Yes , it has to be..the actual world of actualism = empty world of Buddhism !
Its just that one is talking in negation(Buddhism) and the other in affirmation(Actualism)

My suspicion from a long time seems to be true..I admit , I do need a bit
more direct seeing , but here are excerpts from an article by Lama Zopa Rinpoche which
seems to confirm the core of it :-



The bold part above is what is the difference between the real world and the actual world as claimed in Actualism.



The bold part above is the ending of the emotional feeling "being" as claimed in Actualism.



The bold part above conveys the idea that the bell which is empty of self(Buddhism) = actual bell(Actualism)

The full article is here :- http://www.bodhicitta.net/emptiness.htm
(A real gem of a read..Highly recommended !)

No, even in only the quotes you provided, the Precious Guru Zopa amply demonstrates that he is not talking about the actual world.

Look, he says that there is nothing coming from the bell:That is, that absolutely nothing exists from the side of the object - its existence is entirely made up by your mind:He says it's a complete hallucination to say that there is a bell that exists! This is the complete opposite of the actual state of affairs, which is that if you are looking at a bell, the bell absolutely *does* exist, it *does* have inherent existence - that is, it's not empty - and when the affective faculty is totally gone, you have the direct experience of the actually existing bell.

To make the complete opposition of his views totally stark: he says the actual nature of the bell is that it *does not* actually exist, whereas in the actual world the actual nature of the bell is that it *does* actually exist.

Just because he happens to use the term "absence of the emotional I" does not mean he is describing the actual world. Read what he is actually saying. The Precious Guru Zopa is living in a delusion borne out of the illusion of being in the real world. Jayson actually recently described the progression really well - from real world to enlightenment, and how it differs from actuality - on the yahoo group (you have to make an account to view it but there's no restriction otherwise).

You have to read that article word by word to understand the whole thing. Its my bad that I posted
just a part of it. He is not denying the actual existence of sense inputs coming from the bell but what he
denies is the existence of a reality imposed on that sense input - aka - the labelling of the mind of the mind
about something that does not exist..our mind actually believes it to be 100% true that there is something
coming from the side of the bell and this is the bell that he says totally does not exist..

He clearly acknowledges that sense input are coming from that "valid base" as he calls it :-



He is saying that there is an actual mode of existence of the bell :-


He is talking about the hallucination imposed upon
the actual world when he says that there is no bell...the bell that he says as not existing is that part which the
mind takes as coming from the side of the actual bell.

Really Claudiu , this could be the thing that was missing..Once again I recommend reading that page word by word

1. Prove Buddhism = Actualism
2. ???
3. Profit!!

Here is more that proves that he is not denying the existance of sense objects but merely the way they appear :-





Buddhism is not equal to Actualism but here is where there is a common ground..and a large ground at that.
Not sure how you mean "profit" but I surely feel it will profit a lot of people wrt understanding things..atleast
it does for me.

Okay, I read it word for word, and I still think your interpretation is invalid, although I can see why you might interpret it that way. I will really ask you to read my reply word for word as well. I'm willing to go through this point-by-point with you as it is really important. Please consider what I wrote before replying with the first two or three things that come to you immediately after having read it. I'll summarize my understanding, then I'll address your latest two replies directly.

*

First of all, whenever he refers to objects' "actual mode of existence" or "objects in their nature", etc., he's referring to the fact that they don't inherently exist, rather, that they only exist by being labelled by the mind. That is, an objects' "actual mode of existence" is that it is only labelled by the mind. When he refers to objects being empty, he is referring to this same concept. I will put his use of the word "actual" in quotes as it has the opposite meaning as the way that word is used in actualism. Here is a quote demonstrating this:Here he is saying that 'emptiness' is the "actual" nature of all phenomena. And what is that? He says that everything that is experiences is just a name, and that names only come from the mind, not from the object itself. Not only that, but this is the *only* existence objects have. Thus all phenomena are *merely* labelled by the mind, not inherently existing in-and-of-themselves.

What does he mean by "in relation to their base"? Here he has to do some hand-waving to explain away some of the obvious mistakes of this view of the world. He says:What does he mean by "valid base"? This is the closest he comes to admitting that there are inherently existing objects in the universe. He says for an object to "actually" exist (that is, for it to exist *merely as a label in the mind* but for that label to not be a delusion), then the base has to have certain properties (e.g. for a thing labelled a "bell" by the mind to exist merely as a label in the mind and for it not to be a delusion, then the thing has to have a certain shape and it has to ring when you hit it). Further, other people and other enlightened people should also experience an object being labeled as a bell in their minds, otherwise if it's only in your mind but not in theirs then you are deluded. (In fact the experience of an enlightened person is one of the ultimate arbiters on whether an object has a valid base... which makes me wonder at the suttas that describe the Buddha talking to devas and such.) Further, the valid base has to not be invalidated by the "wisdom realizing emptiness", which he doesn't go into detail to explain so I won't mention that again.

I'll do a brief interlude into actualism here to compare the differences. With actualism, we start with the experience (a PCE) that there is an inherently-existing world - that an objects existence is *not* only in the minds of humans perceiving the objects, but that they exist in-and-of themselves. Now, most of the time, people cannot perceive these actual objects, because all sensory input is being filtered through their affective faculties, first. Thus there is no experience of the direct perception of objects that are inherently existing because normal people are once-removed from these objects. So, what Zopa is saying is true, up to this point - when we perceive an object with the affective faculty present, we don't perceive the object itself, but rather a distorted version of the object, and it is indeed incorrect to say that that (affectively distorted) object inherently exists, as we're not perceiving the inherently existing object. This is most obvious with feelings but all the senses are hindered as well.

However, here is where the two camps completely diverge. With actualism, one realizes - via one's own experience - that it is possible for the affective faculty to totally disappear! At first this is temporary, as in a PCE, but the end goal is its permanent disappearance, called actual freedom. The nub of it is that, far from people never being able to perceive an object itself - existence of the object coming from the side of the object itself, in Zopa's terms - when the affective faculty is gone, that is exactly what is experienced - the inherently-existing objects themselves! That is, you have the direct experience that objects actual natures are not that they only exist in your mind, not that they just exist as 'names', but that there is a physical universe that exists regardless of your perception of it and that there are objects in it that exist regardless of your perception of them.

This is the total opposite of what Zopa continues to say, namely that the "actual" existence of objects is that they *only* exist in your mind ("they are merely labelled by the mind"). He even states that it is a hallucination to say that objects exist outside of your mind, in-and-of themselves!That is, he's unequivocally stating that what I wrote in the above paragraph is a total hallucination that has no basis in facts.

He's not saying what is the case with actualism, that with regular experience you don't experience the bell itself but with the end goal (actual freedom) you do experience the bell itself. Rather, he's saying that with regular experience you believe yourself to be experiencing the bell, yet this is a delusion - you actually aren't, and with the end goal (enlightenment) you realize that you truly aren't.

In actualist terms, regular experience is an *illusion*, and it paves the way to the enlightened experience which is a *delusion*. This is because objects do inherently exist. With regular experience you don't perceive that directly, hence the *illusion*, yet with enlightenment you fully embrace the belief that objects don't inherently exist - hence it's a *delusion* borne of the initial *illusion*. It's the opposite direction! The enlightened experience is further removed from the fact that objects inherently exist than the regular experience is, as Zopa has so clearly demonstrated for us.

See the difference, yet?

*

That'll do for a summary, now let me address your replies directly with reference to the above.


He does mention a valid base, as I said above, but that's only to draw the distinction between things you experience in your own mind that others experience in theirs vs. things you experience in your own mind that others don't. He doesn't consider a valid base as being an inherently existing thing in-and-of itself. Further, after talking about the valid base, he stresses that it is a hallucination to consider, when you see anything, that it exists anywhere outside of the names created by your own mind.
.

If you finish the quote:That is, when he says "actual mode of existence" he is referring to the fact that the bell only exists as being labelled by the mind.
.

Yet that is precisely what is needed to become actually free - to tap into that capacity of your brain to perceive inherently-existing objects, that is, existence "coming from the side of the actual bell"... in actualist terminology, apperception. In Zopa's world-view, that quality of apperception is hallucination, delusion, ignorance, and the cause of all suffering. Again, the end goal that he is describing (Enlightenment) is such that you fully realize you *aren't* experiencing a bell from the side of the bell - that it's all in your mind.
.

Again, he is saying that "the way [objects] exist" is "being merely labelled by the mind". "Existence from [the objects] own side" is a "hallucination" - yet that is precisely what the experience of the actual world is like - existence from the objects own sides.

*

Again, please consider what I wrote above for a while before replying.

Regards,
- Claudiu

Hi Beo

It is important not to confuse emptiness and lack of inherent existence with total nothingness, zero. In Buddhist terms no inherent existence is meant as empty of any defining essence as in no fixed identity . All things are said to be in a state of impermanence, constantly changing and exists in dependence of 3 things -

their causes,
relationship with other objects, and
observation

Interesting mathematical equations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence - they describe potential for existence and the act of observation is linked to that potential becoming a value

cheers

Jeff

Indeed, this is a very important thing to discuss and I'm sure you may agree with what Jeff says - Nowhere is it
mentioned in Buddhism that emptiness equates total non-existance of the physical world.

But this topic has a subtle point which was really groundbreaking to me..so much so that I've used it for the past 2
days and the results are amazing..though with every other hundred insights I've had and forgotten , I'll have to
wait and see where it leads.



Isn't he right when he says that names only come from the mind and not from the object ? Are there names like "pen" "car" "temperature" actually existing in the actual world of actualism and they are coming from the side of the physical object and hitting us all the time ?



This is true for unawakened/not-AF people. Notice that he is not denying the existence of phenomena itself - this is
an extremely important distinction to understand.

[quoteWhat does he mean by "valid base"? This is the closest he comes to admitting that there are inherently existing objects in the universe. He says for an object to "actually" exist (that is, for it to exist *merely as a label in the mind* but for that label to not be a delusion), then the base has to have certain properties (e.g. for a thing labelled a "bell" by the mind to exist merely as a label in the mind and for it not to be a delusion, then the thing has to have a certain shape and it has to ring when you hit it).

You're right - this is indeed where he talks about the physical object's existence. When he uses the word "valid" it means
that it should have certain characteristics that make it distinct and recognizable and thus labelled as that particular
object. For instance a metallic golden object in the shape of a cone and that has a metallic thingy down there will be "valid"
to be recognized as the bell but not as an car..it is an invalid car but a valid bell.

The "base" part is where he is talking about the physical part of it.



This is similar to what Richard says something like "Of the 6 billion people on earth , only me and a hand-few are seeing
the actual world right now".



The whole confusion seems to be arising because of the way "in and of themselves" is used. Do you think that
the atoms of the monitor screen in front of you decided in and of themselves to come and stick together ? ofcourse not.
They came there because of causes and conditions and it is in this sense they do not exist in and of themselves.



Look , I'll take you again through the example of letter A that he gave.
There are 3 lines forming the letter A.
Nowhere does he say that these 3 lines do not exist.
These 3 lines in a particular arrangement form the valid base so that it can be labelled A.
The mind has labelled it as A after the sense input strikes.
We take this labelled A as something inherently existing in or on the valid base(the 3 lines)
and as if it is coming from that valid base itself. It is this part that totally does not exist and
not the sense input itself. - Do you clearly get this idea ?
From your replies it looks like you have not got this point. THIS is the subtle point I want to point out
here.
Right here , look at this A and tell me if this is not true - Dont you see
as something other than those three lines coming from those 3 lines and you
take that to be inherently existing in/on those three lines ? This is what unawakened/not-AF people do
with all sense inputs throughout the day..Its just that Richard is calling this as an act
of affective faculty/filter while the Lama is calling it as the negative imprints of reading
inherent existence coming from the side of the valid base itself.

ok, more continued..need to have breakfast in an actually empty stomach

No , this is not what he means by a valid base.
It is not to draw a distinction between other minds and your mind - it is to draw a distinction between
different physical objects.
Please consider my earlier reply on what is a valid base.
He is not saying that the valid base is a hallucination.
Nowhere is he saying that phenomena does not exist.
Nowhere is he saying that the valid base does not exist.
Nowhere is he saying that sense input does not exist.



Indeed and this cannot happen until the affective faculty / emotional I is done away with totally.
Nowhere has he talked about apperception (which I presume is the mind being aware of itself)
let alone it being a hallucination.
Yes , one stops seeing *that* bell from the side of the bell which was an extra thing that the mind took
to be inherently existing.

Its a classical case of one saying that the glass is empty of water(Buddhism) and other saying that there is
only a glass.(Actualism).
As to the question of whether the glass exists or not , we must be clear what exist itself means. In Buddhist
terms , exist is the sense faculty perceiving something. It is not the mind creating something in the mind(aka solipism)
As to the question of whether the glass exists when one is not looking at the glass - lets ask
the Lama ! My own take so far is that its an unanswerable question. Logically it does appear that
the glass ofcourse exists when I'm not looking at it but not everything logical is true (for instance when
we see the sun coming up , its logical to conclude that its moving but its the earth that actually moves).

Yet the actual world does not exist dependent on observation at all. Not in any way whatsoever.

Whether it does or not, the fact remains that Zopa was clearly stating that in one's experience, one cannot say that there is any sort of existence coming from the side of the objects themselves. Yet that experience of existence of objects coming from objects themselves is precisely the experience of apperception.


No, the names don't come from the objects themselves, but the sensory experience comes from the objects themselves. He confuses himself by thinking that the only way the mind perceives things is names, but that's not the case.


He does, though. He denies that any phenomena exists outside of the mind's perception of it.


How is that similar at all? Deva's do not actually exist. If you are talking with a God, you're going through some seriously trippy shit.


The monitor screen does exist in and of itself and it has nothing to do with whether I decided it exists or not.


On the contrary, he says it is a hallucination to say that the three lines exist in any way other than labels of the mind.

Yes indeed.

This part does exist, though, and that is evidenced in a PCE. Zopa says that that is delusion, though. It's not delusion - it's actuality - and if Zopa had any experience of actuality he wouldn't be saying the things he is.


Yet he clearly states that it is a hallucination to think that any sort of existence might come from the object itself. Yet objects do certainly exist, and one can grasp this existence of the object in a PCE.

(To be clear: by 'exist' I mean that, if all humans were to die right now, a given object that exists would continue to exist (e.g. a particular tree). Zopa claims that the only way an object exists is as a label given by the mind, though - that is, if there were no minds, there would be no objects.)


Yet *that* bell from the side of the bell is precisely the bell that inherently exists.


The glass certainly exists if you're not looking at it. Why would it not? Granted someone might smash it in which case it wouldn't, anymore.

It is not a question of whether you decide that monitor screen exists - its a question of whether those atoms in the monitor
screen have decided that. They are there because of causes and conditions..simple ?
Infact I strongly think that there is a sense of "entityfication" going on with actualists as if there is an entity inside
that atom - this is a subtle delusion that is hard to see.

For the last time I'm saying - Zopa is not denying the sense input coming from the object and you are again and again
saying that Zopa is saying that nothing is coming from the side of the object.
Here is more from what he says :-

Zopa :
"Starting with the subject, I, whatever we perceive in the course of a twenty-four hour day does not exist the way in which we believe. Think of everything we see during the course of one day; all the objects of form with which our eye sense comes into contact — shapes and colors, billions and billions of things wherever we look."

When he says "does not exist in the way" he is not saying it does not exist at all.
In the second bold part above , isn't it obvious that he is saying that sense input from objects are coming in contact ?



It is quite the opposite. If you and Richard can understand what he is trying to say , you wouldn't be saying this.



Trying to verify something when dead ? How actual will that be ?

Yes, they are there because they got there somehow. It involved the parts being manufactured from raw material, assembled, shipped to me, and me placing it, and the raw materials got there too somehow, etc. Can you further develop the point? I don't see what acknowledging that brings us yet. By the monitor existing 'in and of itself' I don't mean that even the tiniest pieces of the monitor acted according to some divine intelligence to arrange themselves that way. I mean that even the tiniest pieces exist regardless of whether anyone is looking at them, regardless of how they got there - and of course, they are constantly affected by everything around them.

*


Ah yes, I think I see the distinction you're making. Perhaps he isn't denying the existence of objects themselves, outside of perception. However, whenever he talks about how we perceive things, he says that whatever we see is *not* the object that exists (if there is one). Here's a quote starting from yours, slightly edited for brevity:
He says "what we see exists nowhere" - that what we see "does not exist in the supermarket". So he is saying that whatever we *perceive* does not exist at all. Here I suspect you will try to make the point that yes, he is talking about the deluded perception - what the normal person sees is not existence from the side of the object even though the normal person believes it is - and that the enlightened person sees things as they really are. But here is the difference, once again: with an actual freedom, the way things really are is inherently existing - existence coming from the side of the object - and that is your experience of the world - inherent existence. Yet, with the enlightenment Zopa is talking about, the way things really are is that whatever is perceived does not exist at all - and that is your experience of the world - emptiness:If you follow his teachings, you will never get to the point where your experience is that of existence coming from the side of the object, because that is what he calls delusion and the basis of all suffering.

Do you see the difference now?

*


My dead body would be quite actual, along with the tree it died near. I wouldn't be able to tell, though, because I'd be... well, dead.

---
[1] And again, just to make it perfectly obvious that when Zopa says "sense objects in their nature, the way they exist" he is referring to them being empty and existing only in name:That is, it is ignorance to believe there is a real bell over there, and wisdom to know that the bell exists only as a name, as a label in the mind.

I thought that you mean that somehow the atom has some sort of intelligence within itself to be wherever it is. Thats
why I made that point but I see now how you mean it.

Personally I consider it unanswerable to know whether something exists when one is not looking at it. I am not sure if the Buddha has talked anything about this particular question but maybe thats because in Buddhism it is a given that one has
to work with one's current experience regardless of whether it exists when one is looking at something or not and focus
on ending suffering. In short , it appears to me that Buddha would consider this irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering
while actualism claims that the atom does exist even when one is not looking at it.



Yes , he isn't denying the existance of objects themselves because he does talk about a "valid base" and also sense input
coming from the object.



The existance coming from the side of the object will be de-cloaked , it is not that he is saying that it will stop.
Do you think he wouldn't have made all this very simple by just saying that "Things dont exist" ? and he is
not saying that because he is not talking about nihilsm (which is what I think you are inferring I think)



Ofcourse it is ignorance to talk about something as existing when it is merely a label. The valid base exists but what
the ignorant mind reads does not exist in and on that valid base and unfortunately the ignorant mind thinks that it is coming from the valid base itself and thus thinks that it truly 100% exists.



and I do not need to answer that as I consider it irrelevant to know the answer to such questions..

He said "What we see does not exist in the supermarket or the department store. In reality, what we see exists nowhere." When what Zopa calls ignorance is dispelled, then so too is any notion that what you are seeing exists[1]. What is left is what is "actually" the case, according to Zopa: that what you are seeing exists nowhere[1]. How is that equivalent to an actual freedom?


But he is not saying that it's just the label that doesn't exist. He is saying that the entirety of what you are seeing doesn't exist[1]. Again: "What we see does not exist in the supermarket or the department store. In reality, what we see exists nowhere."

---
[1] To be clear, I understand the distinction between saying "what we see exists nowhere" and "objects exist nowhere". I am using the former meaning when I say the above - Zopa's meaning - which refers to perception and not necessarily to existence outside of perception.

I think there are two very simple themes here, with many variations on them.

In philosophical terms: Some people take an epistemological limitation (can't know anything directly without consciousness) and turn it into an ontological truth (nothing actually exists independently of consciousness). There are many forms of this. They vary in subtlety and complexity, but they're pretty much alike at root.

In practical terms: You can reduce the felt sense of separateness by making the boundaries between self and not-self seem less fixed and rigid, more fluid and permeable. (Teachings on Emptiness and big-C Consciousness do this). It can lead to more open, expansive modes of experience where the narrow, egocentric feelings don't dominate as much.

But that isn't actualism.

One of the reasons people hate actualism, or have such ambivalent feelings toward it, or have a desire to neutralise it by linking it with a preferred teaching, is because it pokes holes in their/our strategies for doing the above. Actualism lies outside that whole arena... and many people know it, and are enticed by it, but they (understandably) fear it (or perhaps resent it) at the same time.

Let's not forget the means of practice. Comparing results when both claim a non-dual perception (the elimination of object-subject, the elimination therefore of loneliness, separateness) could be indeed tempting to make ecumenisms and comparatives. But the thing here is: actualism works by minimizing both good and bad feelings in order to dilute all the feeling being until extinction. On the other hand, we have a route which focus on good feelings as antidotes to prepare the mind to finally actualize emptiness. Let's see a couple of examples from the same author Lama Zopa:



So, we need the suffering of other beings to get enlightened. Pretty perverse if you ask me. You need that suffering to fuel your compassion. And, obviously, without compassion one can't get enlightened, and compassion is the best:



Now, accompanying others in their suffering is not enough. I also have to feel bad for me!



Then, one realizes that suffering is horrible for everyone and then you have the responsibility to, with the power of your compassion, spread the truth to others:



And also you have the responsibility for the happiness of the others:



(All quotes from this book, and the last one from this other one)

Now, one can say that I'm quoting out of context and that those are just means of practice or that I'm only mentioning one kind of practices leaving behind others. Let's stay with the idea that in Tibetan Buddhism (which is practiced by this Lama) the practice of compassion and working for the happiness of all sentient beings (aka. bodhicitta) is pretty important, as the quoted phrases suggest and another story (from the first book) who tells a cute story explaining why Shakyamuni Buddha got this thing first than Maitreya[1].

Now, from that and using pure common sense, I can easily see that the jump from [almost no good/bad feelings (virtual freedom)] to actual freedom as described by the AFT, and the jump from [compassion/need to save the others (bodhiccita)] to actual freedom as described by the AFT is pretty different. How could it be that a heart so filled with feelings could be suddenly emptied? It seems clear to me that if I have the intention to get to the actual world I will take the path to the actual world, not others.

Here I'm not saying that Lama Zopa has not or can not realize emptiness as non-dual state. What I'm implying is that emptiness as a non-dual state can have some flavor of love and compassion (EDIT. and by this I mean a delusionary state, one constructed and experienced hallucinatorily from feelings), maybe like this ASC that Vineeto mentions:



Cheers,

Felipe

----
[1]

Yes , what un-awakened mind are seeing exists nowhere...it never did and never will...our every waking
moment goes on like this...this is what Actualism calls as the real world that not-AF people see every waking moment
and that does not exist..
when ignorance is removed , the valid base is seen in it's actual nature
but its just that the Lama would call that kind of seeing as an empty world while Actualism will call it the
actual world.
Again , one is talking in negation and other in affirmation.

Admitted that there are a lot of variants which are nonsensical in Buddhism , but here these might be interesting to hear :-

Brahmaviharas are not enough

Unsentimental Goodwill

Compassion is to Buddhism what pure intent is to Actualism.

I think Actualism falls short of the two fold emptiness of Buddhism. This is my understanding so far (still subject to change):

The real practice of 2 fold emptiness begins after achieving sensory clarity similar to that in the Actualist state. Then one is able to undertake deeper examination of the senses themselves.

- First it is seen that the senses occur seperately and the mind puts them together to construct an 'objective' reality.
- It can further be seen that time and space are imputed projections.
- Individual senses can be deconstructed eg. at the sense door touch is just one sensation.
- With further deconstruction it is apparent that there are no inherent characteristics to the senses



This leads to an altogether different way of experiencing reality.

The actual world is devoid of a psychic/emotional self, pristine and alive sensory reality. However there is still the assumption that the senses can see something real. There is still the sense that time and space are 'actually existing' not mere imputations of the mind.

The world of 2 fold emptiness is magical, and ephemeral. Time or space are not seen as inherently existing, but rather as imputations of the mind based on more base sensory perceptions, which in turn are empty of any characteristics. Samara and Nirvana are thus one and the same.

Some good stuff on deconstructing the actual world here...

I can see that with time as in time is just a concept that does not even exist in the first place - there are
only changes occurring actually.

However I'm unable to see the same thing with space - it is a given that space exists and although one can also call it
a mere label by the mind but there is something about space that inherently 'exists' and it is hard to see it as
an imputation of the mind. Can you elaborate a bit more on space ?

You might want to do Tarthang Tulku's Giant Body Exercise. It is given in the book Time, Space, and Knowledge.

http://shop.dharmapublishing.com/products/time-space-and-knowledge

Here is a video about it.

In the above video, in one sentence Ron Purser says "territorial notions of ego" which is what Actualists seem to be bound up in.

Thanks , I checked the video but I think some form of distinction between people is necessary
for convention and functioning.

I have agreed with Richard's claims on "universe experiencing itself" but its only later once in deep concentration
I realized that there is a subtle form of "entity-fication" going on wrt universe..Its a very very subtle one -
there is a lingering sense of universe being some sort of an "entity" - it is very very hard to see and break
this one..though as with every other insight , my understanding might change in future.

This can be seen by examining the senses even closer to the moment of sense contact.

If we examine the senses independently close to the moment of sense contact we can observe the following:

- Close to the moment of hearing the sound doesn't come from anywhere there is only loudness. Based on changes in loudness we impute where the sound is coming from. Otherwise there is nowhere, just changes in loudness.
- Close to the moment of seeing, the sight doesn't have any depth, the entire visual field is merely colors. Shapes and objects are imputed.
- Close to the moment of touch there are no different sensations in different places. This is relatively easy to experience,
( try this quick experiement.
- Taste and smell can also be experienced in the same way when experienced independently close to the moment of sense contact.
- Thought can be viewed as mental sounds and visuals.

In this manner it can be seen that the sense of space can be done away with for all the senses as we approach the moment of sense contact.

The mind imputes the notion of space, by combining the sensory data and analyzing it over a period of time.

This type of perception of time and space is sometimes called viewing the senses in their 'suchness'. Emptiness / primordial awareness is a couple of steps further still, right at the very moment of sense contact...


Note 1: To be able to view things in this way the practitioner needs to have a AF / PCE type centreless here regarding the body. The bodily tension caused by subconscious self referencing should have dropped away, and there should be high levels of sensory clarity.

Thanks , thats some awesome new stuff to test out !..and I never thought about checking sounds
and touch in this way. Need to churn it a bit more and see..

In what way is emptiness/primordial awareness a step further ?

You got it, man.

You are reading actualism into what Zopa is saying. Zopa never says that, once you become enlightened, then what you see are objects that inherently exist in the universe itself. Rather, he says that once you become enlightened, then you fully understand and realize that what you see does not exist anywhere. How is that the same thing as actualism?

By taking DZ's advice you will be going further and further away from the actual world. Both time and space do exist - they are actual things - so any state wherein time and space are seen not to exist has nothing to do with actualism or an actual freedom.

Yep, as I've been saying in this thread all along, the end goal of actualism - actual freedom - would be described as a delusion in buddhist terms.


Yep, and it won't be an actual freedom. Also note it is impossible to become actually free and then experience reality as you describe above because what you describe above depends on there being a psychic entity extant that usurps the senses and believes that what it is seeing does not exist.


Yet time and space do inherently exist (albeit time doesn't pass and space doesn't move). Indeed, neither samsara nor nirvana nor the world of 2-fold emptiness are the actual world.

It is not a case of what you see does not exist anywhere , but post-awakening what you *saw* did not exist to begin with..and for the final time - the Lama is nowhere denying the existence of the valid base. Have you considered this possibility ?

I dont want a bit of actual world if it does not lead to the end of suffering.

When the hands of the watch move , its the hand that moves not time. Time is neither mass nor energy , its
just an invented human concept that measures rate of change.

How is time actual ?

-------------
EDIT : added the first sentence to make my goal clear.

If you read my latest reply you'll see that I took the latter into account.

Please indicate to me where the Lama says that post-awakening you see inherently existing objects that exist exactly where you see them.

Time does not pass. When the hands of the watch move, it is indeed the hands that move and not time itself. But time is the arena in which they move. If there were no time then nothing would be able to change, just like if there were no space nothing would be able to move.

For a rough analogy: consider a 1m x 1m x 1m box. You have plenty of space to move a wineglass around in there. Now if you have a 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm box, there's less space to move the glass in. Now if you have no box at all, then you can't move the glass in it because there's literally no space to move the glass in around. Thus, if space did not inherently exist, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation because we wouldn't be able to exist. It is the same with time.

Not so. There is no psychic entity. The type of investigation I am suggesting would require an AF like state with no-self and very high sensory clarity as a prerequisite. I think Actualism takes things pretty far, just not far enough.

I think this stems from confusing Emptiness of characteristics that I am refering to here. With Emptiness as a canvas or inherent substrate that is the realization in some traditions. The primordial awarenss and emptiness of Buddism is easily confused with the Void or I AM realizations that are very commonly refered to as spiritual enlightenment in some circles. Richard makes the mistake of (confusing the two to be the same as well.

I made a picture to illustrate...


I AM ness invoves seeing the purity of the 'true self' contrasted with the lack of purity of the rest of experience. When they talk about the void or emptiness, they see this purity as a canvas in which phenomenon take place. This is very different from the buddhist shunyata realization.

Actualism's bare awareness, is empty of an inherent self. It shows that clinging to any notions of 'self' blocks the perception of vividness and purity that inherent in all sensory phenomenon. However it takes the phenomenon perceived by this bare selfless awareness to be inherently existing.

If we take the bare awareness of Actualism, and investigate it and deconstruct it. We get Suchness. What happens before bare awareness.

Then just at the cusp of perception we can see emptiness. This results in a sort of spontaneous realization that all phenomenon have always been empty even though there is form.

All phenomenon have always been empty of an inherent self, including emptiness itself. This is a sort of recognition.

Phenomenon are apparent, just not real in any sort of absolute way.



Hard to explain conceptually. But here's a shot...

So far I have been talking about getting closer to the moment of sense contact, and starting to see things in their suchness is a gateway to that. However in reality every moment of our experience is and has always been sense contact, there is no inherently gap between awareness and phenomenon.

All phenomenon we have ever experienced are empty, including emptiness itself.

This doesn't mean that we don't have functional uses for imputing space, time, and the laws of nature. It is just that these are mere imputations not a direct perceptions of an actually existing underlying reality.

Pehnomenon are apparent just not real.

It is implied from these lines that efforts should me made towards seeing the base and post-awakening , one starts seeing
the base all the time - in short , the actual world..its just that the Lama would still possibly talk of that kind of seeing as an empty world rather than the actual world.

It is the opposite - if there were no change , there will not time. When there is a change , we impute a concept
of time.

Would you disagree that he says that the ultimate nature of all phenomena is that they are empty? Would you disagree that, to him, enlightenment is equivalent to understanding the ultimate nature of all phenomena as being empty and experiencing them that way?

Yes, according to him ultimate nature of phenomena is empty of 'inherent existence' which was coming from the
side of the object and was taken to be true..this illusion cannot go away unless the emotional I is done away with..
after the illusion is done away with, the person continues to see with his direct perception the lack of that
false inherent existence coming from the side of the object and he will simply call this mode of seeing as empty..
this is talking in negation..do you agree to this ?

If you agree to this , can you incline yourself to see how actualism is calling that same mode of seeing, in affirmation,
as the actual world ?

Do you really see an A coming from the side of the A, rather than those 3 lines ? If you can, you do have illusions
to shatter. Personally , I do see an A coming from the side of A which I know is an illusion - there are only those
3 lines actually coming.

That is a good picture to illustrate what you are saying D Z. Also, that quote from Nagarjuna is very pertinent.

Yes, I agree. When one realizes for oneself what Zopa is talking about, then one's experience will be that there is no inherent existence coming from the side of the object.


No, because when one is actually free, one's experience is that there *is* inherent existence coming from the side of the object. Do you see how that is different? If not, can you explain why not?


When experiencing the actual world (in a PCE), then yes, I experience objects as inherently existing. If there is an A on a page, and I see the A, then I know that that A exists on that page in that particular arrangement. It would be silly to say there is no A there because there obviously is.

When not experiencing the actual world, I experience hints and glimpses that objects inherently exist (pure intent), yet I don't have the direct experience that they do because the affective faculty still extant in me is preventing that. Contemplating objects' inherent existence activates pure intent which brings me closer to actuality.

Ok , now do you agree that when he says 'inherent existance' he means that false extra thing and not the sense input itself ?
Do you really think that false extra thing(which Zopa calls as inherent existance) to be actually present in that valid base ?



I think I get the misunderstanding now. You are using 'inherent existance comig from the object' to mean that sense signal coming from the object, right ? The Zopa is using it to mean that false extra thing that the mind took to be 100% existing in that valid base.



Those 3 lines together is *called* A for convention but do you think that *called* A as inherently existing within those 3 lines ?



Although I don't believe in God , but dont you think this sort of contemplating is brainwashing yourself like how God believers do?
I mean people contemplating a God again and again eventually start seeing it as actually existing ? they just use
the word faith instead of pure intent and when they cannot see it totally they may call it lack of sufficent faith while
you are calling it lack of sufficient pure intent.
I dont mean they are identical , but its very similar.

When I say that an object inherently exists, I'm not talking about the sense signal happening in your experience. I mean that the object, in and of itself, even if there is nobody around to perceive it, even if there is no sense signal happening in any brain anywhere, does indeed exist.

This quality of objects inherently existing is unmistakably experienced in a PCE.

Yet precisely that quality of objects - that they inherently exist - that is exactly what Zopa says is a 'false extra thing', is it not?


If I call it an "A" or a "B" or nothing at all, it still exists, and I can tell 100% for certain it exists by apperceiving it, or, if not in a PCE, I can surmise it exists by virtue of being able to perceive it with my senses. The label is just a useful convention and that labeling capacity really has nothing to do with suffering. In fact it's quite useful in helping one go through the world and make sense of it.


It seems similar at first glance, but it isn't at all. Actually, contemplating God again and again to experience God is far more similar to meditating on emptiness again and again to experience an empty world than it is to contemplating objects' inherent existence to experience the actual world.

Nah , Zopa is not talking about 'inherent existence' in the way you say ( that even when you are not looking , it is there )
because nowhere has Zopa talked about existence/non-existence when not looking..he is using 'inherent existence'
as that 'false extra thing' which appears to be existing while looking at something.



It is not the labelling of this A or B but the specific labelling ( aka emotional I ) that he calls as the root of suffering..Just as
Zopa considers the elimination of this emotional I as the one thing to remove , so does Richard but he calls it the feeling
being..

Zopa


------------
EDIT : added Zopa's quote

Can you please rephrase your sentence? You've lost me. What do you mean by 'false extra thing'?

lol , its going on and on..I wish we all can find common grounds rather than uncommon grounds..peace on earth
happens when trying to find common grounds , not uncommon..although you may say there is no common ground..
anyhow , i resign..i think i will rather go practise

It's not going anywhere... but what might go somewhere is if you ask yourself (for private contemplation, not necessarily public discussion):

1) Why does this matter to me?

2) What would it mean to me if Richard and Zopa are talking about the same thing?

3) What would it mean to me if they are in fact distinctly different?

(And remember, you aren't alone in this; you aren't the first to have been bothered by this; you aren't the first to have tried to reconcile these things in ultimately unsatisfactory ways; you won't be the last; and it is a necessary process).

I would definitely prefer it if Zopa were talking about an actual freedom. That would be great. Unfortunately that's just not the case.

You might want to ask yourself, though: why are you so keen on actualism being equivalent to some sort of buddhism? What do you, personally, care? It's obvious you disagree with many of the things that are integral parts of actualism, so why not just drop it and go full-on with buddhism?

EDIT: Hah, I'll point out that I hadn't read John Wilde's post before making mine.

because anything that is common builds even more confidence to use that part of practise as that has been validated by two
schools of thought..



I still consider certain aspects of Actualism to be very useful and why should I drop it in that case ? Though yes , I am more
inclined to use Buddhism as the larger part of my practise and use parts of Actualism which are useful. I can certainly come back to Actualism later - which can possibly happen when I see far more widespread success..until then back to The Right View

Speaking of practice and success, and mainly if you are interested to reach an actual freedom with its respective absence of feelings of any kind, maybe you should also contemplate the example of the Dalai Lama, who should be a highly realized practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism...

Let's see the routine of the Dalai...



Let's see...

3.30-5.00 - 2 hours
6.00-8.30 - 2.5 hours
9.00-11.30 - 2.5 hours
6.30-8.30 - 2 hours

9 hours a day dedicated to Buddhist reading, meditation, prayers and postrations.

If we consider that 'His Holiness began his monastic education at the age of six' and he was born on 6 July 1935, and let's assume that his practice has been more or less like this for the rest of his life as a monk, then that's around 9 hours a day for the last 71 years. And yet, the Dalai says...



If you're considering the peace and happiness that brings the total absence of all feelings -incluiding anger- as the result of your practice, looking at this scenario of a pretty dedicated practitioner, it would seem that the Tibetan Buddhist case is a pretty long shot.

Just food for thought, I guess.

I'll re-ask one of John Wilde's questions, the one I find the most interesting: what would it mean for you if in fact what Richard is saying and what Zopa is saying are distinctly different? What would the implications be?

It could mean that Actualism does not lead to the end of suffering and I would never have anything to do with
Actualism again.

Hmm, that's interesting. Could we pursue this a bit?

From all the descriptions you have read about the experience of being actually free, what suffering do you think remains? Before answering that, could you also define what you mean by suffering?

Why would it mean actualism doesn't lead to the end of suffering? The fact of the matter is *every single person* on the DhO that has claimed a end of suffering in the sense we are discussing here has been someone who either practiced actualism(Tarin, Trent, Stefanie, Christian), practiced a actulism/buddhism hybrid(Nik) or were influenced/inspired/guided by actualism/actual freedom/AF (Jill).

If anything it would be the other way around........but hey maybe someday out of the millions of buddhist practitioners, one of them will actually get Fully Awakened and they will openly talk about it so we can compare notes............I wouldn’t hold my breath on that though……….

Also, where did you get the idea that Awakening in Buddhism involves losing the capacity for *all* emotions? That is not taught either in the scriptures nor by any acknowledged teacher(it's simply not taught by *anyone* as far as I can see). I know the idea of a emotionless freedom condition was introduced to the DhO by actualism but I do find it interesting to see what exactly makes one believe Buddhism leads to a non-affective/emotionless condition. I am aware of the suttas talking of uprooting fetters but the suttas never suggest that positive feelings are *eradicated*. You can ask any Buddhist scholar or well informed monk and they will assure you that Awakening in Buddhism has nothing to do with losing the capacity for all emotions.

Any kind of mental pain is suffering..however to know the full range of what that is , I have to first eliminate the gross ones..it is only then can know what are subtler forms of mental pains..and this is why The Right View is considered as the forerunner of all..It doesn't let you stop until you've eliminated all, though its possible one might be deluded about one's achievements...I do not have that kind of refined discernment yet to know what remains..so the idea is to eliminate the gross ones first and then go for the subtler ones and Right View helps in that..it is very recently I realized that
I had neglected Right Effort part of it and I'm using it with much more gusto now..

From all the descriptions I've read , I've found one of them most peculiar - Justine still cries
when he saw the photo of Richard and his daughter..there are many other instances like
him not wanting to live long(as an actualist you would want to live long..right?) and
sometimes getting nervous...are these not mental pain ?

..and he has been declared by Richard himself to be AF. There is a possibility of misjudgement
or is it possible that AF people can cry ? Do you think Richard can cry ? I'm curious.

Well, I've had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with Tarin and once I saw a tear fall down his check while sitting down by a river gazing at it. I said something like "an actual tear, huh?" and he said something like "oh, it's not a tear from emotions, just sensitivity from something in the air." He clarified that he never felt any sadness and had not cried since becoming actually free of the human condition. Another actually free person that I knew also said they never cried or felt sad. Some of what Justine writes certainly does not sound like what an actual freedom is from the AFT website nor from the other reports of the actually free.

Can you tell me what an emotion is ?
Do you consider a robot to be perfectly emotionless or an actually free person ?
AF people experience wonder and here is more about wonder :-

Wonder(emotion)

The point I'm trying to make is that there are certain things that are not clear when translations occur and
so a better thing to always consider is : Am I suffering ? in short The Right View is what is the forerunner.

If you are thinking that an Arahat is filled with love and feelings of compassion(where one suffers when another person suffers) then here please do listen to this :-

BrahmaViharas are not enough.

Unsentimental Goodwill

ha ! but remember that now Tarin , Trent , Nick, Jill are not AF according to Richard.

In my experience, everything=everything. Mystical traditions only seem disparate when those who practice them have not reached the core of their art. Different sides of a mountain can look quite disparate. I have not looked into Actualism with much depth, so I could certainly be very off, but I doubt it.

You would be right if Actualism were another mystical tradition. All mystical traditions do have remarkable similarities and I do think they are quite similar at their core. Actualism is not one of these, though.

Alright, then:
1) What are the gross forms of suffering you have eliminated in the past?
2) What are the subtler forms of suffering that are now gross to you yet were too subtle to see before you eliminated the ones in #1?


I don't fully understand the territory between newly free and fully free, to be honest. I don't know whether Richard misjudged Justine but he seems quite confident Justine has done it. Richard can't experience emotions, so he can't cry as a result of an emotion, but he's talked about laughing so hard that tears stream down his face.

S:Can you tell me what an emotion is ?

#Let’s stick with this as we are discussing actualism after all: “Emotion: A physical agitation or disturbance. Agitation of mind; strong mental feeling. Any of the natural instinctive affections of the mind (e.g. love, horror, pity) which come and go according to one’s personality, experiences, and bodily state; a mental feeling. Oxford Dictionary”

See http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/emotion.htm for more.

So you consider a robot to be perfectly emotionless or an actually free person ?

#As far as *emotions* or “affective feelings” there is no difference between a robot and a actually free person. However, as an actually free person is a sentient being there is of course a qualitative difference between the two.

S:AF people experience wonder and here is more about wonder :-

Wonder(emotion)

#This is a misunderstanding. Wonder as an *emotion/affective feeling* is not experienced by an actually free person. A practicing actualist will experience wonder as an emotion/affective feeling on the way to an actually freedom but once actually free that feeling will never arise again just like all other emotions/affective feelings. See Richard’s clarification(emphasis mine).

“RICHARD: Here is how I have described the *anhedonic actualism experience*:
• [Richard]: ‘To feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity. All the while is the *apperceptive wonder* that this marvellous paradise *actually exists* in all its vast array.

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-desire.htm


#By using the phrase apperceptive wonder(especially in context of the paragraph) Richard is being unambiguously clear that he is referring to a non-affective experience just like when use uses the terms actually caring and benevolence as non-affective qualities of the actual freedom experience in contrast to their affective counterparts of affective caring and compassion.

>S:The point I'm trying to make is that there are certain things that are not clear when translations occur and
so a better thing to always consider is : Am I suffering ? in short The Right View is what is the forerunner.

#I disagree. If one lacks the insight that all emotions/affective feelings are suffering at is all to easy to think that one can just try to get rid of the “bad”/negative ones(fear, anger) and keep the “good”/positive ones(goodwill, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, love). I think in over 2000 years of the history of Buddhism, if the actual point of it all was to snuff out *all* emotions/affective feelings then *someone* in the Buddhist world would be clearly writing/speaking about that. The fact is *no one* is doing that.

S:If you are thinking that an Arahat is filled with love and feelings of compassion(where one suffers when another person suffers) then here please do listen to this :-

BrahmaViharas are not enough.

Unsentimental Goodwill

#I have listened to most of Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s talks from 2000-2012(including the two above) and he *never* suggests awaking involves eliminating the capacity of the positive emotions like the BrahmaViharas. You can clear this up simply by writing him if you want. Here is his address for your convenience.

Mailing address:
Metta Forest Monastery
PO Box 1409
Valley Center, CA 92082 USA

Obviously stating that Full Awakening involves more than cultivating the BrahmaViharas in no way whatsoever even insinuates that a Fully Awakened one stops experiencing the BrahmaViharas.

S:ha ! but remember that now Tarin , Trent , Nick, Jill are not AF according to Richard.

#That is Richard’s *opinion* and he is free to have that opinion and like any human may be wrong in that opinion(ie if Tarin for example is free of the instinctual passions/actually free than he is so regardless of *anyone’s* opinion on the matter…..even his own”). Furthermore, I never stated I thought either Jill, Nik or Trent are “actually free”. Nonetheless my point was Trent and Tarin got where they claim to have got(ie the elimination of the instinctual passions/actual freedom) by using the actualism method(and not Buddhistic methods), Nik got to where he got(which is somewhat unclear) by a mix of actualism practice/buddhistic practice and Jill got where she got via actualism/actual freedom inspired practice via “vipassana”/busshistic practice.

Thanks Aaron and Beo. I do not have much time right now and in the entire coming week
but inshort here are some points :-

1. I do agree that Actualism is unlike other traditions but I do not agree yet that its the highest happiness possible.

2. As the positive is born out of the negative , so maybe once the negative is eliminated the positive also goes.
Maybe thats what happens with uprooting of fetters.
For instance Richard would call freedom from human condition
in short as freedom from malice and sorrow and he never called it freedom from love and compassion.
Maybe this is why in Buddhism they are only talking about the negatve fetters.

3. I dont buy the argument that when the fetter of ill-will is cutoff in Buddhism, it is only sublimated.

4. Personally speaking , for me the greatest relief I've ever got is the cutting of sakya-ditthi and I do obtain
relief by just inclining towards that.
Now the other grossest one that I can easily discern and is still remaining is ill-will and I'm working towards
it. It requires a good dose of Right Resolve and Right Effort.

ok , more later...I'm getting married this week..lets see what awakens after that

What about red apples or blue skies, what we see (AF and non AF) are representations dependent on the bandwidth the eyes work at.

I don't know if this will actually add to the conversation or not, but...

Eliminating emotions is not necessarily a good thing. Some folks have this vision that being completely logical and reason-driven (or perhaps robot-like) is the key to success and happiness. However, when we look at people who have had brain damage or at those who no longer have the ability to connect emotions to actions (such as is often found in those on the autism spectrum), they often show impaired decision making skills and other deficits. The reality is that we use emotions on a very basic level and they inform all of our actions, positively or not.

My take on it is that being mindful in the face of strong feelings is key. Eliminating them entirely is unwise and unrealistic.

The wavelengths of light that red apples and blue skies reflect actually exist, though, outside of any eye seeing them.

Yeah, this is why I don't recommend repressing or ignoring emotions, which some people mistakenly do when practicing actualism. This quote from Richard (the discoverer of an actual freedom and inventor of the actualism method) is particularly apt:

I would recommend reading more about actualism at the Actual Freedom Trust website if you are interested, as the distinction between repressing/ignoring/trying to get rid of emotions and ceasing 'being' entirely is a very important one.

Hi Beo,

I am not against existence that would be nihilism, but independent inherent existence of things, a fixed identity.

if that was the case then you could say the "I" has inherent existence as an object of the world

even wavelengths of light when examined are representations of photons which when examined are representations of quanta of energy and on and on - no inherent existence
and maybe this is what Zopa was getting at


cheers
Jeff

I do think that that's what Zopa was getting at, yet that is not what is actually the case - which is why what Zopa is saying is the opposite of what actualism is saying.

Wavelengths of light do have independent inherent existence. They are constantly changing, true, but as they are changing they also inherently exist. Exactly what Shashank said he didn't care about - whether things exist outside of his perception of them - that is what is important to grok in order to make sense of actualism: that they do.

This doesn't mean that 'I'/'me' in quotes exists in that same way, though. What 'I'/'me' in quotes indicates is the identity formed out of the affective faculty. However, I as this flesh and blood body, apperceptively aware, do actually exist, as an object of the world, and actual freedom is when that becomes permanently apparent by virtue of the affective faculty having been extirpated.

*

To elaborate a bit: What the affective faculty does is it prevents the direct experience of the world, which if we all had, we would not be debating any of this as it would all be obvious. Everything, including sensory signals, is filtered through it before we are conscious of whatever is perceived. Thus you get the impression that consciousness is something that happens and that you are looking at. You're not looking at a tree, rather, you're looking at a representation of the tree, in consciousness.

Here you can draw the wrong conclusion - that it's impossible to ever see a tree, that you only ever look at representations - and that's what Zopa has been saying. You get to the point where your experience is that of an empty world, that nothing you see inherently exists - and that's also what you were saying just now.

Yet a PCE shows you otherwise. The affective faculty goes in abeyance temporarily and you experience the fact that you are a physical thing, as is the tree, and that you as a physical thing are looking at the tree. You're no longer looking at a representation of a tree, in consciousness, but rather at the tree itself, with an additional awareness that you are conscious of all this. Consciousness becomes demystified.

It also becomes obvious that this experience of objects inherently existing is not a false veneer that you are pasting on as a result of an ASC, but rather, that you have been here all along in the inherently existing world (the actual world) and that it's only the affective faculty that was preventing that from being apparent.

*

Do you see how that's different than what Zopa is saying? And do you also see how what you are saying (that whatever you see are representations and that things don't independently inherently exist) contradicts the actually free experience?

- Claudiu

Beo,

I rid myself of the affective faculty a while ago using the methods outlined on the actual freedom website and have road tested it for over a year experiencing the world as it is (not claiming to be actually free as i dont know what that is) there is no belief one way or the other in inherent existence as I just dont know but as a physicist I have learn t/investigated the evidence that how we experience the world is as a representation due to how we are built biologically, for instance colour is an illusion. The more we investigate the less substantial the world appears. If you say that one part of a process that makes up an object has inherent existence then by that logic it could be argued that the "I/Me" has inherent existence which after all is part of a process that makes up an object. Once investigated we both know "I/Me" has no inherent existence

cheers
Jeff

Hey Jeff,

For the sake of clarity of communication, I'll point out that I think you're using some of the terms that are used in actualism a bit differently.

What is called an actual freedom is the result of the affective faculty being extirpated. So in your first sentence, you are effectively claiming an actual freedom. Yet, part of the experience of actual freedom is the experiential knowledge that the world inherently exists, so as you say you don't know one way or the other, you are effectively acknowledging that you are not actually free. There is a contradiction here, and it might come from you having a different understanding of what the affective faculty entails... What do you mean when you say you rid yourself of the affective faculty?

Regards,
- Claudiu

In buddhist terms, it is contradictory to say something is changing and inherently exist.
If it's changing it doesn't inherently exist.

When I say an object inherently exists, I mean that if, for example, every human instantly died on the planet, that object would still be there and it would still exist. It doesn't depend on the perception of a consciousness to exist.

Take this paper coffee cup I'm drinking from, for instance. It would be here and exist even if nobody were looking at it. Yet, if it were to stay here long enough, the coffee would seep through the paper and change the structure of the cup. Yet this entire process would happen even if nobody were looking at it happening. Matter is constantly changing and rearranging itself, yet it does indeed exist without humans having to perceive it.

Thus, in terms of what actually[1] happens, it is not contradictory at all to say that objects change and at the same time they inherently exist.

[1] wiktionary: In act or in fact; really; in truth; positively.

Yes, but in buddhist terms, inherent existence has another meaning. See here: http://kwelos.tripod.com/metaphysics/inherentexistence.htm

Also, taken from here


I am not arguing whether the world actualist see is the same buddhist see, I am just trying to point out a terminology problem.

Ah I see. Alright. As I clarified in my post, I meant that objects exist independent of whether a consciousness perceives them. Perhaps I won't use the word 'inherent' anymore.

Hi,

Yes. Emptiness is not nihilism. It is the idea that we don't see things as they are, ie. as concepts, as fixed entities, etc. Something like this is mentioned in actualism in that "I" as a feeling being subjectivizes experience with the filter of emotions and thus make or solidify, in buddhist terms, the objects of perception. This debate will benefit if someone clearly tells the differences between this quoted by John P:



And what Richard says here:



In other words, it seems superficially that both actualism and buddhism try to "remove the contours" of the objects we see in reality. Some see the contours in the objects; the others see them in the subjects (the intervention of affect).

The buddhist might say: that's a steak-burger only because we are ignorant of emptiness; with that ignorance, a burger is nothing but a fixed entity which we create when we assign it some value; so, in reality, there is no steak-burger because it is only a conglomerate of causes and conditions.

The actualist might say: that's a steak-burger but a steak-burger created by the subjectivization of my feelings in the process of its perception; without that subjectivization (an affective contamination), a steak-burger is just an actual/material steak-burger without any particular (emotional) value attached.

So, apparently, a buddhist, in these kinds of practices, tries to "remove the contours" based on the deconstruction of the object (to deconstruct its parts) and the actualist does the job by trying to remove the subject (to extirpate the part that subjectifies the objects).

My question then would be: are tibetan buddhists saying that, once one gets enlightened, one can see objects in their objectivity/actuality or, rather, they are saying that they become smart enough to not fall in the trap again (that the objects exist objectively)?

What is the scope of this "ignorance"? Do they 1) see through that ignorance when they live in this material world (they say "I see the trap but I will fall nevermore") or do they live in peace finally recognizing the objects around them as they actually are?

Sorry if this is not clear. It's difficult to put it into words.

And while the topic of Emptiness is being discussed I would like to share an article by "rizenfenix". Emptiness means dependent origination, it means nothing has independent existence on its own side of things... however it does not subsume phenomena into an absolute subjectivity (such as Kashmir Shaivism, Advaita Vedanta etc), and in emptiness the objective inherent existence of things is also refuted as everything is dependently arisen and empty of any reality that can be pinned down - whether as subjects/self or as objects.

We attribute what we sense into objectively existing attributes when in fact, all such attributes as experienced have dependently arisen - for example many animals experience no colours. As a matter of fact colours are human experiences dependently arisen, not just colours but generally any sense experience as well - what may feel like heat to you may very well feel like coldness to another being, etc.

Emptiness of Buddhism has nothing to do with subsuming objectivity into some some ultimate divine mind or subjectivity (there is really no mind or self apart from dependently arisen thoughts and experiences which are unique for each sentient being), it just means experiences does not denote some inherently existing attributes of objects. When we investigate the core essence of phenomena, we discover its unfindability - of any core or substance apart from the dependently arisen display, that is like a magical display without an origin, place of abidance, or somewhere 'it' goes to (as there isn't any inherently existing 'itness' of it or 'redness' of a 'flower').

i.e.

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

An object is seen by a hundred different people like a hundred reflections in a hundred mirrors. But is it the same object? As a first approximation, it’s the same object, but one that can be perceived in completely different ways by different beings. Only one who has attained enlightenment recognizes the object’s ultimate nature – that it appears, but is devoid of any intrinsic existence – as the direct contemplation of absolute truth transcends any intellectual concept, any duality between subject and object.

Buddhism’s position is that of the ‘Middle Way: the world isn’t a projection of our minds, but it isn’t totally independent of our minds, either – because it makes no sense to speak of a particular, fixed reality independent of any concept, mental process, or observer. Rather there is interdependence. In this manner, Buddhism avoids falling into either nihilism or eternalism. Phenomena arise through a process of interdependent causes and conditions, but nothing exists in itself or by itself.

Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it.

Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way.

That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.

Actually it would be more accurate to say that Buddhism deconstructs both subject and object by means of deconstructive realization into the lack of inherent core or essence (both a subjective self/agent, and objective existence), while actualist removes the subjectficiation through self-immolation or getting rid of the sense of self, and then holds objectivity to be absolute and having inherent existence. The view is therefore not the same. The emphasis on practice (apart from bare attention on phenomena which is common to buddhism and actualism) and contemplation is also not the same: Actualism does not teach deconstructive contemplation and realization but to attain a state where any sense of self is eliminated i.e. 'self-immolation', that is stressing more on experience.

However direct realization of anatta (the firstfold emptiness) in Buddhism does lead to direct, intimate, gapless experience of 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard', devoid of any sense of self/Self, (which I see as similar to PCE but digress) and furthermore is self-releasing. The secondfold emptiness further penetrates into the emptiness of all objects and leads to the illusion-like perception of everything and every perception, though vivid and luminous/cognizant/alive is nevertheless empty and self-releasing.

It is important to note that direct realization of anatta means directly realizing that there never was any agent, self, perceiver, etc apart from perception, activities. So 'suffering is, never a sufferer' - this means anatta is a dharma seal, it must be realized to be what is always already the case, and not a state of experience. There is either a stream of ignorance or a stream of wisdom, neither case was there a self/Self. There can be sense of self, of course there is no denial of that, but in anatta we realize there never was a true self or agent apart from the aggregates and elements. Actualism never talks about realizing anatta as a dharma seal, a realization of what is always the case, but it is more like "remove the feeler and the feelings go" - in that case it would be merely removing the sense of self but not realizing that there never was a feeler apart from feelings, sufferer apart from suffering, or knower apart from known. That is to place emphasis on absence of self/Self as an experience rather than as an insight into the right view of anatta and sunyata. But anyway, even anatta is only part of the story... there is the secondfold emptiness.

In any case... Self-immolation is not the same as realizing anatta in Buddhism. Realizing anatta and then stabilizing this insight will lead to the removal of the sense of self/Self, but we see that removal of the sense of self/Self to be a mere effect of insight so it is a different emphasis, instead of trying to get locked into a particular primordial state of experience of the universe treated as inherent and absolute (that is stressing on experience). We do not focus on experience but deal with the fundamental ignorance or wrong view by realization, and when that ignorance or wrong view is gone, then naturally there is no more sense of self/Self and any conceiving of subject and object - but this is a mere result of insight and not the focus, since we see sense of self/Self for example as a direct result of ignorance.

Buddhism stresses more on realization of right view, right view in the sense as explained here (but understanding right view is not the same as experientially realizing this right view): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/06/eternalism-nihilism-and-middle-way.html

And as the Vajira Sutta states:

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."

Hi, AEN,

Thanks for the answer.

AEN:



If the Buddha teaches suffering, its origin and its cessation, why would you keep going after the realization of anatta, which, according to you, will leave you devoid of any sense of self/Self (therefore, equal to an actual freedom)? Are you saying that there's still suffering after such realization? If so, how could that be the case? How can you then affirm that you're completely "devoid of any sense of self/Self" if there's "someone" in there experiencing such suffering?

If no, why else? Bodhiccita?

Actual freedom does not fit anywhere into AEN's model. In particular, realization of anatta is not equal to an actual freedom. One simple reason is this: once you realize anatta, you can go on to see that nothing perceived inherently exists[1], yet if you are actually free, this is impossible to do (to experience the world as anything other than what it actually[2] is: inherently existing[1]).

I am curious to hear his answers to your questions, though.

---
[1] that is, not dependent on any consciousness perceiving it, as AEN described in his "2/7/13 3:31 AM" post.
[2] wiktionary: In act or in fact; really; in truth; positively.

No, there is no one suffering... that's the point... there has never been a sufferer that is experiencing suffering, just suffering arising and ceasing. Ignorance drives the chain of suffering, and wisdom/insight can end suffering. In either case, there has never been a self... either a stream of ignorance or a stream of wisdom rolls on. And this is to be realized as having always been the case.

Mental afflictions can dwindle or disappear after insight but to what degree and extent would very much depend on the individual's practise. E.g. all of the four fetter model stages attainers from sotapanna to arahants attained some insight but not all have completely eliminated all traces.

One has to be very honest of course, to check if traces continue to manifest as grasping, tension in the body, etc. Scanning the body helps - to sense and release these grasping or contractions, if they manifest. It doesn't help to lie and pretend that one is completely open beyond all grasping and afflictions when they still manifest.

As for why the importance of secondfold emptiness after the emptying of self/Self, I would say that it is a progression to eliminate the subtle reification and grasping that remains that clings at objectivity or the subtle effort to get grounded in a here/now actual world etc. Something I mentioned in my previous posts. Anyway that's just my experience of things I'm not speaking for anyone.

Also, as Thusness wrote in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/06/advise-for-taiyaki.html

Hi, Claudiu,

I guess I don't get this:

AEN:


And then:

AEN:


He's saying that anatta is not the same as Self-immolation but, at the same time, realizing anatta will eventually lead to the removal of the sense of self (even tho is not the final objective, and it comes as a "mere effect"). In other words he's saying that Self-immolation (aka actual freedom) is included (and is realized) as a part (a step, a effect, a experience, whatever) of his model, no?

Just like to clarify: both consciousness and matter are both empty... so emptiness of the world does not exactly mean "the world does not exist apart from consciousness", it is that the world is a mere convention for phenomena which dependently originates, and whatever dependently originates is empty of some substantial core that can be pinned down. Matter and consciousness can be conventionally distinguished if you like, but only as mere conventions*.

There is no subsuming of world into subjective consciousness involved. First of all consciousness in emptiness or even anatta is realized to not be a standalone entity or substratum or some "One Unchanging Consciousness", but a stream of six consciousness that manifests moment by moment dependent on each sense faculty and sense object (in secondfold emptiness even these elements are realized to be empty of independent existence).

Nor do we say "only consciousness exist" nor suscribe to any solipsistic understanding nor an overarching consciousness containing the world (each person is still conventionally a distinct and unique mind/body stream without an ultimate source and not subsumed into being the expressions of some overarching, universal Being/Consciousnesss). Emptiness teachings is thus different from "awareness teachings" of Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism etc, nor even Yogacara which analyzes matter to be consciousness (but Yogacara is not Advaita for two reasons: it does not posit an over-arching cosmic consciousness, and teaches consciousness to be an impermanent stream).

Seeing the secondfold emptiness does not lead to the sense that 'everything is without objective existence and is mere expression of subjective Consciousness ("One Mind")' but that 'everything being vividly manifest is however without a substantial/inherent core, essence, and thus a magical display of interdependent origination'.


*Something I wrote weeks ago in an Emptiness FB group: "Conventions are the conventionally agreed labels/designations, but ultimately empty of reality. Like the word "weather" is a convention doesn't really point to a substantial reality anywhere but is a mere word collating the ever changing rain, wind, clouds, etc, etc... Sentient beings misconceive conventions to point to real things due to ignorance of the true nature of everything and a false framework or view of duality and inherent existence, while the wise who realizes emptiness simply uses words like "self" or "weather" for easy communication but does not conceive them to be real. Emptiness does not erase the myriad appearances or reduce them into oneness or a nothing, but simply point out their insubstantiality, without core of substance, yet appearing as the manifold like a magic display, and awe inspiring it is indeed!"

It's best for me not to speak for Actualism.

I can only say from my experience: any sense of an ego, as a personal self, a personal thinker, doer, controller of things, (which has dissolved after I AM realization and maturing impersonality of that I AM stage) or any sense of a Self as an Absolute Presence, Witness, Awareness, Consciousness, Beingness, etc (which is my experience previously in the I AM phase, as a phase I have been through) treated as some oceanic Ground of Being underlying manifestation like ocean and its waves has completely dissolved.

Instead, there is just direct, gapless, intimate, experience of intense aliveness and clarity and brilliance of the forms, shapes, colours, experiences, taste, sounds, touch, etc... of moment to moment without a sense of a hearer apart from sound, a seer apart from scenery/sight, etc.

There is in seeing/seen just the seen, the colours/shapes in vivid clarity without any sense of a vantage point or looker or observer or center nor a circumference or border or location of 'me' in reference to the seen. There is only the pristine purity and clarity of the sensations/experiences/thoughts/etc, without a self/Self. This is still so until today.

He is saying that, yes, but he's mistaken. It's impossible to be actually free and then go on to view the world as empty, as I mentioned in my previous post.

Yet those brilliant and clear forms, shapes, colours, experiences, tastes, sounds, touch, etc., are just displays empty of any inherent existence, right? When you see an apple, you don't see an actually existing apple that is the same apple that other people see, which would be there even if you weren't around to see it, right? It exists interdependent with your perception of it?

The point I want to make is: it's not that I misunderstand what you (or Jeff or Zopa or Shashank) are saying. I understand it quite well, I just think it is ultimately incorrect.

No it is not that it is 'interdependent with your perception'... perception is nothing ultimate. Perception dependently originates, apple dependently originates, everything dependently originates. Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). It is interdependent origination (upon all causes and conditions), all of which are 'flat without hierarchy', not origination dependent on some ultimate source/God.

Everything is interdependent with all causes and conditions, whatever they are. Also, more precisely... what dependently originates is empty of even an 'it' that can 'exist interdependently'. I.e. whatever dependently originates is empty of an existence and likewise non-existence, both and neither. Such as 'weather' is empty of an 'weather-ness'... a mere imputation and convention. No core of weather can be pinned down. No core of apple can be pinned down. This however does not deny phenomena or appearance, just denies phenomena exist with an inherent core or independent existence or core.

"Those who perceive existents, non-existents, inherent existence or dependent existence do not see the truth of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Nagarjuna

“Whatever is dependent arising
We declared that to be emptiness.
That is dependent designation,
And is itself the middle way.”

—Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18

No comments on what you said... but from my perspective, which is the Buddhist view, I see the Buddhist view of twofold emptiness as fundamentally incompatible with Actual Freedom of the inherent existence of universe, i.e. what Actual Freedom reifies to be absolute is considered wrong view of existence by Buddha. Furthermore, views such as the infinitude and eternality of the universe is refuted by Buddha. And you would probably agree that Buddhist and AF views on such matters are very dissimilar.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

e.g. 3. Doctrines of the Finitude and Infinity of the World (Antānantavāda): Views 9–12

Yeah, I agree with you fully. They are indeed fundamentally incompatible.

Oh, but there must be a self, at least conventionally speaking because of how one experiences suffering subjectively. As Richard puts it:



If one was to proceed as the Buddha says ("This [feeling, form, etc.] is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."), how can you get 'the bugger by the throat'? to mention another actualist metaphor.

I can't fix my clogged toilet by thinking that the whole obstruction is empty. I would have to accept that my toilet is clogged, and that there is something very real that is obstructing the way. After accepting that, I would then find what, how and why was producing the clogging, and then fix the problem.

Pardon my ignorance or if this has been questioned a lot of times, but I'm sincerely curious about how one can extirpate self/Self without fully accepting that there is one in the first place. It sounds like transcending suffering rather than eliminating the one who experiences it.



And yet Richard (who is also devoid of self/Self) claims that is pretty effortless:



Would you then consider the possibility that you still haven't "emptied" completely your self/Self with the firstfold, as you still experience some subtle efforts and graspings? Could those efforts and graspings be a product of a hidden Self/self that has been transcended but not extirpated? In other words, how are you sure that you're devoid of any sense of self if you still chase this emptiness enterprise in order to get a solution to the remaining efforts and graspings?

Sorry... got to go and may not have time to participate in this interesting discussion in the coming days due to travelling. Hopefully my friend Kyle Dixon ("asunthatneversets") whose insights I think is deep, can join in this discussion.

Conventions are mere parlance and imputation and aren't referencing anything truly existing. Emptiness does not deny relative efficacy of cause and effect conventionally, though it does mean nothing, including cause and effect and dependent origination can be established to be truly existent (what dependently originates is empty). Relatively if you hit the bell with a stick there will be a sound, but ultimately since all these dependently originates, neither bell nor sound can be established as truly existing, they are like echoes - audible-emptiness, appearance-emptiness, luminous-emptiness.

This feeling is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self does not imply there is a Self that is not the feelings. Nor does it imply dissociation as a form of practice. more info: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

There is no Self that can transcend suffering, there is always only suffering without sufferer. There is sense of self, but not any real self apart from the flow of experiences be it suffering or wisdom. That flow of suffering and ignorance can end through wisdom. View of self is eliminated at the moment of realization of right view (anatta and emptiness), and the sense of self also goes after that (but depends on whether traces remain, as explained in Khemaka Sutta). What is eliminated is not a real Self, rather what is eliminated is simply a view (an uninvestigated position, belief, stance) that Self exists inside or apart from the aggregates that is being directly seen through. This view though delusional has the power of "hypnotize" one's way of perception like a blinding spell, it affects us every moment until eliminated through wisdom. Since it is the 'view' that we are not talking about, not an actual self, we do not talk about self immolation. Any more than we talk about the immolation of santa claus. We simply realize there never was santa claus, i.e. there never was a self. But any way of being hypnotized by that view into contraction (i.e. the sense of self that arises from ignorance) can be eliminated after wisdom.

With regards to 'getting grounded' and going beyond that (this happened even before secondfold emptiness), I'm referring to a very subtle movement that is not detected until it's seen:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

A few months later, even though it has been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that.
Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, groundless, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered', disconnected, self-releasing and traceless. Somewhere around this time, Thusness wrote me a post in our blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html

I think something similar like this is what gave rise to the 'actual world' enterprise.

Right, that is what Actualism does and that is what Claudiu is demonstrating by what he is writing.

The following exercise might help you with understanding space that 'exists' and could help you to see that it is an imputation of the mind.

Stand upright with your feet about 6 inches apart. Raise your arms to your shoulder level with both hands close to each other and palms facing each other. Close your eyes and bring your awareness to your hands. Now move your hands away from each other while keeping awareness in the hands. What happens to the space that 'exists'? Does it expand while you move your hands apart? Then bring your hands closer again. What happens to the space that 'exists'? Does it contract?

This exercise can be expanded further to get a better sense of 'space'.

P.S. Congratulations on getting married!