Me and Claudiu had a talk, and while it's fresh in memory I'd like to bring up some stuff from that conversation.

"Attentiveness to sensuousness". This is phrase that is not mentioned once by Richard. Even so, this is what I have been doing quite a lot, as a means to end suffering. But what exactly does it mean?

To me, attentiveness to sensuousness means to be mindful of the point-of-contact where sense objects / impressions meet their respective sense doors. While this might be considered good practice in many traditions, in actualism, as far as I have understood, it is not.

Consider the definition Richard has chosen for sensuousness:



Sensuousness does not care for raw sense data / impression; it is the highly emotional / affective / feeling-based response to raw sense data / impression that it describes.


---


Consider this crude model:

Sensing -> cognition -> affection -> ...

I think this is the model most of us are currently operating by, either consciously or unconsciously. From the conversation with Claudiu, and reading up on it on the AFT site, it is clear to me that Richard operates with a different model:

Sensing -> affection -> cognition -> ...

Considering only this, it is clear that the two models calls for different approaches for ending suffering.

Actualism, as I now understand it, is about engaging the affective faculty to it's fullest in a felicitous way. And it is NOT about sensory clarity, though that seems to be the result of the practice.

Richard:


You are right, and that's why is advised to go in this order: attentiveness --> cultivate felicity (if not felicitous at the moment) --> cultivate sensuousness.

But also there are times, at least in my case, when attending to sensuousness in neutral states triggers felicity and delight, and therefore create a more affective awareness. Attending to the senses can also help to diminish the overwhelming "bad" feelings by stopping their fueling and momentum, like an anchor to get the neurotic self out of giving them attention (a product of concentration perhaps?).

So maybe it could be more like a virtuous cycle rather than a linear one, when we talk about the order of the factors, or maybe that the Buddhist techniques help to get to better baselines (you know, to firmly hold the stem to facilitate the uprooting via other methods), but only when one do so with pure intent in mind (the intent to go all the way according to the PCE).

Yes, I may have unfortunatley helped cover over that part of sensuousness with my own take on it. My bad. It would appear one could reach stages before 'af' if wonder, fascination, curiosity or a marveling quality to paying attention to sensate experience are not informing one's practice as was the case for me. Let wonder inform and infuse your practice of attentiveness and sensuousness.

Trent: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/956281

Nick

Nice bit of clarification, perhaps we should purposely avoid this particular phrasing so as to avoid any further conflict?

Also, I wanted to second what Nick's said 'cause it's a really well put and concise description of exactly what's required:

So, when one takes the raw sense data, and 'infuse it' with "wonder, fascination, curiosity or a marveling quality" - all of these being affective qualities - then one is being sensuous as pr. Richard's definition.