"Actual Freedom" within a larger context

"Why would one who feels free in heaven and free in hell choose to limit herself or himself to one mode of experience? -Yadid

I don't think they would.

-Kenneth"

So, knowing Daniel personally and over a long time, as well as after his arahatship,
Why do you think he would wish to stabilize this mode of experience (PCE) as permanent?
Because it does seem like Daniel is a very rational, realized, and smart human being.

(Notice that I'm not really talking about the AF-trust but rather about PCE and what those who have made it a permanent irreversible state are reporting).

"Knowing Daniel personally and over a long time, as well as after his arahatship, why do you think he would wish to stabilize [the PCE] as permanent?"-Yadid

I can only speculate. I believe that Daniel is just now discovering the timeless perspective. The problem is that his Buddhist model has no place for the timeless. Since his arahatship, he has consistently railed against any understanding that does not fit within the conservative Theravada view. Timeless perspectives are vilified as "the dogma of the radical nowists," and mocked as "such bull---t." Those who speak of primordial awareness are dismissed and relegated to the realm of the perpetually unenlightened; although an anagami might speak of awareness, Daniel has argued, all such delusional notions are overcome by arahatship.

So Daniel painted himself into a corner by believing in the religion he created. When his realization began to outstrip his model of reality (yes, there is more to see than arahatship), he was faced with a dilemma: how to make sense of something that could not, by his own insistence, exist. Had Daniel embraced one of the traditional timeless perspectives, e.g., Zen, Advaita, or Dzogchen, it might have been seen as a loss of face or a reversal of the ideas he had so brilliantly championed in the past.

Actual Freedom offered a way in the back door. It allowed him to dip his toe into the waters of a greater reality without directly contradicting anything he had previously written. AF, was, after all, off the radar screen of nearly everyone. Ironically, Daniel was able to hear from Tarin and Richard what he could never hear from me: that there is no rigid system capable of containing reality, and perspectives that stand outside of time are just as real as those that depend upon it. I think he will eventually integrate AF into his previous understanding and we will all benefit from his unique ability to clarify the dharma.

The problem on the DhO last year was not with Actual Freedom. It was with the management of the message boards. However, it's not a stretch to associate one with the other as they were very much connected. And yes, "bigoted" is way too strong a word. What happened at the DhO was an unmitigated disaster in this poor fool's opinion, so let's allow folks who witnessed that to express a heartfelt desire that something similar never happens here. And that's not a knock on Kenneth. I'd trust Kenneth with my life. Rather, it's based on a knowledge of how difficult message boards can get if folks really decide to be difficult.

"Had Daniel embraced one of the traditional timeless perspectives, e.g., Zen, Advaita, or Dzogchen, it might have been seen as a loss of face or a reversal of the ideas he had so brilliantly championed in the past. -Kenneth"

Do you think embracing or not embracing a certain model or perspective can stop or hinder someone from recognizing the state itself? That is, if someone can see the timeless, they would try to find a model to explain that, and not the other way around?

I'm sure you've tried talking to Daniel and trying to 'point out' some other perspectives to him (not via models but actual experiences), those were simply rejected?

Also, something which seems pretty unique is that people are reporting to being able to eliminate all other perspectives and dwell permanently in one (PCE). Isn't that kind of odd?
As well as being able to dwell in that perspective (vipassana consciousness) for hours, is that something familiar to you?

I think the uproar over AF is rather silly. They're not doing anything new, they're just talking about it in a particularly weird and sloppy way. Note that although Richard speaks as though a PCE is pleasurable, he is quite explicit about the goal being to cultivate a permanent state of neither aversion nor attraction. So the PCE has nothing to do with sensual pleasure, but rather is pleasurable in the Nirvana sense.

I don't see a difference between the PCE and Kenneth's 3rd gear. Perhaps someone would like to explain how they are different.

"I don't see a difference between the PCE and Kenneth's 3rd gear. Perhaps someone would like to explain how they are different."-OMH

3rd Gear is about recognizing primordial awareness, so that isn't what they are doing. They are interested in a particular kind of 1st Gear experience, one familiar to anyone who has taken one of those insight meditation courses where they teach you how to mindfully eat a raisin. You get so engaged in the lovely, sensuous nature of the experience, you forget to suffer. There is only the direct experience of the 5 senses, unfiltered by thoughts. Time is a non-issue, and there is no sense that anything has to change or improve for you to be happy and fulfilled. It's lovely. It's what Bill Hamilton called "vipassana consciousness," and it's what the AF people call a "pure consciousness experience."

So this could reasonably be thought of as a timeless or atemporal 1st Gear experience. It's the marriage of two families of experience: the atemporal family, which is complete unto itself and therefore outside of development, and the 1st Gear family, i.e., that which deals with objects in consciousness.

The experience itself is not remotely new, nor is the recognition of its value. The only new thing is the belief that it is the only authentic perspective, along with the belief that all other perspectives should be subordinated to it and finally eradicated.

I disagree with this notion, believing as I do that no state or experience should be privileged over any other. The goal of contemplative practice, I believe, is to allow all experiences to arise as they will and to be free in all of them. We know that it is possible to inhibit all sorts of thoughts and emotions, but doing so often leads to pathology, which then requires years of therapy to unravel. Much better to be transparent to the workings of your own mind all along the way.

Sorry Kenneth, I just re-read your response to my original question and I see you've answered my first question (model vs. reality), but I'd still like to hear your answers to my other questions if you wish to answer.

@chris sure, the DhO situation a year ago was unpleasant. It caused the arising of more than a bit of doubt and confusion in me at the time, as I'd grown to depend on the sense of refuge and community it had been providing for over a year. I almost came to understand what people like Stuart Lachs were going on and on about when pointing out the failures of organised hierarchies like Zen etc, or even the current uproar about the catholic church. Almost, because even when I think I get it, there's always a bit of me shaking its head in disbelief and saying to myself "and you were expecting all these people to act in line with and re-inforcing your expectations because...?" to which my other, understanding, half would reply, "well, lots of people are suffering because of this mess".

What both halves agree upon is that if I want a place like DhO, I can't turn my back on it if some people say things I can't comfortably integrate into my set of opinions. As Kenneth keeps saying, it may be that there are no conclusions to draw. Chris wrote a few months ago, that there is nothing holding us up - Yeah! Of course these are "ultimate" insights, and the doubt and insecurity about AF challenging our opinions is squarely in the realm of "sila", but still! I'm not here to learn how to parrot the One True Doctrine, and then act as if anything that doesn't confirm it doesn't exist.

What Kenneth wrote about Daniel breaking out of Theravada Orthodoxy applies to us all: any comfortable opinion we hold will, in time, get challenged. Pretending the challenge is not there by declaring the challenge taboo is just a recipe for further suffering.

Even seen only within the framework of managing a message board: I think (but I don't have 20+ years experience) that being open and courteous is the way to go, whereas upholding taboos is not.

Cheers,
Florian

What puzzles me is to see that people who have been the greatest advocates of the "no self" Buddhist dogma, are now trying to suppress thoughts and emotions while sticking to the so called reality of the material body in order to attain actual freedom.

If "no self" is seen clearly, let me just ask who needs to seek actual freedom from thoughts and emotions?

Thoughts and emotions are not a problem if one doesn't derive an illusory sense of self from them. Same applies with everything else including the so-called physical body that is nothing more than a cluster of sensations and perceptions creating the illusion of solidity.

Seeing that clearly is real freedom. And this is what Buddhism is all about.

But AF is 180° away from Buddhism. That's at least what its founder claims. And he is right, because AF is a parody of authentic spirituality.

To understand why, I recommend reading the following article:

www.thebaptistshead.co.uk/index.php?opti...iew&id=406&Itemid=32

"What puzzles me is to see that people who have been the greatest advocates of the "no self" Buddhist dogma, are now trying to suppress thoughts and emotions while sticking to the so called reality of the material body in order to attain actual freedom.
If "no self" is seen clearly, let me just ask who needs to seek actual freedom from thoughts and emotions?"

Alex,
I'm sure that if you ask 'them', 'they''ll be able to give you a proper answer, since 'they' don't post here

Alex, my perspective on spirituality is this: we have a nervous system, it interacts with the rest of the universe in multiple ways, and when we meditate we change the way it works.

Now, I have found no evidence whatsoever to the point that there might be "something else," and it is in this vein that I interpret everything every meditator says, whether he claims to have seen god, be god, do magick or extirpated all affections.

In this vein, I look at at AF vs buddhism in the following way: there are two processes going on in most people's mind.

The first process could be called the ego, is a notion of identity built around likes and dislikes.

E.g. I am a hippie, in that I like hugs and flowers and dislike businessmen, so that when I see a flower, I feel good inside, my mind gives me pleasure, and tries to reach towards it (craving) and when I see a gentleman in a suit, I feel angry, my mind gives me pain, and tries to push the perception away (aversion).

This disappears when you do non-reactive meditation, i.e., when you are equanimous. You might still feel pain and pleasure (you still feel good when you see a flower, and bad when you see a businessman), but now you don't pull or push. Eventually this might become such an ingrained habit that you no longer push or pull anything (nothing "sticks").

This activity of pushing and pulling is maintained by a "knot" inside the head (which was felt as "you"), and when that is gone, the activity ceases, you have enlightenment.

But there is a second process going on, which seems to be what AF removes. You will notice that people who have gotten themselves enlightened still go around saying "I AM" all the time. Some will even turn this into an object of contemplation ("I am THAT"), as if it could be reified somehow. This is the sensation of "Being something."

Now, it is much more unclear to me how this process works, as I have been reluctant to investigate it, because I would rather get arahatship first and then see if that's enough to go on with my depression-interrupted life, and have fun like normal people do. But the AF founder seems to claim that it is related to the "true self" somehow.

But that's how I see it: two processes working in the brain, "desire" and "being," both of which filter sensory perception with a specific purpose which can be evolutionarily justified. Desire forces you to (re)act in a certain way, regardless of what your "higher cognition" decides, and Being adds colors to sensory perception, so that some things "feel good" and some "feel bad," etc.

So if this is indeed how it works in the brain, I don't see "getting rid of being" as opposite to buddhism at all. Although I personally am certainly attached to my affections, and want to keep them in place and "feel them" and so on, I also didn't want to "get rid of desire" when I started doing meditation, and now I see it is such an insidious and painful process that I have changed my mind. Who knows what I will want, once I get rid of that first filter?

I am scared, and fear for my emotions So I'm going to enjoy music and love my family while I still can

Still, as much as I try, I can not avoid asking, as the thirst to investigate and understand seems to be greater than all others

Bruno

@Alex "If "no self" is seen clearly, let me just ask who needs to seek actual freedom from thoughts and emotions? ... But AF is 180° away from Buddhism. That's at least what its founder claims. And he is right, because AF is a parody of authentic spirituality."

Good! Those are questions I'm actually interested in, rather than "why are heterodox people allowed to post on DhO, it was so much better when they weren't".

Playing around with question 1 "Who are they to want to do that, and why?" for over a year, while not at any conclusion, here's what came up at various times: "why not? Why do some people prefer spicy food? Why do some prefer coffee over tea or even plain fresh water?" i.e. empty selves have empty preferences, but preferences they are. Then there was "Okay, they aren't acting like I expect them to. But then, they never agreed to act according to my expectations". And so on. "When some dude in Australia does AF, I pretty much don't care, but when Tarin or - gasp - Daniel does it, my worldview is seriously challenged. Clearly it's not a very good world-view if the actions of two people can derail it so easily". Then there was "People obsess about arahants smoking cigarettes, having sex, drinking alcoholic berevages - now they obsess about arahants doing AF. Not that new a pattern, really".

I find it vastly superior to be honest with myself about the sense of insecurity arising from seeing AF mentioned on an insight forum, than to fool myself by tuning out anything about AF.

Im mean, we are among the few inhabitants of this planet earth who acknowledge their non-existence as separate entities on a daily basis, who have look at Death and are unimpressed - and now we get all insecure about a couple of people getting into a certain mind state, and writing about that?

Cheers,
Florian

Florian I have to say, that is so amazingly well said, so relaxing in its common sense, so open and friendly, and so contrasting to my own feelings of fear and insecurity about - gasp - Daniel getting into AF, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.

I have to second what Bruno said. You should post more Florian! You have a good head on your shoulders!

"I am scared, and fear for my emotions So I'm going to enjoy music and love my family while I still can
Still, as much as I try, I can not avoid asking, as the thirst to investigate and understand seems to be greater than all others "

Bruno you speak as if someone is going to come and rip out your emotions without your consent, and you will just be left as some sort of vegetable

In regards to your fear for your emotions, don't worry, you will no longer have that fear once WE RIP OUT YOUR EMOTIONS! MUHAHA

Florian, I have to ask you about this because you keep saying it, over and over - who here are you addressing about being afraid of Actual Freedom? I haven't seen anyone say that. As I posted here at least twice now, my issue with the whole DhO mess was about the management of message boards and letting inexperienced Actual Freedom proponents run the place. That's why people left, including two moderators. I think we need to dispense with straw man arguments about intolerance and fear and the like if those aren't the real issue -- and I don't think they are.

"But AF is 180° away from Buddhism. That's at least what its founder claims. And he is right, because AF is a parody of authentic spirituality." -- Alex

Yes, thank you, Alex. Last summer I took a lot of time to read the Actual Freedom web site maintained by Richard. He makes a large effort to denigrate Buddhism and other paths. He props Actual Freedom up using what he assumes to be leading medical research. But what I came away with after spending many hours on that site was the idea that it is pretty much a parody. Thanks also for linking to Alan Chapman's blog comments about AF. Folks here should read them.

Cheers Florian!

Of course, my problem is not the practice itself, but the philosophy behind it that clearly (and voluntarily) contradicts the very essence of what awakening is all about. This might explain why a few people, including Kenneth, Chris, Alan, probably Vince and Hokai and your servitor seem to favor the real thing over its counterfeited copy.

But there is nothing wrong about carrying a fake Louis Vuitton handbag. It doesn't challenge my worldview. Just a matter of personal taste.

Well yadidb, according to all descriptions of this AF state, it is extremely enjoyable, and one regains one's mental faculties, etc. Of course, exactly like you say, one doesn't fear the loss of emotions if one has none. All these processes are self-justifying. With regards to consent, it is my experience that insight and understanding are what they are, and consent has nothing to do with it. It is a bit like saying that a child needs to "consent" to not believing santa claus once he decides to stay awake for christmas night, to investigate if santa really comes down the chimney, and finds his parents putting the gifts in the christmas tree (I know I am always using this metaphor).

I did not have to "consent" to having insight on the unsatisfactory nature of phenomena, it was just a matter of investigating and seeing it is really true. I didn't have to consent to understanding impermanence and no-self either. That's why they call it the three characteristics of existence.

So it really was as if someone came and ripped out my illusion that "I will be satisfied if I get what I want." Maybe it happened with your practice that you always got what you expected... that was certainly not my case.

Bruno, let's play "what if." Let's assume you can effectively use AF to get what you want. Which is... what? Please describe that existence for us and please describe what about that existence is enticing to you.

Thanks!

"
What puzzles me is to see that people who have been the greatest advocates of the "no self" Buddhist dogma, are now trying to suppress thoughts and emotions while sticking to the so called reality of the material body in order to attain actual freedom.

If "no self" is seen clearly, let me just ask who needs to seek actual freedom from thoughts and emotions?

Thoughts and emotions are not a problem if one doesn't derive an illusory sense of self from them. Same applies with everything else including the so-called physical body that is nothing more than a cluster of sensations and perceptions creating the illusion of solidity.

Seeing that clearly is real freedom. And this is what Buddhism is all about.

"

palabra

"With regards to consent, it is my experience that insight and understanding are what they are, and consent has nothing to do with it. "

Bruno, none of the Insight practitioners I've spoken to in my life have claimed to have gotten rid of all emotions, except for the people who went on to achieve AF and they did so by will, it did not happen on its own.

Do you mean to say that you are drawn to achieve AF but are afraid of the consequences?

"
What puzzles me is to see that people who have been the greatest advocates of the "no self" Buddhist dogma, are now trying to suppress thoughts and emotions while sticking to the so called reality of the material body in order to attain actual freedom.

If "no self" is seen clearly, let me just ask who needs to seek actual freedom from thoughts and emotions?

Thoughts and emotions are not a problem if one doesn't derive an illusory sense of self from them. Same applies with everything else including the so-called physical body that is nothing more than a cluster of sensations and perceptions creating the illusion of solidity.

Seeing that clearly is real freedom. And this is what Buddhism is all about.

But AF is 180° away from Buddhism. That's at least what its founder claims. And he is right, because AF is a parody of authentic spirituality.

To understand why, I recommend reading the following article:

www.thebaptistshead.co.uk/index.php?opti...iew&id=406&Itemid=32

"

It strikes me that the sword that cuts through this Gordian knot of conflicting ideas is... EXPERIENCE. So it remains a speculative debate-- to which one can be attracted, averse, or indifferent-- until practice has yielded unshakeable wisdom.

And by 'wisdom' I don't mean any kind of arguable knowledge, but that which has expressed itself over the centuries as variations of 'done is what has to be done.' If that is your ongoing, experienced reality, the only motive to discuss such things is to spare others confusion and pain.

Which effort can fail, of course-- but that's no reason to spare the effort. So, thank you, Alex, Kenneth, Alan, Chris... et al.

"And by 'wisdom' I don't mean any kind of arguable knowledge, but that which has expressed itself over the centuries as variations of 'done is what has to be done.' If that is your ongoing, experienced reality, the only motive to discuss such things is to spare others confusion and pain."-Roomy

Huzzah!

Thanks, Kate. Well spoken.