i was just reading thru an old wiki post about No Dog. it doesn't seem like something that's talked about or discussed much anymore (wonder why that is?), but, is No Dog = PCE, or was it something else? any similarities at all there?

Hmm It doesn't really sound like a PCE as it seems that you still cycle when in No Dog(?). Sounds more like an ASC. It seems like No Dog tries to imitate the PCE, but never actually gets there. Kind of like an asymptote.

This line kind of says it all

Either that or I misread something. What makes you suspect whether a No Dog = PCE? Maybe the 'In the seen just the seen" part?

Hmm well the fact that it was better than anything else, that one had no need for jhanas or cycles or whatever, transcending stuff.. though PCE is more about seeing everything as pure, not transcending. also the fact that you can try to access jhana in PCE, and it "works", except that they don't seem to do anything - perception moves in a particular way but it doesn't matter.

Well the part about there still being cycling and feeling "largely untouched by their coming and going" seems like there's still an identity intact (very dissociated). As for the jhana part, are you saying that you are still able to attain jhana while in a PCE? I've never entered a jhana or been able to identify it so I don't really know what you're talking about. What do you mean it doesn't matter? Could you include some details of it? Sounds interesting.

If I remember correctly, Kenneth's 3rd gear= no dog.

No Dog in Kenneth's definition is 2nd gear, while simplest thing is 3rd gear.

However, the description of No Dog by Daniel doesn't seem to be similar to Kenneth's definition (as there were confusion at that point as to what the terms mean, and everybody seems to having different understandings)

Yea I agree. To reply to "An Eternal Now", the first AF discussion on KFD ("Actual Freedom in a larger context") seems like Kenneth was saying PCE is 'just' primordial awareness (3rd gear?) while Dan Ingram was not so convinced. so is perhaps something different.


It does. I can't say much from personal XP. haven't had a PCE strong enough/long enough to try jhana myself. but that's the way i heard it described: one can tune one's mind to focus perception in the way of each jhana, but besides perception moving, nothing else 'happen'. to attempt to describe it (Trent or Dan or Tarin will have to correct me): in the 1st jhana your attention is like a tunnel vision right in front. in 2nd jhana it expands a bit. in 3rd jhana it's that donut hole where you focus on edges. 4th jhana is all-inclusive. 5th jhana you attune to the sensation of space. 6th to 'consciousness'. 7th to 'nothingness'. 8th to 'neither perception nor non-perception'. for a feeling being (i.e. most of us), the jhanas have other components, like bliss, joy, rapture, equanimity, etc. 2nd jhana feels vibrant and alive. 3rd jhana is really nice and pleasing. 4th is so calm. 5th,6th,&7th for me are just really cool and interesting. and it's interesting to be in them and observe what this new perception is. but that affective part of it just doesnt happen while AF / in a PCE, so your perception does move (e.g. 3rd jhana donut hole), but that's it.. nothing special about it.. no ado about nothing.. ("no dog", i thought, but seems not).

maybe Dan can chip in since he has experienced both No Dog (as he defines it) and PCE.

Oh, yeh! I forgot about the simplest thing. You are right. No dog is 2nd gear.

As far as know having talked with kenneth about this, 3rd gear primordial awareness type experience is not the same as a PCE.

They are different experiences in my own experience. Kenneth has moved on from that thread. Keep that in mind. Opinions and experiences change.

As far as I understood it ages ago, no dog was taking the Witness as the sole object.

ah yeah i don't mean to keep harping on that thread, just that it was relevant (3rd gear is primordial awareness, right?). the 'just' was cause primordial awareness seems like an extra-ordinary thing so saying something is 'just' it is kinda funny =P.

there was an article i wrote many months ago called actual freedom and buddhism, back in august 2010 in fact, where i stated that kenneth 2th gear and 3rd gear wasnt the same as pce or actual freedom.

2nd gear is the I AM/eternal witness experience and realization, aka thusness stage 1 and 2

3rd gear is substantial nondualism, reducing all objects to nondual primordial awareness. aka thusness stage 4

kenneth's recent seventh stage enlightenment is the arising insight into anatta, aka thusness stage 5

however anatta has different aspects correlating with the two stanzas of anatta by thusness http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

mctb arahat is like firsr stanza realization, kenneth, af is like 2nd stanza. depending on the path we take, whether we follow mctb vipassana style or direct path or af, the order of realizing anatta is different

dont think i mentioned my document publicly apart from my blog until now cos someone just asked me if he could post it here as he found it useful (i told him up to his discernment but i dont have time to engage in debates or arguments as i am in army now, and replying from my phone at the moment)

Yes, so in other words MCTB arahat is the final insight into the first stanza and AF is the final insight into the second stanza?

after you enter 2nd stanza, you will still need to integrate both stanzas

otherwise there will still be grasping onto a ground, though no longer manifesting as a soul, still it is manifesting as a Here/Now

integrating both two, there is total luminosity in forms, but one no longer focus attention to sustain the ground, no longer tries to "return" to the here/now, no longer tries to ground himself in that, cos it is realized there is no Here/Now at all

tarin wrote something recently about it, which coincidentally i wrote something about it recently based on my experience in my forum

that said tarin did not describe how the experience of true groundlessness is like... it is that all phenomena are bubble-like, disjoint, unsupport, self-releasing every moment... all sense peeceptions are so, free, liberating, without leaving traces, even the trace of an inherent here/now

in answer to the OP's question: if i remember correctly (and here i am not certain that i do), daniel ingram has looked to those long-ago first experiences of what he at the time called 'wisdom eye' (owing to an unusual discourse given by the abbot of the temple at which ingram was retreating the night prior to his first experience) as pce's ... which, incidentally, may explain either or both ingram's very quickly acquired facility with inducing pce's (or "pce's") combined with the fact that, a full year since beginning the practice of actualism, he is not yet actually free.

(attempting to recall/induce a pce by any means other than naivete distorts the memory of what a pce is ... and encodes the distortion. innocence cannot be affectively remembered ... but the wonder of naivete, on the other hand, can be. as it is naivete which leads oneself/one's feelings into abeyance (into a pce), then all that is required is that one be open (willing) to simply experiencing this moment of being alive ... and the pce happens on its own (of its own accord).)




while there is merit to the equivalence an eternal now draws in his post above between mctb-arahatship and what is expressed in that first stanza (and its prosaic explanation), what is expressed in that second stanza (and its prosaic explanation) presents, experientially, in either a maturity of that arahatship or in what precedes it (as even mctb-late anagamihood is potentially ripe for the second stanza's experience)[1] and there is no merit whatsoever to the equivalence he attempts to draw between insight into it (the second stanza) and what an actual freedom from the human condition is (nor, for that matter, is there any merit to the equivalence he implies between kenneth's 7th stage of enlightenment and an actual freedom[2]).

so that it is not misunderstood, let me state it here clearly (and for the record this time, finally?):

what an actual freedom from the human condition is is the extinction of the instinctual passions and thus of fear, malice, and sorrow, entirely and not in part.

despite this having been already put forth in terms just as obvious (and put directly to him, no less), an eternal now is evidently continuing to push his agenda of shoehorning an actual freedom from the human condition into his (teacher's) insight-driven model of enlightenment, ignoring the fact that the very defining criterion for what an actual freedom is (emboldened above) is entirely beyond the experience of the person who developed that model according to his own realisations (an eternal now's teacher, thusness), by his own admission:



that an eternal now makes the issue of (no-)self/identity the justification for his force-fit of an actual freedom into (the 5th stage of) his model of enlightenment (despite the glaring contradiction noted above) can be explained by his misunderstanding (and thus misrepresentation) of what is meant by 'feeling being' (or 'self/Self') in the actualist writings. however anyone else may wish to define the terms, the way they are actually used in the context of actualism and an actual freedom is as follows: the identity (the feeling being) which self-immolates in an actual freedom is one and the same as the instinctual passions (which are necessarily felt); therefore, the absence of the latter (passions) directly entails the absence of the former (identity) ... while the presence of the latter (passions), to whatever extent, directly entails the presence of the former, to that extent.

as, by thusness' account, he experiences emotions (to whatever occasional extent), then what is meant by 'anatta (no-self)' in his model and writings is evidently not what is meant by the absence of the 'feeling being' in the context of actualism and in an actual freedom ... and so his experience is evidently not that of an actual freedom. for in the experience of affect, no matter however flickering, or brief, or self-liberating that affect is, there persists identity (as is meant in the context of actualism), no matter how flickering, or brief, or self-liberating it is ... and so nothing in the entirety of thusness' experience (or model based thereon) can refer to an actual freedom[4], however an eternal now may attempt to portray the matter.

as i already pointed out these salient facts to an eternal now (in a private email correspondence last year) and received no reply, then to the extent that he remains bent on ignoring them (having also previously failed to make any mention of them (or my having pointed them out) in his public presentation of his discussion with me (which discussion he presented as having produced no response from me on the matter[5], which even at the time (26 july 2010) was patently untrue)), i find no point in addressing him on the topic further.

*

it may be relevant to note, in closing, that it is the issue of whether (or not) passions are experienced, rather than whether (or not) certain insights are had, that is key to determining whether (or not) an actual freedom (actually) obtains... as an actual freedom is not an insight but a lived experience devoid of passions entirely. the variety of insights which may (or may not) present leading up to an actual freedom are of potential value as stepping stones towards it but are not necessarily necessary in bringing its occurrence about ... and most certainly do not themselves constitute it[6].

indeed, what you get is determined by what you set out to do... so if an actual freedom is what 'you' (as 'your feelings/desires') want, then 'you' (as 'your feelings/desires') know how to proceed (as 'you', as 'your feelings/desires', are the key) ... whereas if insight into this or that miscellanea is the order of the day, go ahead and knock yourself out with the quest to understand absolutely everything that isn't passion's end here and now.

tarin

[1] which latter sequence (second stanza first) is how it happened for me personally, post-nirodha samapatti).

[2] as is explained here: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1528970

[3] http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms

[4] which is not surprising, as nowhere in thusness' model of enlightenment is mentioned this particular insight: 'i am my feelings and my feelings are me' (nor is there mention anywhere therein, for that matter, of the passions).

[5] from the comments on http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/actual-freedom-third-alternative.html:
(an eternal now):
I also had an interesting chat with Tarin, though he neither refuted nor gave any conclusions about my document [attempting to equate buddhism and actual freedom] so far.[false] But he should be writing a response soon.[true]
(...)
I have not heard any refutation so far by them on how Stage 5 is not PCE/AF-related.[false]
(...)
I have not heard from others (Tarin or Daniel) of anything implying that Stage 5 is unrelated to PCE or AF. [false]

[6] if there is any insight crucial to becoming actually free at all, it might be the one mentioned in footnote 4: 'i am my feelings and my feelings are me'.

Thanks Tarin for taking the time to clarify, very helpful.

While I can't speak to the latter quoted portion regarding the matter of your off-site communications (and/or lack thereof) with An Eternal Now, I just want to make clear that I was the one who recently contacted him about posting his comparison of AF to Buddhism. Since I'm in the middle of a lot of work right now (so totally shouldn't be posting!) and couldn't fully participate, I decided not to open that Pandora's Box, at least with all the hullabaloo a separate thread might once more engender.

Thus, he indeed mentioned it here because of this inquiry on my part and so to avoid confusion regarding the potential (mis)interpretation of the phrase "push his agenda", which was no doubt written from an (actually) naive perspective [no sarcasm here, really!], I'd just like to make clear that that is the reason why he mentioned it, not what the evidence might suggest (of an 'agenda') from your perspective, tarin.

Also, since I doubt you saw (or maybe you did, but didn't feel the need to comment, which is of course fine) I nonetheless wanted thank 'you', tarin, for your advice on my thread way back in the summer -- I finally landed SE last month and 2nd path last week.

(BTW, I've changed 'my' opinion about AF several times now and definitely appreciate its practice modalities and aims, so I'm not writing this with any other intent [as far as this 'I' is aware] than that of clearing up the aforementioned potential confusion).

Cheers ^_^,

Chris

The No-Dog feels completely different to the PCE in my experience, I don't quite know how to describe the apparent differences but it's an interesting question. The similarities I could notice have been the absence of emotional affect in both states, you can't get caught up in personal dramas or project thought into the future or past either. I'll need to check this out and see if I can give a better reply.

As for why it's not talked about quite so much anymore, I have no idea but I'd speculate that it's because it's just another, albeit very useful, state to experience.

As Thusness have said before, there is no doubt about the relationship between affective feelings and identity/attachment to self. (Identity being the cause of feelings, without the cause there can be no effect)

Even though feelings are directly related to attachment of Self/self, there are different degrees of attachment to self/Self. And these attachments can only be removed via insight. For if the fundamental belief in an inherently existing self in its various forms are not removed via insight into the absence of such an inherently existing self, no amount of PCEs or temporary abeyance of 'self' is going to last. And also, having PCEs does not mean having an insight into the absence of an inherent self, as Richard have said, everyone has a PCE in his life. (yet only few have achieved actual freedom, and not even many have realized the significance of a pce) What's the use of a PCE if deep in his mind he still clings to his own belief/view of an existing being?

Not only is insight important, there are many various insights necessary to deconstruct the many disguises of 'Self'. The deconstruction of personality can for example, still result in an attachment to a big Self. Yet even the deconstruction of that Big Self, leaving only the actual world as it is without a self or a Self, can become another subtle object of grasping - the grasping into a subtle inherent ground, though no longer a self/Self, still manifests as a 'inherently existing Here/Now' which we must constantly ground ourselves in or return to. Therefore further insight of the disjoint, unsupported, freeing, and non-inherency of phenomena must arise to complement the initial insight of anatta, and the insight of non-dual. Beyond that, there are further insights into the emptiness of objects. Therefore, there are various subtle views/framework of duality and inherency obscuring true effortless and liberating experience.

Hence, a fundamental shift of view via insight (and there are various degrees and subtleties) is necessary - otherwise there cannot be true effortless, seamless, and liberating experience. Subtle traces of self will remain and often unnoticed.

A simple example for a person at the I AM phase (but this also applies to any person in any phases): a person at the I AM phase, though having glimpses of PCE, will never be stable in it because of his current view of duality and inherency causes him to keep perceiving duality and sinking back into a background Source. However he sees PCE as a progression and cultivates the experience, yet can never achieve effortlessness with his current paradigm/view. But, after the insight of Anatta, it is seen that 'seeing is just the seen, awareness is just a label for the various sensate perceptions, there is no perceiver' - it all becomes effortless and he no longer needs to cultivate an experience, for experience are all already implicitly so - he no longer tries to maintain a state where no division occurs between seer and seen - for already there never was a seer/awareness/seeing apart from what is seen, to begin with.

I do not deny that for example... in certain modes of experiencing, such as a PCE, one is free from affective feelings. Yet, to me that is like saying 'in a state of calmness, one is freed from affective feelings' - it does not imply that latent tendencies are removed (which you disagree). Even if (and is often the case of those who claim freedom from affective feelings) one has a very stabilized experience and thus it does seem that one has become freed from affective feelings, does not mean that all the latent tendencies of self has been removed. There is thus a need for further insights and let these insight sink in to remove all the traces of grasping and self/Self. To me and Thusness, there is often this tendency to overclaim which we are seeing in many places (from those who realized anatta, from those who realized non dual, even those who realized I AM - all kinds of people have claimed freedom from affective feelings)... and because we had certain basic disagreements, I thought it was best that I just left it there and hence, did not reply to your emails.

When I mentioned 'I am my feelings' in the past, Thusness has (though never mentioned elsewhere) told me not to look at it this way, as this is what Buddhism sees as the 'view of inherency' analogous to saying that this moment of thought is the same as the previous moment of thought and a mango seedis the same as the fruit. From the 'view' and practice perspective, a practitioner should take note of this. 'i am my feelings' shows the insight of no-split - there is no separate, independent, self apart from feelings, but it is still seeing it from an inherent perspective.

I see it this way: There is only feelings, no feeler. Identity is the cause of feelings, identity not being feeling, and feeling not being identity, but they are inseparably interconnected - without identity, there can be no feelings. Not because I do not see 'no split' but because there must be clarity in view so that we do not fall in the error of saying a mango seed is the same as the fruit, or a previous moment of thought is this current moment of thought. A subtle inherent view is still present if it is not clearly seen. I see each phenomenon as disjoint, unsupported, complete in itself, though interconnected - like Dogen puts it,

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.
Those comments were made prior to further discussions or at least the points were not being made explicitly clear then (if I am not wrong you only said you will write a response but you have not written the response then), therefore my comments were true at that point in time. Also, my comments about Trent still stands true.

p.s. I will probably not be replying here for the next two weeks due to busy schedule and not having (more accurately, limited) access to internet in camp.

Before enlistment into my mandatory 2 year military service, there was a period of a few months when I was neither studying nor working, and had all the time in the world so I wrote the document. Now I do not have the luxury of time and internet to engage so often in such conversations.

whereas it is actually the instinctual passions that constitute the identity (without which passions there is no fear, malice, or sorrow, let alone anyone to feel them).



as an actual freedom is not the removal of attachment to self/Self via insight (or any other means) but rather is the elimination of (the cause of) that self/Self itself, you are here only parading your nescience of the condition (and the means that produce it) once more.



firstly, as it is clearly stated in the actualist writings that it is 'i' (as 'my feelings'), and not a pce, that is the key to an actual freedom, then it is equally clear that any argument you may put forth to argue against the view that a pce either can be made permanent or itself cause an actual freedom is a straw man argument of your own invention with no relevance to what is actually stated, as what you are arguing against has not been said at all.

secondly, as it is a pce that enables in the first place an experiential understanding of the possibility of living happily and harmlessly, void of malice and sorrow, then a pce is entirely necessary for working toward such a condition. further, as it is only the recollection/induction of a pce that can directly orient one towards what is actual, then the use of a pce lies in one's use of it to produce, here and now, a condition where one is actually living happily and harmoniously, void of malice and sorrow. to make this a matter of belief (of whether or not '[one] still clings to [one's] own belief/view of an existing being') is to miss the point of the actualism method entirely.

thirdly, as it is how an identity relates to the memory of a pce (which matter is entirely up to the identity) that determines how 'i' feel about the prospect of 'my' extinction, and as it is how 'i' feel about the prospect of 'my' extinction that determines whether or not that extinction is enabled to occur, then what enables such extinction to occur is the unconditional willingness to abandon passional existence entirely ... which willingness is engendered by having experienced such passional absence and having understood the utter, and unique, safety that extinction actually is (and not by the removal of any 'belief in' - or 'attachment to' - 'an inherently existing self').

that you have not understood the first point (that the pce alone has never been said to cause an actual freedom - however obviously it has been written) is understandable, as indulging this misunderstanding does conveniently present you the opportunity to segue into an advertisement of your belief that feelings, being related to attachment of Self/self, can only be removed via insight into such attachment (and that insight into such attachment is what supposedly produces an actual freedom).

that you have not understood the second point (about what the use of a pce is in the actualism method) is understandable, as, in taking a method simply intended to eradicate malice and sorrow and turning it into a fantasy of transcendental realisation attainment (which i have pointed out that you do, elsewhere in this reply, in my previous reply, and in our past correspondence), you are bound to miss the point of it entirely.

that you have not understood the third point (about what enables an actual freedom to occur) is understandable, as its comprehension would require you to have an experiential understanding of how 'i' am 'my feelings' and 'my feelings' are 'me' ... an understanding you evidently both do not possess and yet think that you do.


*


as, in an actual freedom, there is no "'inherently existing Here/Now' which 'we must constantly ground ourselves in or return to', then your claim that 'even the deconstruction of that Big Self, leaving only the actual world as it is without a self or a Self, can become another subtle object of grasping' only further demonstrates your misunderstanding (and thus misrepresentation) of what is meant by the absence of a 'feeling being' (or 'self/Self') in the actualist writings .... as well as what is meant by the actual world.

to be clear, any 'inherently existing Here/Now' to which you find you must constantly grasp in order to 'ground [yourself] in or return to' is nothing other than that 'Big Self', however deconstructed it has become, in another guise ... which is not surprising, as deconstruction is in no way the same thing as eliminination[1], and so the deconstruction of any form that instinctual passions take (whatever the form, or name it is given) is in no way the same thing as the elimination of those passions themselves.



as it is the elimination of those passions themselves - thereby bringing to a resolute end the experience of being or feeling - which constitutes an actual freedom, then what your rejoinder amply demonstrates is that what you mean by stage 5 of your enlightenment model (whereat this 'Big Self' is deconstructed) has nothing to do with what an actual freedom from the human condition (where identity is eliminated in its entirety) is ... and nor has any other stage along the instinctual passion-ignoring quest for insight that said model maps.

it follows, then, that an experience of the actual world is one wherein there is no such grasping or grounding or returning whatsoever, as therein are no passions to fuel the imaginative fantasy in which context grasping or grounding in or returning to (about which you are concerned) occurs ... irrespective of your ill-informed attempt to portray the matter otherwise.



hmm... and in same fashion, already there never was a feeler/awareness/(affective) feeling apart from what is (affectively) felt, to begin with, eh?

then again, there is also an actual freedom from the human condition whereby all such feelings (and feeler formed thereof) come to a total end (and are not merely found to lack a division between them) ... which is another matter entirely.



in a pce, one is indeed temporarily free of affect/feeling, which process is in abeyance.



as i have in no way ever thought - much less written - that the potential for feelings is removed by the experience of a pce, it would interest me if you would point out where i have said as much (from which you have concluded that i have or would disagree(d) with an assessment that a pce does not remove the potential for feelings).



assuming that what you mean by 'latent tendencies of self' here basically amounts to the potential for experiencing affect: as you have thus far failed to grasp that it is instinctual passion which is at the root of being, your implicit assertion here that what constitutes an actual freedom from the human condition (and thus from affect entirely) must contain latent tendencies of affect is meaningless (not to mention, evidently unsubstantiated).



i would be interested to know of any people you and thusness know or know of, other than those who are actually free, who claim to not ever experience, inter alia, irritation, agitation, frustration, melancholy, sadness, gloom, craving, greed, libido, disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness, nervous tension, or apprehension.

relatedly, i would also still be interested to know - as i asked you about directly in our correspondence from last august (in a question you overlooked/ignored) - if you or thusness would still require me to be nailed to a cross to find out if i'm really free of affect, as one of your emails suggested.



as what i essentially disagreed with you about, in my reply to your final email (both dated 14 august 2010), was the entire argument you used to underlie your distortion of the definition of an actual freedom in order to fit it into your comparitivist-syncretist-apologist framework of enlightenment (such that an 'actual freedom', placed within that framework, is defined as being brought about by 'prajna wisdom' and not by 'removing all the desires and passions'), i was not surprised to not receive a reply[2].

it is needless to say that i will not be party to such a distortion or watering-down of the meaning of an actual freedom as you evidently intend.


*


whereas in the context of actualism (the practice that leads to an actual freedom, as distinct from what thusness teaches), what is meant by 'i am my feelings, and my feelings are me' is that the very sense of 'me' is part and parcel of any feeling, no matter how flickering, or brief, or self-liberating that feeling is, and that any feeling, no matter how flickering, or brief, or self-liberating, indicates 'me' as an identity ... no matter how many people may misunderstand/misrepresent its meaning to support whatever philosophical position they champion, and in however many ways.


as what you are here doing is declaring the inadequacy of a philosophical perspective ('view of inherency') that you have mistakenly assumed to be implied in a phrase you do not understand ('i am my feelings') and endeavouring to point out, in so many words (plus ancient quotation), a common-sense fact dressed-up as a spiritual insight (that any phenomenon, though intrinsically related to other (related) phenomena, is simply what it is) in order to use it as support for a philosophical belief, then this whole section of your reply is a non-sequitur, as you are clearly only talking to yourself.

at the end of the day, it is your life, and you are welcome to see each phenomenon as disjoint[ed], unsupported, complete in itself, though interconnected, or however else you may wish to, and whatever you may wish to believe any of those things to imply, and i have no (and never have had any) problem with any of that whatsoever. to the extent, however, that you bring those beliefs to bear authoritatively on a discussion forum set up specifically to facilitate the practice of actualism (a method you evidently do not understand) and produce an actual freedom (which condition you have no experience of) in such a way that may mislead sincere practitioners, then to that extent, you can expect me to intervene and call a spade a spade ... for in not setting straight here on this forum what matters that you twist, i would be implicitly supporting the disservice you currently do its participants by heedlessly muddying the waters concerning what the actualism method and an actual freedom are and are not.


*


if you go back and check your chat record (dated before you wrote the above comments we're here discussing three and six days), you will find that i pointed out how stage 5 (and the rest of the model) is unrelated to af in very explicitly clear terms. as for my writing a response, my replies in our ensuing email correspondence sufficed for that purpose.


*


in closing, here is something to personally consider (apart from considerations about what effects your actions may have on others):

consider that you do not have clue one about what an actual freedom is, and that you do not at this time even want to have clue one about it, as an actual freedom is not what you actually want. then do yourself a favour and go get as enlightened as you possibly can, realising all the profound realisations that you possibly can, as clearly this is what you want. later, if you should develop an immediate interest in living entirely free of malice and sorrow (which you, in our private correspondence, have dismissed as 'just moral conduct'), then - and only then - return to the actualism method, as you will have developed a necessary condition prerequisite to the fulfillment of its practice. simply put, there is no point in your concerning yourself with it now, as without this proper intent (whereby a life entirely free of malice and sorrow is your immediate concern), you will only continue to confuse yourself about what the method leading to such freedom actually entails.

tarin

[1] compare:

de·con·struct
To break down into components; dismantle.

e·lim·i·nate
To get rid of; remove

[2] particularly as, in that reply, i also: (a) denied the existence of moments of consciousness which you, owing to your belief in rebirth, believe continues to arise after the physical body dies; (b) pointed out that i am not a buddhist; and (c) pointed out that in any case the buddha depicted in the pali canon presented the eradication of defilements as being the very point of the practice he propagated (and not as merely the side-effect of a realisation practice which you stated your teacher believes such eradication to be).

Replying from phone again so will keep things short. Before I proceed, I would like to clarify, as you seem to suggest, correct me if I am wrong, the removal of passions (feelings?) To result in the end of being or identity. However, this is what Richard said:

//"Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings."//

Also, what Richard said here is what I mean by taking here and now as inherent:

//"
So, you see that ‘time without duration’ just as ‘space without measure’ can be made sense of. Time is a sequence of events, time itself does not ‘move’ – so there can only be NOW. Objects that move in space can move relative to other objects, but they are always in the very same place – HERE, ‘anywhere,’ and ‘nowhere in particular.’ No 37 to No 60"//

and here is richard on how it is the instinctual passions that form the identity, presenting as well-defined a clarification (of the subject) as you'd be able to find anywhere (link - emphasis added in bold):



elsewhere, in a correspondence relevant to this discussion, he also noted (link - emphasis added in bold):

now, if it is not yet obvious that what richard is saying about the relationship between the feeler and feelings is not at all akin to the relationship between a mango seed and a mango fruit, then i do not think there is anything further i can say to clarify the matter, and so i can only suggest what i already have previously: that you return to examine all this when - and only when - your immediate concern is to live happily and harmlessly here and now (absent of malice and sorrow) ... and further, that if you do so, you do so, as richard recommends above, intimately, 'by feeling it out for yourself rather than just thinking about it').


*



yet, in comparing what you actually wrote (emphasis added):

directly to (link):

and

what is clear is that what you mean by 'an inherently existing here/now' (which you report finding you must grasp, ground yourself in, or return to in order to maintain) is in no way the same thing as what is meant by the experience of (apperceiving) actuality here and now.

which should not come as a surprise, as i have already pointed out that your 'inherently existing here/now' is just the Self in yet another guise.

(by the way, the writing you quoted above does not belong to richard, but rather to 'respondent no. 37' on the 'actualism' - as opposed to the 'third alternative' - section of the correspondences archived at the af trust website).

tarin

[1] sound familiar?

Was contemplating on 'I' am 'my feelings'. It occurred to me that it would not be possible for Actualism to teach the view of there being an actual inherent feeler that is identical with or has becomed its feelings. That would be substantial nondualism and is something that Richard had clearly rejected as being incongruent with actual freedom in which there is no identity whatsoever to be seperate or identical with feelings nor sensations, which I mentioned at the beginning of my actual freedom and buddhism document.

With this in mind, even before I saw your reply, it did not take me long to understand that "I am my feelings" is actually an insight and a deconstruction not unlike the insight of anatta.

What is being meant here is that any sense of a self or being, though reified as an actual entity by everybody prior to insight and freedom, is actually an imaginative feeling and the being has no existence apart from being merely an imagined felt feeling, and thus such a being has no factual existence that the feeling seemingly implies, in the actual world.

In contrast to the notion of there being an actual feeler, what Richard here is trying to point out is that the feeler is not an actual entity but is itself simply a manifestation that is formed out of the faculty of feeling and imagination, and it is indeed the feelings that create the need of a feeler and the so called feeler itself, not the other round (that an actual feeler caused those feelings). Being itself is a felt feeling.

All affective feelings are 'imagined' or felt dependent on an intuited/imagined/felt being and therefore are responses not based on factual events and therefore have no place in the actual world. Therefore, one who lives in the actual world devoid of any felt or intuited being only ever responses objectively based on facts rather than feelings and passion.

In short, "I am my feelings, my feelings are me" is trying to point out anatta by reducing all sense of me-ness or beingness to its constituent nonfactual feelings rather than to take being as a factual inherent self. It also points out that being is a feeling and thus the absence of a dualistic relationship (though without implying some inherent self) between 'I' and feelings in which case 'I' may then try to disassociate from 'my feelings' leading to an altered state of experience yet failing to realise the actual world absent of identity.

Regarding Richard's analogy of the vortex and the statement that the self realised person realises that there is no dot at the center thus the center is a void. First of all, this is talking about the I AM realization, not the realisation of anatta, not the realization of 'no feeler only feelings'. Secondly, self realised is a term for someone who realized Self (with capital S). Even though I have gone through such a phase, having had the I AM realization on february 2010. However I have moved on from that phase and realized anatta in october 2010. All of which I have documented in my e book/e journal: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

The insight and experience of a non objective void at the center of being is characteristic of the I AM phase. After my realization of Anatta in October 2010, I realized there is no actual being, let alone an actual center or periphery in experience. There is only undeniable fact is this naked process of sensate self manifesting display that is wonderfully luminous, alive, intimate, delightful, "magical", paradisiacal, and disjoint, unsupported, self-liberating, unsullied by self/Self. No granduer of cosmic universal consciousness, just this body, this particular aggregation of the five skandhas, interacting with other bodies/aggregates in a process of interconnectedness, absent of identity or agency.

did you also note the part(s) of richard's writing wherein he states that an actual freedom is (also) incongruent with the very existence of feelings (whether or not there exists an identity that is seperate from or identical to them)?



ok... then, with my previous comment in mind, you may be able to understand how understanding that 'i am my feelings and my feelings are me' means understanding that so long as there arise feelings, there too arise i.



indeed, the affective identity (which is what is meant by 'i am my feelings, and my feelings are me') has no existence apart from its existence as feelings felt ... and so the affective identity has no existence whatsoever in the actual world, as feelings have no existence whatsoever here.



indeed, the 'being' which richard points out is itself felt ... and further, this 'being' is extant in any and all feelings (or affective/appetitive experience).



speaking personally, i find no feelings or passions to which to respond (or not respond), as none exist in actuality.



the actual world, absent of the identity indicated in the phrase, 'i am my feelings, and my feelings are me', is also wholly absent of feelings (being absent of the instinctual passions).



hmm.. have you, either in february or october 2010, or at any time since, also moved on from the realisation of 'no feeler only feelings' and ceased feeling in its entirety?

if not, there may be more yet to richard's analogy of a vortex, as well as to his statement that the "self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle".



it appears that you recently achieved fourth path by the standard that participants at the dho used to have, more or less, a vocal consensus on (pre-summer 2009). for clarification, see the simple model (a stripped-down version of the 4-path model presented in ingram's mctb).

an actual freedom (the goal of the actualism method), on the other hand, being defined by the extinction of the instinctual passions (and the identity implicit therein), is something else entirely.

tarin

Thanks for clarifying, I have a better understanding of af now. Regarding my experience, I have noticed a gradual emotional transformation since the initial realization, and more recently noticed that events that would have caused fear, nervousness, irritation, anger, etc have now only manifested as some bodily sensations. For example, in the event of an unexpected sound, a loud explosion etc, there can be a sense of adrenaline for a moment, yet there is no feeling of psychological fear whatsoever. Only purely bodily sensations.

With regards to what you said regarding you experience no feelings and passions, I understand. Only simple pure experience in the 6 entries and exits. Just the 18 dhatus.

I have some questions for you:

1. In between the phase of a person that has realized anatta and AF, how has 'feeling' been transformed? That is what is "feeling" without "feeler"?

2. How do you see habitual tendencies

3. Would like to hear from you how is it that one that has so deep in insight of anatta (total clarity of the non-existence of self/Self) preach so much about compassion?

Will do a summary later and explain what is no-dog in relation to pce.

[edited to append a missing section of reply, re-word a redundant sentence, and clarify a few sentences further]


you're welcome.



distinct from the gradual emotional transformation that, by many accounts (including mine), succeeds 4th path is an actual freedom in which affect has vanished entirely.

the following passage from richard's correspondences may be illuminating (link):


...particularly when contrasted against an account of a (different) dicey situation, given by a feeling being several years ago (link):

...and particularly in light of what subsequently occurred for another feeling being present in the same (latter) situation, which i will here relate: the person walking with me then told me, a few years later, that they developed post-traumatic stress disorder after that event, which caused severe disruptions to their eating and sleeping habits, forced a social withdrawal, and necessitated professional counselling and therapy.

fear and terror, as well as the rushes that feed fear and terror, suck.



this (simple pure experience in the utter absence of feelings and passions) is what is evident in a pce, and so the experience is there for anyone to confirm for themselves.



this would be a question better put to, say, daniel ingram, as he is currently traversing the territory between 4th path and an actual freedom. however, in 'my' limited experience, the experience of 'feeling without a[n apparent] feeler'[1] was that of a surge of passion erupting abruptly and cooling quickly, which (usually) arose evidently on the basis of some sensory event , caused however much disturbance its activity generated, and diminished in the absence of a fabricated identity-narrative that would otherwise sustain it. thus, 'feeling without a[n apparent] feeler' can be said to be merely a more refined version of the same activity as any feeling which happens to, and is kept running by, a feeler. for more on the topic, you might have a look at the following link (and the context of the conversation prompting it).



as engendered by the succession of (largely procedural) memory, by which means i am able to (for example) these days ride a bicycle or consistently close a door behind me upon entering or exiting a room.



not being someone who either experiences or preaches about (as in, advocates) feeling pity for others (no matter how profound the pity), i cannot personally answer your question.

however, if by this question you mean to imply that a person who has a deep insight of anatta (total clarity of the non-existence of self/Self) would not preach so much about compassion, then it may be pertinent to ask if you do not consider the buddha to have had such depth of insight[2] ... for as a buddhist, surely you are aware that the quality of 'great compassion' (maha-karuna) is held to be unique to a buddha[3]?

tarin

[1] i append the feeler in brackets because despite how it may appear, there are no such things as feelings without a feeler (this identity being the one actualism designates, and of which the condition of an actual freedom is absent).

[2] it would hardly come as a surprise if you do not consider the buddha to have had such a deep insight, as i had already pointed out, in the course of our email correspondence last year, a distinct difference between the practice (and goal) indicated by the pali canon and the practice (and goal) you indicate here.

[3] as is stated in the sutta pitaka; here is mahasi quoting from the khuddaka nikaya and explaining the selection (emphasis added):

Wow... after writing a long post, I accidentally click the X button and lost what I wrote... glad there isn't any hung ups or bad feelings in the actual world ;) Every moment is fresh and always good to start afresh.

Thanks for the reply... I will hereby do a conclusion on this thread.

No-Dog/I AM and PCE

First of all, the issue of No-Dog which is I AM as defined by Kenneth, and its relation with PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience as termed by Richard). Is I AM/No-Dog the same as PCE? Is it different?

We have to consider a few issues here: In the I AM realization, is there emotion? Is there feeling? Is there even thought? Is there division? Or is there complete stillness? Perhaps most importantly: is there Being, is there Identity in the 'I AM' realization?

Now in PCE, in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound! So what is "I AM"? It is important to note there that 'I AM' is not simply an experience of being the Witness/Watcher or a state of witnessing. One can also have an experience similar to I AM yet the realization has not occurred. This is being discussed in the article written by Thusness: Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives. 'I AM' is a profound life changing realization of something undeniable and undoubtable.

Those who have gone through I AM realization (those following Vipassana paths may not experience it), particularly those following Direct Path (as practiced in Advaita, Zen, etc, as I did and written in my e-book) will know, in the I AM realization there is no emotions, no feelings, not even thought, there is no division, it is complete stillness, and there is complete certainty and doubtlessness about what is being realized.

And actually, there is no being either! But as this experience and realization is so powerful, it will leave a very lasting life-changing impression on one's mind, even though one is unable to sustain (unless one is so well trained in absorption such as Ramana Maharshi) such an experience for long.

And because the mind does not have the right view, because the mind is deeply obscured by the view of inherency and duality, it will cling onto that as a Purest Identity. Because the I AM realization appears to be so special... it will be clung to be an ultimate self. The identification actually comes as an 'after-thought' to the actual experience/realization.

In reality, what is it? It is actually just one aggregate, one dhatu out of the 18! (six sense organs, six sense objects, six sense consciousness) What is that one dhatu? It is simply a non-conceptual thought. There is no 'sense of being/identity' at that moment of realization. It is a PCE in a non-conceptual thought, or rather, a pure conscious experience of thought, just like a pure conscious experience of sound (neither are purer). However, because the realization of Anatta has not arisen, the PCE quickly devolves into an ASC after that moment of realization, it becomes reified into a super-self, an ultimate Being... especially if one's inquiry is structured in such a way which presumes an ultimate identity: 'Who am I?', which will lead to the realization of I AM. Whereas the inquiry/method of HAIETMOBA does not assume such a being.

What Richard stress however is PCE in all dhatus (all sense experiences) without identity, which can be 'induced' by the practice of HAIETMOBA.

The I AM realization resulted from the practice of self-inquiry becomes reified into an ultimate Background of all experience... a ground of being which everything manifests out of, subsides to, yet itself remaining unchanged. Is there such a background? The background is actually an illusion, an image of a previous PCE captured by memory and made more ultimate than other experiences, and reified into an ultimate Self... the actual realization and experience is a full foreground dhatu, aggregate, just like any other manifestations in the sensate field. In actuality, that non-conceptual thought is not any more special than a passing sight, a passing scent! Further insights into non-dual and then anatta will reveal that All are equally marvellous, wonderful, intensely luminous. There is no need to make the set of dhatu that relates to mind-consciousness more special or ultimate than any other, and just as we do not make sound any more ultimate than taste, we also do not need to make non-conceptual thought more ultimate than a sight or indeed even a conceptual thought itself... even though each dhatu and manifestation is radically different from another and arises according to different and various conditions.


When feelings arise, so do 'I'

Even though Richard clearly sees anatta, there are subtle differences. While actual freedom says that the 'I' inevitably arises with feelings, in Buddhism we stress on the insight and realization of anatta. Which is that there never was an 'I' to begin with. Be it scenery, thoughts or feelings - whatever arise arises without an agent or feeler. Whereas the cause of 'I' in actualism is feelings, in buddhism we see that the cause of 'I' lies in ignorance and false views. Therefore in Buddhism the emphasis is on realizing anatta and developing the view and experience of dependent origination. That is, things exist (are defined) not by their essence but by their "interconnectedness". While we see an end to afflictions we do not see any ultimate states... From feelings to sound etc, all are anatta and arise without an agent, being, feeler, thinker, hearer, etc. Though it should be noted that an initial insight of anatta does not mean end of afflictions and emotions (initial insight = Buddha's Sotapanna, though commonly equated to be MTCB's fourth-path). That is a 'further step' from the initial realization, as indicated in my document.

Reality

Another difference is how actualism and buddhism defines real. Actualism defines real as something undeniably arising in experience albeit as mere feeling and imagination and thus have no actual existence, in contrast the actual world that is truly existing. In buddhism, the definition of real is very specific and is different fron actualism's definition. We define real as something that has permanent, unchanging, inherent (having an essence in itself), independent existence.

Overlapping Areas of Buddhism and Actualism

Now having mentioned about the differences I will also mention about the similarities and where Actualism and Buddhism overlaps in terms of experience... Both Buddhism and Actualism overlap in PCEs due to realization of no 'I'. In seeing and dropping the illusory identity, what is left is the pure consciousness of the senses, intensely luminous, alive, revealing a world that is like a magical fairy-tale like wonderland, yet most ordinary. After the arising and stabilization of the insight and experience of anatta, these 'qualities' of experience becomes implicit, naturally, effortlessly experienced. One will also start to experience freedom from afflictions and fetters and emotions as I have mentioned. This is the inevitable consequence.

an eternal now


overlap

pg. 599 old dog mentality

Just a quick qn. Do you not experience adrenaline when you take a roller coaster ride? I haven't taken those rides recently but its just funny to think of a roller coaster ride without adrenaline.

Oh yes it will be great if Daniel could chime in as well.

i don't specifically know, having not been on a roller coaster in recent memory, but having not experienced an adrenaline rush in anything else i've encountered, i would not expect to.

i'm not sure whether you are implying that you are AF, but as i assume you place yourself at most equal to the level your teacher is at and your teacher is not AF (as he experiences emotions), i don't think it wise for you to take that to be the case.

how can there not be Being when you take yourself to be everything that there is? that's as much being as you can have - an extremely over-inflated sense of Being. the "I" is literally 1/3rd of "I AM" (as in 1/3rd of the letters), so how can you possibly say there is no being when there is an "I"?

i dont know what Buddhism you mean but the Buddha stressed the end of suffering, not realization or insight.

Richard agrees with this:

As I am not an Actualist practitioner, I do not feel compelled to label myself as anything (actually freed, virtually freed, unfreed, whatever) of that 'tradition'... however I do simply report my experience as it is.
You didn't understand what I meant. In that moment of so called "I AM realization", there is fact no I AM, no I, no being, no self, no Self. It is simply a realization and experience of luminosity as a Pure Consciousness Experience.

It is only reified as an I AM after the moment of realization due to our framework (of duality and inherency) of viewing our experiences and mode of inquiry ('Who am I?' which presumes Self). PCE devolves into ASC.
Yes, and the means is via insight and tranquility in tandem.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html

I'd also go a step further and say that AF stresses about insight as well, otherwise they would not have stressed on seeing clearly "I am my feelings and my feelings are me", they would not have asked people to contemplate on HAIETMOBA. Without these crucial elements, there can be no 'end of suffering'.

ah yes, sorry, i was reading w/ my eyes closed.

so what you're saying is that there can be PCEs with different emphases? that would make two so far... 1) a PCE in pure non-conceptual thought is the "I AM" realization (which happens from a mis-understanding of the PCE). 2) a PCE in all senses as Richard explains. 1) leads to an ASC, though 2) does not necessarily. and in a sense 1) is more 'forced' (2 can happen spontaneously) so maybe that explains it?

i still dont quite understand 1), though. you ask yourself 'who am i?' and the answer comes - and the answer is not an answer at all but a PCE of pure non-conceptual thought? i guess it is hard to imagine but then again so are any of these states until you've had them =P. it's not surprising that asking 'who am i?' and getting an intense experience would lead one to conclude that one is that experience. what's the purpose of that route, though? an initial delusion to make the mind more powerful and coax it into more refined insight? how is experience different in the ASC resulting from this technique?

would you recommend someone take the "one-dhatu PCE" route or the "full-dhatu PCE" route?

true, it's really understanding reality/actuality that leads to all this, so it sure is insight in that sense.

yet (just re-iterating from the other thread as well), MCTB practice does not lead to a permanent PCE, neither does the path you are taking (at least so far as your teacher has gone anyway), but AF does (roughly speaking; AF being the abeyance of self whereas PCE is temporary abeyance of self)

i guess it boils down to a matter of practicality. some 10-20 people say they have fully eliminated all their afflictions and fetters and emotions with a certain technique, and nobody else does (perhaps your path will eventually but it hasn't yet). i'll follow in their footsteps for now

Hey Beo, I am taking a stab in the dark, but you keep talking about how you are "going" for a pce and you don't think you had one yet, if i'm correct. I think you might be searching for perfection instead of paying attention to the senses. When you go deep into the senses, a pce is very likely to happen especially at how diligently your going about practice. Its not some impossible feat that you have to build up to. It would be my guess that you've had several pce's but your "I" is convincing you that those experiences weren't pce's because it wasn't "perfect" enough. Its perfect because its relaxed and your not thinking about its perfection. Of course, I may be wrong as I am not actually free but Im pretty sure Im writing this in a PCE.

1) Who am I leads to direct realization of the luminous essence of mind or more accurately a non-conceptual thought. PCE occurs, mind becomes aware of itself apperceptively, yet devolves into an ultimate Being after the event. ASC to me is like grasping on an image of a previous PCE and identifying with it as an ultimate entity/self/being - the sense of it as an eternal background formless void behind phenomena, for example, is an ASC, and prevents PCE being experienced as all foreground manifestation.

I cannot comment on MCTB practice, having never personally practiced it either, but Thusness have already commented years ago that that aspect (of cultivating, experiencing pce) is lacking in MCTB approach.

I am not trying to convert anyone to any approach and think practicing Actualism will be of help to you atm, but since you mentioned, PCE and intimacy with all things (in seeing just the brilliancy of the seen without distance or separation as there is no identity to separate) actual is not a peak experience that comes and goes for me but something that occurs very naturally and effortlessly for me in an ongoing basis. I don't really see this as the result of an effortful practice but rather the natural result of an insight (stabilized to certain degree).


2) My advice for people on which practice or path to take differs on their inclination. I have given vastly different instructions to different people.

I don't see how anyone already practising actualism could have a PCE and not realise it's a PCE. It's such an extreme experience. It's not perfect because it's relaxed, it's perfect because there is just pure-universe, absolutely no 'me' and no feeling. Unmistakable, in my view. Maybe you're thinking of the 'EE', which is happy and very sensate but ultimately still part of normal experience?

i think you're right, 'tis why im working on relaxing and applying gentle attentiveness (instead of focused driven attention)

i still suspect AF-PCE and IAM-PCE might be more fundamentally different than you think, from the following factors:

• onset: AF-PCE happens spontaneously for most/all people, or by wandering into the senses. IAM-PCE happens by asking 'who am i?'
• duration: AF-PCE lasts anywhere from a few seconds to a few months, but usually a few hours. IAM-PCE, from what i can understand, lasts an instant or a few moments
• quality of experience: AF-PCE is nice and clean+pure, etc., unimaginable clarity in all senses. IAM-PCE is.. not even an experience so much from what i can understand? its an experience of pure non-conceptual thought, so much narrower than AF-PCE
• exit: AF-PCE goes away, often without noticing. an ASC where it is taken as a self never occurs. IAM-PCE goes away and an ASC is invariably entered into.

indeed the same happens as one continues on the path to AF (in-control virtual freedom or out-of-control virtual freedom), and the path can end pretty soon after that. perhaps AF is simply an approach more appropriately oriented towards the modern psyche?

Yes, you can be wondering about its perfection and it is extremely relaxing. What I am getting at is you enter a PCE through the senses, through naivete and its not some extreme feat but very accessible and the self can enter at anytime with any thought/feeling interrupting the PCE and saying whatever it wants to hold on to itself.

Yes. PCE is about direct and pure experience we encounter... be it in sight, sound, taste, etc, the quality and depth of experience in sound, in contact, in taste, in scenery, and so on. Have you truly experienced the immense luminous clarity in the senses? If so, what about 'thought'? Have you experienced the immense luminous clarity as a thought with senses shut as a pure sense of existence as it is, and the immense luminous clarity of a thought with senses open? Therefore have a clear understanding before comparing. Just be simple and ask yourself... if one can deeply experience the pure sensory experience in sight, taste, sound, contact, what is the pure experience of mind like?

going by what an eternal now has written here as well as elsewhere in this very thread, it is evident that what he is implying is that his present condition is that of an actual freedom, based on the following corrupt (re-)definition of what that condition is, namely:

[indent]- a condition wherein the world is experienced as a subtle object of grasping:
['(...) even the deconstruction of that Big Self, leaving only the actual world as it is without a self or a Self, can become another subtle object of grasping (...)'];

- a condition wherein there are only feelings, and no feeler:
['I see it this way: There is only feelings, no feeler.']

- a condition wherein feelings are experienced in the same agentless fashion as are scenery or thoughts:
['While actual freedom says that the 'I' inevitably arises with feelings, in Buddhism we stress on the insight and realization of anatta. Which is that there never was an 'I' to begin with. Be it scenery, thoughts or feelings - whatever arise arises without an agent or feeler. (...) From feelings to sound etc, all are anatta and arise without an agent, being, feeler, thinker, hearer, etc.']
[/indent]
...all the while ignoring my repeated reminders (here in this very thread) about what the criteria for the condition, and the criteria for exclusion from the condition, are ... criteria which do not deviate from the source descriptions found all over the actual freedom trust website[1].

by ignoring the criteria already put forth for what does and what does not constitute the ongoing experience of what is known (on the af trust website as well as in my writing here) as the actual world, an eternal now ignores those well-defined and clear-cut lines in favour of what at this point can only be either a deliberate effort on his part to distort the term's meaning or the product of a severe cognitive dissonance about it. further, by persisting in misusing the term 'actual world' in order to place the condition of its ongoing experience conveniently within his comparativist-syncretist-apologist framework of enlightenment, he persists in doing a disservice to the dho-frequenting practitioners of the actualism method by continuing to fill this forum with his patently false views regarding what constitutes the method's practice and its results ... an act especially inconsiderate as he has already been asked to stop.

in any case, i am not particularly surprised that an eternal now has continued in the fashion in which he has ... for he is only continuing to indulge a penchant for tidy philosophical reconciliations (as evidenced by his 'conclusion to this thread' post above) and demonstrating an inconsideration in line with what he has already stated about his practice: that an intent to live happily and harmlessly (via the elimination of the malicious and sorrowful passions) is 'just moral conduct' and not what motivates it. truly, when the issue of suffering is forgotten (or equivocated away), the various teachers and enlightened beings who forget it are so content to merely dwell in or chase their various conceptions of wisdom (and happy to encourage others to do the same).

*

i would like to ask that this thread come to an end, and the forum be dedicated more closely to practical discussion regarding the actualism method and its results (which is what it was set up for).

tarin

[1] 'an actual freedom' and 'the actual world' are, in the context of the actualism method, terms that richard came up with, and so he gets to define them. to change the terms' meanings, by using them in ways directly contradictory to those meanings, is to bastardise the practice (of the actualism method) by bastardising the standards according to which the practice is conducted. an eternal now's usage waters down what is meant by 'the actual world' beyond recognition.

Oh, I do not mean that, as I have clearly indicated that 'only feelings, no feeler' is not the end. There is what I call the transformation from five skandhas into eighteen dhatus. When initial insight into Anatta arises, one realizes that the term 'self' is merely a label collating the five skandhas, and that there is in seeing just the seen, no seer, etc. This is also the phase of 'only feelings, no feeler'. There is a next phase which is the transformation of five skandhas into eighteen dhatus. At this phase it is as Richard puts it: 'no visualising, no forming images, no picturing, no ‘seeing in my mind’s eye’, no intuiting, no feeling, no envisioning, no falling into a reverie, no daydreaming, no conceptualising, no envisaging in any way, shape or form.' Only eighteen dhatus: pure sensory functioning. As I said earlier: 'With regards to what you said regarding you experience no feelings and passions, I understand. Only simple pure experience in the 6 entries and exits. Just the 18 dhatus.' I have first heard of the process (but have also personally experienced this) after anatta of 'transforming 5 skandhas into 18 dhatus' from Thusness many years ago, and my Taiwanese teacher have basically something very similar years ago (he basically says transforming five skandhas into pure sensory awareness void of emotions, karmic volition, craving, etc). To Thusness, realizing anatta in five skandhas is first step but fully transformed 18 dhatus is like Arahantship (that said Arahantship is not the final goal in Thusness's view). Of a related note here, I have read some venerables define arahant's nibbana with remainder as nibbana with five skandhas remaining. This is untrue. The buddha's words from the sutta was nibbana with senses remaining. There is a huge significant difference there. ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044 )
I believe you were referring to what I wrote many months ago: We should however focus on the realization and deepening of it instead of focusing to eradicate emotions (which would be morality practice rather than insight), the eradication of defilements are simply the 'side-effect' of deep insight.


By no means am I undermining the importance to 'eradicate defilements'. I am simply saying here that to eradicate emotion by trying to remove/stop feelings straight on, in other words by suppression, or by transformation (cultivating metta, etc) is not real eradication of defilements and can only be considered 'morality practice'.

To eradicate those emotions, certain insights must arise, and the sense of identity must be dissolved.

In other words, as Richard said,

//"Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings."//

As you wish.

Just a clarification. Are you saying that this forum is set up for actualism method?

i am indeed, as the forum this thread is located in is titled, 'Actualism / Actual Freedom' and subtitled, 'Discussion regarding the practical aspects of Actualism and AF'.

in retrospect, i ought to have indicated that i meant the actualism/af (sub-)forum specifically, and not the dho as a whole.

it's very simple. richard and the other AF people describe AF as the end of the journey; finding the meaning of life; the elimination of all suffering. you take their words and simply don't believe that to be the case, as evidenced in this very paragraph where you are basically saying that Thusness knows all about what Richard is saying, it's just one of his (Thusness's) stages, one that Thusness himself has reached. tarin brings up how Thusness still experiences emotions and thus he is AF. i suspect that you believe tarin and the other AF people experience emotions in that same way and simply don't realize it / are ignoring it.

i am not sure how to reconcile this, and this thread has shown that to be difficult. i'm not saying you should believe the AF people. the only thing you can do really is to re-evaluate your take on what AF is and compare it to your own experience and sincerely see if you are there. one could ask tarin to do the same about your take on it but i suspect he will simply repeat that there is no emotion or suffering whatsoever in his state.

'tis a sticky situation, at least from my (non-AF) end, so i'll just continue practicing as i see fit.

this thread has been moved to 'The Dharma Battleground' category due to request.

another note, perhaps you may be over-complicating matters. for example, the actualist instruction is roughly: “be happy and harmless. when you fall below that level, figure out why and then continue being happy and harmless.” yet i understood it as “figure out why you’re not happy and harmless”, i.e. i missed the first step, “be happy and harmless”. that wasn’t getting me far.

so while the idea might be “eliminate suffering. to eliminate suffering, gain lots of insight”, you may be going directly to “gain lots of insight”, kind of taking the former as a given (obviously that’s what we’re trying to do!). but not investigating it may be what causes you to look at everything through the lens of insight, e.g. by reading the AF site and automatically fitting actualism into your insight model even after tarin has told you that interpretation isn’t correct according to his experience +(the experience of an actual freedom).

also consider that your interpretation of the word “insight” that Thanissaro Bhikku used to translate a Pali word written after 500 years of being passed via oral tradition originating from the Buddha might not be what Buddha mean by “X” (where X is the Pali word that Thanissaro Bhikku translated into “insight” - i’m not sure which it is). people were released very very quickly during the Buddha’s time (from my understanding and from a few references in various suttas), yet that doesn’t seem to happen nowadays with Buddhists - why might that be the case? did the Buddha have a radiating aura that enlightened people, were those monks more dedicated than all the monks today, or was his message different than the one we take his message to be today?

Sorry I am really, really late to this thread. I read the first question and answered it without having time to read the whole series of posts that followed it, so realize that if this conversation already happened, I am sorry.

Here's my simple take on it:

When I fist ran into what later came to be called the No-Dog, assuming that someone else experienced the same thing, which is semi-questionable, I had these impressions:

All was well, nothing to do, ñanas and jhanas still happening somewhere, perhaps even better, and yet the focus was not on them as they were an irrelevance, and that particular mode of perception transcended them as was untouched by them, allowing any of them to arise and pass, with no concern for them at all really, so long as that overall mode of perception lasted, which for me was a few hours tops, before it would fade back to a mode that was bound up in cycles and stages and ñanas and jhanas and all that.

No-Dog would arise with ease just asking for it after Fruitions if I was in the right place and looking for that.

When it arose, it seemed an utterly superior way of perceiving reality, and then it would fade, slowly, inexorably, and it was almost always fear that would slowly undermine it, namely fear of that state vanishing, which is the first and most important correlation with a PCE.

I finally came to a place where both No-Dog and Some-Dog were seen as exactly the same fundamentally, in that they were both causal, conditioned, empty modes of perceiving sensations, but that both, being just phenomena, being just ways reality could present to nothing, just like two different colors or lenses, still just stuff, and that realization, that all stages and states and attainments in that realm were all fundamentally the same in some very basic way was quite revealing and freeing.

In both modes, Some-Dog and No-Dog, there was affective feeling, albeit improved in No-Dog in obvious ways as it had no cycling elements that stuck or did anything obvious beyond just occur and occur quite well and yet were utterly irrelevant. Specifically, in the No-Dog, one could notice that there were cycles and jhanas arising and other remarkable things, but none had any power to change anything much, as No-Doggity itself was supremely relevant, transcendently relevant, and the general focus of attention was that and took that uber-persepctive as object.

Contrast with a PCE, in which affect except the subtle thrill and wonder of the PCE is there but cycles seem not to be able to happen in at all. Compare similarly to a PCE: both are remarkable, both feel like they are complete and freeing, and both fade largely due to fear of them vanishing. Both are also not the final answer, so it seems from this vantage point.

I found that realizing that the No-Dog and Some-Dog (the other state that arises when No-Dog fades) both were fundamentally the same ended my insight path on that front: no progress seemed possible or even comprehensible from any pure vipassana point of view for 7 years.

In contrast to that, the PCE seems to hint at other areas of progress, but they seem different, like a different axis or scope of progress, one emotional/affective rather than perceptual/panoramic/hyper-resolutional of vipassana.

I have found both of great value, but from this vantage point they seem different as carefully analyze my retrospective impressions of both at this time. I could easily see myself trying to come up with arguments that they were the same, but at this moment I feel they had some different aspects, as I remember well noticing amazing jhanas happening and having no interest in that at all as long as the No-Dog was the meta-mode of attention, whereas in PCE's I notice no cycles whatsoever and nothing like I was noticing then.

Helpful?

Daniel

no worries!

yep your answer makes it pretty clear (though i forgot why i asked the initial question - curiosity i suppose). it's interesting how many states one can find oneself in, and also interesting to see the similarities between them.