"Actual Freedom" within a larger context

"... we don't need to suddenly change the rules for what constitutes authority in contemplative practice in order to justify our viewpoints"

Rules? Central rules? Rules on what constitutes authority in contemplative practice? Can I apply to the universal assembly where these things are drafted and approved?

<just kidding>

Brian, I have to tell you, there are all kinds of spiritual practices that I'm quite certain are pretty silly on their face, some may even be dangerous, and that I won't try and that someone else will probably vouch for. The guru, I forget his name, who was asking his followers to sit in hot, steam-filled Navaho hogans for days on end comes to mind. Spiritual practice? Check. Silly on it's face? Check. Me willing to prejudge it and reject it based on not ever having done that practice? Check. Common sense is a good rule, too.

Jackson: More like "you can knock it, but you can't be sure what exactly it is you're knocking until you've tried it."

I don't know why one would put a value judgment like "sleazy" on that. I guess a lot of things in nature could be construed as sleazy, but things are the way things are. Experiential matters can only be fully known in the first person case. One cannot fully fathom what being an arahat is until one has attained it for one's self. Ditto 1st jhana, or being in love, etc etc. If "being actually free" is such a category of experience, then it is no exception: it cannot be fully fathomed except by one who has experienced it. That's just the way these things work. We don't need to pretend otherwise in order to motivate whatever viewpoints we might have about it; in fact, pretending otherwise only detracts from those viewpoints, as if the true reasons we have for holding them are not in themselves sufficient. A viewpoint doesn't need to be unassailable in order to be reasonable.

"Brian, I have to tell you, there are all kinds of spiritual practices that I'm quite certain are pretty silly on their face, some may even be dangerous, and that I won't try and that someone else will probably vouch for. The guru, I forget his name, who was asking his followers to sit in hot, steam-filled Navaho hogans for days on end comes to mind. Spiritual practice? Check. Silly on it's face? Check. Me willing to prejudge it and reject it based on not ever having done that practice? Check. Common sense is a good rule, too.



"

Absolutely Chris, and I have been saying as much all along. We are in agreement on that. I am saying:

1. It is reasonable to make a prior judgments about certain practices.
2. No a priori judgment about a practice is as fully informed as a judgment derived from dedicated application and cultivation of that practice.

We do not need to deny (2) in order to accept (1).

ones context determines judgement in (1) & (2)

The larger context is the platinum standard?

Trying to reduce all of this to a set of universal rules is comforting, sort of like having a sense of self. We all have one but in the end it's as ephemeral as the morning dew. There is no universal set of rules we are all bound to follow about these things. The best we can do is examine them in light of our experience and commom sense and then use our best judgment.

I guess I pushed the wrong button when I said "rules".

What I mean is that it is a central principle that the best way to understand a practice is to actually do it in a complete and dedicated way. This principle is evoked constantly on this board in other discussions, and so it should apply just as well in this discussion. That is not about "comforting rules", it's about intellectual honesty.

Brian, I think you're articulating well how I feel about the response of many here to AF. Thanks for being so thorough.

I want to note, however that by 'genuine engagement' I don't mean one has to give oneself to 'full cultivation of the practice'. That's a straw man, for sure. What I do mean is that one has to engage with integrity what is actually being said/written/done about something and tie all one says in regard to the issue back to actual data points.

Aka, find your object and then investigate the hell out of it. Or, alternatively, settle upon the object and wait, see what happens. This applies when you're sitting on your butt investigating sensations, and/ or engaged in shamata practice, and it also applies in critica reflection out in the everyday world. You need those genuine data points.

Frankly, I don't feel that's happening enough here. The genuine data points are too few. People are not finding the object. Instead, they are making up stories to go along with an idea they have about something. And not good interesting stories that provide us with openings and new possibilites - as some stories do - but rather scary, alarmist, mocking stories that seek to shut down on the issue asap.

Here's three suggestions as to what 'finding the object' might consist of:
1) Engage with the AF as a practice.
2) Engagement with Tarin/Trent/Daniel, over at DhO - listening to what they have to say and asking them questions.
3) Simply adopting an open, 'wait and see' attitude as Kenneth suggests.
4) Any combination of the above.

continued below....

Currently, AF is a moving target so I'm going for # 3. I've no current interest in doing the practice, but I'm curious to see what DI will have to say about it as time goes on. I'l take in whatever data presents itself, and in time come to what I feel is an informed view. I'm most curious to see where it all ends up. In the meantime I don't feel my own practice to be threatened in the slightest. That is, I don't seem to have any problem finding my object.

While evaluating practices, methods and techniques, it can be helpful to put it in the context of what we are trying to achieve with them.
I have noticed that my initial prejudice against PCE were based on the fact that I am a Buddhist practitioner from a tradition (Zen) that always warned people against the dangers of blank states free of thoughts and emotions like PCE, simply because while it may feel similar, it is the exact opposite of what awakening is all about.

But, as stupid as I can be, I initially failed to realize that the goal of Actual Freedom has nothing to do with enlightenment or awakening. The founder of AF considers his method to be 180 degrees away from the aim and purpose of the Buddhist path. And he is right. The goal of Actual Freedom is simply to live a happy life free from emotional suffering while being well grounded in one's physical body. And, in this respect, the cultivation PCE might be a very good method.

I realize also that a vast majority of Western buddhists might have taken the wrong train, which would explain why so many are more concerned about psychological or relationship issues than about the ultimate nature of reality. For them, AF might be the answer and I sincerely encourage them to give it a try.

As for enlightened Buddhist practitioners like Daniel, they are obviously experimenting with something that they find useful in relation with the embodiment of enlightenment in everyday life. Here also, I am not here to judge their aim and practice. What puzzled me was just to see a forum dedicated the mastery of the core teaching of the Buddha becoming a recruiting platform for an organization whose aim and practice are clearly and openly 180 degrees away from those of Buddhism. But again... Let's wait and see...

"So, the "path" of AF can be - rather, should be - seen as a regression rather than an ascension. The PCE isn't bad, as temporarily regressing can be good for one's overall development, spiritual or otherwise. Plus, there's nothing wrong with having a nice experience - we all need a break sometimes. But to make a path out of trying to remain perpetually regressed is seriously frightening. For those of us who are fans of certain aspects of Ken Wilber's work, this is clearly a pre/trans-fallacy. Since both the PCE and Maha Ati/dzogchen perspectives are non-temporal/non-egoic, Richard seems to be teaching that the PCE is trans-temporal/trans-egoic, while Maha Ati/dzogchen is pre-temporal/pre-egoic. The opposite is "actually" true.

I hate to see people take a step backwards in their development by denying themselves access to higher, wider, deeper aspects of their reality. Denying AF is not denying PCE/"vipassana consciousness". Why not have access to it all? Why not be free whether in a PCE, or ordinary adult consciousness, or in the trans-personal states?

That's my take on it.
~Jackson"

This is a good post, Jackson. I wonder what they'd make of it over at DhO in one of the AF threads.

"I realize also that a vast majority of Western buddhists might have taken the wrong train, which would explain why so many are more concerned about psychological or relationship issues than about the ultimate nature of reality. For them, AF might be the answer and I sincerely encourage them to give it a try." -- Alex

That's a very interesting perspective, Alex, and I think it may very well be correct.


"What puzzled me was just to see a forum dedicated the mastery of the core teaching of the Buddha becoming a recruiting platform for an organization whose aim and practice are clearly and openly 180 degrees away from those of Buddhism. But again... Let's wait and see..." -- Alex

That very accurately reflects my feelings about the whole thing. So.... we wait.


EDIT: to add first quote and comment.

Alex, thats a great post.

I don't share the "recruiting platform" sentiment, but since you mention it again, along with a so many people I deeply respect, I'll have to give it some more thought.

Somehow, I'm having a hard time picturing the crowd at DhO as impressionable minds being unwittingly subverted by devious recruiting techinques. They seem to be a highly critical, discerning bunch. Adult human beings, too - who am I to decide what's good for them?

Cheers,
Florian

It "seems" like it might be a recruting platform if an A/F practicioner is calling it a "viral campaign".

groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/9865

I think I feel more unease for the seemingly "cultish" behaviour than for the A/F technique and outcome.

Hi Kenneth and all.

Avid reader, but first time poster. I have a question which is probably a bit basic, but I'm curious if someone might take a stab at answering. Just to let you know, my background is almost entirely in Tantric Hinduism and Advaita, so my knowledge of Buddhism (particularly Theravada) is limited.

The question: What is the psychological nature of arahatship? I've read up on Kenneth's perspective that it is the completion of a developmental, physio-energetic cycle (kundalini), but what is the nature of the "enlightenment" that is supposed to take place? Is it simply seeing things as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and aggregated?

The reason I ask: If Daniel has achieved arahatship. but has not yet made room for some kind of atemporal, witnessing or nondual self--or rather, identifies with a self that is cyclic and time bound-- then this is a tricky notion of enlightenment for me to grasp. Or put more clearly, it is a model of enlightenment that doesn't easily fit with Tantric and Vedantic models, that suggest until you recognize something timeless in your awareness that is identical to your own basic nature, then you are still enmeshed in samsara to some degree.

I also think there is an academic question in here, as someone who is interested in Integral/Wilber: Wilber has made the claim previously that Theravada practices are equivalent to the realization that a Tantric or yoga practitioner might have in nirvakalpa samadhi. That is, the world is essentially unreal as is the self. And yet this would be considered an incomplete enlightenment, as it contains an underlying tension, it not completely "natural" or "released" or "sahaja." I've heard criticism, however, that this is a bad read of early Buddhism by Wilber, that it is a Mahayana or Advaita-biased view. Yet it would seem to fit this thread.

Yours,
Mark

In the interest of honest discussion, I feel I must address the issue of direct correspondence I see between Actualism and Buddhism.

It seems highly worth considering certain correlations between the path of AF and the Buddhist path:

1) completely uprooting suffering with the removal of its cause,

2) equating suffering with passion and happiness with dispassion,

3) ending malice and sorrow, once and for all.

Continued below:

Having not attained to any of the four paths of enlightenment, nor to Actual Freedom, nor to any other asserted pinnacle of happiness, I am in no position to speak on this from experience of success.

Nonetheless, I have a few questions to pose:

If it's good to be unstuck, then wouldn't it also be good to do away with the causes of stickiness?

If the panoply of emotional life is a symptom of suffering, won't working to get unstuck eventually result in the complete loss of the affective faculty?

If the panoply of emotional life is not a symptom of suffering, what is it?

If unstuckness from the affective faculty is the goal, then why would one care one way or the other whether the affective faculty (which one is unstuck from) remains or ceases?

Anon Anon wrote on the DhO:

"
This has been something on my mind recently, and maybe it will be helpful to someone if I voice it.

Say that, pre-enlightenment, people tend to have an experience with properties X,Y, and Z, and call it an emotion. Post-enlightenment, they now have an experience with properties Y and Z only. Is it an emotion? Is it not an emotion?

It seems as if there is a choice at this point: focus on the fact that X is not present and say "no, it isn't an emotion, emotions require X too", or focus on the fact that Y and Z remain, and say "yes, it is an emotion, but somehow different than before."

In this case there is no real answer to whether the experience contains emotions or not, just a matter of deciding whether one wants to emphasize the change, or to emphasize the qualities that continue despite the change.'
"
www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...oards/message/110245

Thoughts?

In response to post 114:

Welcome, mdaf30. I posted a response on the "The Body is Not You" thread that I think is very much to the point here. Below is the meat of my comment, cut and pasted from bit.ly/9Bc9Nv post # 73:

Within the general field of "enlightenment," I identify three distinct understandings, corresponding to the three gears:

1st Gear is about looking at objects, and results in arahatship. We can call this "awakening."
2nd Gear is about inquiring into the subject and results in what has been called "self-realization."
3rd Gear is about the recognition of awareness as awareness. We can all this "enlightenment." (Thanks to AugustLeo for suggesting that we standardize the language instead of using "awakening," and "enlightenment" interchangeably.)

I have met people with any one, any two, or all three of these understandings. My contention is that when all three are present there is a synergy of understanding such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

It is common for someone who lacks one or more of these understandings to deny the importance or existence of the understanding(s) they lack. This isn't surprising, because people who have none of these three understandings (most people), often hold the view that none of them are real or worthy of their attention.

So when someone insists that there is no way to directly apprehend primordial awareness, all they are saying is that they do not yet have the understanding we are here calling "enlightenment."

[It seems to me that one who has achieved arahatship but "has not yet made room for some kind of atemporal, witnessing or nondual" understanding might be especially vulnerable to the purported benefits of AF.]

(cont)

(cont from above)

I see the irony, by the way: in rejecting AF, perhaps I am "deny[ing] the importance or existence of the understanding(s) lack." I suppose time will tell. Meanwhile, it's hard for me to imagine that someone with all three of the more traditional understandings I list above would be interested in what AF promises.

Earlier in this thread, Yadid asked why someone who could be free in heaven and free in hell would bother to eliminate their emotions, to which I replied that I don't think they would. Turning that around, I'm suggesting that someone who is drawn to AF probably lacks one or more of the three aspects of enlightenment.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but since Daniel has roundly rejected number 3, it is more than safe to say that he lacks that understanding and it is therefore not a surprise that he would be drawn to AF. Here again there is irony because I believe the relief Daniel seeks is to be found not in AF, but within the Buddhist tradition itself. The catch is that one must look beyond a certain narrow interpretation of conservative Theravada doctrine. The 3rd Gear understanding is found in Zen, Vajrayana, and even in the Thai Forest tradition of Theravada.

"
1st Gear is about looking at objects, and results in arahatship. We can call this "awakening."
2nd Gear is about inquiring into the subject and results in what has been called "self-realization."
3rd Gear is about the recognition of awareness as awareness. We can all this "enlightenment." (Thanks to AugustLeo for suggesting that we standardize the language instead of using "awakening," and "enlightenment" interchangeably.)
"


Would it be fair to summarize these three succinctly as:

1. "I am not that."
2. "I am that."
3. "That is that."

?

Hi Kenneth.

Thanks so much--this distinction between the three modes of understanding is quite useful, practically and theoretically. I'm really enjoying your teaching--both in content and style--and you'll certainly be hearing from me again in the future.

An additional question I've wondered about (and no pressure to respond, I gather you are quite busy): Do you have thoughts about Wilber's 1st (intrapsychic), 2nd (relational/devotional), and 3rd person (nature/objective) model of integral spirituality? It seems that you address quite a bit of the 1st person and also the 3rd, but I'm curious if you consider or include the 2nd person dimensions in your work or point of view? I asked just because you spoken of Wilber's work so highly, and also because you've got such an ecumenical stance towards the various religious/esoteric traditions, many of which emphasize this dimension as well.

Yours,
Mark

I second mdaf30's question.

I wrote earlier in the thread:

---

Consider Hokais article: hokai.info/ws/?p=17

In this light how about something like:
(AF) "how am i experiencing this moment of being alive?" --> "how are we experiencing this moment of being together/connected?"

---

There was two aspects to this...
First how about 'we' space, as mdaf30 highlights
Second, for a 'larger context' (title of thread) How is it that apparently small differences in meaning of self-enquiry questions lead to quite different 'results'. Maybe there are as many 'results' as questions. Maybe the mind gives what one asks for persistently...

What is the method recommended to obtain 'vipassana consciousness'...how does this method differ...

Questions like these will add another dimension to the larger context, i.e. a general understanding of the self-enquiry questionning method. Very relevant to 2nd gear I think.

How about:
"Who am I" --> "Who are we"

edit: my writing style can sound a bit 'demanding'...attempted to tone it down!

"1. "I am not that."
2. "I am that."
3. "That is that."
"

I thought it was more like:
1. "I am not that."
2. "I am that." (meaning "that is what I usually call I")
3. "This is it."

I'm finding that kenneth seems to be onto something when he makes an analogy between AF's PCE and his own third gear (particularly when one ignores all the talk about emotion and focuses on AF's main conclusion "I'm part of the universe"). Hmm... But it is not at all clear to me how to get to third gear! Oh well...

"I thought it was more like:
1. "I am not that."
2. "I am that." (meaning "that is what I usually call I")
3. "This is it."

I'm finding that kenneth seems to be onto something when he makes an analogy between AF's PCE and his own third gear (particularly when one ignores all the talk about emotion and focuses on AF's main conclusion "I'm part of the universe"). Hmm... But it is not at all clear to me how to get to third gear! Oh well..."

Practice 2nd gear, the WItness, until the Witness drops away. That is what i did. Also getting 3rd path helps a bunch. 3rd gear's the bee's knees.

"An additional question I've wondered about (and no pressure to respond, I gather you are quite busy): Do you have thoughts about Wilber's 1st (intrapsychic), 2nd (relational/devotional), and 3rd person (nature/objective) model of integral spirituality? It seems that you address quite a bit of the 1st person and also the 3rd, but I'm curious if you consider or include the 2nd person dimensions in your work or point of view? I asked just because you spoken of Wilber's work so highly, and also because you've got such an ecumenical stance towards the various religious/esoteric traditions, many of which emphasize this dimension as well.

Yours,
Mark
"

Kenneth, I, too, would love to hear your thoughts on this. It's something I feel the lack of here and would like to cultivate further for myself. Is there a relational/devotional aspect to your practice? Can you offer some thoughts/suggestions for those of us who feel drawn to this approach. (Or, at least, would like to include as a good part of their approach). Not on topic and warrants a thread all of its own, I realize.