This post and all following posts are part and parcel of this thread. Please treat these posts as part of the original thread, and not as a thread of their own.

Hmm, I randomly clicked to the middle, and from the minute or so I listened to it doesn't seem like she is talking about an actual freedom. Here are the key phrases that caught my ear. Starts from 11:12.

This sounds like it could be pointing to the same thing Richard is when he says things like:
[link]. However, she then goes on to say:
She doesn't say that the self disappears and what's left is the universe (which this body is not apart from). Rather, she says that everything becomes the self... which is another thing entirely. Moving on:

Again, allowing for differences in language, perhaps she means the same thing that Richard does when he says, for example:
[link]. Yet the next sentence leaves no doubt as to what Jan is experiencing:
Rather than self-immolation (and thus actual freedom), Jan is actually talking about self-aggrandizement (and thus enlightenment)... limitless self, vs. no self whatsoever.

People who are interested in attaining an actual freedom might like it because it describes yet another variation on spiritual enlightenment... but not as a source of information as to what an actual freedom is like.

Hello Claudiu -

Have you achieved your guide's experience or are you achieving his words when you find yourself stating, "This is not that"? You have picked aspects out of a 27-minute talk that do not seem to not correlate to that which you've trained your mind now for a couple years: vocabulary and your chosen guide.

Is it your chosen guide's instruction that you will achieve the freedom you sought in flying around the world by setting up your personal fencing around other beings' experiences, a comparable experience you continue to say you have not experienced?

I do not mean to be harsh here, but helpful. If you do not have a comparable experience that you would express for yourself -- as these two individuals express for themselves (Jan and Richard) - then what do you get out of asserting your concepts about them?

If this moment of being alive is conceptual and not actual, then that path is one of righteous conceptualism and that is a very personal path, well-contained by and to each individual progenitor.

Further, how can you be certain you are not harmfully misleading others from their own freedom by your asserting your personal conceptual fences about experiences you say you've not experienced?

Frankly, when I've been in the backcountry trying to figure out major stream crossings and mountain and glacier passes, I cannot afford to think about page 420 in the mountaineering handbook. I need to put my mind on my experience, on the actual sun melting actual ice, on the actual crevasses, on the actual rolling boulders under water, on the actual amount of food I have with me and the actual amount of food I think I can harvest to meet these caloric needs. WIth my limited experience in these matters at this time, in no way would I sit on the ice from my position of difficulty and start negating another mountaineer somewhere. I would pay close attention to that mountaineer's experience, openly, knowing, "they claim to know by their own experience, perhaps in listening receptively this person's experience will help me get off the glacier safely and enjoy the descent."

I chose to place the video here, because people interested in the concepts "awakening" and "AF" may like it. It may trigger their/your own ability to be actual about one's willful and involuntary experiences in being alive at this moment.

Hey Katy,


What do you mean by "achieving his words"?


Can you rephrase this? I don't follow the double-negative ("... that do not seem to not correlate...")


Part of what is required to succeed on the actualist path is to be able to tell the difference between spiritual enlightenment and actualism. I am already confident I can tell the difference, but I figured it would be fun to pick apart yet another claim that enlightenment is the same as actualism.


The only reason I posted is because you said those interested in an actual freedom might be interested in this video. I took that to mean you were implying that what she describes in the video is an actual freedom, or is somehow related. It's no longer an implication now as you stated it outright:

There is a lot of confusion on the DhO as to the relation between enlightenment and actual freedom. I figured it would help my fellow human beings by picking apart at least one claim that they are the same.


I don't follow... can you rephrase?


I am certain I am not harmfully misleading others because I am certain enlightenment is not the same as an actual freedom... and my post contains evidence to that effect, at least enough to show that Jan Frazier is not experiencing an actual freedom, so nobody has to take my word for it.

People are certainly free to choose whether they want to become enlightened or whether they want to become actually free. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. But I think people should be able to make that choice... and they cannot, if they think they are the same - rather, they would just end up going away from an actual freedom. I figure, if I can help someone who wants an actual freedom see that enlightenment is different, my posting will be well worth it. Even if not, it's a good exercise for me and will help me on my path.


I agree. In this case, figuring out the difference between enlightenment and actual freedom is part of what is required to navigate the treacherous mountainous territory between the human condition and an actual freedom. Not thinking about anything and just practicing whatever is like crossing the mountain without knowing where any of the streams are, where to get any food, where any of the rolling boulders are, etc.


I will further expand your analogy by saying that not all mountaineers make it. If you follow a random mountaineer you see without reflecting on whether he seems to know what he's doing, you risk perishing on the mountain.

Why is it okay for you to post something indicating actual freedom and enlightenment are the same, but not okay for me to post something indicating actual freedom and enlightenment are different?

That's the exact thought that occurred to me when I read Katy's second response in this thread. And fwiw thanks Beoman for pointing out the difference between the two ways (Jan and AF). It' was nice l to know the differences in the two approaches according to a guy who is into actualism. One can then either agree or disagree with the suggested difference and point out the errors in the thinking (if one thinks there is ie) but Katy wasn't doing that in her second response.

Hello Claudiu and Rotten Tomato:



I have not posted something indicating that actual freedom and enlightenment are the same.

Hey Katy,


To be explicit, this was my train of thought. In your first post, you wrote:

Further you drew parallels between Jan and potentially-actually-free-person SW:

And in your second post you wrote:

Why would listening to a woman talk about enlightenment trigger one's ability to be actual in one's experience of being alive?

So, you were certainly drawing parallels between this woman's experience and an actual freedom, thus I took that to mean you were equating her experience to actual freedom in some way.

Well, until you actually claim to know your actual freedom or enlightenment, then concepts and concepts around words are all you actually have. And you seem to be more interested in these than your actualism practice.

It can be helpful to post, but it can be MORE helpful to be honest. When you are quoting my words exactly, and then you are insisting that my words have some other meaning which you interpret personally then you are being true to your personal reality and not the actuality of my words. I do not need an interpreter, but obviously you can make misinterpretation your job. Is that more rewarding that your practice, though?

Claudiu: What am I saying outright here, Claudiu?

You are clearly free to write what you want, but it may serve you better to be honest about what you are actually reading and what you are interpreting and calling your interpretations "outright" statements. Is this how you enjoy this moment of being alive?

You may also start a thread saying, "AF is not enlightenment" and discussing how you have achieved neither but that you hope to guide people to AF and that you find posting helpful. You can accomplish this by not interpreting my words and calling them "outright" expressions of your misperception.

If you use other people's words and try to co-opt them into a means for expressing your conceptual perception, that will scarcely result in nor even contribute to what your teacher claims is possible, peace on earth.

What is happening in your practice that you are jumping into a simple thread that merely suggests a video for people who are interested in AF and enlightenment, that another woman's account of her freedom and loss of self may trigger their/your own ability to be actual about one's willful and involuntary experiences in being alive at this moment?

Self-righteous conceptualism. You think your ideas are right, so much that you go off on a tangent about it and hope to tangle me in your idea. You can entangle the name 'katy steger" but, me, actually, no.

How are you experiencing this moment of being alive?

Or has your practice lately become:

How are you experiencing "yet another" moment or being alive?

Claudiu, I've enjoyed reading your practice. I hope you practice and get the fruits promised by your teacher and that they are wonderful.

Why is flying around the globe to see a man about an actual freedom going to trigger an actual freedom? You've already commenting on others having done this.

If this moment of being alive is words and concepts, then get to memorizing your teacher's AFT.

If this moment of being alive is body, thoughts, feelings, sensations, action, rest, matter along with other sentient beings also wandering around being alive with body, thoughts, feelings, sensations, action, rest, matter then your work is both simpler and richer and waaaaaaay more intimate than guarding memorized/familiarized words and experiences. Your teacher mentioned peace on earth, felicity, benignity, wonder? Are these concepts for you or is this your interest[actual intention] before you expire?

If your life is not being oppressed by another/impeded by a material or physcological hindrance, then what a great beginning.

I just pointed to a woman who, since 2003, has been experiencing ongoing causeless joy and who states she experiences no self. If people are interested in the concepts of enlightenment and Af, then her account may trigger one to consider how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. [Edit: yes, meaning her account may contribute to another person's own freedom and peace]

That's all. Okay?

Hey Katy,


1) I would expect that listening to an actually free person for the purpose of understanding and experiencing what they are talking about would certainly help orient the listener towards an actual freedom.
2) Likewise, I would expect that listening to an enlightened person for the purpose of understanding and experiencing what they are talking about would certainly help orient the listener towards enlightenment.
3) What I would not expect is that listening to an enlightened person for the purpose of understanding and experiencing what they are talking about would help orient the listener towards an actual freedom.

It seems to me that you are indeed saying #3. Let me attempt to break it down:

I hope I have not omitted anything important in simplifying the quote. Thus it seems you are saying, if someone is interested in AF, listening to the enlightened woman's account may contribute to one's own freedom and peace... and as, if someone interested in AF they are seeking the freedom and peace of an actual freedom, that means listening to the enlightened woman's account may contribute to one's own actual freedom. If something is flawed with my reasoning here then please point it out specifically.

Are you simply saying that it is nice to see other people being happy and that might motivate someone to be happy, themselves? In that case, while I agree in general, I would still have made my first post, because I want to offer the disclaimer that the woman is talking about Enlightenment, and thus people who are interested in experiencing an actual freedom shouldn't use her as a guide, because following her words won't lead anyone to an actual freedom.

It might help if you kept in mind that enlightenment and actual freedom are indeed poles apart. Thus it is pretty impossible for a video to be of interest to both people interested in enlightenment, and people interested in actual freedom, except for different purposes (i.e. to the former as a guide for what to do and to the latter as a guide for what not to do, or to the former as a guide for what not to do and to the latter as a guide for what to do).

That's all, regarding that point. Have I misinterpreted/self-righteously conceptualized anything you said? If so, can you be specific as to what exactly I have misinterpreted/self-righteously conceptualized?

---

Speaking about misinterpreting/self-righteously conceptualizing...


---


Thanks!
- Claudiu

[Several edits.]

Sometimes it is of benefit to people( me for instance) to hear of how others can achieve "causeless joy" regardless of their chosen method. If someone on the DhO is kind enough to provide me with a source of inspiration/kick in the pants/smile at the end of a tough and tired day, I am thankful for that. Perhaps I should have more faith in my chosen method, but seeing what is possible still recharges my batteries for the next round of practice, be that a moment or a month. So I'd just like to say thank you for that.
I think that people who visit the DhO will be intelligent enough to determine for themselves what to practice and how to go about that practice. Perhaps it would be of benefit if we all(I include myself here) looked at why we feel the need to so adamantly defend our own positions from all slights, both real and imagined. If Buddhism is a good and worthwhile practice it will be fine without me standing up and criticizing others. The same goes for AF.

This is simply my own current feeling, not an attempt at starting an endless argument.

Metta,

Brian.

Here, despite my actual words you are insisting my words have an outright other meaning (your meaning).


Here is where you state the concept you are attracted to:
We have, at the moment, different activities we call fun, Claudiu.

Many people do get a pleasure sensation and gratifcation out of provocative, even harmful behaviours.

Picking is an anxiety behaviour in humans and in many other species.

As I have made no claim equating the concepts AF and enlightenment, you are picking at your own mind and finding that fun. Even if you think you are picking at "katy steger" it is worth noting that picking is becoming fun to you. What practice cuases this?


If I found myself picking at myself or others for fun as you do, then I would consider asking if such an act was anxious diversion and if its furtherance was fun or miserable. I would then look to see if something challenging/overwhleming is arising in me: I might ask "is picking apparently 'fun', only because there is gratification in avoiding what is unsettling me? Does picking seem gratifying because it enables me to avoid directly facing something arising in me?

So, I understand in this way how "picking apart" may be becoming "fun" for you now. I wish you well, gentleness, friendliness not picking at others or yourself.

If you are feeling unanchored or lost in whatever has become your practice these days (and in the midst of what can also be challenging economic and environmental volatility, stress and suffering), then I do recommend just breathing and sitting and taking care of yourself (food rest, fresh water, foods, safe bedding). I hope no one is impeding you from the chance to not pick and to discover non-harmful means of fun.

Ditto

Edit: strike through "ditto". I'll use words to express this clearly: It is often a benefit to me too to learn how others are achieving/experiencing their ongoing peacefulness and joy and freedom. I am almost not interested in what they call it; I am keen to see how their change manifests in behaviour, ease, harmlessness, peacefulness, joy, interaction!

I found out more about her than I ever intended: Jan Frazier is coming to your neck of the woods later this year and I'd be happy to meet you both in the area to hear her talk, Brian and Claudiu.

Hey Katy,

Okay. I will just outright admit that I am not sure what you meant at all by parts of your posts, then. I am curious to find out, though, so instead of assuming/making inferences, I will simply ask you explicitly. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your words. So if you are willing to bear with me...

Let's just do this one for now. You said:

Can you rephrase this part of it: "It may trigger their/your own ability to be actual about one's willful and involuntary experiences in being alive at this moment." What do you mean by "trigger their/your own ability to be actual"? I simply don't know how to read it. I thought you meant it would help you align yourself to actuality, and from there I thought you meant it would help you become actually free.

---

By 'fun' I wasn't referring to gratification as a result of being harmful/doing actions resulting from anxiety. I meant it's fun in the same way figuring out a complicated puzzle is fun. I don't enjoy being malicious on the face of it, and if I do notice myself enjoying being malicious then I strive to see why that is so I can cease said maliciousness. I figured posting 'against the grain' at the DhO here, so to speak, would be a good test of that... can I be happy/harmless even in the face of adversity? If not, why not? I must be doing something wrong if I cannot harmlessly enjoy myself while discussing my favorite topic.

---

I am not feeling unanchored or lost, but quite the opposite, which is the only reason I decided to start posting again. If you recall, I stopped posting here for a while after being in Australia to let things settle down, first.

---

Meeting up in person might be fun. Let's discuss more when the date (September 21?) approaches.

- Claudiu

Claudiu, instead of picking apart others' posts (which only serves to indicate your own habitual descriptive patterns) why don't you try simply listening and responding to other posters in a contextually sensitive way, open to their variant use of terminology, curious about the way they mean their words? In the above example, simply not assuming an actualist definition of the term actual would open up a wealth of possibly relevant meanings to the sentence you quoted.

On a side note, reading about your current practice is interesting, informative and inspiring in many ways to me, and I therefor am glad you are posting. But it would be really neat if this thread could be saved from degenerating into another dictionary quoting nit picky can you challenge my reasoning thread, when all that seems needed is the capacity to be open to others' perspectives without reducing them to one's own preconceived notions.

For instance, reading Katy's OP it never occurred to me that she was in any way saying that Jan Frazer's realization and AF were the same thing. The reason why this didn't occur to me, I think, was twofold: 1) I don't adhere to the 180 degrees story which is part of actualist meta-maps of experiential cultivation * and 2) um, she never said that they were the same thing!

In other words, is it possible to be utterly committed to one's own chosen method, persistent and diligent, using as conceptual method the overarching terminology and maps of one's chosen path, in order to orient the practical/existential methods of one's chosen path, in order to actually (not imaginatively, not eventually, not possibly but actually) walk one's chosen path... can one do this, and yet remain flexible in terms of interacting non-reductionistically with others' chosen paths?

* to infer from this fact that I therefore believe that AF and 'spiritual enlightenment' are the 'same thing' would be further indication of the inferer's own biases. Does this make sense?

Hey Jake,



I hear ya, that is why I asked Katy what she meant - I am really curious now that it has become apparent she didn't mean what I thought. As to why I assumed she meant an actualist definition of the term... what would "to be actual" mean if one had never heard of actualism? I never encountered the word "actual" used in such ways before learning about actualism, and given that she mentioned af, I thought it not too implausible she had an actualist definition in mind. I don't know what else she might mean so I asked explicitly. Perhaps I will adjust at which point I assume and which point I ask, in the future. 


That's good to hear, thanks. I'll try to more explicitly relate things to my practice in future posts as it seems people think I'm not talking about my practice in threads like these, whereas in fact I am. 


Yes in that I see where you are coming from. But if anything the one take-away from my trip to Australia is that the 180 degrees opposite thing is not just a story but rather, what is factually the case. Understanding it to be so really helps elucidate what all the hubbub is about with regards to the dho and actualism. 

Now from the point of view of someone who doesn't see things that way (such as yourself), I understand that you can hold these two things to be true at the same time: actual freedom is not 180 degrees opposite from enlightenment, yet it also isn't the 'same thing'. How do you see it, in particular? Something along the same direction but differing in its particulars to a larger or smaller degree? You will have to fill in your own thoughts on this one for me, here. 

From the point of view of someone who does see them as 180 degrees opposite, though, it doesn't really fly. Well, let me be explicit. Even all forms of enlightenment are not the 'same thing' - would you agree? You have Advaita, you have Buddhism, you have Christian mystics, etc. they have a lot of similarities but also their differences. However they are all sort of in the same direction of a spectrum, no? Actual freedom, being 180 degrees opposite, is in a totally different place. Indeed the more I go down this path the clearer that becomes. So by saying actual freedom isn't 180 degrees opposite, you are placing actual freedom on sort of the same spectrum as the other enlightenments... Would you not agree? That is, it isn't the 'same thing', but sort of in the same vein. But in terms of where actual freedom actually is (in a totally different place), the place of it being "not the same but along the same spectrum as enlightenment" is so much closer to enlightenment than to actual actual freedom that it might as well be considered the 'same thing'. And indeed others on the dho agree: see tommy and Jeff in the other thread agreeing that actualism isn't really novel. 

Do you see where I'm coming from? Or have I misrepresented your position?

I do agree that this sort of back and forth seems more productive than what I was doing with Katy. We often seem to have good exchanges. 


Heh yes indeed.  But If the 180 degree thing is true, do you see why I would talk in that sort of way if someone was saying listening to an enlightened person will help you both in terms of enlightenment and actual freedom? Anyway I am still awaiting her reply. 


I think so. But what if the way things actually are is seen to be reductionist from a non-factual point of view? For example, what if Richard is holding a banana and Jan is holding a red apple. You say Richard is holding a green apple. I say no thats basically the same as a red apple, he is really holding a banana. You say that is reductionistic. 

Hehe, I like fruit analogies lately. 

Hi Claudio,

you fruit analogy is great, hopefully you spotted that they are both holding perfectly edible fruit?

If one of them was holding a dog turd, then I can understand there being some importance to the debate.

I would not mind at all if the whole world woke up tomorrow with the condition Jan claims to have. She seems perfectly lovely to me and not in opposition to anything worth having.


Stay well,

Hi Claudiu -

I am totally willing and am glad you are asking. I hope you may be patient with me, also.


Claudiu:


By "It may trigger their/your own ability to be actual" I mean that in seeing/hearing this youtube video with this woman (and with this wonderfully candid and delightful interviewer) --- this person who "comes out" in her actual name and tells people how she actually felt before awakening and how she actually lives after this awakening happened to her --- that people may have something "click" in their own efforts in whatever they are practicing. By "whatever" I understand that if a person's practice is to learn French, then they probably aren't attending to this video. By watching this woman's account in the video, it is inherent that the listener/viewer has already a conceptual interest in something related to what this woman's is describing for herself.

This is how it starts. Something wakes up in a person. Anything from misery to irritation and restless may cause a person to start searching, or a wonderful simple moment may cause a person to say, "How do moments like this keep happening?" So, a person starts to look for sources that purport a freedom (from actually miserable mental and physical states) and which also cause actually wonderful existence.

So many words are associated with all of these paths to such freedom and suffusive wonderment and joy! Such much difficulty arises in words and conceptualization of words. So few people (relative to any general population) stand up in their own name and say, "Ok, yes. It happened to me and it can happen to you." So, when people do this, I do call attention to it and am delighted to be able to do this, thankful for this aspect of the information age. I am grateful for people who know that what they've experienced is so worthwhile, so actual, that they --- like Stephanie D and Tarin and Jan F and Gary Weber and many others --- that they do say something. That it is so worthwhile they are fine with the neighbors and the bosses knowing. They are open to being queried. They actually want others to know the change is not just possible (through accounts from words), but the change is actual.

There is just too much pain and misery-causation needlessly happening for me to start framing a right path and a wrong path. When people start saying, "Well, something happened to me - poof, sense of 'me' just went one day - and "I" was replaced with causeless joy/wonder/non-separation/etc" I say, "hoorah" and there are actual accounts of such freedom in joy and actual living in every major tradition****. A red flag to me signaling a painful entrapment/isolation is when someone says "this way is the only way." Such a person is not expressing an outcome I'd like, not after I learn of these awesomely open and wonderful freedoms occurring after realization. Not after I have winks of these occurrences myself. Then my goal becomes this: go for this actual realization, go for this actual freedom in being wonderfully alive (and here I just use these actual words, no reference to the AFT) and actually going about life in this actual world.

I understand if anyone wants to protect their vocabulary and concepts. However, these realizations and freedoms people report are beyond personal branding and traditional lines. This is the quality of actual joy and selflessness. I speak from brief personal experience and clearly my personal experience motivates me and I am grateful for those people who identify themselves and avail themselves to be seen and heard and queried. It's such a unknown life, why wouldn't I go for this and, along the way, not impede others physically or ideologically?

[****To be clear: I am not saying (still) that an "Actual Freedom" is the same as "enlightenment". These are concepts labeling actual experiences by individuals and I claim neither as my current experience.]

[Edit: and to be clearer still I've benefitted from reading Analayo's work on the Satipatthana Sutta these past recent months, and there have been countless influences before and during that reading as well. Tarin and Stephanie's accounts of their "Actual Freedom" via the writings of your teacher, Claudiu, were very useful to me. Their conveyance of their experience.]

Hey Katy,

Thanks for the reply. This conversation seems more fruitful already and I will aim to have them be fruitful from the start in the future. It's actually taken a particularly nice path as I can address Jake, Andrew, and your posts all at once as they seem to tend in the same direction.

---

Note: although it breaks up the flow of reading somewhat I have put all technical "actualism"-related terms in double-quotes so as to leave as little ambiguity as possible as to what I am referring to. By "actual freedom", I mean the technical term within "actualism", namely, the condition that Richard reports. I understand that someone could experience an actually freer/more beneficial way of existing and not be "actually free". I will start quoting technical terms to distinguish them from common language usage. But please note that "actual freedom" is not only a concept around an experience, rather, it describes an experience itself. If someone were "actually free" but they never talked to Richard so they didn't call it that and they used different language to describe it, they would still be "actually free"... Justine is a good example of someone who is "actually free" yet uses different language than Richard.

First, let me get into what I am not saying. I am not saying that "actual freedom" is the only way to reduce one's suffering and that of others. If the goal is simply to not experience suffering, then spirituality and various enlightenments may indeed work. When I visited Richard, even he said that a fully enlightened person can accurately say they no longer experience malice and sorrow. He remarked that sorrow and malice are latent - not totally eliminated - but not operational in day-to-day life. He himself said that in his 11 years of being enlightened (before becoming "actually free"), he was peeved once and irritated three times. That's in 11 years... compare that to your average person. And indeed, Jan seems to be having quite a good time. It would not be amiss if more people were like that, no.

So I am not saying "this way is the only way", as in, ""actual freedom" is the only way to reduce suffering." Jan does indeed seem to be having a good time and she has quite a good-natured conversation with Alan in that video. They are both clearly enjoying themselves. When I am talking about how enlightenment and "actual freedom" are different, I am not saying anything about the particular merits of enlightenment (although I might discuss that in other posts). Enlightenment is no longer for me, but as I said in this very thread, people are free to choose to do what they want.

All I am saying is that enlightenment is not the same thing as "actual freedom" (and now I am no longer saying that you ever said they were the same thing, Katy) But not only are they not the same thing, they aren't even similar, at their essences... they are actually 180 degrees opposite. I understand full well that there are numerous similarities between the two, but the more you go down the "actualist path" the more the difference becomes evident (and unavoidable).

Watching the full video of Jan's interview, it's clear to me that she says many things that are similar to what Richard says. For example, she says not to identify with this or that, not to hold an identity as an interviewer, loser, husband, whatever. However, she still is not talking about an "actual freedom", and I'll make a separate post to talk about that in more detail as I took a number of notes when watching the video.

To be clear, I am indeed saying that "actualism" is the only way to an "actual freedom". I don't see why that would be particularly harmful to anybody for me to say. It's a matter of delineating the different paths to different goals. If one wanted to learn French one would not want to take Italian lessons, and it might actually hurt as if you then started taking French lessons you might be confused at first and start using Italian words.

If your goal is "actual freedom", then Jan's path is the 'wrong path' and "actualism" is the 'right path'. If your goal is enlightenment, then Jan's path is the 'right path' and "actualism" is the 'wrong path'. But I don't mean that Jan's path is outright 'wrong' for everybody. One has to consider the phrase 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of what one's goal is. That is why I initially replied to your post, Katy. You said people interested in an "actual freedom" might like it. I watched the video, and concluded that listening to her speak would not help anybody get any closer to "actual freedom" (the technical term). That's because, although she does say similar things that Richard does, her actual instructions will point one in exactly the opposite direction from "actual freedom", directly into enlightenment, in fact.

It's not a matter of protecting my vocabulary and concepts. The path to an "actual freedom" has nothing to do with 'me' in particular. It's there, available for anyone, regardless of whether I come on the DhO to talk about it. All one has to do is tap into that "pure intent" and that will make the rest of the way clear. So I am not defending 'my' path when I come here to talk about my practice. I am just helping to clear things up with others because certain people here continue to say they are interested in an "actual freedom". If they are interested in an "actual freedom" then they will be interested in what I have to say, as it pertains directly to that topic. Those who are not interested in an "actual freedom", but rather in enlightenment, won't find much of value in my posts.

For those who would say that I am not talking about my practice: it was necessary for me to understand all of the above before I could even begin to start down the path towards an "actual freedom" in earnest.

---

Let me conclude this post by answering the question: so what if "actual freedom" and enlightenment are different? If they both lead to being able to accurately say malice and sorrow are not experienced, what is the difference? This is where the matter of personal choice comes in. As Richard put it, the peace on earth bit he talks about he uses as a sort of carrot on a stick, to get people initially interested in "actual freedom"... as peace on earth is the same goal espoused by spirituality. But the really important part, the real meat of "actual freedom" comes in with the "meaning of life" aspect.

And that is what it's about, really. Wanting to end suffering is simply not enough to become "actually free". One has to want to live in the "actual world", to experience it every moment for the rest of their lives... the world sans little 'me' and big 'me', sans identities and feelings, sans thinking-ego and feeling-being. And indeed, my repeated experiences of "pure intent" show me that the 'lack of suffering' part is hardly the most noteworthy or remarkable thing about the "purity of the actual world"... indeed the first thing I notice is how amazingly pure it is. How immaculate. How perfect. There is an ambrosial immanence about it... yes! The world does exist! There are places and things here! And it has always been here, and always been here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'me'.

By going down the path to enlightenment, one totally blocks oneself off from the "actual world". Instead of allowing the feeling-being to subside, to really want to disappear in order to allow this body to directly experience the "actual world", one's 'small self' drops away and one lets one's 'large self' expand... expand so much that it fills the entire universe, to the point that one thinks and feels that all what one experiences is actually in fact one's self. That's how stark the difference is: in one case, the feeling-being totally disappears to reveal the "actual world", whereas in the other, the feeling-being expands to fill the entire universe, totally covering up the "actual world". If it isn't already obvious how that is 180 degrees opposite I'm not sure how much more obvious I can make it. And this is not a matter of the words one happens to use to describe one's experience. Yes, I understand that one might think maybe by 'large self' she somehow means this "actual world", but it's incredibly unlikely... experiencing "pure intent" makes it very clear what is 'me' (be it 'small self' or 'large self') and what isn't.

So, again, this is the reason I am posting. It is not to force people to choose "actual freedom" when instead they want to go for enlightenment. People can do as they will. It is to help inform those people who are indeed interested in "actual freedom" - in experiencing this meaning of life for themselves - to help show them the obvious differences between enlightenment and "actual freedom" so that they can make the choice for themselves where they want to go, existentially. If one can't tell the difference... one will undoubtedly miss out on experiencing this amazing "purity" for themselves.

Does this help show where I am coming from?

Sincerely,
- Claudiu

I'm sure many practitioners in those and other traditions would answer this with a resounding NO.



And they'd say that about their practice or religion, that it's 180 degrees opposite to others. That's how Buddhism is often advertised - "Come to us, we have no God!" Similarly, I remember reading a book by a Protestant rev explaining how, unlike Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc., Christianity is not a religion. Religions are lies, the argument went, Christianity is the truth.

On the other hand, I could say that Actualism is in a similar direction to Zen, since enjoying every moment of being alive through the senses is of utmost importance, according to some Zen teachers.

But I hesitate to do so because of the differences, and then also I'd never say one tradition is 180 degrees opposite to others - not least because it implies all other traditions point in the same direction, which is a gross overgeneralisation (even allowing for the shortcomings of language) and one not only Actualists are guilty of, as I pointed out above.

"Meaning of life" aspect of Actual Freedom is a very late addition to this whole enterprise. It was added so that goal posts could be changed. First Pamela was announced to be the first to have gained AF. But then she moved away from the genitor but Vineeto stayed closer. In order to put Vineeto first, "meaning of life" aspect of Actual Freedom was created out of the blue.

You are the latest crusader for Actual Freedom. There have been many before you who came and went. But you seem to be following the party propaganda to the tee. So it is likely that you will gain the official title to Actual Freedom. By being here at the DhO though, you are lessening your chances of officially being recognized as AF, let alone "meaning of life" kind!

Not so. Look at all the following appropriately dated quotes from Richard, with my emphases added:

July 14, 2005: "as I make it abundantly clear on many an occasion elsewhere that it is the answer to the ubiquitous human quest for the meaning of life which is already always out-in-the-open here in this actual world."

March 5, 2004: "If it were not for that ‘being’ having that realisation then the actual purpose/meaning of life may quite possibly not be apparent today."

December 19, 2003: "I have said that peace-on-earth is a side-effect of living the meaning of life each moment again."

July 19, 2002: "I see that I answered in the affirmative to the above questions too quickly. A more accurate answer – and a clearer answer – is that the meaning of life cannot be evident as long as there is an ‘I’ around because the ‘I’ completely blocks the meaning of life from being apparent ... the ‘I’ cannot, of course, ‘obliterate’ (destroy, demolish, eliminate, eradicate, annihilate) the meaning of life."

September 2, 2005: "(1) there is indeed a meaning of life to be found ... and (2) it is fellowship regard which occasions public disclosure of same."

And the clearest one so far:

July 16, 2002: "The point of pursuing an actual freedom is to live the meaning of life each moment again (which is what Article 17 of ‘Richard’s Journal’, from whence you obtained the quote which started this thread, was all about) ... the point of pursuing a virtual freedom is to live in such a way as to expedite an actual freedom occurring (and if that does not immediately happen one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway)."

And here is an excerpt from that Article 17:



As Richard's Journal was the very first thing Richard came out with publicly (as far as I know)... one might actually say it has been about the meaning of life this entire time!

The fact that you never knew actual freedom was about the meaning of life until recently goes to show how interested you have been this whole time in what an actual freedom is really about. You cannot beat facts with fantasies, Aman.


Luckily, that is not the way it works.

Hi Claudiu,

I don't find your delineation harmful to me.


I have so far not witnessed such blockage in people I personally consider to be enlightening. I was just looking last week at one teacher and in my mind I was thinking, "Look how happy his face is! He's getting younger!" (Of course, actually, he is not getting younger). And I am delighted by the benevolent work such enlightening people do in the world for clean water, food, equality - lending their intellect, patience, and happiness to counter some greed and waste - in addition to sharing their joy and laughter and enjoyments.

If believing that "enlightenment" (which you do not claim to know in actuality from your own experience) is like a total blockage of the person from the actual world helps you focus on your path, well, godspeed to you. However, my two cents: I do not see that it helps you to extend conclusive judgments about other experiences that you do not actually know. Your choice here not only seems like needless baggage to portage around (preventing your 100% dedication to your practice), but it shows a willingness to speak fantastically. If you prefer your own imagination while you begin an actualism practice, this may impede your ability to be actual versus fantastical.

[edit: I removed one comment that may seem like a non sequitur]

Hey Katy,


That's good to hear. I was referring to what you said earlier:

I don't see why me delineating what Richard means by "actual freedom" and what others mean by enlightenment would be harmful to anybody.


I think now you are doing what I did earlier, namely thinking I am saying something other than I really am.

I did not say that enlightenment blocks people from having happy faces/looking like they are getting younger.
I did not say that enlightenment blocks people from doing benevolent work in the world for clean water, food, equality - lending their intellect, patience, and happiness to counter some greed and waste - in addition to sharing their joy and laughter and enjoyment.

I don't think I could have been more explicit, so instead of re-iterating what I said I will just leave it at that. It is too bad you didn't understand what I was saying.

Actual categorization of AF happened later.

If you keep pursuing AF, you will find out how it actually works like many before you have.

Hi Claudiu,

What do you mean when you write:


How can you speak to what is/is not enlightenment? Here is a different question: What path to enlightenment did you go down that required you to block off from the "actual world?"

What is the "actual world" and is it different than the actual world?

Maybe Actual Freedom does block people from looking like they are getting younger. Richard doesn't look like he is getting younger. He looks older than he actually is. He does think of himself as a 16 year old when he looks older than 60.

I can answer that question by answering this question:

I can only answer the first part of your question. To answer the second part, you will have to tell me what you mean by actual world. I will no longer make any assumptions when I don't know what you mean when you use a particular word.

The "actual world" is the world where everything physical resides - trees, rivers, mountains, computers, flesh and blood bodies, etc. It is the world that was there even before humans came into existence and will be there even after humans have all died out - thus it is objectively there, independent of human consciousness.

Now, obviously anybody with the faculty of vision can see trees, rivers, and mountains... yet they are not experiencing the "actual world". Why is that? Because most humans are also currently experiencing themselves as a feeling-being... be it a regular-type feeling being or an enlightened-type (expanded) feeling-being, as Jan talks about. The feeling-being automatically puts an affective filter on everything that is consciously perceived... including the senses. Thus, because I am neither experiencing a PCE right now nor am I actually free, I am not seeing the "actual" computer I am typing on, but rather the affectively-filtered computer. Indeed I can only reason about the "actual" when not in a PCE or actually free... the direct experience of the "actual world" only comes during those experiences. But I as a feeling-being can tap into "pure intent", which brings me closer and closer to the experience of the "actual world" and provides me with a hint that there is indeed an "actual world" there.

I also wrote about the "actual world" in my post:



Note that I mean the world both sans little 'me' and sans big 'me'. The big 'me' is all Jan Frazier is now, by her very admission in that video interview. At one point she said:

At another, though I don't have the exact quote, she was talking about how the big 'me' is that which watches the little 'me', and just by virtue of watching how the little 'me' is constructed, the little 'me' stops getting constructed. Thus it's pretty clear that the big 'me' she refers to is all that is left in her experience... namely the big 'me' is the thing that expanded, and now she feels everything to be her self. Given the nature of the self and the nature of the "actual world", that means she is not experiencing the "actual world" on a continuous basis.

All these are words, though. To really understand what the "actual world" is, you have to experience it... either by experiencing "pure intent", or by experiencing a "PCE". But there is a bit of trouble because one can have an experience which one takes to be a "PCE" when in fact it isn't... so it's up to you to figure that out for yourself. But do you at least understand what it is "conceptually"? In short: "the world where everything exists which is totally impossible for a feeling-being to even sense."

To get back to your question: I meant that by going towards a condition where your self expands (enlightenment), you are by definition going away from a condition where your self is totally absent (an experience of the "actual world"). It's as simple as that. Does that make sense, given my definition of "actual world"?

Again, just because she is not experiencing the "actual world" does not mean she can't be happy and harmless and helping others and all the other things you mentioned in your latest post. I am not attacking her character in any way. I am simply pointing out that she is not experiencing the "actual world".

Does that help clarify what I am saying and what I am not saying, now?


Thank you for rephrasing the question. Understanding what the "actual world" is will make it a lot easier to understand the answer to this question, so I will wait until you reply to go into detail. In short: I meditated a lot, and meditation leads one to a condition like Jan's.

This idea of 'enlightenment' of yours is at the core of all this I think. It is not my experience nor objective and i still don't consider myself fully awakened (or 'enlightened if you will). It sounds like a fabrication of mind. And from my experience any such fabricated experience is arising due to 'objectifying' some aspect/distinction of experience. Such an experience does not arise if one is aware of its triggers. This can be done via non-actualist approaches. Aware that such fabricated experiences can occur, I would see (and have seen) why they would (the triggers/cause and effect) and why I would simply allow them not to be where I'd rest laurels. Especially at a place where a little bit of irritation would still arise. This is mind boggling that one would simple label everyone's efforts here (non-actualist) as aiming for such a place without truly knowing (or simply disregarding) at all what others have been capable of doing to their ongoing experience.

Is this version of Beo's 'enlightenment' the goal or objective of anyone here a the DhO?

I think continuing to push with this idea of 'enlightenment' being the objective of many at the DhO and limiting what is possible for a 'non-actualist' approach to be harmful and simply not true and it simply is used to put 'actual freedom' up on a pedestal. Trent, Jill, Jeff and Tarin not being considered 'actually free' by yourself nor RIchard, have all expressed baseline shifts that I think do not indicate what you are describing. I think it says a lot that one pushes aside the evidence contrary to the idea that the 'enlightenment' of Richard is what they got to. It lacks a clarity and honesty on the whole issue of what humans can accomplish which is seriously out of synch with the spirit of the DhO as I see it.

You disregard the baseline shifts of others and reduce them to your version of 'enlightenment' based on what? Your own limited experience?

This whole idea being pushed here is ultimately confusing and harmful and simply, as I see it, a way to isolate and distinguish and make the carrot seem more enticing for 'actual freedom'. What is the purpose of this site? To offer 'choices'?

A choice? Do you give people a choice, Beo, when you state the two choices like so? What if you are simply wrong about one of the choices? We have yogis expressing the absence of all irritation. Why disregard these testimonies? Because one's own idea of 'enlightenment', an idea that helps set one's chosen path apart and puts it on a pedestal (thus perhaps aiding one's motivations), may not be validated?

I for one would say it is time to re-asses what people can achieve via a non-actualist path and if your version of the objective is what Beo states above as 'enlightenment', I would stress that such an objective not be the 'end goal'. One can go much , much further with non-actualist approaches. You relegation of what people may be aiming for here at the DhO (not af) as simply a 'reduction of suffering' and not the complete eradication of malice and sorrow is perhaps descriptive of what some may term 'enlightenment'. But I do not think it is universal. It is an idea that sells 'actual freedom', but it places a glass ceiling on other people's paths (non-actualist) that is based on what? Let's talk about what this idea is based on? Your own experience of being 'fully enlightened', Beo? Richard's opinion of his own past experience? What else?

I think this needs to be hashed out as it is a major trigger for confusion I think.

Nick

Hi Claudiu,

You wrote:


Did Jan mention having a meditation practice? Could you point me to that section of video (beginning, middle, end)?

When you say that you "meditated a lot and meditation leads to a condition like Jan's", do you mean that your meditation resulted in what she describes for herself, an ongoing experience of causeless joy?

If your meditation did not lead to an ongoing experience of causeless joy, what condition like Jan's did result for you?

If you are just writing "meditation leads one to a condition like Jan's" without actual experience, are you being fantastical?

Hey Nikolai,

Thanks for posting that. It gave me a lot of insight into how others might think about this.

A few things:

You say that description of enlightenment ("feeling-being expands to fill the entire universe") is not your experience. In your case you are constantly aiming to experience the world without any objectification, correct? That is what you consider apperception - the world without any objectification? So your goal is to experience the entire universe as unobjectified? Correct me if I am mistaken. If so, then this "unobjectified world" is what the universe has become for you. That is how I would say the "feeling-being expanding to fill the entire universe" has manifested in your case. I understand "feeling-being" is not the best term here as you don't experience feelings/emotions as you used to, if I'm not mistaken, and "expanding" implies a sense of motion which also doesn't sound precise. But the "unobjectified world" is not the "actual world", so it is made up of the same stuff that the feeling-being used to be made up of, for you. Given that you disagreed with Richard on this point I don't expect you to agree with me. The key difference is you consider the "unobjectified world" to be the "actual world" (apperception) but they are in fact different. Actually all of these conversations seem to boil down to what is and isn't the "actual world", which is not surprising at all.

Further, I can see that people aren't stopping at a place where they even experience irritation once in a while. Though again, consider what 4 instances of 'irritation' spread out over 11 years would be like. That would mean one instance of irritation every 3 years. Has anybody here been in their state for 3 years and experienced not even the slightest bit of irritation? How much more could you practice if every 3 years a little blip comes up and nothing more? It would take 3 years to know you aren't done. I don't think you really considered the 11 year time-span, here. In any case, I can see that yes, you would practice more after experiencing that blip of irritation. But if you go in the same direction as you have been, you won't magically find yourself in the "actual world", because it lies in the other direction... but again as we disagree on what the "actual world" is we can't really have a sensible conversation about this.

About the idea I am pushing being confusing... in my personal experience, there is no way whatsoever I would get anywhere near an actual freedom if I didn't go and see what was up in Australia, and instead continued to take the advice of those claiming 'af' on the DhO. I am really headed in a totally different direction. This is my own personal experience. It is obvious, to me, that there are two directions, that I was going down one before, and now I'm down another. Thus I would say the idea you are pushing is the confusing one... as I really was interested in an actual freedom, even before visiting Richard, but I would have had no shot of getting there if I continued to get all my information from the DhO. That is the main reason I have started posting here, again... to help those who are interested in actual freedom, and not in what you or Tarin or Trent or Jill are doing per se, to get on the right track towards an actual freedom. So I will repeat your question to me back to you: What if you are simply wrong about what an actual freedom is? Asking each other this question doesn't seem to get us anywhere though so perhaps we should focus on other matters and not ask each other questions of that sort?

About enlightenment. Ok, I will remove the glass ceiling I put on non-actualist paths. I agree. Let's say malice and sorrow in an enlightened person's experience are not present at all in any form whatsoever until the day they die. Total eradication, practically speaking (can't get much better than no experience of it until you die, no?) Exactly what you said it was. I will strive to always talk about enlightemnent in these terms from now on on the DhO, just to leave no room for error. That still doesn't mean one would be experiencing an "actual freedom". You must have missed the part of my post where I talk about the meaning of life. And again, total eradication of malice and sorrow doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world. You can go all for that if you like. But it still doesn't mean it is an "actual freedom". Do you see how "actual freedom" is not simply the eradication of malice and sorrow?

Two paths. Both lead to total eradication of malice and sorrow. They are not the same, though. Do you see my point? What's confusing about that? You agree that flip-flopping is bad, so why not clearly distinguish between two paths so that people stop flip-flopping?

I do agree that this needs to be hashed out, yes, and I am glad you decided to post your thoughts on this very clearly. I hope this continues to be a productive conversation.

- Claudiu

EDIT:

Gosh I am guilty of this too but it is hard to communicate when so many edits are being made. Anyway, yes, I address this point in my post. Just wanted to make that clear.

She talks about her practice throughout the video, namely, watching what is happening without doing absolutely anything about it. She talks about the method she used, see around 9:56. Paraphrasing: "The outcome of peace is not the method. The method is to be with the moment, including anguish and fear." 8:08 she talks about not resisting. At 18:20 in particular she talks about the larger sense of self watching the smaller sense of self in order for the smaller one to disappear by the very watching itself.

I would consider all those a form of meditation, the way I use the word. If you disagree then let me know what you call it so I can use the same word and so we don't have difficulties communicating because of word choice.


No, I did not take it that far.


None. EDIT: Well to be clear I experienced some pretty dramatic changes of 'being' which were definitely a lot of fun, very inspiring, and very interesting, with some very pleasant experiences in there, but I did not get to the point of 'causeless joy', no.


Heh, well I see your point. Even though I don't have the actual experience of that, though, Jan does, and she talked about it during the video. Would you agree that the method Jan says she used to get to her condition leads to a condition like Jan's? If so then my statement stands. We must think of the word "meditation" differently.

I am open to 'actual freedom' being something else but when it's sold constantly at the expense of a glassed ceiling version of 'enlightenment', that is when i see confusion arise.

Concerning 'objectifiction', the hyper clarity of an unobjectified (extra mental overlay) over the world experienced without subject nor object (mental overlays) is wondrous and spectacularly detailed. The details and hyper clarity become hyper clear and detailed due to the absence of the mental overlays i.e. the mind giving form to aspects of experience, making them into mental overlayed 'objects'. Mental overlays segregate experience, the world, into 'parts' to establish relationships with via affect. When there is no mental overlay, the hyper clarity of the world presents quite wondrously indeed. One can experience life like so with non-actualist approaches. If it isn't a PCE according to Beo and Richard, so be it. There is no sense of presence, no sense of 'self' nor sense of being, nor being one with anything nor sense of existing nor time. No affect either and an immeasurable friendliness to it. A purity to it. I don't care what you call it. it is worthwhile. It is not however the glass ceiling version.

Separate and talk of 'af' as something different, whatever floats one's boat and gets one to stop defending anf attacking and cultivating disharmony in oneself. Fair enough, it could well be a different brain change. So much variety for post 4th pathers has shown how the brain changes can differ slightly. But I think it's time to cease thinking one truly knows what is possible for non-af approaches.

My 2 cents.

I guess you are implying that Richard hasn't had any instance of 'irritation' after he achieved AF according to what he states. Consider the difference in the two messages that he posted:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10738

Richard (Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:18 pm): "Ha, yes, I am indeed still frolicsome --
..........."


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10780

Richard (Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:40 pm): "And this means every single one of you who have played a part in driving/promoting/supporting this bizarre campaign. Put simply: your highly-prized and much-touted empathy (not to even mention compassion) sucks ... and sucks big time. You have all shown me your true colours."

Okay. Thanks again for letting me know. I will strive to be precise when I compare actual freedom to the alternatives offered on the DhO, though I will attempt to make a clear distinction between what you (for example) are currently experiencing vs. what your goal is (you say you aren't done, yet.) Let me know wherever I am being imprecise. I don't want that to be any cause for confusion. It does indeed make more sense for me to compare what you are experiencing with actual freedom, vs. something else that nobody here is experiencing or striving for.


Right, though I'm making the case that the brain change is more than just slightly different.


Yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that one can experience life like you just described with non-actualist approaches. I hope I never said otherwise.


Yes, precisely. "So be it" indeed. There is no need to attack or defend. It's just something different than a PCE as Richard describes it.


Okay. It does indeed sound nice. I however am going to continue down this path to an actual freedom.


It has been nice chatting.

Hi Claudiu,

Well, I look forward to hearing how your practice is going, and I am glad you dropped in. It's not easy per se to reply to many posts in one day, but it can be productive. I hope all of this benefits your practice.

You asked what I consider the meaning of the phrase actual world?

What I can say is that I live as the five physical senses and the mental faculties. And these are dynamic faculties experiencing dynamic properties. I am lucky that I have no one impeding or oppressing my enjoyment of what is here and that what is here is quite good for me as a human. I'd like everyone to have such good conditions in which to enjoy and explore their life.

I enjoy when something "static" or "conclusive" is found by investigation to be dynamic. I remember learning as a kid that when brain cells die, that's it. Now we know that brain cells do regenerate. I enjoy when something "impossible" is found to exist actually (for example, at the end of this clip of Mr. Tammet in a casino (around 9min to the end) show his mathematical skill to be unhelpful and his color-shape-feeling intuition regarding numbers to beat great mathematical odds (that is shown in the first minutes of this video. Here is someone accurately generating mathematical answers while perceiving just color-shape-feeling intuition.

And here is a video I got from the University of Virginia School of Medicine's Division of Perceptual Studies. I'll link you directly to the youtube about Sam here. I don't know what it means, but I enjoy seeing the human mind applied benevolently and in curiosity. It is a wonderful place, until we chose to make it otherwise.

I also just enjoy how much thorough and collaborative work gets accomplished in a welcoming atmosphere***. Clearly, I still have room to work on here: for my part I would conduct my queries to you less pointedly at least at the outset. And frankly, fewer words!

So, bye for now.

[***this is not to say "no to disagreement and debate". A lot of thorough, excellent understanding comes about through debate and disagreement]

[edit: and here are five more videos with the UVA psychiatrist, (second one here). I'd recommend the third one if that's all there's time for. So, it's just delightful stuff.

What phenomenologically says that Trent or Tarin's or Jill's descriptions of their ongoing experience (or when in the past the described what was the case for them) doesn't match Justine's or Richards ongoing experience or according to what you understand it to be? Putting aside Richard's opinion on it, what part of their phenomenological description gives it away for their ongoing experience (not for how they practiced to get where they find themselves)? I'm curious. Is it primarily due to 'how' they practiced that supports such an opinion? Or is it some part of their ongoing experience (at least from when they described their experiences on this forum?

Nick

And out of curiosity what do you believe the big difference between what I describe here is and what you understand Richard's PCE to be. He originally avoided answering some of what I queried to copy and paste past opinions, so perhaps you can offer an answer. In a PCE is there a sense of subject (2) ? Is there a sense of mentally overlayed object/s (1)?



As I see it currently,

1) a mentally overlayed object is a mental overlay that is the mind-made representation of some aspect of experience of the world via the senses taking shape after the initial sense experience yet unwarped by the affectively swayed mind. This overlay (fabricated mental object) pushes and pulls the mind onto the mental representation of it or rather the mind lunges onto its own creation, which is what actually gives rise to it in the first place. The lunging consciousness and the 'object' co-arise. This then conditions and supports the reactions of like, dislike, or dullness, the arising of felt sense of being/self, affect of all kinds including any sort of residual shadow like affectless almost affect experiences and any other subjective like experiences, even the one's you used to describe the glassed ceiling version of 'enlightenment'.

2) a subject co-arising in relationship to the mentally fabricated object would be any experience of relationship, of 'inner world' (subjective relationship/reaction) to an 'outer world' (the mentally overlayed fabricated objects), sense of 'being', affective me-ness, any degree of me-ness whatsoever, felt sense of existing, felt sense of presence, felt experience of being one with everything or expanding to fill the universe, being a small or big self/Self, the witness, any affective state whatsoever, flow of time and the refined experience of the jhanas as well as nanas.

Any sense of dullness or moving away from the initial experience of the senses unwarped by an affectively swayed mind and any sense of the mind not experiencing the hyper clarity of the senses, is because the mind is taking some aspect of experience of the world via the senses, whether a sensation, a thought, sight, sound, etc., as an 'object' for the mind to lunge on, giving shape to the now overlying mental representational object which is given 'atributes' and evaluations depending on memory habit. This then gives rise to a mental reaction of some degree towards the mental representation/object.

Without any mental 'object/s' overlaying the experience of the world via the senses, the senses are experienced pristinely, wondrously luminous and unwarped, hyper clear and detailed, and completely free of all mental unsatisfactoriness whatsoever. It is an unsegregated experience of being alive as this body and mind and the world experienced via the senses which are only conventionally called 'the senses' when talked about, but in the ongoing experience, there is no mentally overlaying distinction of an individual 'sense door'. It's all happening at once continuously. Simply experiencing being alive via the senses sans subject and object overlays. Such mentally fabricated overlays segregate and seemingly 'cut up' the experience of simultaneous sense experience naturally cognised by the brain. This makes it seem like aspects of the ongoing 360 degree sense experience are ignored while the mind lunges on some other aspect/s of that 360 degree sense experience in turn overlaying/giving shape to a mental representation/object to then be reacted towards affectively or almost affectively.

With the experience of subject/object absent there is the constant experience of newness and continuous clarity of the world experienced via the senses. The world and its aspects can be given 'names' and conceptualised as this and that yet without the mentally overlaying representations that pushed and pulled the mind. There is a knowing of what is called what. One functions perfectly fine operating in the world without problem. This is what I meant by a consciousness without object AND subjective and affective reaction towards such objects. Experience of the world of the senses is always fresh, never dulled, never warped, each moment of experience completely clear and untouched by an affectively swayed mind. The clarity of the world seen via the eyes is amazingly clear and vivid. Sounds and tastes as well, amazingly vivid. There is no sense of inner nor outer world. There is no sense of 'being' anything. There is simply the experience of the world via the senses, not to mention the purity of immeasurable friendliness that seems to be innately a part of such an ongoing experience. Continuous cognition of the very act of cognition of the unsegregated unwarped world experienced via the senses. I also used the term borrowed from Jill, a 'soup of sensations'. Sensations here should be taken as the experience of all the senses, expericne of the world via the eyes, ears, tongue, body etc. Soup means a 360 degree unsegregated and unobjectifed sense experience of the ongoing flow of life as a human being.

Does this match anyone else's experience and why would you say it isn't what has been described as the PCE? I am entertaining the idea that there is something else one can experience.

All of this is from my own experience. It is continuous much of the time, but not 24/7. So I cannot say I'm done as I see it.

What is different about it in your opinion to Richard's PCE? Seriously curious. I'm open to it being completely different to the above description. Again, I could ask Richard, but he avoided answering certain queries concerning whether in a PCE (apperception) there were any mentally overlayed objects (mental representations) segregating the ongoing experience of the world via the senses. He told me to 'stop guessing'. Although i could ask him again for clarification, I'd rather keep it at the DhO and not have it become another exchange posted on the actual freedom website. I really don't mind if my experience is or isn't the PCE of AFT. I do however value clarity and honesty and simple phenomenological discussions divorced of politics.

Thanks for being willing to try to flesh this out. Before I answer I'll ask you some questions...

1) To be clear, you are saying that in your own experience, first there is the initial sense experience, second there is the mentally overlaid object, and third from that object arises affect of all kinds including the feeling-being? EDIT: That is, the second mentally overlaid object is not affective, but affect (among other things) arises from it in the third step?

2) Can you describe the "purity of immeasurable friendliness" in more detail? How is the purity known? Can you write as much as you can about that purity?

3) What would you say you are, actually? Not 'you' in quotes, but you yourself. Are you the body? Are you awareness? Are you the unobjectified world? Are you unobjectified consciousness? In what manner do you exist? Answer the best way you see fit.

4) What is your experience of whether the world exists or not? Does it obviously exist? Does it obviously not exist? Is it not really an important question? I don't mean only affectively felt to exist, but exist in any sort of manner.

5) What is your experience of time? You say there is no "flow of time", but, does time exist? Does it not exist at all? Again I don't mean only affectively.

EDIT: Thought of a few more, so I'll add them here:
6) You say it is not 24/7 yet.
a) What causes you to get out of it?
b) What causes you to go into it?
c) How do you "practice" (or fill in what word you want to use there) to make it more continuous?
d) Can you describe what the transition into it and out of it is like?
e) What are the most noticeable differences when you are in it vs. not, probably easiest to tell at the edges between the two?


Okay. I agree, and I think it would be of great benefit to everyone if it was fleshed out for certain whether you experience the PCE of AFT or not, as that would clear up a lot of things.

If you are really interested in knowing, I would recommend that you go visit Richard in person, if he is willing (and I think he would be if you sincerely want to get some understanding out of the trip). It will be difficult for Richard to avoid your questions if you two are chatting for hours on end. He would likely be of more assistance to you than me. You have a better chance of fleshing it out with Richard, in person, over an extended face-to-face conversation, than with me on an internet forum.


Richard didn't tell you to "stop guessing" instead of responding to any of your questions. He said "stop guessing" in reply to a mail you wrote where you didn't ask any questions at all, but rather just made a few statements. But that's what I mean about forum posting on the internet... these sorts of misunderstandings would not happen if you were to talk to him in person, and as you don't live so far away it doesn't seem like it would be too much of a burden. But I don't know your personal situation so I won't presume too much.

This is the way i currently see it. I'm saying it all co-arises. As soon as the mind overlays the initial sense experience with a mental representation (the object of consciousness), a relationship conditioned by memory and habitual reactive patterns arise towards the 'objects'. These reactive patterns could be termed affective, or almost affective (what was being called shadow being) in my own experience. And one could say there are simply lots of objects. Some of the objects 'seem' like a subject. The mind is leaping and lunging on many 'objects' at once, the thoughts, sensations, sight, sound etc. Within all these 'objects' a subjective like experience of me-ness or something not recognised as full blown me-ness but unsatisfactory all the same to some degree depending on baseline may arise.



There is simply an innate affectless friendliness about the ongoing experience with everything when it flips to this way of experiencing. Not just other beings, but with all of experience. A lack of barriers and filters. Friendliness means a sense of affectless intimacy with whatever experience and whatever aspects of it are occuring. This simply seems innate and a fairly accurate way of conceptualizing and conveying it. The immeasurableness of it is because I don't think it can be measured in anyway. Thus is seems pure as the concept of pure can be. Though I guess purity is a way of measuring it. Purity is best defined by the absence of what is considered not pure by myself. For me, what is not pure are the mental movements that on occasion and for short periods arise to causes a slight 'dulling' of the mentioned experienced. I say 'slight dulling' knowing full well others may have a preconceived idea of what 'dulling' may be for them.

Over the past year I have had a number of 'refining' shifts' so to speak. Not full blown shifts that have led to very different baselines, but more so a refinement of what was not pure to the point it is hard to describe well so as to hit the mark. Inevitably people will interpret words in the way they experience the way they conceptualise such terms. The best I can say is that it is more a very refined version of 'shadow being' to the point I've stopped thinking of it like so. As the attention wave associated with it is no longer there. Even when not experiencing the pure experience of immeasurable friendliness, perception is much much clearer and more pristine than before. Though I simply know it can be even more pristine than the pristineness that it could be termed. I recognise the difference. It's like when you think, wow this is pristine, but then you experience something else which the term 'pristine' fits better.

The flipping from the purity to a very refined version of mental movement that adds a very subtle layer of such impurity (the slight dulling effect) only occurs when the mind is seen to 'lunge' and co-arise onto a mentally fabricated overlay. I'm not sure why it stil occurs. Ignorance of some aspect of experience for a moment. maybe. A tendency to not pay attention to the sublte initial mind movement to cause more mind movements. It is recognised quite quickly when it occurs, and the mind seems to right itself by simply remembering how the purity is. The subtly refined mind movements then stop. The mind movements are like a thin film over the eyes when experiencing seeing for example, adding a mental quality that seems residually 'affective' but it is not compounding like before so hard to call affect. I recognise though it would have led to full affective experiecne previously so perhaps this recognition makes it seem 'almost like affect'. It is more a very slight dulling effect on sight, a movement back onto the mental representation of some aspect of experience.

I re-read all the above and it misses the mark slightly, but it is the best I can do. All very refined and very subtle that I don't think imagining it will do it justice at all.



There is experience of the world via the senses which can still be conceptualized, named and interacted with including all the beings, trees, cities, wife, family, studies etc. within it. I've investigated how the mind will overlay mental representations over 'things' (thus creating those very 'things'), and even when the mental representations (the mind lunging on some aspect of experience adding a layer over 'it', making it into an object of consciousness) drop away, concepts still arise as thoughts and understanding is there that there are 'things' that collectively have 'names' and recognisable 'form' by other human beings. Condtioning continues and the mind/body organism operates just fine in the world.

But i've also paid attention to those arisings of thoughts of 'name' and 'form' that can occur even when the lunging consciousness has ceased. They are seen to arise and pass as simply thoughts without the mind lunging onto them and adding extra weight of evaluations, reactions etc. So to say 'I am the body' does not hold weight as 'body' is a thought as is 'the world experienced via the senses' is also a thought that yes, can be vocalised and written down to describe experience and I can say yes, experience is experienced via this body. But 'body' is a concept and thought and I can watch that thought drop away too. It doesn't make a difference really to say these things. To say I am awareness does not hold weight, to say I am the unobjectified world does not hold weight either. To say I am unobjectified consciousness also does not hold weight. There is this mind/body organism conditioned by past behaviour which continues to operate in the world and experiences the world via the senses but more frequently now without a lunging consciousness overlaying and thus segregating/cutting up the world to then affectively (or almost affectively) react towards . Though I don't have thoughts of "oh, I am this body" or "I am awareness" etc until asked about such ideas. "Am I this body?", well yes, the thought of 'this is a body' arises, and everyone else will term and see it as a body, and the world is experienced via the senses of the body, yet all these words can be seen to drop away eventually when i stop thinking about it. So, 'I am this body' holds no weight. They are good descriptions of the ongoing experience but, these words as thoughts can also drop away. And the experience goes on, just without the concepts. Thus my reasoning says such absolute statements ultimately hold no weight.



It exists as far as it is experienced via the senses of the mind/body organism. The word and concept 'exist' can also be seen to arise and pass away. When it passes away, the notion of anything existing does not arise. Yet, in hindsight the experience can still be described and conceptualized as the mind/body organism experiencing the world of trees and beings and morning coffee. Though in the midst of such an ongoing experience, there really isn't the thought of 'oh, this and that exists'. Experience is experienced. And I can conceptualize further, it is experienced via the senses. All of these ideas can happily be overlayed as concepts on the ongoing experience but such concepts can also not arise until asked. 'What exists? 'Things' don't inherently exist as 'things'. Though the substance and shape that 'things' are supported by can still be called 'the world' or 'the universe' with all its aspects happily and without problem, I just also recognise that such words and concepts in the mind can drop away in experience. So to make absolute statements about what exists does not ultimately hold weight at the moment. Though experience can be explained conceptually as 'the world and all its aspects (Australia, this house I live in, the school i go to, the wife I sleep next to, the 19 year old cat, the cold weather, sunshine, the laptop, the prickly rash on skin (due to cold weather), thoughts of response to questions on internet forum, etc. etc.) experienced via the senses of the mind/body organism.



No, time as a 'thing' does not exist. The concept of time may arise as a thought due to be asked about 'time', and I'll have further thoughts of the clock ticking next to my ear, and how I often am late for school due to not paying attention to the clock so as to leave when the hands are in a particular position. I don't have a felt sense of 'time' flowing. I could be sitting in front of the laptop for hours (rotations of the clock hands) till i realise how many rotations I've been sitting for. Time as a thought may still arise, but it lacks the affective feeling behind it. It, also like the concept 'exist', can be seen to drop away. Then there is no notion that time exists either via a concept or an actual 'thing'. There really is only movement, of the clock hands, the earth, the clouds, my feet as I run to class. This may be conventionally talked of as related to 'time' and I can say 'I'm late for class', but it doesn't mean I see it as something that inherently exists. Even the idea of a 'moment' being all there is holds no weight when the concept of 'moment' drops away. There is simply 'experience ongoing'.



a) i'm not completely sure yet why it continues still but a tendency to fabricate mental objects still from time to time occurs. I think it is due to a residual tendency to objectify aspects of experience and not catching the initial movement to cause more mental movements.

b) By remembering the purity of it. By recognising the thin film that has dropped over experience, recognising how the mind has taken some aspect of experience and made it into a mental object. By simple recognition of the lunging consciousness giving shape to a mental representation. Simply, recognition of such an occurrence is enough for it to drop away. Usually within seconds.

c)The idea that 'I practice' does not hold weight. There is constant cognition of what is going on. If this can be termed 'practice' by others, then so be it. I do not have thoughts of 'practice' these days. It is more like 'life and cognising what is occuring' at all times while awake. Recognition of any interruption is all it takes. When I was in the midst of exams, I did experience a more prolonged 'objectifying' of the exam material, that which i needed to know to pass. It seemed different to when there are no perceived responsibilities to attend to. There was more 'lunging' of consciousness going on. This was over a month ago, and I've had yet another refining shift, so we'll see if the next set of exams in 4 months results in a similar occurence.

d) From one split second to the next, the mental overlays will drop away and experience is instantly recognised as much more pristine and without any slight dulling effect. The immeasurable friendliness of such an experience returns as well instantly. This quality i do not think can be imagined.

e) there is a slight movement back into the mind when the mental movements occur. There is no movement 'back into the mind' when they do not occur. There is an immediate pristineness of sight, sound, taste etc. Even thoughts have a pristineness to them in the absence of objectification. From here the mind may be triggered to jump onto an 'object', the mental representation. The object could be some situation conceptualized, studies for exams, my wife, and for those seconds, the experience seems 'filtered' or slightly dulled. Much more refined than when i was using the term 'shadow being' and 'almost affect'.

Disclaimer: These descriptions sometimes miss the mark as I often use the same language as past baseline shifts. My words don't do it full justice.

Nick

Edit: I forgot to mention that the mental movements that I don't consider pure, co-arise with an even more refined version of what I experienced previously with sensations in the chest, throat or solar plexus areas. They lack the 'tenseness' that they once arose with. They can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral in tone. These same sensations don't arise when the mental movements cease.

self-moderated deletion. Really should stop reading this stuff and turn the computer off.

Hey Nick,

Thanks for that nice reply and answering my questions point-by-point. I will do my best to answer from my own experiential understanding as well as my intellectual understanding of actualism and the actual world, without distorting what it is you have said. Please let me know if I have misrepresented anything. I also admit to having little experience of what I consider apperception - no hours-long full-blown PCE - so I go mostly on my experience of pure intent, which I have experienced in overwhelming amounts and which informs me somewhat as to the nature of the actual world.

---

First I'll just point out what sounds similar so that no one can say I am avoiding the similarities


Allowing for the fact that what you call affectless might be different than what I call affectless, your description here of affectless friendliness does sound similar to the benevolent quality of pure intent that I notice.


In my experience pure intent has this quality as well. It's like wow, this is so amazingly pure... and then it gets even purer in a totally unimaginable way.


Likewise with the purity I am talking about... it simply cannot be imagined. I was walking home today and I experienced such a goodly dose of it that I could hardly contain myself. I was elated, giddy... quite amazing.


Likewise the more pure intent I am currently experiencing, the less time is felt to 'flow'.


Likewise, for me, remembering the purity of pure intent immediately leads to a noticing of pure intent which immediately leads to an allowing for more and more of pure intent.


This is similar to when I experience more purity. The senses do indeed become cleaner/more pristine/more interesting, and that non-affective benevolence comes into play.

---

I actually thought I would end up leaving more text in for similarities, but I noticed a good amount of differences too. I'll explain below. What I learned for myself in Australia (that is, I wasn't told to think this way, but I figured this out on my own) is that if one is to compare two things it's more informative to look at the differences instead of glossing over them for preference for the similarities... after all, if differences are always glossed over and similarities are looked upon explicitly then everything will seem to be the same. And there are a few things in your report that indicate to me you are indeed likely experiencing something other than what Richard calls a PCE.

What I am pointing out may not be satisfactory to you due to the way you might be used to 'practicing'/living, namely not conceptualizing, not objectifying, and it's evidenced in the way you said various descriptions "hold no weight". The more I go down the path to an actual freedom the more I see that certain things which might be considered just conceptualizations that don't matter, ultimately, are the actual important experiential things, and are what set actual freedom apart from other sorts of ways of existing, some of which are termed Enlightenment.

So let me attempt to go into full detail as to what doesn't add up if considering your report is that of a PCE. I will try to indicate the relative importance of each difference clearly. I don't doubt that you are experiencing what you say you are, it just doesn't seem to be apperception. Also I would recommend reading the entire report before making up one's mind about it as disagreements may arise at first that are addressed later.


What you reported is different than my experience. In my experience, sensory input comes first, after which comes affect/the feeling-being, and only after that comes mental representation/objects of consciousness. That is, senses -> feeling-being -> objectification arising from affect, not senses -> objectification -> feeling-being arising from objectification. This is an important distinction. If it is indeed the case that there is senses -> feeling-being -> objectification, then you will see how if your explicit goal is to no longer objectify, you will still be left with senses -> feeling-being, albeit a 'feeling-being' under a different form that one might not even consider a feeling-being/affect because it is so vastly different. And yet in a PCE there is no feeling-being at all.


Here you are saying that the experience of me-ness comes out of the mind leaping and lunging on all these different 'objects'. This gives me the impression the feeling-being in your experience is a sort of fragmented entity, not really having any coherency to it, but it only seems like it does because everything is happening at once.

In my experience, the feeling-being is a very coherent entity. It is very much felt to exist... and there's nothing I can really do within my experience as a feeling-being to get rid of it. It is basically everywhere at once, already, before I am even conscious of anything... even these senses are affectively filtered, before I am conscious of them. The only thing it seems possible to do is to tap into this pure intent, which is non-affective (thus existing outside of the feeling-being) yet also non-sensate (meaning I cannot see it... I can only experience it as a sort of hint to the meaning of life). So it's not that it arises out of all these objects (objects -> feeling-being), rather, it is already there, and then objects arise within experience or they don't (I can be thinking or not; meditating in a way to not experience that mental lunging you describe (which I have done before) or not), yet the feeling-being is there nevertheless.


Here I have to disagree. I do agree that the absence of what is considered impure is definitely a remarkable quality of purity... however, in my personal experience, the most remarkable quality purity I talk about when I refer to pure intent is not the absence of what is impure (the absence of 'me')... rather, it is an extremely positive quality. This purity is very much a tangible thing... it is obvious that the purity is there, that it actually exists as something in its own right, and not merely in opposition to 'me'. This is most obvious to me when I experience it in overwhelming amounts, like there's almost too much of it, like it's simply too good, too much. It would be difficult to experience an overwhelming amount of lack-of-impurity.


We agree on that point at least; those also fit into my experience of what is not pure.


I will put a disclaimer up front here and say that I won't be speaking from experience here, but rather, going on Richard and Vineeto's reports. They told me that, the way actual freedom works, is that 100% of the feeling-being is present, all the way through even an out-from-control virtual freedom... and then 100% of the feeling-being vanishes in a few moments, at moment of actual freedom - even at moment of newly free (such as Justine is). So they told me it isn't a gradual diminishing of 'me', but rather, all affect disappearing in the space of a second or so. I understand that Justine reports many things that sound affective in nature, so I'll simply say that I don't have experience of that territory so I can't say much more. But if what Richard and Vineeto were saying is the case with regards to an actual freedom, this is another indication that you are not actually free: the constant refining 'shifts' yet you still experience some sort of very refined 'shadow being', and later on you reported flipping in and out of what you consider apperception. Just another data point. Because I haven't experienced this and it isn't clear how no affect relates to what Justine is experiencing, feel free to disregard this paragraph. I just thought I'd share as much as I know.


In my experience it isn't that the mind is lunging onto a mentally fabricated overlay that distracts from the purity, but rather, that some feeling has come up which I have started fueling, and which I am noticing instead of the purity. This goes back to my point about the order that senses, affect, and mental overlay come in.


My contention is that you aren't addressing the feeling-being directly, but rather objectification, which is leaving the feeling-being around, although vastly transformed (now to the point of it being experienced simply as a very refined 'shadow being' that you have even stopped thinking of as so). As feeling-being naturally leads to objectification, you have to pay attention 100% of the time to make sure that no objectification occurrs... and when you don't ("A tendency to not pay attention to the subtle initial mind movement") the rest of what you describe follows.


Here's where we start getting to the really important differences, I think. You say that it doesn't really make a difference whether you say these things or not... which I agree with on some level, namely, whether one says it or not doesn't change the fact. However, in my personal experience of the purity of the actual world, tapping into the purity makes it more and more obvious that I am nothing but this body experiencing itself. It's not that the thought "I am a body" arises and then I keep thinking that. The thought can drop away, too. It's more something inherent in the experience of pure intent, itself... it gives a hint as to what I am, existentially, namely, the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body. And that is not only conceptual or not only at the level of thought, but at the level of direct experience. But saying "I am the body" does indeed hold weight in that case because that is what I am, and it is even an important point which is why Richard often talks about it.


I thought your answer might look like this, which is why I asked, to make sure that that is how you really experience yourself. It seems that whatever you would say about your experience, it ultimately holds no weight, and it's not even anything you think about unless asked. Yet from what I can tell more and more, the entire point, the purpose, of an actual freedom is to experience the meaning of life... and that is an existential experiencing, meaning, it has to do with what existence means. And an important part of that is namely, what is this thing that is existing that I am? I am not actually this 'feeling-being', as I feel myself to be... so what am I? It seems pure intent has the answer, and allowing pure intent to operate more and more leads me closer and closer to that answer.

So, far from it holding no weight, for me, what it is that I am or am not, or not thinking about it, it's actually a vital component of this path. This I see as one of the largest differences, and, if you notice, it is not really a phenomenological one. I think boiling everything down to phenomenology is not always appropriate and doing so sort of already shows that you have a particular answer/train of thought in mind. So actual freedom doesn't seem to be about phenomenology, per se, namely, how clear are these senses being experienced, currently. The senses do get clearer, I am not saying they aren't, but that's a side effect of the important thing, the important thing being the meaning of life/what I am.


This is another important difference. Another intrinsic aspect to actual freedom, as far as I can tell, is to have the ongoing direct experiencing that the universe does indeed, exist... and not only as far as it is experienced via the senses of the mind/body organism, but in an objective sense, namely: yes, that tree does make a noise if it falls and no one hears it; yes, this universe was here before I was born; yes, this universe will be here when I die, even though I will no longer be experiencing it via these senses. The fact that you do not consider the world to exist any further than your particular sensate experiencing of it indicates to me that you are not experiencing an on-going PCE.


Right, whereas a PCE is the direct experiencing that the universe exists, whether the word and concept 'exist' is arising or has passed away.


Right, I figured you would answer that way, as well, which is why I made sure to ask, as it's another important difference. The more I tap into pure intent the more obvious it is that things do inherently exist as things, regardless of whether I conceptualize them as things or not.


Here is yet another difference, and indeed it is in these questions that I thought the most important differences would lie. Richard said one of the first things that the newly free people said when they became newly free was that "time is standing still". Note that they didn't say time doesn't exist, that time is only a concept and that concept has dropped away... they said that time is standing still - that is, time does exist, and it is standing still. I don't have much direct experience of this except glimpses here and there, but it's like the flow of time does indeed stop, yet it's not that there isn't time, any more... it's just that the moment is not moving anymore. There is this static arena in which things are actually happening, this very moment. Time, like the universe, does inherently exist, and pure intent (as I talk about it) holds the key to the direct experience of that, as well.

---

Okay then, that's my take on it so far, based on my personal experience and intellectual understanding of this business called actualism. I think there is quite a bit of evidence I've presented here that what you are experiencing, Nikolai, is indeed not what Richard means by a PCE. The fact that it isn't obviously doesn't change anything about what it is you are experiencing, though. If you are pleased with your experience and want to continue going deeper in that direction, that is your choice. In this thread you said you don't care if what you are experiencing is really a PCE, and that is also fine with me. Likewise, in terms of other people, if they are attracted to your descriptions and want to experience that for themselves, then they are fully free to do so.

However, it is pretty clear to me - even more clear now that I have examined your report in depth - that you are indeed not experiencing ongoing apperception as Richard uses the term. And there is nothing wrong with that on the face of it. You are free to do as you please. But I will reiterate again that I do think there is something wrong with insisting that you are indeed experiencing a PCE, that you are indeed actually free, because as I see it, and as I hope I have sufficiently shown, here, you are not.

What this means pragmatically is that if somebody finds the Actual Freedom Trust website and becomes interested in actual freedom, and then comes here and begins taking advice from you, who claim to be actually free, on how to achieve that freedom... they will be led astray. They might not realize it at the beginning, not having a lot of experience with it, and they will slowly start going in a direction that does not lead towards an actual freedom. This is simply confusing and it is very unnecessary and even, I might say, harmful.

There also seems to be a lot of contention on the DhO on this issue, of who is actually free, who isn't, etc. A lot of it comes from not understanding what an actual freedom is, I think. I hope that by posting here I can help to elucidate that so that people can indeed make the choice for themselves.

One might say I have a personal stake in this. Until I visited Richard, I was incapable of seeing the difference. I was very confused and unable to really make a step in either direction. Now, I can far more clearly see the difference between actual freedom and other things such as what you are experiencing. In fact, I think that if I really wanted to, I would have a far better shot at getting to where you are than before, because I wouldn't be confused by all this actualism stuff. So when I see other people similarly unable to make the distinction, it seems to me like I should try to help them figure it out. I find it a bit odd that sometimes when I do this I get very negative reactions. It might be the way I am saying it, sometimes, but maybe there's also something about the message itself that people don't like. All I can do is strive to be a better communicator, and to not be swayed by my desire to have a particular outcome, as I have done before... that way I can speak freely from a place of enjoyment regardless of whether people agree or disagree or even maybe get upset.

So, Nikolai, perhaps I have written my conclusion too soon... what do you think of what I have written? Do you see the differences I have pointed out as being enough of a distinguishing factor, or not? If not, why not? If yes, then what do you plan on doing now? You have the choice, too (to continue as you have been, or to start going for an actual freedom.)

To everyone else, I hope this has been helpful!

- Claudiu

The arising of the feeling being (or the residual habits originally associated with it after baseline shifts) is seen as a mental overlay in my experience. A filter and trigger in one. I know its absence. It is undeniable that I know from experience that it can drop away and for long periods. When it arises it only arises when the mind objectifies some aspect of experience. It arises in response to an initial object being fabricated. It isn't simply always there. It arises due to some cause. Something occurs in life. It is objectified in the mind. Sounds of insults hit the ear. First is the experience of sounds, sounds with meaning understood. Those sounds are then objectified, made into objects for the mind to then establish the reaction of feeling insulted. If one were experiencing just the sounds and did not have the mind objecfiy the meaning of the sounds to then react towards affectively one would still understand from context that the words had a certain meaning but the reaction towards them would not be affectively driven. A feeling being would not arise as all that was experienced was cognition of the sounds and there meaning. Perhaps one can say the tendency to generate a continuous flow of feeling being is what conditions the further objectification of experience, a constant feedback loop fueling itself. A feeling being fuels objectification, objectification fuels fueling being, a feeling being fuels more objectification and so on. Where does one cease the loop?

Senses->initial objectification->feeling being/affect->more objectification->continued flow of 'feeling being/affect'->more objectification->and so on and on. The purity of initial sense contact is occurring all the time but it is quickly followed by some aspect of experience being segregated and objectified due to the habitual pattern of fabricating a feeling being. This in turn fuels more objectification and a continuous flow of feeling being as mentioned above. A more felicitous affective mind state enjoying this moment of being alive leads to objectifiying the senses thus giving rise to a felt sense of wellbeing which leads to less tendency to objectify thoughts, and trigger unhelpful affective mind states which eventually leads to a relinquishing of that objectification of the senses (this part acts as the bridge) which leads to just the experience of the senses sans objectification and sans feeling being. This is my honest experience. How does one jump from 'feeling being' to on ongoing experience of just the senses? Why and how does the feeling being arise? Why/how does affect arise? What is the initial trigger for it?

Time standing still is a concept i can understand from experience. But it is a concept and can drop away. The stillness though is tangibly experienced. I can also understand quite well the idea that there is the actual world of (unobjectified) objects. I know quite well the difference between how hyper clear, vivid and 'real' it is experienced VS when it is seen as if dreamlike. I understand how there is the actual experience of the world versus how the mind overlays and misinterprets, warps and dulls it. It is clear as day. It is that I choose to observe those experiential terms (clear, vivid, real) with some more curiosity as to what would experience then appear like if such hyper vivid reality of the world ceased being thought of as so, even though it is a clear experience of it. It can be overlooked and my initial experience of what I called the PCE in 2010 while reading Richard's apperception article did not entail investigating how things where conceptualized with a feeling being in abeyance. It was what fueled so much interest in af to begin with. There is no denying I had one and it has been compared to since every experience then. The investigating concepts was much later, this year. I choose not to make such absolute statements as even though life and all its aspects are experienced as very vivid and experienced with very sharp clarity with unobjectified objects like trees swaying, thoughts that the trees are swaying can drop away and show their absence. In their absence though, the trees keep swaying and continue to appear hyper vivid and real just without the need to think of them as 'actual trees swaying'. Perhaps when eventually experiencing a PCE, it would be interesting to further investigate how the mind interprets experience even sans affect and feeling being.

Also after investigating 'pure intent' and putting into action the instructions you yourself gave on the yahoo list, it leads always to the immeasurable friendliness I spoke of. From here it really is purity but in my opinion more so because of the complete absence of what was considered impure.

I intend to continue simply allowing for movement towards permanent ongoing experience of the purity I have talked of absent of any feeling being, scattered or quite tangible, absent of the affective overlays, absent of all mental unsatisfactoriness including irritation which in my experience only arises in responses to some aspect/situation of experience objectified.

Edit: I am finding that the more I communicate here at the DhO about this subject the more it leads me away from the immeasurable friendliness. So i think so as to simply return to the inevitable movement towards the purity mentioned, i will stop here with this exchange though do feel free to answer the queries I made. Thanks claudiu. I wish you quick unhindered success.


Nick

Edit: I posted this above but you may have missed it:

What phenomenologically says that Trent or Tarin's or Jill's descriptions of their ongoing experience (or when in the past the described what was the case for them) doesn't match Justine's or Richards ongoing experience or according to what you understand it to be? Putting aside Richard's opinion on it, what part of their phenomenological description gives it away for their ongoing experience (not for how they practiced to get where they find themselves)? I'm curious. Is it primarily due to 'how' they practiced that supports such an opinion? Or is it some part of their ongoing experience (at least from when they described their experiences on this forum?

Nick

Hey Nikolai,

Okay, I can see that we will continue to disagree. So I will no longer ask you any questions, here; this is just means to respond to some of your points for the benefit of others.


I agree that it is seen as a mental overlay in your experience.


I am certain you do, yet as it is not a mental overlay in my experience but an affective one first, it is likely we are talking about different things.


No, it's not there in a PCE, but otherwise it is always there, for the vast majority of humans. We are born with it intact, even before we even have mental overlays - observe a baby crying. The cause is that we are mammals and that is how we evolved because those animals with those instincts happened to be the ones to survive the best.


I will point out that lower mammals also experience themselves as feeling-beings and some of them definitely don't seem to have the mental capacity to objectify things.

About time & the rest, it's not thought or concepts I am pointing to but rather, what the experience is. My experience of pure intent tells me that there are indeed actual things here and that the universe does indeed exist. It doesn't come as a concept; it's the nature of the experience. The two are inseparable. So, the fact that you can separate them (experience what you call "apperception" without considering the existence of anything as important) indicates to me that you are experiencing something else. As I said, I didn't think the difference I point out would mean much to you, and I guess I was not wrong on that count. But it's interesting that the most important parts of an actual freedom - the meaning of life parts - you say are simply concepts that can just drop away in your experience.



I saw it but figured I would talk about your experience, first. Given that I have just gone in-depth into what about your report "gives it away" and you disagreed on all counts, I don't currently see it being beneficial to go in-depth into what about others' reports "gives it away", at least not with regards to you. If somebody else has a particular question or would like to know then I might answer it.

Best of luck, Nikolai!
- Claudiu

Claudio,

This is good stuff. I appreciate the degree to which you deconstructed the differences between the approaches and have highlighted some key points that can be misunderstood or key concepts conflated. Perhaps this is because of the ways in which other contemplative frameworks, practices and maps have shaped our perception of experience and subtly influence our interpretation of Actualism and the types of experiences AF attempts to describe. Perhaps it yields a subtle distortions in perception that undermines our efforts; especially if attempting to blend techniques. Is this part of what is meant by 180 degrees in the opposite direction?

I realize that as I read the AF site and try to understand more deeply, I have continually set aside my Buddhist maps and frameworks and try to understand it's framework as a stand alone thing because otherwise, my instinct is to try and see Actualism through my Buddhist models and continually correlate which seems to color the way I process and internalize my understanding.

Another key take away from your post is that I need to go a lot deeper into understanding Pure Intent.

Lee

hi Claudiu

I had a few questions about the quoted material. My understanding is that according to actualist descriptions, the feeling being goes into a static abeyance during PCE (in other words, it is there, just 'frozen' and unnoticed). The big difference between PCE and a path to AF as I understand it is that, on the path, the feeling being is very much noticed, and rather than static or in abeyance, it is dynamically transforming in the direction of actuality under the influence of pure intent. Is this not correct?

Also, from my point of view observing the interchange between you and Nick, I wonder if you are connecting the term 'objectification' to the same experiences. Your statements about lower mammals and babies (seemingly) not objectifying makes me realize that you certainly have a different understanding of it than I do. I will leave Nick to clarify his own usage for himself, but for my part it is very difficult to conceive that any living being-- right down to ameobas-- are free from what I have heretofor assumed Nick was referring to with the term 'objectification'. Thus, I suspect that the experience I point to with that term is far far subtler and even of a different nature from the experience you point to with it.

And lastly, as an aside, factually speaking the notion that currently existing animals are here because traits they have (such as experiencing themselves as feeling beings, or objectifying, whether or not those are different) made it more likely they would survive is unevidenced and most importantly completely illogical. They survived and passed on genes do to practically infinite causes and conditions. Some of their current traits helped them at certain points, some hampered them, and some were neutral. The same traits helped, hampered and were neutral with regards to different circumstances at different and even the same times.

And btw, I agree we often seem to have meaningful and cordial exchanges. I don't have much time to post lately. Feel free to PM me; it might be fun to video chat, and I have a bit more free time over the next week than I have had lately.

Hey Jake,


That sounds correct, ya. The transformation is from a feeling-being unwilling to self-immolate to one that wants to do nothing but. Doing this requires acknowledging that the feeling being is 'real' in the first place - that is, intuitively felt to exist. And as felicity is the closest affective imitation to the purity of the actual world, a more and more willing feeling-being will be more and more felictious... and being more felicitous makes it easier to tap into pure intent.


Perhaps, but perhaps not. Maybe we are talking about the same thing but we understand it differently.

Re: your comment about ameobas, it would seem difficult for a creature with no nervous system to objectify anything at all. Nikolai seems to refer to thoughts and mental movements, not feelings and affective movements, when he talks about objectification, thus objectification is cognitive, not affective. So how can a creature with not much mind at all cognize so much that they are creating a full-blown feeling-being out of it? It makes more sense to me that they are not cognizing much at all, but rather, they are experiencing instincts and feelings, and only proceeding a little bit into cognizing (depending on how relatively intelligent they are).

The bit about senses -> cognizing -> affect is indeed a major point of departure between Nikolai's techniques and actualism. Nikolai's path is thus a cognitive one first - stopping objectification - instead of an affective one first - stopping the feeling-being.


Hmm I don't see why it is illogical. That's the way natural selection works... those animals who happen to have the traits that lead to their survival are the ones that end up reproducing, because they aren't dead. Are you saying that the animals with the traits least suited for survival are the ones that ended up surviving? That sounds more illogical to me.

I agree that picking a particular trait out can be tricky - e.g. the giraffe of a neck. It's not necessarily the case that any one single trait led to more survival. There are a large number of factors at play, agreed. But, as a whole, those combination of traits leading to more survival are the ones that stuck around. Would you not agree?


Neat, that might be fun, though I'm pretty busy too of late.

- Claudiu

Hi Claudiu- r.e. ameobas: I think we are operating with different definitions of cognitive and affective. It seems to me that 'affective' implies some'one' or some'thing' to be affected by some'one' or some'thing' else. Subject/object. As far as I can tell, this way of being (the way that can be affected, as I just described it) only is ever imagined. I'm not claiming to have fully realized this, such that all views to the contrary have fallen away. However, again, as far as I can see, there never is some'one' or some'thing' that could be affected by some'one' or some'thing' else. So there is somethng very dreamlike or illusory about suffering, in a sense. Dreams can be very disturbing when their nature is unrecognized, and behavior that is the output of 'buying in' to the dream is very very very different than behavior that is the output of clearly seeing the dreaminess of impossible ways of being. So, at least disturbing affect (it seems to me) is simultaneous with a naive reification of an imaginary way of being. I'm not sure I am in agreement with either you or Nick, in that you both seem to agree that the cognitive and affective are clearly separable. Again, at least in the case of disturbing/disturbed affect (of positive negative or neutral flavor), it seems to me that there is a cognitive component involving 1) this subject/object scheme and 2) a cognitive intensity or clarity that is below a threshold necessary to explicitly be clear about the imaginary nature of the imaginary schema.

My experience is that 1 is binary, either on or off, while 2 is on a continuum, like a dimmer switch, with a threshold above which it doesn't matter whether 1 is on or not. When 1 is off but 2 is below the intensity threshold, then there is a dull peacefulness with mental stillness of neutral tone.

In short I'm not sure I agree with either of you completely, however, from a completely pragmatic standpoint I can see how each version ties in with what you are practicing and you both seem pretty pleased with your practice so I think that is more important than whether we all agree on descriptions of ground, path and goal.



Oh, no. The traits that survived are the ones that survived. That doesn't mean they led to the organism's ancestors surviving! The argument that over vast amounts of time, traits that helped survival accumulated is an ok argument but far from scientific. I'm pretty sure the math bears this out (in terms of random mutation and natural selection being unlikely to account for evolution).

It seems spontaneously clear to me, particularly in moments of deep relaxation in the natural state, that there is only unbroken intelligence and creativity moving as all that is. The fact that it is unbroken and boundless means that it is perfectly still, and wide open. Yet like a spring that continuously bubbles up, change is immaculately unstoppable and no form is fixed at any order of magnitude-- each is movement of movement, in movement (repeating at all orders of magnification) never movement of particles, in structures. Universe is a perfect wilderness of perpetually overflowing stillness, even those patches of Universe that we experience as suffering beings, conditioned by the lack of clarity that buys into impossible ways of being, namely solid and separate and reactive.

And there is a basic goodness to this true nature of all that is, which I am comfortable calling friendliness or benevolence, strange as that sounds, which seems to be nature itself. Which is exactly why I find it so important to question 'myself' and 'my' stories when I am upset or proud or complacent or whatever--- because given the self-evident nature of Universe's spontaneous great perfection and immaculate clarity, utterly prior to 'my' imaginary birth, being upset or mean is truly a silly thing. I intend to get to the bottom of it for the benefit of all.

I don't feel any need to reify that natural intelligence and creativity into some sort of deity or source or whatever either. I see no evidence of a Big Subject designing or directing evolution, any more than of a little subject designing or directing the activity of this body mind. Nature, Universe, is profound. Just in case anyone thought in arguing against a popular notion of evolution, I was putting forth an equally suspect case for 'intelligent design'. Another truly shallow 'two sides to every story' pop debate! lol.

It just seems like there is pervasive self-organizing (out from control) intelligence which spontaneously emerges as order everywhere without limit, everything in its place, perfectly compatible with everything else. 'Practice' to me is tuning in to and being guided by this self-organizing intelligence, which is deeply caring and careful and circumspect and happy and kind. Practice is working with everything that blocks that with diligence, kindness, honesty, sincerity-- mostly in everyday life and relationships, rather than on the cushion. That's where it's at for me lately anyhow

Simply to work with what blocks that self-organizing intelligence from living my thoughts and words and deeds in the context of relationship and everyday life. It is fascinating, and increasingly enjoyable, and liberating (in that it becomes ever easier to do and say and mean what "I" always wanted to: i.e., really helpful and kind stuff, as opposed to the selfish and irritable and proud and demanding and passive and ineffectual stuff I often come out with when motivated by those cognitive/affective obscurations...). Every interaction that would have previously triggered reactive stuff that instead brings forth benevolent and open responses is much more significant than a thousand, no ten thousand thousand fascinating experiences on the cushion.

No this isn't what I meant. The mental movements include the feelings and affective movements. The lunging urges to objectify and grasp at mind-made objects overlaying aspects of experience is very, very automatic and born of very incessant and subtle 'urges' which seem very very instinctual and of the passions. It is instinctual to objectify, in my opinion. In my experience and it took quite a different baseline to see clearly. I certainly didn't see it before. I'd say one is born with it in action, even animals. I'd say objectification is part and parcel of the instincts and feelings.

The instinct is there to pro-create. The mind/consciousness experiences strong urges to lunge onto the opposite sex, making them into a mental object of desire to then seek intercourse with. They co-arise and support eachother. You can't have one without the other. A 'feeling being' experience and all its components (sensations thoughts, urges etc) are also all objectified phenomena. All of it is taken as objects of consciousness. Objects triggering the compounding of other objects triggering the compounding of other objects and so on and on. The feeling of being a 'feeling being' is experienced as 'object/s' of the mind. The objectification is what gives it 'shape'. The sensation of an 'urge' arises and is objectified. It triggers more sensations that are objectified. These in turn trigger evaluations and naming (also objectified) and giving more shape to 'things' which are all objectified. All of it. Triggers for triggers for triggers. When that is looked into all the way back to all 'things' and aspects of experience being objectified, there is no room for anything to take shape. An experience of a 'feeling being' does not take shape. Affect does not take shape and all that one is left with is the experience of just the senses. It is beyond imagining the liberation experienced when the mind ceases giving shape to a 'feeling being', instincts, passions etc.

Every aspect of the experience of any affective mind state, or any manifestation of 'feeling being' has been made in an object of consciousness. One object compounding with other objectified phenomena to give shape to the 'feeling being'. The objectification is what gives rise to it all. Take away (stop objectifying) the incessant urge to exist (experienced as objectified sensations) and the experience of a feeling being crumbles down and reveals nothing but the pristineness of the sense unobjectified and unsegregated.

Perhaps it best be left as something one can't ever truly understand until actually experienced in one's practice. I will stop guessing if you will. ;-)

Nick

I would say that what you have said above is beyond the understanding of AF people. That is why they fail to understand you.

Hmm well probably the most I can say is that I can indeed try to divert my mind to unobjectification, I think in a way that is in accordance to what you have laid out here. Let me know if it sounds about right. It's like I can just sit really still and stare straight ahead. First the grosser stuff will calm down like the overt mood or something like that. Then I start looking at mental movements and I kind of get 'detached' in a certain way, namely that what appears to be the 'center' of my experience is also starting to be seen as just more mental movements. Then I notice that my visual field is sort of globbing, really really quickly, one after the other. Before it wasn't seen clearly enough to notice the globbing but as I sit more still I see it. It's like random parts of the visual field have some sort of 'thingness' to them and these are happening very very rapidly, one after the other. So I can sit very still and try to not even do that and then the globbing slows down a bit. (This is a form of meditation as I see it.) At some point it's like the whole visual field starts wobbling in a certain way, like it gets 'unstuck'. And it could go much deeper than that but that's where I decided to stop just now. In the past I could get into what I called arupa jhanas pretty easily from there.

So those visual globs, would you call those visual objectification? Practicing this way, I do get the impression that those globs occur before full-blown feelings, and that if they are caught in time (observed clearly), they don't develop into full-blown feelings. The glob sounds like what you describe as a part of experience being segregated out and then made into an 'object' after which a 'subject' can be made from it. Does that sound like your practice/what you are talking about?

Because the reason I did not keep going further in this way is that in my own experience, as far as I can tell, practicing in that way does seem to lead me from the actual world. I can see how if I would continue doing that, I would get to a point where no overt feelings would be felt anymore, because whatever would be stopped in time. So there is a promised peace (which peace you have realized for yourself) for going in that way, and I could see it getting there. But it just doesn't seem like the actual world, to me. I lose track of "pure intent" when I do that. Although I can see another sort of friendliness to experience that would arise, it doesn't seem to be the same thing as "pure intent". So just in my experience, if what I described doing just now sounds like how you practiced, they seem to lead in different directions. And indeed it seems if I really run with that practice I would get to a point where it would not matter (or it wouldn't hold weight) to say that things exist inherently or not, or that the universe exists inherently or not, or that time passes or not, or that I am this body or not, etc... it's just sort of well, whatever is happening is happening, and there's a peace to it. But that's not enough for me.

- Claudiu

Doesn't sound like you got to no objectification of any aspect of experience. Sounds like you stopped at objectifying the 'whole visual field' as well as aspects within 'the whole visual field' such as the wobbling. All objectified pulling the mind onto and thus giving shape to such phenomena. Arupa jhanas have mental aspects objectified, i.e. space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither perception nor nonperception. Consciousness is lunging continuously onto those aspect exclusively. No what I'm talking about nor the objective of dropping objectification.



Where they pulling the mind onto them at the expense of the whole field of experience i.e. all the senses.



Even though full blown emotions may not form if such 'globs' are observed like so, one has still objectified the 'globs' and thus the subjective reaction towards them is more an affective equanimity.



It doesn't sound like it, no. I am not to clear on what 'globs' means. But if the mind is being pulled continuously onto them thus giving them shape, then it sounds like objectified phenomena. If any aspect of experience via the senses whether visual, audial, taste, touch, or thought, is pulling the mind onto it and giving shape to some 'thing' that could trigger any affective mind state, it's because the mind is objectifying it. Any aspect of experience that has the mind 'lunging onto it' (and it can be a very subtle lunging) at the expense of other aspects of the field of experience, is being objectified. The lunging consciousness co-arises with the object. Without the lunging, there is no object. i.e no globs, no 'special out of the norm' sensations triggering affect. For example shitty sensations in the chest triggered by some evaluation (objectification) of some thought triggered by some occurrence int he field of experience (e.g. words of insult reach the ear) triggering an affective agitation. Consciousness is lunging continuously onto the thought of the occurence triggering sensations which are triggered by consciousness lunging onto them and giving rise to the 'shitty' tone. This in turn leads to an agitated feeling being becoming the object of consciousness to then filter all further objectifications through.



The 'idea' or 'thought' or perhaps 'affective feeling/hunch' that 'this does not lead to the actual world was objectified and thus reacted to with aversion. You didn't stop objectifying. One gross object may be replaced by a more refined object. When there is no consciousness lunging onto one aspect of experience over other aspects, the whole field of experience is experienced via the senses without any lunging, simply the pristineness of the senses, unwarped and very vivid and clear.

And it can get so sublte that one thinks there is no objectiying going on, but there is via some sublte aspect of the mind, maybe a refined sense of 'space' has consiousness lunging on it, or a very refined sense of nothingness with the mind constnatly lunging on it, or a very refined sense of themelessness with consciousness lunging on it. The lunging on to 'it' gives rise to 'it'. Any ASC will have the consiousness lunging onto aspects of the field of experience . No mental objects, and it is simply the senses experienced without filter.



Because you haven't stopped objectifying. The thoughts of 'it doesn't seem like the actual world' are some aspect of experience objectified. A hunch, a feeling, some aspect is still objectified. The 'view' is being objectified.



I doubt you experienced the same 'friendliness' due to your descriptions above. you haven't taken it further than it can go. Every aspect of experience that has the mind making it the exclusive focus is objectification in action. 'Sort of friendliness' doesn't sound so immeasurable.



No, it doesn't sound like it at all. So I understand why it makes sense for you to say it leads in different directions. You haven't understood it. I would advise leaving it aside and focusing on your pure intent instead of trying to disprove things that keep your mind objectifying ideas and notions and moving against pure intent because i doubt it is supporting it.



It seems you don't really understand it. But i wish you good luck on your current path.

Great little talk, Katy. Thank you. Jan's clear and concise delivery is so refreshing (ahem)!

I feel a little bad for the interviewer, Alan, though. He keeps saying, I get it, I get it, but doesn't really seem to. I can't help feeling that he's missing out on the relatively idiot-proof guidelines of Vipassana. The ego understands directions. To use a graveyard analogy, it's like the difference between trying to leave your body by holding your breath until you expire, or by setting up an elaborate and fatal booby-trap for yourself. The first is 'simple,' but impossible for an individual to execute. The second is more complicated, but more palatable and achievable.

I hope I'm wrong about that. I love teachers like Jan, and Adyashanti. They make enlightenment seem so close. But I don't know if people are actually getting enlightened by such approaches on purpose. Are they?

On the other hand, if Alan were to stumble on this thread, he would surely be lost forever.

Yeah they were.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean I thought the globs were unobjectified. I meant the globs were objectifications that I wasn't noticing before, at a more elemental level than gross feelings, and that by continuing to go in that direction, the globbing would happen less and less - thus less and less objectification and thus according to you less and less feelings then less affect then less 'shadow being' etc.


Yes, that is what I thought. And then I could sit still and mentally incline in a way to not have that globbing happen any more. Is that what your practice consists of? Breaking down gross objectification (where I don't even notice that the globbing happens in the first place) to more subtle ones (bringing out individual 'globbing' happening at a slower and slower rate) until there is no globbing at all?


Yes, that all makes sense. That is what I noticed about the globs, and I was essentially meditating to have the globbing (objectification) happen less and less. Does it sound like that would lead to your experience if done sufficiently? Again I don't mean the globbing is your experience or that the globbing is not objectified, but just the opposite: the globbing is objectification and I could keep going to have the globbing happen less & less and thus the visual field becomes more and more calm and pristine and clear and undifferentiated (no particular things sticking out of it via 'globbing').


If that is your way of saying that I just decided to not continue in that direction, then yes.


No but according to you was I doing it less and less, as the globbing was happening less and less the more I continued in that direction?


Let me be more precise: I can clearly see that me tapping into pure intent leads to what I call the actual world. I can clearly see that practicing as I was - to glob (objectify) less and less - would not lead to what I call the actual world. But it's hard to tell while doing it that it doesn't lead to the actual world. It's only after I stop doing it and start tapping into pure intent again that I notice I was going in a different direction.


Does your response change if you take into account what I said above about me aiming for less and less globbing, not for globbing happening? And for the fact that I never said I stopped objectifying, just that I was trending in that direction?

Hi J B (and pats to the pug if the pug of your former photo exists),

I really liked the interviewer's willingness to express himself. It was, to me, sweet and candid, like someone who really would like to do this and is at the point that he's not embarrassed nor i-know-already.

I like your analogy and agree: there's a reason I could not just understand these accounts a year ago. There was just a lot of other work to be done to look at the personality, assumptions, security

This leads me to Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda's Mind Stilled writing. I am just taking in again the first essay on name-and-form and find it understandable at some sort of visceral level (ironic as it's a whole bunch of names (words)) this time around. It is so relevant even in this thread. In jumping to name ("self-righteous conceptualism") in response to another name-based fabrication (Claudiu's word change which was also a substantial form change of the original wording (name-basis)) I also created form (the consequent actual form of some of this thread). Then, in feeling around the form of what could (also) be happening, the mind perceived something else, and the name "syncretism" came up from perceived form. This name in turn resonated and a harmonious form arose along with mutual caution about words (name-basis). It's easy to look around and see chronic cycling in name-and-form, spawning each other and attaching the mind to a goofy conceptual cycle, distancing itself from actuality, alienating the mind into a self. Many people have discovered this. Obviously, this sort of thing is happening all the time: words fabricating form, form giving rise to naming-convention, disastrous/curative/neutral/collaborative/divisive/endless results cycling.

So name-and-form seen like that is very practical and upfront and can be seen conventionally. It's like election year all the time in the head: name-and-form creating a plethora of ads about what is/was/will be, losing an ability to stop naming-forming, forgetting there is just immersing actuality, not asserting future claims, not asserting words that re-frame (form). The written medium for anatta has this inherent difficulty, is always working to inspire a person, yet has to catapult the person far from name-form dependency, even interest.

And this there is the utility of an experience like "active jhana" - wherein it seems fourth jhana is happening in the mind while there is activity. (This may not be considered jhana, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu has raised this idea if I understood his writing as he intended it in Shankman's book samadhi). Here the mind is not creating name-and-form but it is in action with the body and all relevant matter: I am having a very hard time trying to/wanting to put single-point equanimity into words now; more than before I see that those words will create a form and the form and name are conceptualizations. A person really has to be willing to be with their actuality entirely. The mind has to be willing to go to the senses in full attention, to let thoughts/feelings arise and pass. {edit: this is just to say the mind gets a moment to understand what is possible with name-and-form, but not creating it, not attached to it....oh boy. This is just too esoteric a post now. Blah.)

So, yes: I have also needed what you call "the relatively idiot-proof guidelines of vipassana". I have definitely needed that, and anapanasati and satipatthana and open awareness.

I understand that you wish to divorce all of the actual freedom path from 'buddhistic' and other influences by attempting to see what I'm talking about so as to refute it. This is my last reply as I think it has become quite the distraction and a detriment to one's pure intent to be attempting to understand it experientially just for the sake of disproving it. I think having such an intention in the back of one's mind even, an objectified 'view' already in place, would not allow one to see how far dropping even the most subtlest of objectifications and see for oneself how experience plays out without any mental overlays nor mental representations overlaying aspects of the entire field of experience. If one were to connect with pure intent 24/7, a PCE and/or be 'newly af' would make it much easier to chat and explore what others like myself are talking about without the need to disprove something not experienced, presumably. Though my understanding of 'newly free' has had some light shed on it recently, so maybe not.



If there is a 'glob' being paid attention to no matter how sublte, it is some aspect/s of experience being objectified in my opinion which is what is fueling the very arising of the 'glob'. But it isn't just a 'glob', though not sure what you mean still by 'glob', it is any aspect of experience. ANY aspect of experience can be given 'shape' within the mind and affectively riffed off of as well as act as support for the arising of affect.



My practice is moving continuously to permanent no-more objectification, period. Just the experience of the senses unwarped by mental overlays including all affective residual i.e. sensations in throat, chest etc triggering subtle mental movements as well as the objectification of the situation/occurence that led to the arising and consequent objectification of the sensations in the throat. chest etc.

The 'globbing', whatever you mean y it, could cease, but the objectification of some other aspect could well continue unaddressed, some mental overlay so 'spread out' and diffuse that it would appear to not be the object of consciousness at all such as a panoramic diffuse affective like 'peace', or some jhana quality. Still objectification is going on. Any aspect of experience, not just what you are calling 'globbing', can be made into an 'object' of the mind. Regardless, whatever it is, is pulling the mind away from the actuality of initial unwarped pristineness of the senses unsegregated and unclassified and simultaneously cognised by the brain. 'Glob', sensation, thought, 'sense door', 'view', visual aspects, sounds, tastes, affective feelings, feeling being, sense of me-ness, jhana factor, nana factor, any of it. Any of it and all of it can become the object/s of consciousness. All riffing off of each other, conditioning more of the same and so on.

It is so clear when the mind does not lunge on any aspect of experience, but simply experiences the senses simultaneously, 360 degrees, at once, that such an ongoing experience is so very liberating free of tension, push and pull, stillness so apparent even with all the movement within experience. Unsegregated sensual wonder. No leaping on this or that, no craving this nor that, no ill will, no sorrow, no 'me' in any manifestation whatosever. So clear and vivid and immediate, no filter of a mind that segregates. An unmistakable a game changer in my experience.

If anything pulls the mind on to it, even for several seconds at a time, it is objectification. Sans objectification, one can still experience the physical senses and thought, but the experience is a very different one. They are experienced unclassified and unwarped. One you can't imagine.

You are perhaps trying to find a way to disprove the experience I've described. I only came to these conclusions after experiencing a couple of baseline shifts this year which made it quite clear and easier to drop objectification at will for some reason. There was some added clarity that appeared as some aspect of the mind ceased to compound as before. Before these shifts it was unclear and I wouldn't have known what to drop. It is clear past HAIETMOBA and felicity cultivation, cultivating wellbeing at will, essentially enjoying the moment of being alive, as well as other practices led the mind in a direction where this became clear. The experience of absence of the experience of a feeling being (at least the full blown one I still experienced at MCTB 4th path) made it much easier to compare experiences.



It is not about having 'globbing' happening less. it is about training the mind to cease making ANY aspect of experience into an 'object', an object which pulls the mind , a lunging consciousness, on to it, thus giving it shape, name and form. And by the sound of it, you are objectifying the visual field at the expense of all the other senses, at the expense of the entire field of experience being experienced unsegregated. The experience of being alive via all the senses. The method of 'grooving' on one sense is, in my opinion, objectifying and giving shape and weight to that one, now fabricated and overlaid as 'special', sense. It could eventually, if the mind relaxes the effort to single out one sense door, lead to the dropping away of all feeling being, but it isn't what I'm talking about.

What happens when you allow the mind to simply recognise all the physical senses at once without singling out one in particular to objectify? No room for 'globs'? Rather than singling out one aspect (the visual) of the entire field of experience, allow the mind/body organims to expericne all senses simultaenously, enjoying that bombardment of cues for being alive.

When one is experiencing a sense of welbeing, the tendency is to allow the senses to be experienced all at once in my experience rather than have the mind jump on (and thus give name and form to) one aspect over the other. What if there were no 'special' senses? No need to lunge on and give weight to one aspect, one 'sense door' and aspects associated with it, over other aspects and sense experience. The mind then relaxes and allows the enjoyment of all the whole unobjectified field of experience as it is intially expericned before affect covers and cuts it up. Are there any mental overlays/representations (what I've been calling 'objects of consciousness') in one's experience of the PCE?

]

Then you can only imagine where it leads and thus miss the mark, way off. Best continue with your path and leave this be till after PCEs and better yet after 'newly free', where presumably you will have more experience to compare.


No but according to you was I doing it less and less, as the globbing was happening less and less the more I continued in that direction?

Where did I say you were doing it 'less and less'. I don't think I did and if I did, i didn't mean to convey that. It isn't about whatever you are calling 'globs'. It is about dropping the tendency to give weight to any aspect of experience and give it shape and form in the mind for consciousness to constantly land on, cutting up/segregating the field of experience into fabricated 'parts'. All rich soil for an illusory 'feeling being' to constantly lay down ever deeper roots and sprout from.



No, I don't think you have understood objectification as I have meant it. That is ok, I wouldn't have a year ago either. It is hard thing to grasp if its absence has never been experienced. Best drop the disproving intention, leave it for when you actually have your own experience of PCEs or preferably 'newly free' to attempt again to disprove anything. Then you will have more room in your brain to perhaps grasp what I'm talking about, maybe. Stick with what works for you. This wont. It isn't for you. And it probably is only for a particular baseline. But that wasn't the point of this exchange for me at least. I am not selling a 'way' to get to a PCE.



No it doesn't. it is clearer you have not understood it. But I have thought about how hard it is to convey this idea of objectification for a while now and the idea of 'objectification' can be understood differently for person to person. It is simply not about 'globs', although if they are pulling the mind hear and there, then yes, they are objectified phenomena, fabricated experience. But I include every aspect of experience as being a possible target for the incessant instinctual urge to make mental object overlays to then establish relationships with giving rise to self/Self/me-ness/feeling being/presence/witness/inner-outer world experiences. Any disagreeing with me will hold more weight if you were 'newly free' or at least had a full blown PCE you could speak from.

Till then.

Nick

Okay. From reading your past two posts correcting me, it is clearer to me that I do, because all your additional explanations are things I already agreed with, but perhaps didn't communicate clearly enough, e.g.:


Yes, any aspect. I was just pointing to a particular one.

Right, no more objectification, period.

Yes, there would be other objectification going on, and then I would apply the same sort of practice to that, and then to the next, and then to the next, etc., leading to a more and more refined state of 'being'. This is a completely different practice than tapping into pure intent and in the same way I can tell pure intent leads to a PCE, I can tell this doesn't... but that isn't to say that this wouldn't lead to a state of sublime mental peace. It is very alluring indeed, the practice you describe, as it does seem to lead to a whole lot of peace.

Yes, indeed.

Right, yep.

Roger that, any experience.

Yes I was focusing more on the visual field, but I could also not focus on anything/focus on everything at once and do the same thing.

Right, that is the impression I get too when doing this practice.

Yes, every aspect, including subtle things not imaginable when the grosser things have not been seen through.

If I do that practice with all of them then I get into an even deeper meditative state. I notice blips of 'touch' here and there, sounds, all a mass confused jumble of things one after the other, which can then gradually slow down as I practice more consistently/carefully, until there would be no mass of confused things but rather there would be no objects at all (which would take a while as a lot of subtle things would arise on the way there).


No, I don't think so, but the PCE is also more than that. It has those 'meaning of life' bits I talked about, which you said did not matter to you (did not hold weight one way or the other for you).


Okay.

Meaning of life for me is the absence of all mental suffering and fabrication (even very rare 'irritation) and living life like that (the world of experience experiencing itself via the senses i.e. this mind/body organism) and any 'refined state of being' as well as any 'meditative state' means one wasn't determined enough, was without enough intent nor was successful at the approach as such experiences (the refined being and meditative state) were because there was still some aspect of experience being objectified (the mind was being pulled to some aspect of experience and giving shape to some fabrication or other.) Nice try. hehe. Till laters.You never, never know, if you never never take it as far as it can go.

P.S. My last reply, honest. ;-)

"My practice is moving continuously to permanent no-more objectification, period. Just the experience of the senses unwarped by mental overlays including all affective residual i.e. sensations in throat, chest etc triggering subtle mental movements as well as the objectification of the situation/occurence that led to the arising and consequent objectification of the sensations in the throat. chest etc."

Nick, just a question of clarification on the above (no trying to insert myself into your discussion with Claudio). Are you meaning this literally on a 24/7 basis? That is, no objectification whatsoever?

Thanks.

She exists! Thanks, I'll pass the pats along. And I'll check out Nanananda. It has indeed been like election year in my practice lately.

Claudiu, you have written about "pure intent" a lot in this thread. So everyone who is reading this thread has an idea as to what you understand of "pure intent", I provide the following link where you have posted about what you think about it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualconvivium/message/161

Some of the points from the above link:

"* It is actually existing, that is, not mentally, affectively, or psychically
created.
* It is intrinsic to the universe itself.
* One does not experience it via thoughts, feelings, the psyche, **or the
senses**, but rather, an existential awareness. That being said, feelings &
senses are certainly affected by tapping into the purity; feelings turn
felicitous and senses become brighter and far more pleasant in an unimaginable
way.
* It is obviously pure, it is obviously beneficial, it is obvious that tapping
into it more would be beneficial for everyone.
* It is obvious what it is when you experience it - any uncertainty means that
isn't it.
* Felicitous feelings are the most accurate imitation of the purity.
* It has nothing to do with 'me'.
* It seems intimately related to the fact that the actual world actually exists.
Indeed, it seems to be the only hint, for a feeling being, that there is
something actually here.
* It is already there. That is, 'I' don't have to hope or pray or wish it is
there and that it doesn't go away, because it's there anyway.
* It has always been there, and always will be there. (The universe is indeed
eternal.)
* Corollary: It was there before I came into existence, and it will continue to
be there after I die."

This raises few questions in my mind:

I can't understand how one does not experience it via senses? Does that mean one who has no senses, he can experience it too? But can anyone be considered alive without the senses? Can a brain dead person experience such "pure intent"?

If it is not mentally, affectively, or psychically created, then does that mean it is physical? If so, why has it not been found yet? Is it difficult to find in a way similar to the "God's particle"?

All of the points about "pure intent" make it sound like spiritual talk to me.

Thanks for the relevant quote and link, Aman.


I'm not sure whether someone without senses could experience it. I doubt it, only because, as you pointed out, how could a person be considered alive without the senses? I can't really conceive of it. So, find me descriptions of a conscious and alive person without senses and I can re-evaluate the situation then.

About not experiencing it via the senses: ask yourself this question: how do you experience yourself absent any sensory input? You intuitively feel yourself to exist, no? How is that feeling of existence experienced? I don't think it is necessarily sensory input. It's like the feeling of existence (as a feeling-being) is something non-sensory, even though you can immediately jump from it to sensory input (from feeling-of-me to "I experience this visual thing now").

That would be a non-sensory affective experience, then. "Pure intent" is a non-sensory non-affective experience.


As you have to be conscious to experience "pure intent", no, a brain dead person could not experience "pure intent".

Hmm... yes, I think so. If no human creates it then it is an aspect of the physical universe itself, thus it is physical, yea.

Well, for one, no one has really been looking for it until very recently. As to how to "find" it, I'm not sure what you mean... wouldn't you say Richard has found it, for example, given he experiences is it non-stop? But you must mean "find" in a scientific sense, but I'm having trouble picturing what that would entail. Can you elaborate on your question?


Yea, it initially seems that "pure intent" is your standard-fare spiritual item. But if you follow some spiritual version of "pure intent" you won't end up at a PCE or an actual freedom, so it's important to see how "pure intent" is not spiritual before going about following it too fully.

Alrighty. That ain't enough for me ;-).


I agree that I'll never know, experientially, from direct experience, what you are experiencing, because I have no interest in doing so, and, as far as I can tell, I'll be incapable of even trying to experience what you are experiencing once I'm actually free. I'm fine with that, though.


Alright =).

Okay. so how could an amoeba imagine itself to be someone or something if it doesn't have the capability of imagination at all?


Yea, I agree. But you just have to keep in mind that someone or something that could be affected by someone or something else is indeed felt to exist, and one can't deny that (e.g. by meditating on no-self) unless one wants to end up in an ASC.


My take on it is actually pretty simple. As a feeling-being, everything is affective in nature. Feelings are affective, the senses are affective (run through an affective filter), thoughts are affective (borne of affective impulses or affectively filtered, anyway), etc. The only non-affective thing as a feeling-being is pure intent. In a PCE or when AF, nothing is affective in nature. There are no feelings, the senses are actual, thoughts are actual.

In both cases, cognition happens, but in one case it is adulterated by the feeling-being and in the other case it isn't. In the former it is indeed hard to separate one from the other... maybe even impossible. In the latter it's quite simple; there is simply none of the affective part of it.


In my experience, if 1 is off (no feeling-being) then 2 is Not/Applicable, as there would be no imaginary schema about whose nature to be clear, no? If 1 is on (yes feeling-being) then regardless of 2, everything is affectively filtered/not actual anyway.

Hmm, I'm tired, so will have to get back to your other stuff later, if I don't forget...

I haven't experienced myself absent any sensory input but I guess if I was to get myself into an isolation tank, it will be my mind which will keep on working and it may come up with different imaginative dream-like scenarios one of which might very well be of "pure intent".



Okay, so if you think that it is physical, then it must be made up of some particles and scientists have been looking for all sorts of particles. They haven't found anything like "pure intent" particles. Richard hasn't found it, he just experiences it in his mind and then tells others about it. It is only mystical/spiritual mumbo jumbo that people start having trouble explaining and that is why you are having trouble picturing what finding "pure intent" in a scientific sense would entail even though you think that it is physical. People have been "finding God" since long time but they only start having trouble when someone asks for an actual proof of its existence. Richard has only found pure intent in the same way people have been finding God. You have found it the same way through the "genitor" instead of "messiah". I don't see "genitor" as being 180 degree opposite to "messiah".



I think rather than "pure intent" being your standard-fare spiritual item, it is a mystical aspect of Actual Freedom. It is trying to present a mental component as being physical and insisting that it actually is as if saying it so will make it so. But believers will believe in it in the same way you have started to believe in it because you just "experience" it as such and you don't question your "experience" but have faith in it being "actual". Although you will keep on denying it. I think you are already in an ASC and have lost your rational thinking.

No, you didn't get what I was asking. I meant, how do you feel yourself to exist, right now? That feeling - is that sensory input? It would be interesting if you actually wrote a paragraph about doing this experiment and shared your results.


Here's one for you: do things exist (like desks, chairs, computers, trees, etc.)? Is the fact that things exist a physical one? Okay, so if you think that things existing is physical, then it (things existing) must be made up of some particles and scientists have been looking for all sorts of particles. They haven't found anything like "existence" particles. They don't even have any idea why things have mass. Does that prove that 'existence' or mass are mystical/spiritual mumbo jumbo? I think not.

If you have trouble picturing what finding the "existence" particle in a scientific sense would entail, even though things exist physically, you might have some idea of what I meant.

Suffice to say I still think we are operating under a different meaning of the term objectification. I guess I was unclear when I implied that ameobas have imagination. Imagination is a human faculty, shared with some other animals for sure (probably all animals with some kind of eye). Representation/objectification only requires there be experience and is going to look different depending on the sensory apparatus which is its basis. Essentially I am suggesting that even the most primitive form of the feeling being, if I understand what you mean by that (possibly I don't), includes some kind of cognitive obscurity, or lack of clarity, which is lack of clarity about the nature of things.

There never actually IS a subject or object. Objectification IS subjectification IS reactivity is unfreedom (is the felt sense of not being able to spontaneously do what is best). Also, as is customary in English, I use the term 'imagination' to refer to the ability of a mind to represent sensory experiences in general, including ones which have never existed, such as horns on a rabbit's head, or subjects and objects. But don't hear the term as exclusively tied to visual sense.



In my experience the imagination of imaginary modes of being, such as subjects and objects, is actually less significant than the felt sense of what they mean. When clarity is sufficient to recognize them for what they are, there is no felt-sense of being a subject reacting to objects. When clarity is lacking, the imaginary modes of being (subject/object, substance/solidity, time as overarching, so on) become fused (confused) with experience as it is. The nature of things is obscured.

I can imagine all sorts of things without being stirred by them, but if I forget they are imaginary, I become physiologically aroused as if they were not. Thus, confusion leads to disturbance. Lack of clarity leads to confusion. In practice, lack of clarity, confusion, disturbance and the speech and behavior outputs which reinforce them are often more or less simultaneous in my experience, and the gesture of insight which releases experience from that cycle is the spontaneous expression of an intelligence and care which is deeper and broader than that whole cycle, within which, existentially, that cycle is always already occurring, as distraction from that true nature. This very dependancy of illusion on true nature is capable of nullifying the felt-sense that illusion is real in my experience, which is liberating.



I believe I understand what you are saying from first hand experience. However, I think the PCE is much less significant than the interpretation of it. I think I understand what you mean by pure intent from experience as well, but again, it seems that the interpretation of the significance of the experience is more important than simply experiencing it (although perhaps you would disagree in the latter case?). If I do understand it, 'pure intent' is able to function as a dynamic interface between the actual and the illusory affective. [Thus, Tarin's 'I' am pure intent and pure intent is 'me' could charitably be seen as making sense after all, even if pure intent is in itself non affective]

At any rate, what I meant was that affect always includes these other factors-- both sensate and reflective sensations. If the latter are all that actually is, then logically the illusion of affect must arise from them in some way. No? Or is affect actual, existing in its own way in its own right? And is the feeling being actual, or illusory? Does it actually exist, actually persist, actually go into abeyance, actually self-immolate? Or is all that illusory? If the former, than why the need to eliminate it-- since it is already actual, and bears all the characteristics of actuality (purity, perfection, etc)? If the latter, than why the need to eliminate it, since it is a mere illusion, and that illusion is actual, marked by all the characteristics of actuality (when apprehended clearly)?

I see you establishing two possibilities, continuing to live 'as' the feeling being, or 180 degrees opposite, extinguishing it and living as the bodymind sans that illusion, via the feeling being voluntarily self-immolating. I admit that merely 'objectifying' the felt sense of being a subject can be a tricky approach to cultivation which can end in a cul de sac. That's why personally I have always been wary of advaita and Kenneth's 2nd gear teachings. However, I am not capable of making this judgment for all cultivators. Each method I have used or seen others use has dangers and value. I am beginning to wonder if temperament might not play a great role in it-- desire types might resonate with notions of being embedded in experience, for example, and benefit from cultivating jhanna and the Witness. Aversion types might find those methods reinforce their basic tendencies-- and might find dry vippasana and dzogchen, for instance, more liberating. Anyhow, I do agree that cultivation of any method can be done in such a way as to create a new 'practitioner identity' which is dissociated from one's actual condition, actual emotions, actual attitudes desires fears etc. Actualism, Vajrayana, Vipassana could all be used this way-- perhaps, inevitably are used this way, at least initially, by most cultivators. However, in my experience, it is entirely possible to apply a variety of cultivation methods in such a way as to 'own' one's own tendencies and patterns rather than dissociating from them, thus enabling the real work to begin. I don't think that is the exclusive property of one form of cultivation, although I do wonder whether things like jhanna and witness practice might encourage dissociation to some extent, whereas other schools seem more comfortable with working with the felt-sense of being a being more intimately. But I certainly don't see this as a unique factor in Actualism. I can see how it would seem that way to someone whose perspective on all forms of cultivation was heavily influenced by the MCTB consensus of the early pragmatic dharma scene, and I can further see how the emphasis on self-immolation would appeal to one conditioned by past belief in the MCTB paradigm as it is the logical next step, implicit in Theravada I think.

Just to highlight the difference based on past conditioning, which if nothing else may aid your attempts at communicating with those who participate here who were never adherants of the MCTB consensus or affiliated with Theravada at all, I will add that notions such as befriending oneself, being one's own best friend, enjoying this moment of being alive regardless of circumstances, leaving senses wide open and eschewing absorptive concentration states as merely neutral forms of ignorance, having an altruistic motivation for cultivation, and even seeing authentic intimacy beyond all projection, fear or desire between lovers and friends as a prime motivation of cultivation and a prime fruit of practice, are all going to be very familiar to those with an actual Vajrayana or Dzogchen background. Statements which generalize that these things are 180 degrees opposite of buddhism will likely be met with bemusement.


*************

Again, at least in the case of disturbing/disturbed affect (of positive negative or neutral flavor), it seems to me that there is a cognitive component involving 1) this subject/object scheme and 2) a cognitive intensity or clarity that is below a threshold necessary to explicitly be clear about the imaginary nature of the imaginary schema.

My experience is that 1 is binary, either on or off, while 2 is on a continuum, like a dimmer switch, with a threshold above which it doesn't matter whether 1 is on or not. When 1 is off but 2 is below the intensity threshold, then there is a dull peacefulness with mental stillness of neutral tone.


That's funny, I thought you would see 2 as the feeling of being and 1 as merely a cognitive construct which modified it. Hence my point that when 1 is off but 2 is below the intensity threshold, there results an affective equanimity without thoughts arising. This is because in my experience, full blown explicit duality (1) arises in the wake of a drop of clarity in existential awareness (2). That drop in intensity is analog; I see no upper or lower limit. However, there is a threshold above which there is a clear existential awareness and below which there is an initially implicit sense of dualism, which feels like oneness, in the wake of which full blown explicitly dualistic mental-emotional fabrications proliferate (1), often marked by strong charges of positive or negative. This point might clarify why I am suggesting that there is an (implicit) cognitive component even in the pure feeling of being, no matter how primitive (instinctual) or refined (felicitous). Clearly both the instinctual passions and felicity lack that full blown explicit dualism, yet it is certainly still there, right? Like in the buddhistic concept of animal realms and god realms.

I don't feel myself to exist but I think I exist. The thinking will still be there if I secluded myself in an isolation tank. I might also think of "pure intent" being actually physically present without any outside sensory input or without checking it with some sort of equipment which can measure something physical. After coming out of the isolation tank, I might try to convince others that there is actually a stream of "pure intent" present which is a characteristic of the universe itself!



They haven't found "existence" particles but they have found electrons, protons etc. which can be verified experiment after experiment. In the above sentences, you are trying to equate 'existence' which is mental aspect with mass which has physical aspect. Mass can be measured but 'existence' can't. As you said that "pure intent" is physical, so it should be readily measured just as electrons and protons can be found to exist physically in scientific experiments.

This "pure intent" as actually occurring is "pure imagination" at work. Your explanations of it to be otherwise show how much deep-rooted your ASC has become.

good posts nick. As I am replying from phone in camp I will keep this reply short.

I think it might be a good time for you to move on/look beyond AF teachings and penetrate more into emptiness. For how can there be a ‘truly existing, actual and objective world’ if there is no objectification? Therefore challenge and realize the falsity of such views by penetrating deeply into the twofold emptiness.

These links are for your consideration:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/06/advise-for-taiyaki.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/emptiness-and-middle-way.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/03/sun-that-never-sets.html

Phena Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html

Kalaka Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html

Kaccayana Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

I have only mentioned a few examples from pali canon... But the Mahayana canon have plenty of emptiness sutras, the most common among them heart sutra and diamond sutra.

I agree. Nick, sometimes you talk about going 'beyond' AF. I think in order for you to go further in your experience you should probably take AEN's advice, here. No need to keep trying to reconcile your experience with actualism... it is likely holding you back from going deeper down the path you have taken.

Personally, though, I won't be going down that path as I don't think it leads to experiencing the meaning of life. I am perfectly content with disagreeing with you and/or AEN on the point of what that is, exactly.

(To be clear, I don't think actual freedom lies anywhere on AEN's/Thusness's stages.)

Okay. Is it possible for you to get a sense that you exist without any thoughts present? If so, what would you call that impression of existing? Would that be sensory input?


I somehow doubt that you would ever try to do that.


If they haven't found "existence" particles then, according to you, "existence" is spiritual mumbo-jumbo and obviously not physical but just pure imagination.


So are you saying that nothing exists if there is no mind around to notice it?


If you can't measure "existence" then, according to you, "existence" is spiritual mumbo-jumbo and obviously not physical but just pure imagination.


Pure intent is physical in the same way existence is physical. If you can't measure existence then I guess you can't measure pure intent, either. The fact that you can't currently measure existence doesn't mean you can't notice existence... likewise, the fact that you can't currently measure pure intent doesn't mean you can't notice pure intent.

I don't know whether it will be possible to measure existence someday. I don't know whether it will be possible to measure pure intent someday. I'll have to get back to you on that.


Your posting habits show how deep-rooted your antipathy towards anything actualism- or actual freedom-related has become.

The fact that you can't currently measure "God" doesn't mean you can't notice God....likewise, the fact that you can't currently measure God doesn't mean you can't notice God.

The fact that you can't currently measure _________ doesn't mean you can't notice _________ .......... likewise, the fact that you can't currently measure _________ doesn't mean you can't notice _________.

(Fill in the blanks with any non-sensical idiotic irrational mystical mumbo jumbo which any lunatic has ever come up with and you won't be able to disapprove it if going by the above line of thinking)

Ok. So I just want to be clear: you are saying that if somebody tells you things physically exist, you will say they are spouting non-sensical idiotic irrational mystical mumbo jumbo and he is a lunatic to have ever come up with it?

If I say that "God" exists physically, would you believe me?

I wasn't asking about whether "God" exists physically. When I said "The fact that you can't currently measure existence doesn't mean you can't notice existence." I was not referring to God or "God" or pure intent, just things themselves. I just mean if someone said things exist physically, like desks, computers, trees, starts, etc. Would that be non-sensical idiotic irrational mystical mumbo jumbo to you?

I know you weren't asking about whether "God" exists physically. But I say that "God" exists physically and it is a characteristic of the universe itself. What would you then think about it especially when it is my experience? No scientist has ever looked for it and hence hasn't found any "God particle" but I'm the one to have found it in the same way Richard has found pure intent.

Okay, I was just curious about your views on existence, but I guess you don't want to share.

About "God", I would say you are noticing something affective, because in my experience any feeling of "God" is affective, and I would then point out that in my experience "pure intent" is not affective. I can see that you can just swap "God" and "pure intent" in that sentence and then claim that we are saying the same thing, but I would disagree with you, and you would disagree with me, and we wouldn't get anywhere at all, really. I'll just point out that you are saying hypothetical things and not actually trying to experience either "God" or "pure intent", whereas I am speaking from my experience of noticing both and comparing the differences.

When I experience "God", there is nothing affective about it. It actually exists, it is not mentally, affectively, or psychically created. It is intrinsic to the universe itself. I don't experience it via thoughts, feelings, the psyche, or the senses but rather an existential awareness. And so on and so on..............