has arisen at the chest. Due to strong habitual tendencies, the mind will then react, bend around that sensations and trigger a flow of unpleasant thoughts/mental reactions. This may then trigger an increase in the unpleasant sensations which in turn triggers more thoughts of a more unpleasant nature and so on and on. This mind/body organism seems "embedded" in this process of "becoming", continuously giving support to an illusory self.

The mind, embedded in this process, gives birth to mental actions of proliferation, churning our stories of past, future, fantasy, and actions of the body, all sankharas and in turn conceiving more sankharas and so on and on. Embedded in this process of "becoming".

"In the doctrine of conditioned arising or dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), saṅkhāra-khandha is understood to be that which propels human (and other sentient) beings along the process of becoming (bhava) by means of actions of body and speech (kamma)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra

So to "disembed" is to cease allowing the sankharas of the mind to continue to give birth to more sankharas and so on and on. It is taking the mind/body organism out of that blind reaction to sensations, disembedding it from this process and thus not conceiving. When one notices and notes phenomena, one does just that. A yogi begins to "not conceive" but allow phenomena to be arise and pass away without allowing the mind to embed itself in the process of habitual identification and proliferation. This is my current take on it. It may change in future. Hope this explanation wasn't too long a stretch. it is how I've always seen it till now.

con·ceive (kn-sv)
v. con·ceived, con·ceiv·ing, con·ceives
v.tr.
1. To become pregnant with (offspring).
2. To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
3. To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.

em·bed (m-bd) also im·bed (m-)
v. em·bed·ded also im·bed·ded, em·bed·ding also im·bed·ding, em·beds also im·beds
v.tr.
1. To fix firmly in a surrounding mass: embed a post in concrete; fossils embedded in shale. (Embedded in the mind/body process of generating sankhara after sankhara?)
2. To enclose snugly or firmly.
3. To cause to be an integral part of a surrounding whole: "a minor accuracy embedded in a larger untruth" (Ian Jack).

Nik,

Can we not then separate (finally) disembedding from dissociation?

Could we say, that noting practice suspends/interrupts embedding (conceiving, false narrativization, living in your head, etc.) leading to increasing intimacy with phenomena as they are, and the insights to be found therein, whereas dissociation, which takes place within an embedded perspective, can lead to de-realization and that consequent overall nastiness we are surely familiar with?

Tarin doesn't make this distinction ("i am not even sure where the practice (of disembedding, or disidentifying, from phenomena) ") and I think we would get further with this clarification.

Furthermore, isn't it obvious that embedded perspectives naturally tend to preclude an understanding of this practice, other than as a dissociative one?

Hi Mico mico
I believe from my own experience that noticing and noting mind states, sensations, images, thoughts do suspend or temporarily cease this process of embedding (conceiving, false narrativization, living in your head, etc.) and also takes a yogi through the stages of insight. I believe it does lead to increasing intimacy with what is really happening in the very moment. I also agree, dissociation is the mind embedded in a subtle form of aversion and ignorance and in my own experience is conditioned by a composite of unobserved sensations and the mind "bending" around those sensations. (When I experienced the mind state of dissociation, I usually had a subtle flow of unpleasant sensations at the chest which the mind reacted to and gave rise to the mind state of indifference. Not the same as seeing it as it is because a yogi isn't really looking correctly)

Dis-embedded is the same as not identifying with phenomena as support for an illusory self. It is not "ignoring" phenomena, That would be more like dissociation. Not identifying with is seeing phenomena clearly as impermanent, impersonal and unsatisfactory . and Not "I", nor "me", nor "mine". A yogi is "stepping back" from the process of blind identification to see it all with discernment and more clarity. Dissociation is just another mind state triggered by a mind embedded in this process of blind mental reaction to sensations in my opinion.



In my experience and opinion, an embedded mind is a mind clearly identifying with the aggregates and conceiving sankhara after sankhara in support of an illusory "I AM". And seeing as the practice of noting is to come out of that illusion and stop conceiving, yes, not investigating such embedded perspectives, I think, precludes the understanding of this practice.

My opinion is subject to change. No absolutes.

Nick

So we are embedded when we are 'in-bed-with' phenomena, having a good romp around. Dissembedding is not insisting everything gets in bed with you.

(Dissociation is forgetting there is something other than your bed and enlightenment realizing there never was one.)

Works for me

perhaps the nature of your explanation would become even more clear were you to clarify these points:

what is it that, when embedded, is fixed (or enclosed) firmly in a surrounding mass, and when 'dis-embedded', is removed from its firm fixture (or enclosure) in that surrounding mass?

and what is the surrounding mass which fixes (or encloses) firmly that object embedded in it?

tarin

If a human is viewed as a grid of physical attributes (whatever those attributes may be including/not including/partially including torso, head, limbs, digits, etc), and any self that big-bangs itself/is divinely placed/somehow "becomes" onto this grid could be:

a) identity self (derived from relationships, becoming), i.e., I am katy and am (washing my two hands)

or

b) non-identity self (derived from desire to be "I", also becoming): i.e., here (is an "I"): two hands, washing


To extirpate all self means that nothing experiences disembeddedness; there is no disembeddedness. To "experience disembededness" requires a category b self.

c) self-extirpation (resulting from factual realization): an external viewer sees person washing hands; self-extirpated person washing hands is: hands-temperature-water-soap-moving*. ?


Tarin, could you clarify what is it about you/a changing physical grid called tarin by other people - which has been said by Tarin to have extirpated self irrevocably, where no identity nor self remains and yet Tarin provides coherent answers and congruent accounts of actual freedom, meditation, pali canon (and infinite other accounts which are not also DhO posts)?

The capacity to be commenting congruently would appear to cause a Tarinness (therefore a category b self) at least contiguous to the physical grid of the human, animated entity called tarin. I would appreciate it if you could explain how an entity exists at this moment, an entity functioning coherently (to other entities which view such functioning as "coherent") without a category b self forming the interface.


Thank you.




[4 edits= spelling + the below (re-clarified)]

*Extirpated self - is the permanent state of pure consciousness different from being any self, no matter how ephemeral that self is, i.e., one that arises simply identifying water as "water" and asserts nothing else?

If any human knows "water" at the same moment of seeing it ( or, further, knows its uses and properties (i.e., knows not to drown, knows to sate thirst), then what is the entity that knows this? Is this a self: the aggregator of 5 senses with a memory of experience, consequences, preservation?

With no category b self, what is it that can recognizes water as "water", temperature as "termperature", soap as etc.

How does an irrevocably extirpated self step into the realm of knowing anything? How can one become free the human condition (categories a and b above) while knowing everything as a human ("water" is water, "temperature" is terperature and so on)

Is category c actually possible or is "extirpation of self" like the non-real numbers (practical concept, but not actual)?

The actually free persons know extirpation of self to be quite an actual condition so I am very keen to know more of category c and how, if at all, it is an (in)adequate definition of the condition.

So on further thought, the term "disembedded" has an inherant problem with it. It's true. It insinuates that there is soemthing that is dis-embedded and thus supports the AF view that there still is soem self that is disembedding.

Probably a better term would be "not glomming" or "de-compounding" even the Buddha's own "not conceiving". Hmmmm. It's made me like this term "to disembed" much less now. It is certainly helpful when you are starting out but can be misleading in the end. There doesn't seem more to see than the 5 aggregates coming together to be misread as a self and as emotions giving support to this "self". This is what I currently see.

So, Tarin, in my experience, I see nothing more than 5 aggregates in any experience. I see no self in them. What am I missing? What was the Buddha missing? Is there a self than exists beyond the 5 aggregates in the AF view?

I actually am curious.

Nick

Hehe I don't think the Buddha stopped at MCTB 4th Path.

I agree with ya, Sid didn't stop at DhO-4th-path.

fet·ter (ftr)
n.
1. A chain or shackle for the ankles or feet.
2. Something that serves to restrict; a restraint.

Nick "personally think it's important to clarify, does the 7th stage mean that these fetters are no longer arising for the yogi?

sensual desire
ill will
lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rupa jhanas)
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arupa jhanas)
conceit
restlessness
ignorance "

Kenneth "Yes, by my interpretation of the ten fetters, they are gone at the 7th stage. "

Hi Nick,

Do you know if Kenneth's model is limited to these ten fetters only. I have heard him on youtube say that he experiences love (which could also be labeled a fetter) and a baseline state of Brahma Viharas.

Experiencing only affective states of loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity are an abnormal polarization of emotions by the restriction of others.

What is stopping goodwill from becoming illwill?
Bliss becoming ignorance?
humility becoming conceit?

appreciated
Jeff

Sorry Jeff,

You will have to ask Kenneth himself. I'm bowing out of any AF versus Buddhism debate. Confusion and different definitions allround.

Nick

Lol, Jeff talked about neither AF nor Buddhism, but asked a few questions with regards to Kenneth's claims. Asking Kenneth himself is probably the right way to continuing that questioning, though.

I really can't talk for Kenneth. You really do need to ask him personally. I wont assume to know what he experiences.
These conversations always seem to end up as being a one-upmanship concerning AF and any buddhist related teachings and views. It got boring awhile back.

Kenneth is claiming to have eradicated those fetters. Jeff is questioning how that could be good or even possible. He is thus questioning the fetter model of the arhat as talked of in Theravadan buddhism. So it is once again AF versus Buddhism. I'm over it. I don't know if Kenneth really is there. I have no idea. But I wish to see for myself if it is valid and I am seeing progress is occurring beyond what is called 4th path here. I just realized this thread is in the AF category. Sorry guys. Pulling out!


Nick

Hmm yeah lots o tensions there. I wonder if that's why conceit is one of the last fetters to be removed, hehe. (Not calling you or anyone in particular conceited, but that's what causes all these debates.)

Makes sense though... the stink of enlightenment and all that.

I do not at all see the one-upmanship. There are individuals discussing the nature of self/extirpation of self.

This is a very long school. Giving up here on the false pretext of duality is like Ibn Al-Haytham saying "Euclid's fifth postulate is just too outside of (my) categories." So long, non-euclidian geometry.

Tell it to your (now non-existant) microwave.


Come on: this is a useful thread about the nature of self and pure consciousness in a community of people who accrued knowledge of the same.

Here, Kenneth was not attibuting the notion of disembedding to Wilber. Rather, he was explaining that Wilber was the first to see clearly that, from a certain perspective, there is a spectrum of objects of awareness--from gross to subtle--and that the various schools of Buddhism are just disembedding from different types of objects along that spectrum. Therefore, they needn't disagree with each other as much as they have and do. Theravadins might, say, emphasize disembeddng from physical sensations, Zennists from makyo, but it's all part of a spectrum.

Here's an example of a fairly traditional and mainstream Buddhist--Thanissaro Bhikkhu--talking about disembedding in language that could have come straight from Kenneth. Obviously, Thanissaro Bhikkhu lives and breathes the Pali canon. (I also think the reference to Buddha's "thicket of views" seems relevant to this discussion....)

"Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply."

BTW, doesn't Kenneth clearly state that disembedding has its limitations and must end at a certain point--hence, his notion of Second and Third Gear?

what far better supports the view that the 'disembedding' method leaves "some self that is 'disembedding'" is the teacher of the 'disembedding' technique's own experiential reports and descriptions[1].



the unconditioned, perhaps?



presumably, that there is far more to the ten fetters than not seeing self in the five aggregates?



possibly, nothing that i can determine; possibly, that any view of the unconditioned that isn't here and now is inherently conceived.



as any reality (or super-reality) comes part and parcel with a self, i'll leave it to you to determine if any reality (or super-reality) actually exists in the af view.



doesn't boredom[2] interfere with your curiosity?

tarin

[1] see above, and following quote:

'when I talk about the emotional transformation that marks the 6 of the 7 stages in my model, it has nothing to do with being invulnerable or immune to being hurt by others. It's really just the opposite; I feel more vulnerable than ever and at the same time willing to allow the hurt to come.' (link)

[2] 'These conversations always seem to end up as being a one-upmanship concerning AF and any buddhist related teachings and views. It got boring awhile back.'(link)

Of course he didn't. Traditional Buddhism (Theravada Buddhism etc.) asserts that an Arahat eliminated all anger, emotions, ability to enjoy sensual pleasures, greed, pride or the ability to feel conceit whatsoever, any type of desire, the ability to have wrong views etc.

When I got into Buddhism originally from a book on Vipassana Meditation and subsequently began researching the internet and reading sites like palikanon, stuff on the abhidhamma and accesstoinsight this was the impression I got.

I fail to see how anyone could possibly come under the wrong impression that they are enlightened according to the Buddhist definition and still have emotions or whatever. It is obviously not the same thing. This site and a variety of other ones are built on a lot of assumptions.

For ex: Kenneth Folk once says something like: "I wouldn't say we are definitely not Pali Canon arahats". If you feel anger, take any other path other than Buddhism, believe there is no life after death and then you are definitely not a Pali Canon arahat. It is explicitly stated that an arahat has eliminated all emotions whatsoever, to claim or deny this is just wrong, and very annoying.

Even Richard gets it wrong: He claims that Enlightened Beings are suffused with compassion (they experience no such emotions, remember that even Arahats do not feel compassion or any other "karma generating" emotions, or any desire whatsoever), that they realise the nondual or whatever.

Nah. The enlightenment of Theravada Buddhism I remember thinking of as something more of a superhuman feat. It's not like a nondual realization or anything like that, I remember thinking of it as extraordinary because it was more described as the total annihlation of emotions etc. Plus there was some realization about there being no self.

Anyways I'm not sure how actualism fits into this, first of all to claim that it is a continuation of Budhdism or is beyond it, I don't know. Since Aryans reputedly cannot have wrong views then it is impossible for them to be in Annihlationism Extreme, or whatever or believe that there is no life after death, or that the universe is infinite and eternal as per the 14 unanswerable questions or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_unanswerable_questions

Sassata-Ditthi

Uccedha-Ditthi

You might try learning Pali and try translating suttas from Vridhamma or use the Pali Text Society's Dictionary, or whatever. Plus Commentaries and a bunch of other things (Abhidhamma) may be unreliable, but whatever.

Sorry if I was insulting.

Peace.

Edit: Oh and there are other things like Arahats being incapable of certain actions in the Vinaya and what not. So yeah, I mean if you want to claim Enlightenment then whatever. But you might as well call it something else, however part of Buddhism is realizing that there is no other Genuine Path other than the Buddha Dhamma. So I can't really fathom what other Genuine, Permanent, Sustained attainment there can be other than that.

Second Edit:

In fact, here's a reference.

Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[3][4]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

Of course since the logic of Buddhism is that the Cause of Suffering is Desire, then the end of Suffering (enlightenment) must be the eradication of desire. There is Kama-Tanha (they call it craving, but maybe more like desire), Bhava-Tanha, Vibhava-Tanha.

Since an arahat has reached the end of suffering and has eliminated all these which are Desire for Senses, or at least any pleasure via the Senses, Desire for Becoming, Desire for Non Existence, then if you have any of these you cannot be an arahat.

Another Edit:

Arahatship is defined as the end of suffering. If you're suffering you're not an arahat, it is that simple, in actuality.

So the sort of rationalizations like: Oh well, I'm still suffering, but I don't identify with it, or it's all lubricated, or there is no tension or stagnation or whatever. They do not count. It is defined as the end of all suffering, depression etc.

So if you suffer, you cannot be an arhat.

indeed.



the subjective experience of a self-extirpated flesh-and-blood body washing its hands is much too rich to adequate put into words though i do not here object to your simplistic reduction given the limitations of the medium.



well, are you aware that there really is a flesh-and-blood body that answers to the name 'Tarin' sitting here typing this reply to you?



the physical, animated human called 'Tarin' exists at this moment and functions coherently, and so possesses the capacity to comment congruently on the facts and circumstances of his existence. apperceptively aware, no category b self forms an interface.



the condition resulting from the extirpation of self differs from being any self, no matter how ephemeral that self is, no matter that the self in question only arises in the identification of water as 'water'. here, self-extirpated (your category c), it is the faculty of recognition that identifies water as 'water'.



the entity that knows this is the aggregates themselves - the human itself.



the aggregates themselves - the human itself.



the aggregates are what know water, temperature, and so on.



oh yes, it is actually possible.



you might find richard's article, a precis of actual freedom, informative in this regard.

tarin

It's refreshing to hear this view again after it has been beaten down so much here.

There are some understandable doubts about Pali Canon Arahats, though. They say they will die if they don't join a monk order within 7 days of realization. I just fail to see how that is possible in any way. Maybe it was a way for the Buddhists of the time to gain a monopoly on Enlightenment, since anyone who claims it but was not Buddhist would be replied with "you would have died by now." (Just something I completely made up, now.)

But I think the stuff about eradicating all emotions is possible (well I believe it is since I believe Tarin, Trent, Richard, et al.).


I believe many people who claim Enlightenment claim to be suffused with compassion and other such things, and Richard is (rightfully) taking a dig at those. I think Enlightenment as a word has been overloaded to mean many things, and he took that definition which I guess many people take?

I liked it =P.


Yea I think the idea behind that is, once you're there, you will obviously see what the Buddha was talking about and what he meant, and couldn't possibly claim it as false. That does not take into account false translations, misinterpretations, etc., such that i feel someone who is a true Arahat today could claim Buddhism is a load of Bull if s/he doesn't understand it fully.

I also wonder why people worship the Buddha and call him Lord and stuff and prostrate themselves, when he himself said (paraphrased) "Don't believe me cause I'm the Buddha - believe me cause you see for yourself that what I say is true." It would be lovely to have Suttas where instead of:

Buddha: This and this. Is that not so?
Monks: That is so.
Buddha: This and that. Is that not so?
Monks: That is so.

you'd have:

Buddha: This and this. Is that not so?
Monk A: What about X and Y, Lord Buddha?
Buddha: Ah let me explain where you are wrong...

etc... or:

Buddha: This and this. Is that not so?
Monk A: You flaming mongrel, how can you possibly say "This and this" when X and Y!!
Buddha: Please remain calm. X, and Y, because...

=P.


I like it. Don't stop until you don't suffer!

On delight:

You wrote the following sentence in this thread, and I would like to see if my understanding is your intended meaning.

[indent]"not delighting in conditions or conceiving an unconditioned means not having pesky contractions and physical reactions to deal with on the flip side i guess."[/indent]

As I understand your words (within a broad context of your other words elsewhere), there is no you to experience delight (as well no pesky contractions). However, delight is the word that would make conceptual sense to an egoic person. Is this your meaning of your sentence?


The AF site states:
[indent]"something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending."[/indent]


Why have you explained that the condition of freedom allows for the potential of delight arising (see a beoman thread), yet the site notes "a delight which is never-ending"? In the never-ending scenario, we could also agree that delight is never beginning then; that a person is dipped in and out of delightedness as befits the conditions of any moment.


But if this nuanced multi-potential is what AF means, there is no evidence of it on that page. Here is all of 9:
[indent]9. The day finally dawns where the definitive moment of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending.[/indent]


Is there a difference in what you have written on potentials for xyz (i.e., delight) and what the site notes is never-ending?


Thank you.

____


Again, the above is cognitive effort. Because there is no price-for-entry/exit, no requirement for guru-ness or esoteric practices, no harm comes to me in not knowing the answers to the above. My interest in this old, long school of self/no self/divine self is not so much cognitive at the moment as practical. If I landed the practical aspect, there would be all the time in the world to see about lexical reconciliation.

yes, as what i was referring to is the conditional aspect of delight (where attention happens to fall), whereas what richard meant in the above quote (and in the way he uses the term 'delight' in general) is inherent to apperceptiveness, an ever-present feature in the experience of an actually free flesh-and-blood body.



there will be all the time in the world to see about the experience that is required to really make sense of the subject first-hand, too.

tarin

Ah yeah, about the 7 day arahat thing I think that is found in the Milinda Panha. Which may be post canonical and inaccurate.



Aye, most of the enlightenment scene is dominated by gurus like Eckhart Tolle.

Although I would like to talk about a bunch of other misconceptions: he says Enlightened beings are suffused with bliss whereas as Pali Canon arahats, not really sure if that's what they feel, he also says they have eliminated the ego but in Traditional Buddhism the main focus is the total eradication of desire as desire is causing suffering, the ego issue is taken care of at stream entry.

Also I said arahats are incapable of wrong view, but I think they have no views whatsoever.


Edit: There are also some views that the Buddha criticizes such as the view that the Absolute is the source of all things whatsoever etc. I think. I may be wrong though. You can try checking accesstoinsight.


Thanks.



Thanks, I wasn't claiming any realization though, I'm not realized to any degree whatsoever, in fact I'm an evil person and am going to hell.

I was referencing a Suttical thing where it says Stream Winners are incapable of taking any teacher other than the Buddha and maybe (I don't remember so I may be wrong) something about Aryans recognizing that the only True Dhamma or Genuine Attainment is to be found in the Buddha Dhamma.

Therefore, if I understand you correctly, then category c (extirpation of self) is the human itself with its faculties of recognition including its memory of words for actual objects like "water" and imaginary objects like emotion, including its memory of its life history (to the capacity of its memory) and its own 0 to X-years of prior identity.

Thereafter, there would be no arising self - not the identity, nor its substrata "I am". There is the human itself (with its human mental consciousness and physical attributes), no surplus layering of selfness covering these two.


If I just snag the first line of the english wiki entry tonight for "self", the following is written:
[indent]"The self is an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective consciousness."[/indent]

In freedom (of self) through actuality there would no individual-person-object of the same person's reflective consciousness.

Nothing to reflect, self-reflection = void ab initio.

Update 1: this condition would be very hard to uncover until one sees what one is and decides what is uneccessary, until one gets to what is here and now, without any egoic layers. This reminds me of the the completely faithful who do not judge the world, its events or its living beings; religion is irrelevant; such persons go about their day as the human itself, allowing for everything to be without constricting events or expanding them to fit a desire. They seem to be the people serving others, either directly or indirectly with their craft.


Anyway, thank you.

Are you saying that Actualists who claim to have no self/Self still have self as per the definition that you have quoted from english wiki?

No, I am not saying "that Actualists who claim to have no self/Self still have self as per the definition that you have quoted from english wiki[.]"

From what I have read actualists do not claim no self, they state they are practicing toward actual freedom of all self, acknowledging that an identity (a) or selfness (b) still "is in residence" (Af wording) until actual freedom.

Based on accounts of forerunners over time, from different traditions (i.e., zen, advaita), including persons here who claim the same, and my very short windows of personal experience, there appears to be an actual condition of no self (c), the continual experience of wholeness (no separation).

I went to a sesshin with Jan Chozen Bays in the early 90s. Her introductory talks was about what Richard calls PCE: recall the times in your life in which "you" have been gone, only the moment of sensations existed. People raised their hands and noted various exact moments: moment of orgasm, moment of birthing, moment of pain, moment of accident, etc. She noted that such a moment could be all of life.

Housed in a buddhist context, many questions arise which really concern dialectical reconciliation (making sure ideas are consistent and not at odds), which then ply One away from moment. To commit to the evaporation of self without concern for consistency, reason, etc, allows one's attributes and relative clinginess of self show.

Here is sartre from Being and Nothingness:
"Nothingness does not itself have Being, yet it is supported by Being. It comes into the world by the For-itself and is the recoil from fullness of self-contained Being which allows consciousness to exist as such."

i.e., nothingness is only nothingness when Being is present. something is only something when Being is present. Thus the koan mu.

I frankly think all of this gets to the same place. Self is target; here is wonder.

I.e., Here are some of Romuald's rules, from Camaldolese tradition, recorded in 1006 (instructions to the novice monk, from latin):

[indent]1. Sit in the cell as in paradise;

2. cast all memory of the world behind you;

3. cautiously watching your thoughts, as a good fisher watches the fish.

*

6. destroy yourself completely,

7. and sit like a chick, content with the grace of God, for unless its mother gives it something, it tastes nothing and has nothing to eat.
[/indent]