I came across this video accidentally, while watching a DhO'er youtube production: it was one of the next videos queued.

here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNkeVl9I_s4&feature=related

It is a fun, simple, down-to-earth chat and enjoyable watch. People who are interested in AF and the "e-word" (awakening, realization, etc) may like it. She indicates that self naturally dissolved. Her bio states: "Then, in August 2003, she experienced a radical transformation of consciousness. Fear fell away from her, and she was immersed in a state of causeless joy that has never left her."

I also was reminded of DhO contributer Stephanie KD (a writer, teacher, editor); this woman is also a writer and teacher (both women are moms as well): the facility and naturalness with which they both had their realizations and shared them.

I appreciated the link and the talk from Jan, katy. cheers.

I think the analysis of anyone's experience, as communicated in words or video, need to be done within the context of that persons nomenclature and not interpret a word such as 'self' freely across different contexts. Importing a specialist definition from one context into another is going to end in confusion.

I found enough in what she was saying to be internally consistent with her own statements, and noticed a distinct intellectual hesitancy in her to agree with 'spiritual type' assertions- she seemed to accept them, but would say 'it is really just this, it was always like this' etc. What Claudio reads as 'self aggrandisement', I read as a way of describing the experience itself (she in the next sentence says she is the same stuff as the universe not separate), she clearly talks about fear dropping away as an equivalent description. fear has a more universal meaning (imo) than self, and from that perspective I choose to assume she is in the ballpark of experiences i would be more than happy to have happen to me 'out of the blue'!. another little phrase stood out in she seemed unsure of how to describe 'who/what' she is, which to me points not to a inflated self, but to a genuine naivete towards her own nature.

I didn't pick up any arrogance or special knowledge being claimed, she clearly states 'she did nothing', it happened of 'it's' own accord, the one glimpse she give of a potential method was going deeply into the suffering and somehow seeing it was 'optional'.

what is possible is that in the absence of knowing specifically why it happened to her, she is in the same position as others (Tolle comes to mind) of having to give account for something she can't properly give account for and relies on the generally accepted 'spiritual' interpretations as a default. I didn't pick up anything in her thinking that would exclude the possibility of it being simply a question of word choice rather than a real difference. Justine word choices come to mind when I say this, and for that I'm glad to have the 'data' as we say in these parts. Where she is saying 'joy, love, compassion' she could very well have said 'delight, intimacy, and 'fellowship regard'.

That is to say i didn't see a particular 'sentimentality' and 'nostaglia' or eagerness to line herself up with, or in opposition to anyone else, which is significant. I think though that as the intellect is most obviously still working, her 'optimisation' (love that word) could well have become more 'spiritual' sounding (and possibly being) in the absence of alternatives.

it would be particularly informative if she did comment at some point on 'actual freedom' as it would be the acid test on the question of how her condition relates.

cheers katy (and Jeff who linked to Jan elsewhere)

edits; spelling.

Well, hey, yeah Mr. Andrew: you too. Thank you so much for putting your efforts in all of this, too.

Someone posted Gary Weber's experience here a while back and it stuck with me. So, this morning, I looked up his bio, and I enjoyed the read. Here is a one-time military fellow with a background of influences in monotheism, vedism, yoga, zen...and he had this experience he describes.

Here's a short section of what he practically experiences followed by the bio he puts online. Seriously, he's lived a "mainstream" life and he's also "gone" into something that --- conceptually! -- seems quite useful and wonderful to me:
[indent]In the second approach,…The “I” leaves center stage and plays a minor role, much like your senses. There is a permanent stillness with great clarity, energy, and a joyful, peaceful awareness. There is no feeling of there being something missing that could be added to improve it, or of it being possible to remove something to make it better. Thoughts fall away naturally out of lack of interest. This restructuring of the “I” does not make you non-functional, a common fear. On the contrary, a functional “i” remains which performs with higher capability. Tasks are accomplished as they emerge without attachment, fear or concern. Because the scattered, random, ceaseless thoughts, biases and agendas that previously filled your consciousness are gone, you are often the only person in the room who shows up 100%.[/indent]


[indent]Gary Weber: A short biography.


Biographies and personal histories are of intense interest to others. It is not clear whether knowing this information is of any real value or if it just adds more confusion, but it arises so often that it is easier to include one. It is important to remember that a biography is only one version of the story, always remembered incorrectly and from a highly subjective standpoint. Recent brain studies have shown that the brain does modify long-term memories, perhaps because it too gets bored with them.

All of these experiences happened to no one, and they ultimately mean nothing. The events and situations were created out of the control of an “I” and arose from nothingness and went into nothingness. An “I” was used as the subject here, rather than the standard third person approach like your mother wrote it, but both are equally incorrect. Attaching any importance, ownership, or personal causation to these chance remembrances is foolish.

As one of my Zen teachers, Toni Packer, said frequently, “Whatever happens to you is none of your business”. Or, as Rumi has said, “Your life is not your own”.

I was raised in a devout Methodist home and through early adolescence was involved in religious activities and even gave some religious talks. From early adolescence until late twenties, I lived a secular life with marriage, two children, undergraduate school, nuclear submarine service, and then graduate school. I did, however, at some deep level even as a kid, know that despite much conventional Christian teaching to the contrary, that it was possible for everyone to experience the consciousness of which Jesus spoke. I don’t know how I knew this, but I did.

Following a near-death experience in the military, I became intent on seeing if it was possible to gain an understanding that would somehow end my mental turmoil and confusion. I was also set on knowing the Truth, which didn’t look promising, as all I had known until then was certainly in question. I also burned to be “enlightened”, although I didn’t really know what that meant. I read all of the Eastern spiritual and philosophical books I could find. One day, while reading a book of Zen poetry that I had happened upon, I read the first line of what I would later discover was a famous poem, and the world fell away. I was in a space that was far beyond anything I had ever known. This was totally unexpected. I did not do drugs and had never heard of anything like this, and so was totally unprepared. Consequently, after something like an hour, the state passed. I was, however, left with a burning desire to return to whatever it was that had been there. As this had been a Zen book, I went intensely into Zen meditation. I then took up various yoga practices, at first so that I could sit longer and then later to work with the body and breath.

After finishing graduate school, I became a scientist at a national research laboratory, and then subsequently worked for over 25 years in a series of jobs in different industrial companies. To my great surprise, I eventually reached the level of a Senior Vice President in a large company and oversaw about 1000 employees and a $260MM budget.

Whenever I could, I studied with different yoga and Zen teachers and Eastern philosophers and took workshops and teachers’ training courses. As I had a family, the only real free time that was normally available for practice was early in the morning. I would normally get up several hours before work to meditate and do yoga. I would also meditate in the evenings and read spiritual books when I got the chance. Several times I taught yoga and meditation courses, but ultimately stopped because I knew that I really didn’t know the truth of spiritual practice.

My children were raised, went off to college, we moved many times, etc. There were many spiritual experiences, but nothing that was lasting or that ended the turmoil and confusion of my thoughts.

Somehow, I happened upon the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I began looking in the other direction, back inside at what it was that was doing all of these practices and causing all of this confusion. One day, realizing that enlightenment was impossible as long as there was an “I” insisting on being present for the exciting conclusion as well as keeping all of its attachments, I surrendered completely. Everything was surrendered, everything; my “self”, possessions, job, corner office, parking space, options, house, attachments, everything. I said deeply and sincerely from the bottom of my being, that I had to know the Truth, even if it cost my life. With that surrender, I could feel something shift.

Shortly afterwards, doing an asana that I had done thousands of times before, the “I” blew out like a candle in the wind, and a page turned. I went into the asana one way and came out transformed. Consciousness shifted completely and irrevocably. Thought stopped as a continuous activity and stillness and presence were there at a level I could never have imagined. I realized that I was not this body, nor these thoughts, but the undying consciousness behind them. I saw that everything was perfect just as it was and that everything was somehow inside me and was in fact, all One. Surprisingly, I also realized that everything was God.

Months later, the opportunity presented itself for some extended spiritual work. I did many silent retreats and visited Zen and yoga teachers in the U.S. and India to clarify and deepen this understanding. Some time later, I found myself in another complex, high-responsibility executive position in academia where I had little training or experience and was successful, even without an “I” doing things.

For several years, although others tried to convince me to begin teaching, I resisted as it just didn’t make any sense. Everyone and everything that I saw was me and it made no sense to teach an imaginary me what I already knew. There was no teacher and no one to teach. Finally, at the urging of fellow travelers, yoga teachers, and a Zen master, I began teaching again. What is taught comes from nowhere just as it arises (which makes class preparation really easy). It is a mystery how and why it all happens, a mystery.[/indent]

In posting this video of this woman being interviewed by this man, I appreciate their humorous and kind tone and their apparently sincere efforts to share something interesting and encouraging about her human condition.

Her bio states: "Then, in August 2003, she experienced a radical transformation of consciousness. Fear fell away from her, and she was immersed in a state of causeless joy that has never left her." She'd clearly like others to know they may be able to experience this freedom and joy.

It is a fun, simple, down-to-earth chat and enjoyable watch. People who are interested in AF and the "e-word" (awakening, realization, etc) may like it. She indicates that self naturally dissolved; that she had nothing to do with it.



My comments and purpose in presenting this have not been nor are a syncretic merger of any schools or outcomes, though.

If a person wants a certain outcome, then they probably do best to follow that school, curricula and related teacher(s).

Unless the teacher and curricula do require it, then one's own practice can either disregard others or regard other in an amicable non-reactive, receptive observation. Aka: friendly listening. Which can cause friendly sharing. Which can give rise to new collaborations.



To put another person's experience into a frame of one's own convenient syncretism ("yet another variation on spiritual enlightenment", "meditation", "x-experience" is the same as "4-experience" ) requires both effort and laziness: one is stepping outside of one's own curricula "x" to adjudicate another's experience "4" into one's own gross conceptual boxes and one is being undisciplined by not considering the other's experience in a detailed, fresh study/interview over time. [edit: though there are definitely very disciplined examples of work that results in accurate, temporary mergers of information. Some of the dialogue here is coming from a lot of personal discipline and effort trying to see the overlap/interface in outcomes]

Having done this myself, it's a repetitive action of mind that I don't recommend. To me there is tremendous value and reward potential in non-hostility and collaboration. This human mind is so clever and even more so when it collaborates endlessly with others, that it actually can find answers to anything and develop curiosity in anything.

For my part, where I have triggered defensiveness, I wholeheartedly apologize, Claudiu. It simply was not useful for me to reply to you saying that what you are doing is "self-righteous conceptualisation" of others. I think what you are doing, at least at the outset, is trying to caution against syncretism. Edit: Is this correct?

Thanks, Katy. I also apologize if I have triggered any defensiveness in you. I will be more careful with my words in the future, as it seems this thread took a much more productive turn when I explained myself in more detail/with more careful language.


In this thread, I am indeed trying to caution against syncretism, yes. I agree that it would be really nice if people interested in actual freedom and people interested in various forms of enlightenment like Jan's or Nikolai's (and even just those two seem quite different) could share notes and such sharing would lead both closer to their respective outcomes. Unfortunately, I don't see that as being possible because of the important differences I see between the different systems. I think that the paths, even though they share some of the same goals such as peace of mind, totally diverge at some point, and thus someone trying to go down both will be split down the middle and unable to proceed either way, which is what happened to me.

It is unfortunate because by the vary nature of what they are, this means there is a split or division... and that is what causes so much defensiveness and aggression. But one can't change the fact. When people begin trying to show that the paths are similar, then confusion ensues. And then when somebody attempts to point out that they are indeed different, defensiveness ensues on the parts of those who think they are the same. It is really pretty silly when it seems everybody would be much better off recognizing them as the two (or more) distinct things they are. (But again I see more similarities between Jan + Nikolai + Buddha than I do between them + Richard, which is why I had the tendency to say they are all 'the same'. That is a bit inaccurate though and apparently incites a lot of defensiveness so I will take a different approach/be more precise in the future.)

In another thread I might talk about the benefits I see of actual freedom vs. other things, but that is another topic entirely. This thread is a prerequisite, though... it's impossible to compare two paths if people think they are the same.

Hi Claudiu,

Claudiu:
I think what I triggered for myself, Claudiu, was a narrow view. I just should've stopped and spent some time considering why you were responding thusly. This is the value of ongoing education: it allows a person to think more broadly and from more points of view. So, I was ignorant and unskillful. When "syncretism" came to mind, I thought, "Wow. Why didn't I just think about why Claudiu was responding versus how?"


I think this is usefully said, because if you want to express that there are differences, then you've spoken of this as your own sight, "I see...". If you do keep the tendency to say "they are all the same" then you have personal understanding of what a person is doing who is syncretically merging their experience and AF.

Well, I think we do change the facts all the time, and, here, in my opinion, we're usefully and authentically changing the turn of this thread. I can't speak for you for sure, but I think neither of us started our current practices because we wanted skills in defense or aggression. On the contrary. So, I appreciate our ability to turn this usefully and sincerely. In one moment, to me, the whole thread looks figuratively like a long tanker that cannot turn in a narrow channel and in the next moment this turns like a pool intertube in calm, blue water. So, thank you Claudiu. To me, what we are doing here is a very practical skill for work, traffic, relationships, any problem-solving whatsoever.


Well, here I think many occurrences ensue. When I put this woman's video out there, I only knew this video of her and this fellow interviewer. I see it as encouraging and inspiring. The DhO has a wide range of influences, and so people arrive not necessarily in one tradition nor ready to commit to one method. At some point a person may decide to isolate themselves to one path. Whether a person decides to work a specific method or whether a person keeps openly searching their own experience of being, I think her experience is worth knowing and is cause for my own smiling.

[editx4: verb gerund to past tense, and two qualifiers including "to me" to be clear that this is my sense]

An essay from her site:

Katy,
Thanks again for posting the link to this teacher.
I've read several of her articles and though they are simple and short(or because of that) they have really hit a nerve in me. I have a tendency to over think things and her approach seems to work very well for me. My level of mindfulness/presence has dramatically increased since reading her, which has increased my happiness and peace. Somehow it makes it ok to just relax and allow myself to be present with what is, instead of "trying to focus" on the moment. I'm a "nose to the grind stone" sort of guy, which works ok when first starting meditation(and in many aspects of life) but it's just been a wall I keep hitting lately.
I've only watched a couple of her videos, but I have to say it's almost as if she went out of her way to find poor interviewers. The initial video you posted was interesting, but the next two I watched just disappointed me.
So...thanks for the post, it's had a very positive impact on my practice, which will hopefully continue. One of those right message, right time kind of things I suspect.

Metta,

Brian

Hi Brian -

Yeah, her words hit a useful note with me, too. I don't think I would have read her the same way a year ago. The five-part youtubery with Dr. Tucker and the Scotish boy also hit a note like never before. I kind of realized there's just continuously falling through to here, like rain: it's totally ok to let go.

I had a memory just now of some of backcountry trips with friends where there's just a major terrain slog and folks begin to get testy, "Who's idea was this?", "Orienteering fail!", "Frecking bugs and frecking orienteering fail...", "frecking matted hair...". Then, finally, camp is made: dinner, fire, stars, company.

So, cheers to all the effort everyone is making. Cheers to the challenges. Cheers to working together and alone.

Katy,
I can't seem to find a 5 part series, could I bother you to post a link if you get a chance



Thanks again, and Cheers to you!

Brian.

Hi Brian (which I keep spelling Brain),

Here is part 1 and from here you could link to the others. Jim Tucker, MD (UVA) comes in in video 2 from this link of video 1. From there, if you're interested you can check out his predecessor Ian Stevenson, MD.

Ok, bye for now.

Katy Steger;

I watched it, and I loved it. I understood exactly what she meant- the "we're all parts of the same whole- we're all essentially energy anyway" thing that she says is something I've taken as true for years- it's actually the concept behind "magick" in Witchcraft. Also, I can understand what they were both discussing about the "radio" in the background of our thoughts, and I now get that what has been holding me back a great deal has been my trying to suppress my inner radio, mostly without even realising that that is what I was doing, and that, now that I've stopped suppressing it, it has become easier to be happy in the moment, using the HAIETMOBA skills that Nikolai taught me. I don't consider myself on the "path" to enlightenment currently (I'm simply being happy in each moment), but I am still using the practices that I have learned as a way of life, because it increases my happiness. And I feel that, watching this video, I got a greater understanding of that happiness that I am fascilitating. So thankyou.
Once again, I am not claiming any attainments, so I cannot speak to the debate about whether what Jan Frazier has realized speaks to either of your paths, for I don't believe that I myself am enlightened, in any form of the word. But, what this woman spoke of, definitely fits the world that I exist in when I am at my happiest. And, maybe now, I can find a way to become happier. So, thank you very much for sharing this, Katy. For me, from my background, it was insightful towards my current goal, which is, quite simply, to find that happy part of me existing moment to moment, and to be able to see past the self-delusions. You rock, Katy!

Love and Happiness,

Jazzi

A significant portion of this thread resides at the following link. Please treat the posts at that link as if they were part of this thread, and not separate from it.

Claudiu,

You have selectively edited your new thread. Do Did you use your DhO-access as moderator to do this?

Hey Katy,

I used my moderator ability to split off the thread and move it.

I used no special ability to edit the first post I made in the new thread (anyone can do this). Modifying the title of the first post changes the thread title. I have no power to edit anybody else's posts.

- Claudiu

How is it that some posts made prior to your split did not arrive in your new thread?

It's an unfortunate consequence of the way DhO works. Anyone who replied to my first post (or a post replied to of that) was moved. If someone replied to your initial post, it wasn't moved. Luckily most of the posts that remained here were actually on the topic of Jan Frazier. I would like to move the ones that were relevant to that conversation and merge them but there is no way to do that as far as I know.

(EDIT: I indicated this issue in my announcement post: "Some posts here still refer to the split-off thread so one might want to take a look if the context doesn't make sense.")

Claudiu,


You are deciding what is relevant and not relevant to my thread and removing posts to your argumentative thread. You have used your moderator access to remove posts from here to another location for your own interests.

This shows the DhO welcomes moderation partial to the moderators self-interest.

In the same way it took a few people to make you aware that you were fabricating your own reality in this thread by misusing or misunderstanding other people's actual words...





and, finally, the closest you can come to saying that you incorrectly fabricated your personal reality in my actual words is merely stopping the loom for a bit, not admitting that your weave was totally yours...


...you continue to weave:

Your new thread offers no clarity of your goals, but you place people's names and words in the DhO Battleground, without clarity and without personal distance. Merely:


What would an unbiased moderator have done had you asked for a split-off?

So, you've created volatility with your false speech (about which speech you have admitted no fabrication on your part, just that you've ceased this story after a few people called you on it and that you'll be more 'careful') and you've created confusion by dividing comments out of their original thread and placing them in a new thread of your interests.

In your thread you fail to establish any purpose, any clarity.

You show that you do not at this time have the clarity of mind to know what you actually want to say. Thus you just remove posts from one thread (not your own) to another (your battle area) based on your interests. Lacking awareness of what you may build, you are breaking down other threads (in your capacity as moderator, something I thought was an impartial role).

Knowing you continue to misuse my participation and your moderator role for your own purposes and knowing you are unwilling to admit what you have done and that you only intend to be more careful (not more honest or self-aware) , I remove myself from the Dharma Overground.

If this is the Dharma Overground with your moderating effects, it becomes a murky place.

Katy, I'm afraid I don't see why what I did has caused you any alarm. This post is me trying to figure out what it is you don't like about my actions as a moderator.

The "Teachers" category is described as: "Here is place to post discussions about meditation teachers."
The "Dharma Battleground" category is described as: "Here is where high controversy and heated debate should happen with all the compassion, listening, clarification, passion for the truth and intelligence you can muster."

Can you indicate to me how the thread I split off was a discussion about the meditation teacher Jan Frazier, and not "high controversy" and "heated debate" that ended up having nothing at all to do with Jan Frazier (e.g. me and Nikolai comparing our experiences against the framework of Actualism)?

Can you indicate to me how me splitting the thread off is in my own self-interest?

Can you indicate to me what an "unbiased" moderator would have done if I had asked for a split-off?

Can you indicate to me how I've created confusion by dividing out comments from this thread to a separate thread in a category more relevant to their contents?

Is it that I left my own post intact here instead of just linking to the other thread? If so I will be more than glad to edit out my post in this thread so it does nothing but link to the other thread.

EDIT: All I was attempting to do was to leave the Jan Frazier-related posts in this thread, which I assumed you started to talk about Jan Frazier, and to put the non-Jan Frazier-related posts in another thread, as they are off-topic with regards to Jan Frazier.

EDIT 2: I've attempted to make the messages relating to the thread split explain my reasoning more clearly.

How about we wait until someone in the thread asks for it to be split off or else as a moderator ask the people to stay on topic. That would help with morale, me thinks.

DhO is great because people can say what they want to say directly without having someone else interpret it first. Its very easy to assume that we know where someone else is taking a line of thought, to predict, or to script how something is happening or will happen and people who communicate more will have their own personal one-on-one mode of communication that throw others off because they are new (this has happened many times on DhO!).

The role of a mod shouldn't be to regulate conversation or, as katie may feel this time, to derail it or split it off before it was done.

Shit happens. No blame on anyone here. Katy, I hope you make it back to DhO sometimes. I enjoyed your posts as does my dear friend who also visits.

Oliver

Does it always have to be done like this? I concur with her. I see why you split it off, but, if she initiated the post, and wants it intact and whole for her readers to have full comprehension, why not? What reason is there to take actual posts off a site, instead of doing a copy-paste so that they can remain on both sites?

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

PS- I may be a bit emotional, but all the info posted on this site by Katy has been honest, as well as personally helpful for me. I feel a lot of posts get changed and warped by this incredibly unnecessary and unfulfilling "battleground" that you all have, where you "unemotionally" yet quite passionately bash at each other incessantly, with neither side ever seeming to acquiesce or learn something. So Katy's simple posts were a breath of fresh air for me from that horrendous confusion.
I will be very "emotionally" sad to lose that educational repast that she represented on your site.

I suggest that you maintain the moderator's posterity and return posts to the thread in which they began, allow people to remove/move their threads as they see fit and that you actually split off a new thread beginning with your actual intention and let people respond as they will to your stated intentions/query. I see nothing in this thread I opened as battleground. You moved this in partiality to yourself.

If you cannot recuse yourself from acting as moderator in issues where you have battle, then the DhO loses impartial, trustworthy moderation.

Please start your own thread, your own opening post and restore this one to its original sequence of replies. People may remove and replace their comments as they like.

You are in no position to impartially moderate. If you wish to harvest comments to create your battle as quote material, none will stop you from acting as a DhO participant.

Yes, fair points.

Katy, I apologize for my moderation actions here, and I ask you not to let them here hinder your participation on the DhO. I would gladly undo the actions but unfortunately I do not think the platform DhO runs on supports thread merging (I have asked the other moderators and am awaiting their reply). Would you like me to at least revert the split-off thread's name and move it back to the "Teachers" category? Let me know if there is anything else I can do as a moderator.

I will go back to the "don't moderate unless someone asks" stance that I had taken before. In this case, I thought I had derailed the thread myself, and sought to correct that by moving what I saw as the derailed portion. But it is true, I should not act both as requester and executor, so in the future if I think moderating something I am participating in would be a good idea I will ask another moderator instead.

I have to agree here. Everything is related to your 1st post in this original thread of Katy's when you tried to divorce something she had written from your view of things.



I have to agree here too. You are not impartial but do have an agenda with the thread you broke off. You may argue otherwise but you do. Thus it is not impartial. Plus the 'debate' wasn't so 'heated' on this end. ;-)

You should have gotten Tommy or another moderator (not me obviously) to do it for you.

Sincerely,

Nick
Edit: I didn't see your last post. i agree as a fellow moderator that we can't be impartial in moderating a thread we are ourselves involved in heavily in some way.

Jazzie, Oliver, and Claudiu, [edit: Nick, you, too: I see your post came in while i replied]

I am grateful to everyone's participation on the DhO. It takes a lot to decide that the harmful mischief/ignorance/malice going on around one is not worth pursuing, and that is it worth staying in life and this very world and human body-mind to see "what is this enlightenment spoken of by Gotama and his followers?"and/or "What is the Actual Freedom spoken of by its founder?" and/or "What is the Great Spirit?" and/or "What is Grace?" and/or "What am I?" and/or "what crap actually has to happen and what crap is willfully made?"

These are the types of questions (an exhaustive list is impossible) that people ask and the answers for which people begin to earnestly work when the inane, willfully-made miseries of the world become apparent. People will make these efforts in areas they can trust for one reason or another.

Claudiu is welcome to his own practice his own way, but acting as moderator - if this site is to have integrity - requires an impartiality.

However, I'd appreciate if you, Claudiu, would remedy what you've done here under the access of the moderator, partially moderating for your interests.

Yes, I fully agree. I will no longer moderate threads where I am an active participant unless discussing it with the other moderators. That should have been obvious to me before!


Certainly. I am trying to see if I can merge the threads back, but I don't think I can... if I can't, what can I do that would be to your satisfaction? The only things that I am aware I can do that a non-moderator can't are:
- Delete any post
- Split a thread into two (as I have done with my post)
- Move a thread to another category (as I have moved the split-off thread)

I understand. I've done plenty, the mistakenness of which also should have been obvious to me before I acted.

Can you restore this thread to before your division with your access as moderator?

I don't think so, but I'll ask the other moderators to check.

If not, would you like me to do anything, with those abilities I have listed? I could, for example, edit the 'Thread Splitted' post to say nothing but "A significant portion of this thread is available at the following link:" in large text (so as not to be missed), then move the split-off thread back to the 'Teachers' category and re-name it to 'Jan Frazier (continued...)'... that seems the best I can do to 'merge' the threads without being able to rollback the changes or re-merge the threads.

Well, do report what you learn here. If I remember correctly, you code for a living and understand that you selected to spit the thread at a point, which takes code, and this can probably be undone. You've left out posts - including an OP, and placed me and others in an argumentative forum of your choosing. Please think of how you can remedy that.

Do not ask me to correct your problems. When I offered you "syncretism" to help bail you from your last problem (false speech) in this thread in a manner that would benefit your own thinking and give you an authentic, accurate course for developing your ideas, you made the problem bigger.

Does your practice fail in giving you skills to deal with the trouble you create from it, or are you not practicing?

If you are not practicing, what are you doing adjudicating what is and is not within your practice and its ultimate goal?

Within your practice are you taught a means to watch the arising and passing of your mental impulses without gratifying those impulses (by acting on them)? Or did your few days in Australia teach you that you should gratify all of your impulses in order to know how you are experiencing this moment of being alive.

Okay. Until I get a definitive answer, I have moved the other thread from the Dharma Battleground category back to the 'Teachers' category, and edited the posts to indicate as much as possible that the two threads are in fact one larger thread.

Hi Katy,



As a datapoint here, it's highly unlikely that the moderators have enough access to the system to be able to run any code of their own devising. Also, attempting changes of that type to a complex system without extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the system is generally not a good idea.



It looks to me like you are using this as an opportunity to bash Claudiu and his practice in a downright nasty way. How is Claudius practice of Actual Freedom supposed to give him the skills needed to merge threads on the DhO?

While it's probably true that Claudiu should not be moderating threads in which he himself is an active participant, I personally can certainly see where he was coming from with splitting the thread and I am having a hard time understanding how it provoked such a harsh response.

Metta,
Simon

Simon E-


If I jump into your threads Simon E and start misquoting you and others and moving people's posts around, is that ok or should I be accountable for my self-centered fabrications?

What is the value of this forum if you syncretically sweep honest accounting of Claudiu's actions into "bashing?" If you think I am being in a "downright nasty way" here, I regret that accountability for your own practice and your own actions - especially where they are intrusive and falsely based - has no room in your progress.

You fail to see that I sincerely attempted to help Claudiu at the outset offering him a way out of his confusion and he agreed with my offering. Yet he continued in a selfish vein. That this thread was changed is a small point, his honesty and the effects of his practice /non-practice being the important point.

I'll speak for myself: Claudiu is a man (I have met him in person and can attest to this despite his anonymity here) and if he pursued the progress of insight at all, he can well handle an honest accounting of his actions in an innocent forum even if he is not ready to make it for himself. The sooner he is willing to look at his motivations and impulses before he takes mistaken, self-centered, assumptive actions with other people/sentients as with himself, the sooner his actual practice begins and bears fruit.

edited: in color

Claudiu, solve the technical aspects of your creation as you like.

If it is yours are trivial actions not worth calling out, let your actions then freely guide the DhO; I have no problem with a decision to insert falsity and chaos into order and honest accounting; I can decide for myself if I would stick around for that:

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

Now for your posting habits, Claudiu 7/30/12 9:37: how are your actions falsifying and/or countering people's actual words and benign choices for themselves effecting benignity and felicity in your moment of being alive*? How are your actions not actually undermining the practice of your teacher? Do you have a deeply rooted antipathy towards actuality, benignity and felicity and his instructions in the Actualism practice?

You have yet to show remorse for your actions, only concern that you be more careful. If one continues to falsify people's own words for themselves and act against their benign and felicitous ways, then "carefulness" becomes just a tool for making wrong action more insidious.

This will lead to people guarding, pretending or not participating. I'll say that the DhO is opening people to something very useful and precious, not to be transgressed without sincere apology.


*for new readers, this refers to the actualist practice of asking oneself "How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?"

Katy, I think it's best you take a look at the reasons you are posting as well as attempting to correct my "confusion".


For example, when you brought up "syncretism", I initially thought you had sincerely gained a new understanding for my actions:

It seemed that you finally understood the reason I was pointing out why an actualist would not gain any benefit from watching Jan Frazier's video - which is all I sought to show when I made that first post of mine. I had no idea that your actual motivations were as follows:


That is, now it seems all you were attempting to do was bail me out from a confusion that you perceived.


Now it turns out that, at the same time you are insinuating I have a deeply rooted antipathy towards benignity and felicity...

... you yourself are actively wishing that I be hurt!

remorse: "A feeling of regret or sadness for doing wrong or sinning." Why do you want me to feel such a horrible emotion, Katy? You are actively being malevolent, here ("having or displaying ill will; wishing harm on others"). Is that not the opposite of benignity and felicity? Would it not be much easier and much more felicitous all-around if you simply pointed out I had made a mistake without feeling aggression, then I simply agreed that I made a mistake without feeling remorse, and then we moved on with our lives?

I wanted to show that an actualist would not gain any benefit from watching Jan Frazier's video. I sought to show this by showing that Jan Frazier was not actually free. The mistake I admit to is this: I conflated you thinking that the video would be of benefit to an actualist with you thinking Jan Frazier was actually free. In hindsight, this was an incorrect assumption, and it did indeed cause needless confusion. I could have made my point equally well without having ever made that assumption, and a lot of defensiveness and aggressiveness on both sides could have been avoided.

But it seems silly for me to feel remorse for having made that mistake, and even sillier for you to want me to feel remorse for having made that mistake. It is precisely this push and pull of humans within the human condition aggressing on others and trying to make them feel bad (and the other side feeling defensive and feeling bad as a result) that I am attempting to remedy by my practice. If your practice entails wishing that others feel remorseful, I want no part of it.


(Edits.)

Hi Katy,



Is a moderator splitting a thread a "self-centered fabrication"? I honestly don't see the ill-intent in Claudius actions that you seem to see so I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view.



I honestly don't think the value of this forum is changed at all by my post - I would however be curious to hear your view on the matter.

To try to be as honest as possible I have re-read your message to Claudiu a number of times now, and the tone still comes of as nasty to me. For example, your reply "Do not ask me to correct your problems" when Claudiu asked you if *he* could do anything comes of as mean spirited. Also, your comment "Does your practice fail in giving you skills to deal with the trouble you create from it, or are you not practicing?" also seems to fall into that category as it seems obvious to me that Claudiu both has a practice, and that that practice couldn't possibly help him deal with merging a thread on DhO.

I'll be the first to admit that my practice is lacking in many respects, though it seems somewhat hasty to draw conclusions about it based on the few lines I have written here.



Yepp, I do fail to see that.



I'm sure that Claudiu can handle an honest accounting of his actions, I don't agree that that is what you have given however.

Be that as it may, I wasn't intending to create a new back and forth argument in this thread, I simply felt that your assessment of Claudius actions was unfair and that your tone was unnecessarily harsh. Who knows, maybe it's all in my head.

Have a good evening,
Simon

Claudiu,

You willfully jumped into this thread and you did so choosing to falsely define what people were saying for themselves.

It took a few people pointing out to you that you were fabricating personal meanings for actual words which had nothing to do with your fabric.

As a means for your going forward in accuracy, I offered you the vocabulary of "syncretism", the name that could help you choose new form for your approach here, which you readily agreed to.

I also offered that I could have done - instead of calling you out on your continued, voluntary false speech, I shifted to my own practice: What if I had paid attention to why Claudiu was doing (willfully promoting wrong and impulsive speech as the second respondent in a benign thread) versus paying attention to his insistently fabricating speech?

Instead of riding the freedom of that moment of a new direction and convivial dialogue or exiting and starting your own thread on your new vocabulary (syncretism) you impulsively took your moderator access and removed my and other peoples' posts to a thread you created in an argumentative area of the DhO, assuming wrongly that your actions and your views underlying your actions were right for everyone.

You then expressed wonder that your abuse of moderator access should be alarming.

Again, it took a few people pointing out to you that you have asserted your personal fabrication of "what's right to do with these people's posts" for you to consider again, being more careful.

Now you continue to ask me how you can correct your problems.

And you'd like me to help you on your terms, finding some technical solution to your voluntarily and impulsively created troubles.

You have been in this forum for almost two years. If everyone maintained false speech and had the ability to misuse their access, this place would be a mess of broken threads and careful dishonesty.

You do not like reading that I suggest a remedy outside of your choices: that you apologize sincerely for your voluntary misuse of peoples words, your voluntary misuse of your position and the egoic basis of your actions in what was an otherwise benign and felicitous environment. That is still the solution I offer to you.

Then, you may consider doing your practice as your teacher instructs (e.g., HAIETMOBA) if you believe it is a viable path to your own benignity and felicity and freedom. Or you may act and advise people as you do.

Hey Katy,

I think there are a few more misunderstandings here that we could potentially clear up.


I agreed to it because it accurately described what I was already doing, not because it offered me a new direction. I thought that you had finally figured out what it is that I was doing. I did not need your help to figure out what it is I was doing... I knew already (preventing "syncretism").


Ah okay, then I misunderstood your intention in that post. I thought that you were saying that you finally understood what it is I was trying to do (prevent syncretism by pointing out differences between Jan Frazier's experience and an actual freedom), and that, in light of that new understanding, you understood why I conflated the fact that you thought Jan Frazier's video would help actualists (which it would not) with the fact that you thought Jan Frazier was actually free, and thus you were over the fact that I conflated those two things, because ultimately it was not an important part of the point I was trying to make, anyway (I would have spoken as I did even if I only ever referred to you thinking Jan Frazier's video would help an actualist and not at all to you thinking Jan Frazier was actually free).

But now I see you really had that point firmly in your mind the entire time and you continued (and continue to) wish me harm because if it (you want me to feel remorse for having done so).


It was not an impulse as I had been considering doing it for quite some time. The thread had been going off-topic for quite a while already.

I did indeed wrongly assume my actions were right for everyone.


From a scale of 1 to 10, I thought my action of moving it would be like a +1 or a +2 in benefit: keeping this thread on-topic (Jan Frazier), keeping the other thread on-topic (debate between different traditions), giving the other thread its own place (as a debate thread in the Battleground), and archival consistency (people interested in Jan Frazier could read this thread; people interested in debates could read the other thread). Now it turns out it was about a -8 or -9 for you. If I had known it would be that I would never have bothered. It was not and is not such an important matter to me, Katy. That is why it was so odd to me that you reacted as you did: a -8 or -9 intensity reaction to a +1 or +2 intensity action.


Yes, and oddly enough it wasn't by reading your post that I understood what your problem was, but those of Jasmine and Oliver. Maybe you can work on your communication skills?


This is another misunderstanding, Katy. This moderation issue is not my problem, it is your problem - you are the one that expressed dissatisfaction. Thus I asked what I could do as a moderator to help correct the issues you were having. Because you took offense to what I did as a moderator without asking you (splitting + moving the thread), I decided that this time, perhaps I should ask you what I can do instead of doing it right away (moving the thread + editing the connecting posts). The only reason I was moderating again was because you asked me to, so I thought I would figure out what I could do to your satisfaction by asking you, this time around. If you will read the posts carefully, I already thought of what to do before asking you, and then I went ahead and did that anyway. I just thought I would clear it up with you, first. What part of that is me asking you to correct my problems?


No, I'd like you to suggest to me what the best thing I could do for you is, given the technical limitations of the Liferay 5.2 platform, because there is nothing else I can do for you, as a moderator. EDIT: By that I meant to say, it is not 'my terms' that Liferay has these technical limitations. However, yes, I sought a technical solution to what I see as a technical problem (two threads are split when they should instead be merged).


As I said, I will not go about feeling bad just because somebody else wants me to. That is the human condition in action, and I seek to end it in myself. I have already sincerely acknowledged that I conflated your words, and that I took moderator action that was unnecessary and ended up being harmful. Why would you have me feel bad (apologize: "To make an apology"; apology: "An expression of remorse or regret for having said or done something that harmed another") on top of that?

If me feeling remorse would make you feel better, what does that say about you as a person - that you would delight in another's misery?

EDIT:

How would accepting your remedy of me feeling bad (feeling remorse) lead anyone towards actuality, benignity, and felicity?

- Claudiu

First, because he has split the threads, it is more time-comsuming to locate his replies. This creates an impediment.

In deciding for himself what is relevant and what is not, Claudiu acted on moving people's replies from a benignly opened thread to the DhO "Battlefield": where he felt my replies and others belonged. I did not agree to that. If he did not decide to do that on his own, who did? Such action snagging others without their say is self-centered.

Now, if you share a video of a teacher do you want anyone to move your posts into an argument area without your consultation?

Maybe neither you nor Claudiu are much concerned about this lack of care; use of aliases has benefits, but use of alias may influence how you view your communications also. How important and thoughtful are your posts if your words cannot ultimately connect you here to your actual life with your actual neighbors, friends, bosses, and so forth?

There is a useful and a harmful leeway in aliases.

What caused Claudiu to make false statements as the second entrant in a benign thread?
What caused Claudiu to misuse his moderator access and move people from a benign thread into an incomplete thread and an argumentative one?
If he is not responsible, then who is responsible for his entering and creating false ideas from actual words?
Who is responsible for the migration of posts from a benign thread to a "battleground" thread with no one's permission, just his impulse?


Indeed. "Syncretism" is not an everyday word. As I know Claudiu uses the dictionary, it occurred to me that he would look up the meaning of syncretism. So I asked him if his point in entering the thread was to caution about syncretism.

Claudiu, did you look up the meaning of syncretism?

I offered this word "syncretism" to him, seeing that a few people were showing his premise for entering this thread as wrong. To help him re-form his position here from one of personal fabrication (which caused his own false speech) to one of honest speech about an concept he could sincerely develop: caution towards syncretism.
I offered Claudiu the vocabulary of syncretism (since he could not himself, and he took to it) as a means to accurately move his protective-AF feelings into rational discussion.

Disregarding this freedom, he applied misconduct.

Now he asked for my help. I suggest again: just apologize.

Claudiu

Claudiu:



You entered a thread with your own agenda, fabricated a story that took a few people to clear up.
You made decisions to create a "battleground" out of this, that took a few people to clear up.

Now it is not your problem?

Claudiu:

This is useful to see. You hold yourself in superior regard to act and speak for others without their say. Superiority is based on a needy emotion, the need to control and act in everyone's right interests despite them [and without knowing everyone's own right interests].

Thus, the emotion of remorse - "a regret felt by you after you commit acts which are shameful ("wrong and foolish") behaviours" is probably a useful antidote; it avails the [emotionally needy] mind to an easy apology and release from its superior regard of self.

[edits: brackets]

Katy and Claudiu;

This is becoming quite out of hand. Granted, I am not Katy, and have no right to speak for her, Claudiu, but I appreciate your replacing of the threads into the Teachers forum as best you are able. I understand that you sought to reparate the wrongdoing which happened, and that does show growth.
Katy, I understand why you are angry. You placed a post that was meant to be quite harmless and reflective, and yet received the negative response that was opposite your intent when you posted. On top of that, to have the posts changed and warped into something by another member is not acceptable, when one should be allowed to, at least to some degree, have control over the purity of their own post, and the respect toward the other members who answered.
However, Claudiu has tried to find a solution. I felt an apologetic presence in his posts, after our complaints, and he tried to make reparations to you, and agreed to not act so hastily in the future. Perhaps there should, indeed, be more of a procedure to the splitting of threads; I know that, if I posted a thread and it was split thus without my consent, I would be angry. Maybe it should be considered a courtesy, or even a created regulation, to ask the person that originally took responsibility for the thread if it is all right to screw with it, and the intent of why they wish to do so, before a moderator removes any portions of a thread or post. But, in the meantime, Claudiu did what he could to repair the damage, and is continuing to look into it with the moderators. I believe it may be time to forgive him, or, if the issue runs deeper, to take this to the more private area of the messaging forum, so that you do not debase each other so publicly.

Now, I find this to be a very educational piece. It related well to my own practice, and I feel that it has assisted in grounding me in the past week since I watched Jan Frazier's video. It was very well done. This post has a great deal to contribute in lessons. I would like, very much, to discuss the concepts behind Jan Frazier's enlightenment, and her path. Did she study either in Buddhism or AF? Did she come across this on her own? What are both of your thoughts on how to rid oneself of anger and fear, as she claims she has. Do you feel it possible to have love, and happiness, without hate and anger? I read an awesome book by Thich Nhat Hanh, called "True Love", in a Buddhist perspective. In this book, he discusses the concept of acknowledging anger versus fighting it, and holding it in your arms with that acknowledgement, until it leaves of its own accord. "It is a sure thing, on condition that the energy of the mindfulness is really there, and, if you keep it up, concentration- and not only concentration but deep-looking- will also be there. You will be able to look deeply at the true nature of your anger. This discovery, this understanding, this wisdom, will liberate you from your pain." (p. 58, Hanh) When I saw this video, it brought this book to the forefront of my mind. Is it possible that they are, indeed, discussing the same practice? Is it possible that these methods can indeed free us from our more negative emotions? I feel that they have both helped in my growth, but I look forward to hearing the opinions of those that may have more experience on these paths. I will still say, however, that I felt that Jan was speaking directly to the Wiccan beliefs that I have been taught, which deal greatly with the concept of acceptance, and love, over all else in importance.

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

*Edited: word: import to importance, as it was of "import" to me that my message was stated more clearly.

HI Jazzie,

Thank you for your thoughts. I apologize that this sort of debate may be distressing.

I am not angry at Claudiu. He has been to my home and we've met or travelled together a couple times.

He failed to achieve his goal of self-liberation in the buddhist path he started here; now I engage him after he engages me (he volunteers for this and again entered this thread with his actions and volition). When he engages me - whether he avoids actuality and/or affronts benignity and felicity or whether he practices actuality I do not ignore him. Yet I do not police him in other threads. Here he has engaged me. He is not going to live forever and he clearly wants a freedom from his own personal presence ("self"), so when he engages me, in right action or wrong, I follow through with him. A lot of practice is wearing out the ego.

Further, his actions role model for others as he has been around here for a long time and he moderates.

I am not the one making all the fuss about it. You even threatened to leave the DhO because of my actions.

I've already done what I can from my end. Why do you continue to harp on it? People make mistakes, including me.


I do understand that, had I started a thread in the 'Dharma Battleground' category, you might not have participated. However, the sub-thread was already a "battleground" before I moved it. Are the following not examples of words which would be more appropriately categorized as "debate" versus "discussions about Jan Frazier"?









I could go on. Thus it was not me that created the "battleground" by moving the thread, but rather me and all the other participants having a debate that created the "battleground". My moving the thread did not alter the contents of that thread at all.


Hmm this doesn't seem accurate. I don't feel the need to act in what I think people's best interests are. I already listed my reasons for moving the thread. When I said "I did indeed wrongly assume my actions were right for everyone", it was more a carelessness - I simply could not conceive that such a big deal would be made out of this. So, I should have asked, first. Now I know. Why do you continue to harp on this and want me to feel bad about it?


Feeling remorseful would accomplish nothing. All it would do is cover-up whatever it was that caused the action that led to feeling remorse... in this case, the carelessness I mentioned. What happens with feeling remorse is that it then becomes okay for me to continue acting that way, because in the end, all I have to do is feel sufficiently bad and then the other person will forgive me and everything will be fine again... until another bout of the same-old starts again. By refusing to feel remorse, I no longer buy into that cycle. This makes it easier to actually look at what it is that would have prompted me to do the action, and not do it, instead. Also, by not needing to feel someone's forgiveness (which I would need to feel if I felt remorseful), I am free to not feel bad at another's whim... and that not feeling bad allows me to act more freely/in more beneficial ways than if I was feeling bad.

You brought up whether I was interested in benignity and felicity. All of these things (not feeling remorse; not needing to feel forgiven) do indeed lead to benignity and felicity... whereas what you suggest (feeling remorse) does not.

Like I said: why can't we just get on with our lives without you continuing to be malicious (wishing I would feel remorse) and without me feeling remorse?

Hi Katy,



If his intentions were to help the forum readers/thread participants, is the action still self-centered?



I'm curious how you yourself regard the tone of the above quoted lines, do you agree with my assessment or am I failing to hit the mark? The reply you wrote didn't really seem to deal with any specifics.

Metta,
Simon

I would leave any community that welcomes its moderators to be partial to their own interests and superior self regard. If that threatens you, that is your fear. To me, arrogance and such entitled action is the actual threat to others. Your arrogance thinking you know best for others also upholds this "self" you are so keen to be rid of.

You show the emotion of superior self regard and acting for others (without their consent) but shirk emotion of regret and action of apology.

Okay. What mistakes have you made in this thread and the other?

To you. You used your access to manipulate another person's thread, without their request nor consent. I willingly participate in areas where benign autonomy is practiced and safeguarded. I willingly leave those communities that thwart benign autonomy.

When you cannot make people do what you want in actual life off-line, how do you manage your sense superiority and its powerlessness?

Your move altered the thread significantly and you took control of people's own choices and actions and moved them into a "battleground" arena. What was "obvious" to you before as something that should not have been, seems to remain murky to you.

If this is the way the Dharma Overground is going to be run with your moderation, your actions will prevent the DhO's future as a safe practice area free of self-superior jostling by a biased moderator.

What does your feeling of superiority accomplish?

As you act in arrogance (superior self-regard that you think you know what's best to do with people's own words and actions) without admission of your foolish, voluntary, repeated wrongdoing, you attempt to cover-up your own superior self regard. No self-liberation comes from this self-suppression.

You engaged me, Claudiu.

You volunatarily came here and started making decisions for what people were meaning versus what they were saying. You voluntarily misused your access to move people's actions and words to a place convenient to you, in your superior self regard.

I do not follow you around and police your comments. You came here and created falseness and took authoritarian actions assuming (emotion) that you knew what was best for others.

Have you already given up on Actualism finding it easier to fabricate and manipulate other people's actions and words?

To own mistakes and not to repeat them, mistakes must be seen. The risk of repeating them then goes down.

You did come here voluntarily and you did engage me voluntarily. So, I do not ignore you.


____
Edit: using the dictionary, I have defined remorse for you. Lest you ignore it and insist I want for your sorrowful state of mind, here it is again: Thus, the emotion of remorse - "a regret felt by you after you commit acts which are shameful ("wrong and foolish") behaviours" is probably a useful antidote; it avails the [emotionally needy] mind to an easy apology and release from its superior regard of self
.
We take each other on an online community at our words. Until there is manipulation; this intention to speak false and to assert authoritarian moves based in self-superior regard impedes felicitous engagment. This intention will ruin safety of the DhO and may inspire doubt in those who think self-liberation/Actual Freedom is possible.

The perception of "nasty" is yours. You chose to use this name to evoke the form conveying "Highly unpleasant, esp. to the senses; physically nauseating" or some other form. I do not know your meaning here in calling me/my actions in responding to a man who entered a thread I started and engaged me voluntarily with false speech and misuse of his authority, but I know you have a right to name-and-form as you create it.



Intentions are self-centered: A thing intended; an aim or plan, a resolution. So, one has to ask is my intention skillful or unskillful, wholesome, unwholesome. ["What do I get out of this intention?" "What do I want from this intention?"]

We get to take each other at our words here. Until someone manipulates them.

[edit: brackets]

Nick,
Brings new meaning to flip-flops, haha! Couldn't resist, sorry.
They'd probably also do a great job of masking foot odour.

Metta, and smiles!

Brian.

He hasn't given up on Actualism but what he is doing (fabricating and manipulating other people's actions and words) IS the result of Actualism practice. The sense of superiority is also the result of Actualism. Whereas Claudiu figured it would be fun to pick apart on what he imagined was yet another claim that enlightenment is the same as Actualism, genitor used to 'have a ball' having such discussions.

Actualism practitioners have a tendency to get into such things. There hasn't been even one Actualism forum where people could discuss in a normal way. First, there was the Topica list which was closed. Then the Yahoo group was started and there is hardly that goes on there nowadays. Even on the "Virtual Convivium" Yahoo group, they had quite a discussion as to what and what can't be discussed there and after that, there is hardly that is going on there.

Disruption runs in the soul of Actualism. It is a joke that they talk about being happy and harmless. In actuality, what happens is 180 degree opposite to that. It stems from the genitor himself.

It is not a surprise to me that DhO is passing through such a disruptive phase. If nothing is done about this, then there is a chance that people will stop posting here and it will go in the direction where other Actualist forums have gone.

Hi Katy,



Yes, the perception of nasty is mine, as I was the one who wrote it. However I was, as I wrote, also curious about your perception of the same as can be seen in the quoted text. Sadly, your reply did not include an answer so it seems it will remain a mystery.

However, as this discussion does not seem to be leading anywhere, I withdraw both my question and participation from this thread.

Metta,
Simon

Hi Nicolai,

I'm sorry to say that I'm not getting the reference (unless you're insinuating that i have foot fungus, as the fish slipper image seems to originate from a Tolnaftate cream ad). But I'll interpret it as my line of questioning being unappreciated, so I will withdraw from the discussion.

Simon

Hi Simon,

Perceptions, perceptions, perceptions. You never entered my mind when it was posted. It was just a reminder to see if one was flip flopping about. I defined it before as in part, not getting on with the job of whatever objective your path has and delaying it to defend and validate it instead. It wasn't meant for you, however, if you 'are' flipflopping.....

Nick

Aha, my bad, I assumed it was directed at me specifically as it was a reply to one of my posts in the tree thing up top. Perhaps my guilty conscience not so subtle way of reminding me to stay out of threads like this online. It was a pair of nice looking fish though.

Metta and a good night,
Simon

Nik;

Personally, I thought that it was was a much nicer post than the ones being exchanged, and mildly more interesting. Who knows? As it made me giggle, it could have even been a satirical link to Jan, whose poor case is long forgotten...

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

HI Aman,

Well, I don't spend time thinking about the Australian trustman's ideas. SW and Tarin were very helpful to me, both in terms of turning my attention to the actual and in terms of useful support during a stressful time and in terms of engaging my debates and to see my words as actions. These two people also had developed meditation practices.

Regardless of the Australian trustman's ideas, Claudiu is looking for "liberation of self" and he has already given up on his efforts with meditation, and now he is testing this other camp. That's fine.

What I am concerned with, when he directly engages me as he has here, is this ultimate interest of his. There's not living forever in this state of interest for "freedom", so when he engages me, I don't ignore the ways in which he reaches out. It's also important to not placate him nor ignore his actual words: these are his own actions that he is voluntarily providing, thus these are terms of which he exactly wants to be engaged.

Sometimes a person is spending their time in forums creating disputes because they want to be proven wrong or they want to be challenged and test their conviction. They may want to provoke: is this all there is? Am I right? Am I wrong? This is a great use of using an alias or one's first name.

Such a person may have some dry insight about the nature of reality (or they may just really hold themselves to know everything). Dry insight can be very troubling. There is still a huge ego sitting there aghast at dry facts it determines: "no me, nothing else; all is recombinant matter, elements expanding and contracting, flowing and sticking, heating and cooling, becoming hard then soft"

In dry insight the mind is not gradually brought into increasing and actual pliablity; thus dry insight does not instill a natural wonder and safety. The dry insight practice may depend upon external safety and reassurances of the community.

So that is one of the values of meditation: the mind is becoming increasingly pliable in its enjoyment/exposure/experience of the actual limitless mind and that which occurs through the aggregate of consciousnesses (while supported by the other aggregates). This settles the body. The effect of meditation may be similar to how psychedelic drugs can help patients face death. A healthy person does not need to shoot themselves through a jarring drug experience; they can, if they want, enjoy the exploration of meditation and get a smoother ride through the limitless.

Exactly as the patients are in a controlled safe medical setting, a meditator benefits enormously from having a good teacher. If they lack this, it is normal to quit and seek instant gratifications elsewhere.

So, this thread may seem challenging, but it is dealing with exactly what Claudiu has put forward in word and actions after weeks of not being here and, after nearly two years, he still/now wants freedom, "[altruistic self-immolation, identity in toto to be extinct]", as the trustee would say. I do not see it as beneficial to not engage him when he initiates and working with him on what he presents to those he engages.

I cannot agree or disagree with you. This is your perception and you will keep hitting that mark (your assessment) so long as you target it.

_____________

I have had the pleasure of Claudiu's in-person company a few times. Because we are both practitioners, for me, there has been an enjoyable silence between us in person. Riding in car, sitting by a river, listening to a highway, pressing our ears to tile archways to hear sound commuting over the din of commuter traffic and announcements and diners.

On one occasion this past winter we were both standing outside of a grocery store in a mist-very fine rain. He pointed it out. In a brief moment we just acknowledged an exact moment in the wonder of being alive.


It is common to go through discursive ideological struggles on the path: "this is enlightenment, this is not, this is right, this is not." It is not old shoes that are being tossed out: there is a whole massive ego being worked through, steadily. If one is remaining quiet to these matters, it doesn't necessarily mean there is wisdom: it can mean fear/aversion to asserting/acknowledging oneself.


Sometimes insoluble fiber is used to scrap away the ego's junk, sometimes a laxative, sincere apology. There is no need to be offended by a natural process. If this type of dialogue gets one back to actual practice, to find native peace, the ability to be oneself and to be benign despite circumstance: ok.

Ok, I thought you really meant to leave this forum because of Claudiu's words and actions.

If the past is any indication about the future, AFers such words and actions have indeed led to either closure of forums or people leaving or not posting on them. The said trustee would also copy paste the conversation on to the trust site without permission from individuals and would edit them to his own selfish end. Those would not be deleted even at the request of someone who wanted them to be removed from the trust site.

One's own happiness comes first in Actualism in accordance with their belief system. If their belief system tells them that something will make them feel bad (for eg. feeling sorry for one's own actions), they will never do it. This is a narcissistic trait in Actualism. Another thing peculiar about Actualism which has been demonstrated here as well is that they start to think of themselves as superior to everyone else and then act accordingly to their own whims and fancies.

Hey Katy,

It seems we could go on forever like this, so I'll just be attempting to actively wrap it up in the next few posts and then I will withdraw from this whole shebang.

---


Your issue seems to be not that I won't see my mistakes, but that I won't feel regret for them.


How does that change the fact that you want for my sorrowful state of mind? You want me to feel "remorse", which you defined as "a regret felt by you after you commit acts which are shameful"... "regret" is indeed a sorrowful emotion ("regretful" - "Sorrowful about what has been lost or done."). So the fact remains: you want me to feel sorrow... put differently: you wish harm upon me. Even though you want me to be harmed for my own good (to avail the emotionally needy mind to an easy apology and release from its superior regard of self), you still want me to be harmed. Do you not see anything in that that is directly contrary to felicity and benignity?

---


I'm just curious about this one. Can you tell me how those things I quoted were "discussions about Jan Frazier"? I still don't see it.

---


Actually, several people have told me that they have gained confidence about an Actual Freedom by reading my words in this thread, and that they appreciated I pointed out the differences between Jan Frazier's experience and an actual freedom.

- Claudiu

Oh yes, I do really mean this. If Claudiu cannot determine that he will not keep meddling in threads, then yes, the forum
[indent]- loses a stability and order that is useful for training,
- loses impartial moderation,
- lends its name and others' names to immoderation[/indent]

So, I keep myself with Claudiu here while he engages me.

This contributes to fears people have in trying: first there are the rigors of self-introspection which fewer will approach if their efforts will be used against their consent for others' purposes; further, it reinforces developing an online identity separate from daily life.

Has this happened or is your reference use of "would" hypothetical?

Actualism is not my system, though I was helped quite a bit by Tarin's and Stefanie KD's actualist practices, so I can only evaluate it by the deeds of its practitioners.

This has happened as [x] specifically requested her part of conversation to be removed but were not.

If anyone sees their own mistakes, that is essential. If you do not regret falsely speaking and misusing your access authority, what is it that prevents you from repeating these actions?

I offered you the help of vocabulary to help you move from your false use of others words into a logical course of action because you were not identifying it yourself and you seemed unaware of some of the impulses you had at that point. I was quite willing to let your false speech go by if you could move on fairly.

Then you went on to take action in superior self regard (your words:"I did indeed wrongly assume my actions were right for everyone."). Then you vascillated on whether your actions were obviously breaching impartiality ("Yes, I fully agree. I will no longer moderate threads where I am an active participant unless discussing it with the other moderators. That should have been obvious to me before!") to trivializing your own action ("It was not and is not such an important matter to me, Katy. That is why it was so odd to me that you reacted as you did: a -8 or -9 intensity reaction to a +1 or +2 intensity action.")

If you'd like to frame your actions as "acceptable" by a man with authorized action, then surely you know that you open yourself to such treatment and lower the standards in which you have operated and benefitted

So, do you think it is proper for you to move people's actions to places they have not chosen to act?

At this point, I cannot understand how you will progress without seeing the harm in your current actions and speech and apologizing. However, at this point, I have to consider that this is your practice: false speech and misuse of access authority and inserting yourself argumentatively into others' dialogues.

At this point, however, you posts do seem to reflect your path practice and I do not understand the nature of the freedom you seek. Your practice that permits false speech and misuse of access authority seems like it will lead to the "freedom" that abuse of power leads to. I don't wish that for anyone.

People responded here as they saw fit. The onus is on you to understand why you felt self-superior to move people's actions into an argumentative area without their consent is harmful. The flow of the thread was just happening, unfurling.

Why didn't you split of the thread where you were and start a new one with your own clear direction, letting only those who actually wanted to reply reply? Did you suspect that you'd be alone in an argumentative thread of your own making unless you forced people's words into your frame of reference?

Good: this was the utility of providing you with vocabulary syncretism. This is where you can go with your own thread: spell out whatever differences you'd like. If you have to force others' words to come with you, your current path is preparing you for something other than benign, wondrous autonomy.

Okay: I do not know that forum or its rules. I do not know if that person entered another's forum and if the topic was dedicated all ready and this alias-called person entered another's offering.

Here I know that a benign post and experience was shared.


[edit: so I removed the alias you quoted here, too, so their identity need not travel further]

Sensibility, of course. You are saying that the only reason to not do anything is for fear of feeling bad as a result of doing it. That is how the human condition has been working for the past few thousand of years... and it has not led to peace on earth at all. It's actually remarkably silly. So: I won't feel bad, but I won't do it, because it is obviously not beneficial. Simple enough?


You're missing the point I was raising by asking that question, so I won't bring it up anymore. I was referring specifically to you wanting me to feel bad. That is the opposite of benevolence; rather, it is malevolence. Rhetorical question: Why are you relentlessly pursuing malevolence?


As a moderator, I might be asked to split off & move a thread by somebody else. I would then have to evaluate whether the thread would be better off being split and moved. If I think it would, this would entail moving the participants' words to a place they have not chosen to act. I don't see anything wrong with that; such is the nature of moderation. What I won't do in the future is moderate threads I have participated in. Simple enough?

About 'falsely speaking': Colloquially that might be termed 'a misunderstanding'. I am certainly glad not all misunderstandings lead to such exchanges as we have had, Katy.

---

I think that's about it for me for this exchange. It's up to you whether you want to leave the DhO or not. Best of luck either way.

Ok. Well, if sensibility keeps you from acting like this going forward, that's good. Perhaps your practice has such a tool and you overlooked it at the outset.


That is useful. Moderators mediate and mediation is conducted by an impartial party.

Of course. As you commit to proper use of your access as moderator, the forum's fair exchange between participants is upheld.


My best wishes to you, too, Claudiu.

AF practice leads to anything but sensibility. Even when [x] expressed it in plain words for people to not use her name in the Yahoo forum, the genitor of AF himself went ahead and named her at Yahoo forum! Not to mention that even after more than a decade of communicating with people, he has yet to get any sense of how to communicate. Non-standard usage of words is also common. "Pure intent" being one of them. If it is physical and an aspect of the universe itself, why use the word intent?

Hi Aman,

I do not seek to counter a man's system that is apparently helping people in part or in whole. Again, Tarin and Stefanie KD's own work and participation here were quite helpful to me.

So people may look to that example as information about whether they would engage with the man, his system, both or neither.

Okay. Now can we turn the conversation back to Jan Frazier's lack of anger and hate? I'd really like to learn.

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi


*Edited- Before I noticed that the fighting had stopped, the entire message was much more verbose. Now, however, that would be superfluous.

Totally. All are welcome. : ]
Afers, buddhists, theists, wiccan, etc..

Hello Jasmine.

Lack of anger and hate as in totally eliminated and never to return for the remainder of her life?

If so, could you, please, point me where she clearly states that?

Claudiu - lest I miss an opportunity to be clear with you and publically, I do not want you to feel badly.

You are right, in fact, on this point about "remorse" and "regret" in that they have meanings which I do not and did not intend for you. I come from a tradition of apology and lacking one I tend to think a person has no sense of what they have created and that they will continue. It is a habitual tendency, not a correct one or useful one per se. However, I do not need one from you and I certainly don't want you feeling bad, nor your sorrowful mindset. I do hope you succeed in your endeavor.

So, I in turn will work on harsh speech, learning still the hard way about it. I think there must be incredibly few uses for it. But I do not have nor have I had ill-will for you at any time. I tend to think that I am running out one's ego when they want to argue, but you are younger and it may just be exercising it (and my own). When I consider that no matter how you were engaging me here, had I been skillful and earnest in my own practice our engagement might have born different fruit. So, as you say for yourself, sensibly, I can only try to do better here.

[edit: and to the whole community who have experienced discomfort here, I apologize for my contribution to this. Going forward I welcome your advice when I am going too far and am blind to it.]


[Edit: I am adding this post now, because it occurred to me suddenly that you could actually believe that I or someone wants for your poor outcome/experience; when I consider you may truly believe this I have to step up and be quite clear, for your peace of mind as much as anyone's: I wish you the best in your effort and well-being.]

Steph S. was looking at dislike and ill-will this past winter. For myself here, it's pretty key to see aversion and dislike.

When a person is getting through the dukkha nanas, one of the hardest ideas to convey, in my opinion, is just sit with them in non-reactive receptive awareness. Follow the breath. It can be really hard for a person to do this for the first time. There can be a lot of tension in "not wanting to sit through thoughts and feelings", being averse to something.

But sitting with dukkha nanas allows a meditator to see the arising and passing away of hard thoughts and feelings without taking action, to see that equanimity can develop even and especially in stress/suffering/dukkha, to see causality and consequence of a feeling and thought, to see clearly the bodily tensions involved, and to see naturally arising gentle understanding for when one acts or other people act in dukkha nanas.

Gah, talk about missing something that should have been obvious to me.

So, I missed this entirely for myself here (despite insight arising on this exact point three weeks ago in sitting practice and two weeks ago in speaking directly with a teacher), that is the level at which I dislike misuse of authority: to just take a harsh, walled-off, harsh stance.

Aversion is totally ineffective engagement, in this way, refusing to let Claudiu pass through his own actions, that definitely has a potential to harm.

I can see this clearly in animal training: it is ridiculous and detrimental not to seize the soft, good moment where behaviours are starting to turn usefully. Very close attention to small good behaviours leads to incredibly light training and cooperation, fun and trust.

So, my own aversion to human misuses of authority, I've been quite blind and harsh here.

Again, non-reactive receptive (not aversive) awareness would have opened up any number of actions, among them cooperation or even benign silence, patience. Taking a breath. Some cues that I was going in the wrong direction were just tension and autopilot of my own since of righteousness.

Obviously some of the respondents were also trying to point this out in their own way. So, thank you Jazzie and Simon E and Claudiu for your efforts of this front.

I am not recounting this to be uselessly harsh to myself, but to provide an honest accounting with something I've myself done here, hoping that someone else will see the potential for harm in aversive actions. There is certainly a useful protective action in aversion - keeping one from confronting something before they can handle it - but at some point aversion has to be worked with. I am nooooo adept here.

For people using the MCTB book, there is a change to romanette page vii I would make: more caution, less excuse, for harsh speech. More can be said without it.

Hi katy,

Jan's talk which has been very useful over the last few days, especially the whole concept of suffering being a choice. All of these behaviours, reactions etc coming down to some moment of choice is very freeing. What happens if 'ill will' is seen in this light? that it is, to use a phrase Omega Point introduced to my lexicon; 'a mental posture'?

I didn't find your speech to be harsh, but you did obviously. So that 'posture' induces suffering in you, but why should it? I don't see anything sensible in being OK with abuses of authority (even if they are deemed in hindsight trivial - one should not throw out the baby etc...). The set of behaviours 'aversion to abuse of authority' could easily be quite useful if they were not causing suffering in you. Certainly the secret fantasy (not once I've stated it, doh!) of this being is to have those in power to be those who 'abhor abuses of authority' through their behaviour. Obviously I'm talking about functional abhorrence rather than an emotive one.

I appreciate the level of honesty you bring to this forum, and the approach you take. Hopefully you can suffer less and not loose that approach? (honesty)

HI Andrew -

Yes, there's a point here for sure. Realize a mistake, try to remedy it, apologize, move on. I am not committed to a mental posture of suffering.

However, I do see that I am not nor do I live in a world of enlightened beings. So whether I have a posture of suffering or not, I would be nincompoop not to see that I can easily cause suffering in others. Words are powerful. (Where's Tarver on this?!)

Look at how quickly this and other threads clear out when there is inane bickering between two parties? A lot of towns in the US are dealing right now with ground water contamination, and if community forums drop into this kind of bickering, then people go home, shut their doors and do actually take stressful postures: despair, anger, numbing, hoarding, depression, exhaustion, and so on.

For me, there is a disappointment in wasting pliable moments: to lose them due to inattention is one thing, but to manage pliable moments so poorly that trust in felicitous effort is hindered? Foolish.

The human mind is totally capable of greatness in any direction, but in order to act outside of its own immediate and/or conditioned interests it takes quite a bit of observation, self-study.

And yes, I find it particularly stressful when I take a good mind and others down a wrong path. It's important to develop nimbleness and readiness for a pliable, soft moment.

Like a lot of people I'm pretty willing to step up to abuse of authority and conceit and employ direct, exacting language, especially if I think it can jar a person out of their foolishness.

Here, though, I do see that Claudiu did, after a few people chimed in, start to soften his positions. Those soft, pliable moments are important to foster in my experience. If those moments are pushed or jerked, it can build a rut for that person, "Well, don't soften/be pliable/be willing to change again."

Yes, I agree and, further, I deem nothing in this thread to be trivial. Any person's individual power is just that, though the magnitude of a person's power can be small or large.

In the information age especially, one's actual action is rightly seen for what it is, because a person's reach can grow or shrink exponentially and/or suddenly. So, someone willing to misuse authority in a local forum can easily find themselves in a forum of greater magnitude and taking the same action, building a habit of abuse.

In my opinion, we are dealing with the larger magnitude issues of "what causes suffering" in a smaller-as-yet magnitude arena. Looking at the UN news yesterday and Syria was a huge under-acheivement of human capacity. I hope it's short-lived.

Ok, I get what you're saying. People do tell me this, that it is quite useful. As I happen to be one of those personalities that speaks up, it benefits me most to be more consistent on the skillful side...to be exacting but also pliable when a person is making the requesting shift in action.

...and aversion and opposition are different. In aversion there is limited basis for the arising of skillful action, because there's averted gaze and consequently there's delusion and ignorance of actualities as they change in any moment.

Oppositional points can arise usefully when based in attentive study. At this point in my practice, aversion is either lazy or an unchecked and unskillful habit. There is no reason not to look at events closely and patiently. To make an opposing stance based in sound observation rightly engenders support and confidence.

I can't see any good reason for not letting his pliability in thought just land. Admittedly, I thought his misused his first moment of pliability and assistance, but that was not reason to completely hound him on the next events. For example, though we are not domesticated/captive animals in training (this can be debated!), not supporting a sought-after change during animal training, no matter how small, is the worst mistake a person can make. Some changes happen in parts, very few happen in whole. It's really essential to support that if an animal is supposed to turn right and they only look to the right, then that "looking right" is the exact correct start. Looking right will become turning right with just patience, attention, timing, rest. Otherwise, one becomes dependent on force and force is definitely not enjoyable or sustainable.

So, there's quite a difference in being exacting and being exacting at the wrong time and without the gradual development that will naturally produce some degree of precision and accuracy. Traveling with friends in China once I was made aware of the huge importance of saving face, not cornering a person into their mistakes. However, I have to say, there was also a huge understanding of not wasting a life-line by furthering arrogant actions...

Yep. This is a tricky point. If someone is in power, cannot be contained and cannot experience the painful consequences of their actions and is not showing soft areas of change, then a person has to ask, "What do I want to do here to cause change, if anything?" However, such a person is not the case here. Claudiu did offer up changes after a few people pointed out his actions.

This evidence of group chiming in does elevate the importance of people acting in honesty, self-scrutinty, close attention and as a spontaneous group. Sometimes a person will not see a need to soften and change without at least reputational risk or the power of numbers.

All of this chat runs the risk of a tight and tidy perfectionism. Such utopia's are usually grounds for horrid dictatorships. I am not looking for my or anyone's perfection here, just nodding to the tremendous capacity of the mind, particularly when it is well-studied and clear.

Gah. Big order. It's surprising how quickly my own actions can boot me out of a long period of well-being.

Thanks. You, too, Andrew.

I really have never found a better, more efficient path than being candid about my mistakes. As a perk to what is momentarily hard or embarrassing, I've gotten to live and work in extraordinary parts of the world with extraordinary people. Effort attracts like effort.

My best teachers do not speak with "you" or "we" or in the imperative, rather they say, "I do" and "I've done", speaking for themselves in their own direct experience, successes and mistakes.



Thanks very much for working with me on this, Andrew.

Jan;

You are correct. She doesn't actually say anything specific about a lack of anger and hate; this is my interpretation of what she meant by the "love for everything, because it's really just self". that she stated, as well as her discussing "letting you feel the negative emotion," she mentioned that this causes that to lose its power, and you'll feel better, and "later on, you'll feel good no matter what anybody says" I interpreted to mean that she had a constant happiness. This interpretation is no doubt also influenced by my books that I am currently reading on the subject of internal acceptance, as well as my current goal, for complete happiness. If you had a different take on it, I would love to hear your perception.

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

Hi Jasmine,

nevermind, I've got the answer from the first message in this thread