Hmm, I would be careful here. I'd say the "panoramic awareness that appears after a lot of open-eyed concentration practice" is the near-enemy of the PCE. It isn't a PCE, nor is it along the way to a PCE.

I guess the question to ask is, what is your goal? What are you hoping to get out of practice? To that end it would be helpful for you to figure out the difference between, say, Mahamudra and Actualism. And also to follow through on the issue about timelessness that I brought up earlier in the thread.

Cheers,
- Claudiu

I think these things are a lot messier than that.  I know you're pretty picky about what's what and keeping things separate and using language a specific way, and while I do think there is a pretty clear difference between the methods at this point, I don't think the way the practice presents is all that clear. I know what I'm after, and I call it a PCE, but I'm not really interested in qualifying it perfectly in the language of Actualism because that just tends to mess with my practice. I'll end up thinking more about results and whether they qualify than how I am feeling and how to make it better. The panoramic awareness shows up on its own, and it's not unpleasant, so there isn't much reason to do anything at all about it.

The difference between Mahamudra and Actualism isn't that clear to me. I don't think Richard is talking about non-duality, but I have a hard time believing that every buddhist monk has the same attainment, as well. These things are too abstract to judge, and it doesn't really matter anyway. The difference between two methods I have been trying is clear, though. By using concentration on the present moment, I created a tension that actually made it impossible to relax. This tension is just like any other emotional tension, and I could see it being a main feature of most kinds of mediation, actually. It's basically a feeling that something has to be done, and it's self defeating. So by forgetting about awareness completely and simply focusing on feelings or tensions and their causes, I am only spending time on the thing I really want to change with all this. It's just common sense, really. Of course, things like "don't meditate" are common advice in Tibet and Japan, haha.

As the tensions go away, the senses open up on their own. The body relaxes a great deal too. It's amazing how physical emotions can be.

I think you're going to be frustrated if you want me to be a hardline Actualist, Beoman. I like Richard's advice and methods, and he has certainly described the things I'm seeing, but he isn't the only writer I can relate to, and I've found other methods that seem to be moving in the same direction. I'd rather just focus on being happy and harmless than being an Actualist, you know?

It's not that I want you to be a "hardline" actualist. What I am interested in is helping people who are interested in actualism to pursue it. That's why I asked what your goal is. If your goal is the goal of actualism, then I'll give you advice about that. If not, then I won't. I was initially interested in what you were saying because, although you used different words, it seemed you very much had the goal of actualism in mind and were pursuing it. I thought that maybe you did have PCEs as the goal, but you were being led away from that by contact with spirituality, e.g. confusing the unmoving time of a PCE with timelessness, or picking up Mahamudra. Now, based on what you write and how you react, it does seem that it's your actual goal that is different. That is your choice, of course, it's up to you what you want to do. 

That being said I'll comment on some of the things you said:

Well, either an experience is a PCE, or it isn't. It is pretty binary. Figuring out whether it was a PCE might be more challenging, of course, but usually the more difficulty there seems to be in determining the fact, the more likely it is that it wasn't.
The "specific way" you're referring to is the accurate way. That is, I strive for accuracy, nothing else.
The "language of Actualism" is, largely, just using words accurately. True, Richard did coin some terms like "PCE" and "pure intent". To that end, why use an actualist term if you're not interested in ... describing your experience with actualist terms?

Also, to me it seems it's an issue if trying to accurately label your experience tends to mess with your practice. It would indicate that your practice depends upon *not* labeling things accurately, that it depends upon having that confusion or ill-defined gray area in your experience. Generally, whatever is dispelled by accurate labeling is not based on facts. For example, I don't spend a lot of time wondering whether what I'm experiencing is a PCE because I can identify it pretty readily, so it's a simple "yes" or "no". It did take some effort to get to that point but it was worth it.
Yeah, it would depend on your goal. If your goal is specifically the PCE as described on the AFT site, then you would have something to do about it. But if your goal is to reach a certain experience which lines up in certain ways with what's described on the AFT site, but it's really that particular experience you're interested in and you don't care whether it lines up with the PCE, then keep doing what you're doing!
I don't think he ever said every buddhist monk has the same attainment, so that's what's known as a strawman.
I disagree on both counts. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it does matter. It's not harmless to aim at being an enlightened identity.
I'm not sure what word to use to categorize this sentence, but it wouldn't be a good one =P. You know well that the method and goal of actualism is to be happy and harmless. By phrasing the sentence this way, you're asserting that being an actualist is about something other than being happy and harmless. It isn't, though - all the writing on the AFT site is aimed at specifically that. For example, as to all the discussions on spirituality and Buddhism being 180 degrees opposite etc., the reason for that is that it isn't harmless to be or aim to be an enlightened identity. It doesn't mean you have to uncritically accept everything Richard ever said. It's more about getting the methodology down, so to speak - focusing on facts, on what is objective, feelings aren't facts, etc. Then all the same conclusions will inevitably follow.

---

Just to be clear, the above isn't me trying to get you to be an actualist, it's just me commenting on where our understandings differ.

Cheers,
- Claudiu

Haha, I'm not confused about anything, Beoman, I'm just using words you don't like.  I understand the Actualism Wars have scarred a lot of people on here, but I'm not really interested in being picky or precise.  I'm just reporting my experience as best I can in my own words.  If you're frustrated by that, I'm sorry, but I've found more benefit remaining open minded about both enlightenment and Actualism and practicing the things that come to me.

Here's how my practice works: I try methods that I come up with on my own through practice, and when they seem to work, I look at who else it doing it and what they might recommend.  So far, the best match and the best advice for my current situation has come from Richard.  I'm just not an "ist" in general, though.  If I end up with an emotionless attainment of some kind, we can hash out the details then, since it won't stress me out.

As to being happy and harmless, I'm pointing out that I'm interested in the method, specifically.  I didn't imply that Actualism isn't about being happy and harmless.  However, my results have also matched up satisfactorily with what I've read from Richard-et-all.  I haven't found anything any conflicts.

If you don't think this stuff is messy, that's also fine, but I'm not really interested in debating the difference between timelessness and endless time that is still, or whatever.  It seems like a waste of time (still or not, haha).

P.s. I don't really know how this post will sound to you, but please don't take offense.  I'm bascially trying to say I don't really feel like this kind of debate is useful, but I'm glad you're trying to help and care about my practice.

Hmm... Well, definitely no offense taken. However you do say some contradictory and/or silly things and that does tend to frustrate me. That's not specific to you or this particular conversation or even this topic, though, it's an across-the-board thing for me. It is certainly less than ideal. However I'll note that I wasn't frustrated when I wrote the previous reply to you, and for this reply I was initially frustrated but I noticed it and I'm not currently writing from that place of frustration.

Above all, you can of course do whatever you want to do. If our conversations aren't helpful to you, and they might frustrate me, then the best choice is simply to not continue =).

My final thought for now is that it is important to be precise. You say you haven't found any conflicts between you results and what you've read from Richard-et-al, but I *have* found potential conflicts. But when I've pointed them out, you say you're not interested in discussing them, and that you're not interested in being precise. That's rather disingenuous of you. It's ignoring potential conflicts rather than legitimately having found none. Example: the PCE isn't timeless. If you're experiencing something that is timeless, then it isn't a PCE. I get that you're not interested in discussing this but that doesn't change the fact.

If I were you I would be interested in knowing what's what for certain. But I am not you, and I can't make you want to do that or convince you of anything really, so I shan't try =).

Cheers,
- Claudiu

That feeling of seeing other people as silly and the frustration it causes when they contradict you is the part of the identity that believes it is smart, and that intelligence should be respected.

I only feel justified pointing this out because it's part of 'me' as well, haha. Posting on this forum is good practice bringing it up and investigating it, since everyone is so self-important and no one is willing to be wrong.  The only way to remain harmless is to give up on that part of ourselves.

I've noticed this thing really comes up when teaching as well.  If I try to teach someone something, and they reject it, INSTANT MALICE.  Also, when anyone tries to teach me something, especially if I already know it - same reaction.  Maybe we could call this the know-it-all part of the identity. Dropping it has obvious benefits, like being more open minded, being more willing to learn, being a better teacher if we do need to teach, and not feeling anger during exchanges of information.

I'm pretty sure my know-it-all came as a defense against my mother, who was always right no matter what.

*****

I was reading some more on the AFT today.  I really like Veeneto's stuff, she's clarified a few bits for me.  She's probably the best teacher of the three of them.  The goal is simply to give up on being anything in particular - to stop defining yourself.  The beliefs they talk about aren't the intelligent beliefs like, I believe I am a man, or I believe the earth revolves around the sun - it's the felt beliefs, like, I believe men are better than women, or I believe I am smart and should be respected.  The harmless part of happy and harmless isn't that you can't possibly cause harm to anything, it's that you feel no malice or anger towards anything because nothing is there to be challenged - when you are harmless, you can't be insulted.

This makes felicity more easy to understand as well.  Felicitous feelings are feelings that don't result from felt beliefs, they result from enjoying what is currently happening.

EDIT: And "nipping in the bud" is letting go of whatever bit of the identity is causing at emotion.  So you don't let go of "I feel bad," you let go of, "I'm not very good at sports," and the feeling bad goes away - it has no cause anymore.

Oh I have to clarify, when I said that you say "some contradictory things" and that "does tend to frustrate me", I meant that you say things that contradict each other, not that you're contradicting me per se. If you say two things that contradict each other, you are wrong by definition - they can't both be right at the same time. So then it is frustrating to me that you don't want to discuss it. It's a bit different than being frustrated because you are contradicting me.

Also, it's not that I saw you as silly and that frustrated me, it's that you said silly things =P. I think there is an important distinction there as well. More on this below.


I agree.


Yea I do agree. However I'll point out that the goal, regardless, is to be in accordance to the facts. If you think someone is wrong (as in, they're wrong about the facts), and they don't want to discuss it or if they do they don't address your fact-related points, then it doesn't actually make sense to be "open" to their point of view. Facts are immutable. Being open-minded doesn't turn a falsehood into a fact, or vice versa. The idea is to be better at figuring out what the facts are. And that does inevitably lead to understanding that some people are just plain wrong. Of course, how could it be any other way? There are theists and there are atheists - both groups can't be right at the same time. That would be a contradiction, and there are no contradictions in reality. Facts are never contradictory. If two things are both supposedly facts, yet they say the opposite things, then either one or the other or both are not facts.

Maybe I can draw a parallel that would help our current conversation. Consider the "A different way of thinking about Actual Freedom" thread. There you were pointing out the differences between various things, for example, between "Bare Awareness" and a "PCE" (link). Now what if after you pointed out the differences, the person says something like, "Well, my results with Theravadan Buddhism have matched up satisfactorily with what I've read about Actualism. I haven't found any conflicts. I'm not really interested in debating the difference between the PCE and Bare Awareness, or whatever. It seems like a waste of time." Wouldn't that be a silly thing to say in response to your post pointing out a key difference that is directly relevant to distinguishing Theravadan Buddhism and Actualism?


I'm not sure where it came from for me, but I have had it as long as I can remember. I'm going to guess it was from the way my grandmother raised me when I was very young.


Quite right, quite right.

While exploring a lot of different methods and ideas, a lot of different states and perceptions and self-understandings happen. My main argument wasn't that I was correct or incorrect or that you were either of those things, my argument was that analyzing the results and the perceptual changes within a state to see if they match Richard's definition of a PCE aren't productive, since it doesn't involve the method or it's main outcome. If being without an identity gives me a sense of timelessness or a panoramic awareness, that doesn't mean it isn't a PCE, it just means I am describing the effects using different words than you or Richard do - or perhaps my experience is just different in spite of being caused by the same thing. I'm not really worried about perceptual changes at all, TBH, and I was just reporting on them as side effects in case someone else had a similar experience and wanted to comment. I'm here to end suffering - or to be happy and harmless, if you will. The fact that you were focusing all your posts on these specific perceptual changes seemed like a pointless discussion to me since it doesn't really have much to do with the goal or the practice.

I think this might be why a lot of people on here confuse Actualism with bare awareness, actually. The descriptions of the PCE sound like concentration states - so it's the emotionless/identity-less aspect that is important. All that said, I have had success suppressing the identity temporarily through concentration practice, which is why I am open to the idea that Buddhism might not be so different in terms of goals. The practices are certainly different, though - so I just focus on that.

The only thing I'm fairly certain about is that vipassana and Actualism are 180 degrees opposite, haha. But if someone could explain how vipassana leads to the end of identity, then I'd be willing to change my mind (not that I'd actually practice it - who want's to go through endless dark nights?)...

Ah okay, that's interesting! Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. I will explain why the things I am bringing up *are* relevant.

The PCE itself is relevant in that it is the guiding light of what it means to be happy and harmless. The identity is the root cause of malice and sorrow. The elimination of the identity is the elimination of malice and sorrow forever, it ensures uninterrupted enjoyment and appreciation, etc. To that degree, it is extremely productive to figure out what the identity is and what it isn't, and likewise, what is a PCE and what isn't.

Why? My understanding is that the identity being gone (or in abeyance) is an objectively-occurring thing. The resulting experience is the same for everybody. The resulting experience includes: no emotions, no identity, no 'me' in quotes, being the senses (vs having them), knowing that what you are experiencing actually exists as part of the experience, knowing that you actually exist as a flesh and blood body, knowing a deity or God is impossible, pure intent as a palpable thing, time and space standing still, etc. This is called a PCE. Maybe you will not experience all of those things, and some of them are simple conclusions drawn from the experience, but given enough experience with PCEs you will reach those same conclusions because the experience is the same.

This PCE exists outside of anybody's definition of it. Someone who has never heard of PCEs can have the experience. Then if they were to describe it to other people who had PCEs, but who had never heard of PCEs, they would agree it was the same experience. Then if those people discuss it with a third someone who has heard of PCEs, they will agree it was the same experience, and the third person will say "yes it's actually called a PCE, and it has amazing implications, check it out..." etc. The PCE isn't what Richard defines it to be. Rather, it is what it is in and of itself, Richard is experiencing that 24/7, so his descriptions are relevant in that they point the way.

People's descriptions may vary, true. People describe the same thing differently all the time. But if everyone truly has the same thing in mind, then they will quickly figure out where the words are being used differently and arrive at the conclusion that it is the same. Then they'll probably want to work on their use of language to avoid confusion in the future. It's not a big issue, ultimately.

As the PCE is the abeyance of identity... if you are mistaken about what a PCE is, then you *will* get off-track of ending the identity and thus ending suffering and thus being happy and harmless. That's because you will think the identity is gone (a PCE) whereas in fact, it isn't. So long as that isn't seen clearly, the identity will continue on, getting up to all sorts of trouble. That's why it is relevant to compare descriptions.

Now when somebody says the experienced a PCE, but it included love, there's only two possibilities. Either they are using the word "love" incorrectly (though that's very unlikely), or they are not experiencing a PCE. It isn't a possibility that they can experience "love" and have it be a PCE at the same time, because they are mutually exclusive. Love requires an identity, love means the identity is *not* in abeyance, thus it isn't a PCE.

When someone says they experienced a PCE but it involved "higher emotions" such that the label "emotionless" is inaccurate, then again: either it's a problem with the words - they misunderstand what "emotionless" means - or it's actually a different experience.

Same when you say "timeless". You're either using the word wrong, or you're not experiencing a PCE. That's what I was attempting to sort out by bringing it up. Maybe you did experience PCEs and that's why your goal is what it is, but now you are confusing a timeless experience for the PCE, which is going to trip you up at some point or another down the line.


Yeah, exactly. The identity can be extremely tricky. As you said, you can get into high concentration states that mimic very well some of the qualities of a PCE. So if you are interested in ending the identity, then it is relevant to compare experiences.

Does that make any sense to you?

Hi, Not Tao,

Not Tao:

Assuming that by "supressing" you mean "suspending" rather tan "repressing", could you expand on this? To me, concentration is taking all the affective energy to focus it in a particular object (ie: being in the present), which results in an accumulation of such affective energy. On the other hand, when I'm about to have a PCE, that same energy seem to disipate (from a previous use of it in more and more subtle felicitous feelings) until it suspends entirely.

I ask because sometimes I wonder that myself ("can buddhistic concentration can lead to or be useful to some extent to cultivate a PCE?") but I generally realize that both things are simply incompatible, as it seems like going South as a shortcut to North.

Cheers,
Felipe

Hi, Psi

What is the substance with which jhanas are made?

Beoman, maybe you could move your post and everything below it to a new thread?  Maybe something like "PCE's and concentration practice".  I wouldn't mind going into more detail, but I wanted to keep this thread as more of a journal.

I'd be okay with that. Can you point out which post specifically? I'll ask another mod to do it as I don't want to use mod powers in a thread I'm involved in as a regular member.

Maybe the post where you said:

"Hmm, I would be careful here. I'd say the "panoramic awareness that appears after a lot of open-eyed concentration practice" is the near-enemy of the PCE. It isn't a PCE, nor is it along the way to a PCE."

That's where this conversation started.

Beoman, why don't you explain the PCE in your own words, and I'll tell you if it matches my experiences.  I've read Richard's descriptions and they match just fine.  Maybe you could also describe concentration states that you think could be mistaken for the PCE, and why you think they aren't in the same ballpark.

Felipe, maybe you could too.

From there I can see if what I am calling concentration matches up with what you are and get a better grasp of what we're talking about.