"Surely," [said Ven. Ananda,] "it's because Ven. Sariputta's I-making & mine-making and obsessions with conceit have long been well uprooted that even if there were change & alteration in the Teacher, there would arise within him no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair."

There are actually a number of suttas that reference the complete absence of feelings.  When the Buddha uses the word "empiness" it's often in reference to being empty of feelings, and where he uses the "this is exquisite, this is peace, the ending of all fabrications, nibbana" phrase, he is specifically asked how one could be happy with the absence of feelings and he responds that the very absence of feeling is the highest happiness. 

Like fear, anger, envy, longing, sorrow, sadness?

Mainly the sutta pointed out in the second post in this thread.
There is a similar one here: Upasena Sutta, which I think is more explicit about this.

Both attribute the absence of afflictive feelings of a practicioner to the long time since they got rid of ignorance, instead of attributing it to arahantship.

I wonder how dramatic someone life had to be to desire no emotions at all. And wouldn't that desire came from some screwed up neurotic emotion itself?

So, long term arahants have few or no afflictive feelings? They just start to die away when arahantship is attained (to finally be eradicated at parinibbana)? I might have misunderstod the first sutta you posted. 

Pål:  I mean, according to the sutta, when ignorance is gone (=arahantship is attained) the afflictive emotions do not disappear all at once but start to fade away. ...

Here's an interpretation:

"Afflictive emotions" is a modern term. I think it falls under sankhata -- fabricated mental elaborations triggered by basic feeling-tone (vedana) of momentary experience ("sensations"). Experiencing without delusion (=ignorance) would mean free of the delusion that there's any identity (self-importance) that needs to defend itself, or assert itself in response to received sensation experience.

The pain of a physical wound, or the pleasantness of nutritious food still, always arise as the innate vedana-capability of the organism. With pain (physiological warning), the mind notes whether something should be done to avoid (avoidable) physical injury. With good taste of food (physiologically satisfying) it is measured relative to the need to nourish, and to ritual propriaty. But the feeling-tone of sensations are immediately recognized, known just as such, rather than "interpreted", perceived in relation to a self-sense that drives the mind elaborating them into optional aversion or delight. These latter are, so to speak, "self-celebration" in response to what's essentially impersonal experience.

I don't understand what you mean by "They just start to die away when arahantship is attained".

My expectation would be that even if an arahant had an afflictive feeling, it would be experienced differently (without suffering), but that by gradually "purifying" the mind, the conditions necessary for afflictive feelings would not be there anymore.
I can be wrong and arahantship itself is the point after complete mental "purification", but it doesn't seem that way to me.

Falseness of the first aggregate of form (råpa)
‘Your body owes its existence first to your parents’ thought of giving birth but had you not thought (of being born), there would have been no chance for your incarnation in their thought. As I said earlier, when you think of vinegar, your mouth waters and when you think of scaling a high cliff, you feel distress in the soles of your feet. But there is neither vinegar nor cliff and if your body is not of the same (illusory) nature as falsehood, how can water come to your mouth when you think of vinegar? Therefore, you should know that your physical body (råpakàya) is the first state of congealation of your false thinking.

Falseness of the second aggregate of receptiveness (vedanà)
‘We have spoken of the thought of scaling a cliff which can cause your body to feel distress. This is the aggregate of receptiveness affecting your physical body which is thus moved by favourable or adverse feelings. This is the second state of empty reflection of your false thinking.
Falseness of the third aggregate of conception (sa¤j¤a) ‘Your thought can make your body move but if both are not akin how can body obey thought’s order to act? Therefore, when mind stirs, body obeys and both act in perfect unison. When you are awake, your thinking mind works but when you sleep, dreams take the place of thoughts. Therefore, you should know that your thoughts stir your false feelings.This is the third state of pervasiveness of your false thinking.

Falseness of the fourth aggregate of discrimination (saüskàra)
Transformation never stops and changes imperceptibly every instant, as shown by the growth of hair and nails, and the loss of vitality in old age as revealed by the wrinkles on one’s face. This change occurs day and night, but we do not notice it. ânanda, if this is not you, why does your body change? (On the other hand) if it is you, why do you not notice the change? Therefore, you should know that every discrimination does not stop in a flash of thought. This is the fourth state of concealment of your false thinking.

Falseness of the fifth aggregate of consciousness (vij¤àna)
‘If your pure, bright, profound and subtle (consciousness) is permanent, why (is it conditioned by and) does not go beyond your body’s seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing? If it is the real, it should not allow itself to be affected by your false habits. Very long ago you saw unusual things but you then forgot all about them. Why do you remember them so vividly when you now see them again? This shows that the contamination of your clear and still consciousness continues, instant after instant, in unbroken continuity; how can you ascertain this? ânanda, you should know that this still (Consciousness) is not Reality and is like a river which flows swiftly but seems to be still; if you do not see it flow, this does not mean that it stops. If consciousness is not the source of false thinking, how can it be influenced by wrong habits? If you fail to (wipe out separateness and) achieve the uniform functioning of all your six sense organs, your false thinking cannot be brought to an end. Therefore, behind your seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing, there is chain of subtle worldly habits and within your still consciousness there is something which seems not to but does exist and which is the fifth subtle state of your false thinking.

‘ânanda, all the five aggregates are created by this fivefold false thinking. As to their boundaries about which you wish to know, form and voidness are the boundaries of the aggregate of råpa; receptiveness and non-receptiveness of vedanà; remembrance and forgetfulness of sanjnà; rise and fall of saüskàra; and the return of consciousness to, and its union with, its substance are those of vij¤àna.

‘The five aggregates arise by piling themselves upon one another. They originate from consciousness (mind) and should be eliminated beginning with form (matter). In principle, they all vanish the moment one is instantaneously awakened, but in practice, they are wiped out gradually due to the force of habit. I have shown you how to untie the six knots in a cloth and all this should have been clear to you; why do
you still ask me (about it)?

re: John P (3/5/15 3:29 AM as a reply to Pål.)

My expectation would be that even if an arahant had an afflictive feeling, it would be experienced differently (without suffering), but that by gradually "purifying" the mind, the conditions necessary for afflictive feelings would not be there anymore.
I can be wrong and arahantship itself is the point after complete mental "purification", but it doesn't seem that way to me.

That is, I think, how the Visudhimagga presents it, which isn't to say that it might appear otherwise in your experience.

re: Pål (3/5/15 4:02 AM as a reply to John P.)
"I mean, according to the sutta, when ignorance is gone (=arahantship is attained) the afflictive emotions do not disappear all at once but start to fade away. I mean, something being uprooted doesn't mean it's completely gone yet, but it will start to rot away."

That is a plausible interpretation of "uprooted". Other metaphors, e.g. "extinguished," "released" are more binary (unless one wants to argue, e.g., that an extinguished candle wick might still smoke a bit).

"The complete fading of those emotions might be parinibbana."

Certainly then vedana / feeling-tone responses to sensations cease with bodily functions, where those responses are the root of 'emotions'.
 
"I don't think an arahant would have to actively purify something since ignorance, the root of the defilements, is gone. Otherwise one wouldn't be an arahant according to the sutta based ten fetter model. 

And by 'non-returner' stage, in 10-fetter model, attraction and aversion as roots of most "afflictive emotions" are already gone

[quote=
] 
"I don't think an arahant would have to actively purify something since ignorance, the root of the defilements, is gone. Otherwise one wouldn't be an arahant according to the sutta based ten fetter model. 

And by 'non-returner' stage, in 10-fetter model, attraction and aversion as roots of most "afflictive emotions" are already gone




this is where AF differs majorly from eastern teachings.
 
Mental ignorance (wrong thinking) is not considered the root of defilements by practitioners of actualism, the subjective sense of being a Feeling Being (aka a spiritual metta loving soul) is. and that subjective sense of being a Being is what creates the illusion of an inner and outer world.

The 'who you feel you are' is considered to have morphed/fabricated itself out of the ancient instinctual passions inherited from the animals. Whereas the ego, the intellectual identity (who you 'think' you are) is considered to have developed 'after' the Feeling Being, as evidenced by the importance ancient races place on feelings and their belief in disembodied immortal souls temporarily inhabiting the body.

Both 'who' you feel you are and 'who' you think you are, are ruled/driven by the ancient instinctual survival passions. therefore humans are obsessed with not only who they think and feel they are, but what others think and feel about them, and what they feel and think about others. 

The reason why the ending of the illusion of the mentally fabricated intellectual thinking ego (who you think you are) does not end ignorance and defilements is because the instinctual passions that form the inner Feeling Being (aka the spiritual Self) remains favored and continues to rule every constructive thought arising from the new, barely developed neurons. thus human intelligence no matter how enlightened it thinks it is, remains enslaved (controlled) by ancient robotic instinctual passions surfacing as afflictive and affectionate emotional-thinking. like Pawel's 

Alin, This argument keeps coming up about the Spiritual Self and AF versus Eastern Religions, as it is clearly stated on the AF website, but not many here believe in that stuff. Though I can really only speak for myself.  And what  you are preaching against is not what is found in Buddhism either Pragmatic or Traditional.  Buddhist Practices , in my experience have brought about changes in the freeing up of the mind from the Emotional and  Habitual Instinctual Reactions.  In fact alot of what Richard states at AF website rings true, just not all.  Some seems a little off base from the process that is unfolding in my circumstance, and some seems eerily familiar, just different adjectives.  PCE description describes what I call Bare Attention or Mindfulness, for instance.  Just the Pure Awareness, sans the thinker/ ego.  Richard's a Precis of Actual Freedom describes what I generally call Bare Attention.

I don't really want to get into any arguments or debates, I am just glad for anyone to be practicing a productive path in training of the mind and body. Because it works, by whatever Methods or Paths, and what works is good, and what works is Pragmatic.

Psi

My understanding of Daniel's position is that people who try to claim an end to afflictive emotions as the goal end up with their shadow sides expressing themselves; hence many of the disheartening stories we hear of highly realized teachers sexually abusing their students and/or getting on a destructive power trip. In the first edition of MCTB he is quite clear in rejecting the four-path Theravadan model. Not sure how he'll expand on that discussion in the second edition.

An example of someone who claims freedom from thoughts is Gary Weber, whose website might be worth a look.

Alin, you always do a good job explaining AF concepts, I think.

But if the "feeling self" comes from our instincts then how could it be erased in a living being? Maybe that's why it's called parinibbana.

So is human nature destined to "remain enslaved"? It's a play of viewpoints.

While I appreciate the perspective that happiness relates to an absence of feelings it does not line up with what neuroscientists have actually discovered. The human being with the highest recorded level of "happiness" or activity in the briain region where contentment is displayed, is Matthiu Ricard, a Buddhist monk, and his main practice advocated is the Brahma Viharas. As for the right hand side of the brain, which is where "negative" thoughts and emotions come into play, his is also the lowest on record. Not in one study...ever. As in ever recorded. There is no one ever recorded who has scored so high in contentment and so low in "negative" emotions. The idea that you can't have deep happiness without the the deep negative emotions, or the "instinctual passions" rearing their heads, is only that...an idea. And it's actually untrue. It's not my opinion, the Buddha's, or Richard's. It's empirically been tested, and you can read about it if you care to.

Alin:
What is your experience with practicing buddhism, and does all Buddhist practice in your opinion lead to identical results such that it can be grouped into one thing? At the end of the day, I see the value in your perspective, but I maintain that it is only a perspective. There have been periods of time for me where the internal world vanished, subjective emotions seemed non-sensical, as did taking a thought personally. It wasn't a contemplation. It simply didn't register. I have had extended periods of this, they have all faded, but that perspective is easily available. To claim it as ultimate truth, or THE perspective, felt a lot like clinging in an unhealthy way, having spent a couple of years doing exactly that. This may not be your experience, so I am not accusing you of doing such, but it has been a common misstep that has led to all sorts of denial and exagerrated claims by others proselytizing for AF.
You may not have stated that Acual Freedom is about happiness, but a simple google search to the webpage created by the progenitor of Actual Freedom reveals the following result "Actual freedom is a tried and tested way of being happy and harmless".
But I don't have another AF back and forth in me. Having been around those influenced by it, read through years of back log on the AF Yahoo forum and here, there really seems to me be nothing there. I simply do not care enough anymore, and I'm not sure why I ever did. Any emotions I had around it dissipated the more I read up on it on the AF Yahoo forum. Anyways, I should go, I'm wasting hot water.

My understanding of Daniel's position is that people who try to claim an end to afflictive emotions as the goal end up with their shadow sides expressing themselves; hence many of the disheartening stories we hear of highly realized teachers sexually abusing their students and/or getting on a destructive power trip. In the first edition of MCTB he is quite clear in rejecting the four-path Theravadan model. Not sure how he'll expand on that discussion in the second edition.

An example of someone who claims freedom from thoughts is Gary Weber, whose website might be worth a look.

Edit: As I reread your posts I find very little I actually disagree with regarding the destruction of the witness or sense of Being. Whether or not you know this, these are Buddhist ideals. The sense of Being or the witness standing apart from phenomena is to be seen through in Buddhism, and it is taught in Buddhism. It is the miscategorization which I find troubling and know to be incorrect having practiced, studied, and meditated under different lineages, some of whom speak more agressively about this than others, but none of whom promoted the idea of eternal Witness, or Being, which is a Hindu idea. 

That last sentence in my response was definitely not intended to be taken as serious.
I can't help but acknowledge that you have yet to provide me with one example where Buddhism propagates the views you accuse it of. Not a single one. You claim there are many examples. You have time to write me moderately sized responses about my posts and suggest vague advice, but when I ask you to actually back up your assertion with one example, you give me nothing, despite claimining you know of "many". 

Guys, settle down please.

Bill. Do you think your approach helps?  This conversation has been done a number of times here and some have fun trying to win their arguments. So I'd let it go and get on with your life and please don't insult next time. It doesn't help. 

Alin, you seem to like actual freedom path and arguing for it. Are you actually free yet? If not may I suggest rather than pushing people's buttons and speaking from the state of a 'feeling being' (if you aren't actually free yet)  That you go get actually free and come back and talk from there rather than the stnky "feeling being" seemingly speaking from a "my view is better than your view" calenture. You will probably get more interested parties involved that way, as trying to do the whole "buddhistic practices suck balls" angle has been done to death by many past "feeling beings" (not actually free) here at the Dho. 

Sincerely,
nick (not in mod mode)

Alin: Relax, man. I was just kidding. You can poke fun at my ideas and practice all you want, I have no need or desire to defend them. Do you really think I would ask you to take back an insult you made to someone you don't know on the internet? I think I even used the word demand, ha. C'mon, dude, really? You're calling in moderators after all your talk about how there should be no moderation? You did insult me, and my practice, but really, it's fine. It doesn't phase me. Did my words sting that much? If so, I apologize. I thought me and you could joke at that level. We have before. And yes, I do have a tendency to agress. I like it. It's passionate. It's sometimes misguided, but mostly I think it's useful, and leads to good things, one of those being calling people out on what I perceive to be their unchecked misunderstandings.
For now, maybe just relax, and I won't question your ideas for a little bit. Go read some AF literature, or whatever is useful for you. I'm serious and that is not condescending. It's just the internet. It'd be useful not to take it so personally. I recognize that statement may be condescending and yet I think I'm right for saying it. 
You may not find my thoughts interesting, but look how you've responded to them. There seems to be some level of interest, if not affection. On my end it is mostly affection, momentary twinges of frustration but that actually only happened once during this interchange and was gone momentarily.

Bill: "I am actually interested. If there is one that is canonical, I want to know. If there is "many", please share a couple from memory. If I am wrong I will say so. As I said before Buddhism has come to mean many things to many people but I disagree that the view you have shared is a predominant one. "

Let me second that request.... 

Alin Mathews
Ok, I hear you. AF is different than Buddhism and oter traditions.
And because of that I have a question(s):

After elimination of the so called "Feeling Being" would I be actually free from feeling I have when I hit my finger with a hammer?
Or when it is incredibly hot in summer, cold in winter or any unpleasant physical sensations, would AF make me feel felicitous all the time?

I ask because no one here ever mention anything regarding physical pain and unpleasantness reduction. If AF promises its total elimination and with it being "Actually Free" from human condition which physical suffering is big part of then it might be actually something different than typical Dharma or other spiritual nonsense reiterated here on DhO. I do not claim total suffering elimination but most unpleasantness yes, and my practice does deal with physical pain too and year after year I am less prone to experiencing it, it changes for strong but otherwise painless touch sensation.

Also there is promised sensual delight or something like that after being AF. How much delight are we talking about? Do you feel everything around you that comes from all senses as pleasure that is not emotional but sensual? Are colors vibrant, everything having depth and taste and at the same time everything is just still and unmoving, 'not-alive' and single-taste impression that is like some kind of pleasant touch that you could be ok even if it lasted for eternity?

I ask because if AF is really so unique and Richard is only person that attained it and actualism is only way to get it then I couldn't have anything even remotely similar. If that is true then anything I experience must be 180° in the opposite direction to actualism. You know, every spiritual practice is apparently in the same direction and mine must be too... So let's assume I join your club, pay some fine or whatever Richard charge for actual information on how to practice actualism (and not just description what is gone) then what could I gain? Poor statistics on becoming Actually Free aside, assuming I could eventually get there what would be benefit over my current practice?

I am serious, not joking around and there is no hidden agency behind my post. I would aprreciate if you answered it. If my Buddha inspired practice and effects are somehow wrong then I would like to know that. I am apparently too stupid to know what 180° in the opposite direction means if I already hardly feel anything other than 'felicitous' at all and I consider myself Buddhist, 2nd ten-fetter path to be exact. I suppose at 3rd path I will not feel anything at all and and 4th path I will be so out of phase with reality I will have to either join monastery in 7 days or they take me to mental hospital. Please help me change my erroneous ways that are leading me astray!

BTW. I am sorry to talk so  badly about AF and being rude and insulting. Hope you can forgive me my previous behaviour. We people practicing according to Buddha advices are sometimes so inconsiderate... it is all because all those overflowing emotions that come from feeling being, we apparently cherish so much. We are even so stupid and blind we do not see that and think we are free from notion of self, identification, life, etc! You should know how it is, you practiced those practices for many years so you must know this feeling of only pleasant sensations all the time for month after month, year after year... it does make people less considerate than when having no feeling at all. I am victim here you know...

Without metta, (cause you do not like it)
Paweł

re: Alin Mathews (3/8/15 6:46 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)

Earlier you wrote:
(1)""No worries. next time i come across the many Buddhist ideals that enhance the sense of Being i shall add them to a list and when it's long enough i'll post it in. can't have a fellow human being getting all "troubld" without facts."

But then you wrote:
(2) "if reproducing suttas or other peoples words in idioms you prefer is all that interests you after having just witnessed a prime example [in action] of how useless metta practice is for overriding, let alone deleting instinctual aggressions, then nothing i copy and paste or any of the spiritual tombs already posted here many times over - which evidence that buddhism and any form of spiritual practice encourages the inflation of the sense if being a Feeling Being - will be read without spiritual filters…."

Is this (2) backing-out on the above intention (1)?

I'm not offering any "spiritual misinterpretations of what AF is" for you to correct. I'm interested in examining the evidence for statements you've posed about Buddhism.

Sorry but i don't understand the reason for this reply at all as there is nothing even remotely argumentative in my simple and unoffensive explanations.      

[quote=
]

re: Alin Mathews (3/9/15 9:15 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)

"after Bill lost the plot (which went straight over your head) i realised i'd be wasting my time (on both of you) for the reasons i gave in the paragraph you omitted. "

Have you seen that thread of a couple of weeks ago on "Intellectual Honesty as Right Speech". The "Right Speech" might be too Buddhist for you, but the more general terms clearly relate to the penchant, as demonstrated above, for belittling other people (not just their ideas). That's called "ad hominem" argumentation. And, frankly, I've seen no basis for this attitude of supposed superiority; it rather suggests some deep-seated insecurity.

"then again i could be convinced that you are genuinely interested were you to post in evidence refuting my statements."        

"Genuinely interested" in what? In being "converted" to this "AF" or "actual" thing, whatever that is? The more you flaunt it, the less interesting it becomes. Certainly not interested in refuting your rather nebulous and evasive statements. I asked a question as to evidence you claimed to have about Buddhism. I am interested in understanding diverse viewpoints, evidence and well-reasoned argumentation that support them.

"the thing about being actual is you lose interest in academia and writing long posts. i much prefer being outdoors amongst the elements now without a gadget (or a buddhist emoticon) diverting my attention away from it."

Then what is it that interests you here? Why don't you lose interest in spending all the time and words trolling these discussion threads? Though, admittedly, it does provide entertainment at times.

re: Alin Mathews (3/9/15 9:15 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)

"after Bill lost the plot (which went straight over your head) i realised i'd be wasting my time (on both of you) for the reasons i gave in the paragraph you omitted. "

Have you seen that thread of a couple of weeks ago on "Intellectual Honesty as Right Speech". The "Right Speech" might be too Buddhist for you, but the more general terms clearly relate to the penchant, as demonstrated above, for belittling other people (not just their ideas). That's called "ad hominem" argumentation. And, frankly, I've seen no basis for this attitude of supposed superiority; it rather suggests some deep-seated insecurity.

typical we vs they mentality of person who is drowned in duality
fact that it comes from someone who try to repress parts of own mind is mere coincidence or maybe a pattern emerging?

BTW. people of all ages, races, personalities and realization of 'actual world' enjoy sitting on rocks. Hell, even other animals do!

... i repeat; i'm only here to correct people spiritual misinterpretations of what AF is -- as they post them or when they post an example that reveals the differences they've been claiming aren't there, or when they express their abject failure to overide or delete their instinctual aggressions with their loving spiritual practice -- after poo-phooing AF. how spiritual readers react to this information is revealing the facts of the matter far better than any suttas i could ever waste my time scouring the net for.

Could we, perhaps, just share (I know, that is an overused word) our respective experiences, maybe for the sake of comparison, but even better for the sake of increasing everyone's knowledge and well-being?

I have not practiced actualism, but I get the impression, from what reading I did awhile ago, that it includes a direct experience of sensate reality, and utilizes a distinctive vocabulary. There is also a claim to release people from all strong emotions.

Buddhist arahants are, according to traditional scripture as pointed out by Ian And early in this thread, likewise released from afflictive emotions, which would include manic joy as well as the more easily identified ones such as anger, jealousy, etc. The attainment of enlightenment includes a deliverance from the illusion of the separate self. Physiological systems continue as long as the individual survives, which means hunger, thirst, physical pain, etc. will manifest. There is also the divine abidings that accompany awakening--lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity--but these I don't see exactly as "emotions," although one will feel a deep warmth in the heart center, allowing for a sense of expansiveness that brings a person into harmony with all that is (the final of the four, equanimity--"let it be").

So: what do people here experience? And at what stages of insight or progress in AF? This is what we can share with each other, without necessarily punishing anyone for having a different language, thought, or experience. There was a wonderful post by Travis Gene McKinstry on his thread about life after SE, which to my mind is a valuable encouragement to everybody's practice. AF practitioners could speak in similar terms of their experiences, and of what specific practices have brought them to their attainments. I think we all could profit from such an exchange, in a spirit of openness and interest.

May this post be of benefit to all beings.

Then please do it on another thread. This thread is to discuss "Do arahants have afflictive feelings?", not to "correct people spiritual misinterpretations of what AF is". If you want to do that from what someone said here then reply in a new thread.

Actualism itself may be on-topic here since it may help to shed light on whether arahants have afflictive feelings, but discussing what actualism is, how it's different from Buddhism, correcting people's misunderstanding of it, etc., should go elsewhere.

I'd like to split parts of this thread off, but there's no clean cut so I'll leave it as-is. But if the topic starts to diverge again I will split them off.

Regards,
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Mod Golem