"Actual Freedom" within a larger context

When I look at what people write, primordial awareness seems to be different from PCE in the following respect:

1) Practitioners who talk about primordial awareness repeatedly claim that things "just are," "are as they are," that it all "just is," etc.

2) While during a PCE it is claimed that: "there is no longer any sensation of BEING."

¿Would primordial awareness folk consider the possibility that the sensation of BEING itself is something SUPERIMPOSED on other bodily and mental sensations?

¿I.e., maybe this "things just ARE" is really an active process in some part of the mind, and this is what goes away during a PCE?

¿Or: it has been said that the "absolute just IS," but maybe this "absolute," or the "is-process" arises as a separate mental construction, and can actually be "seen-through"?

something like:

input "being" identity conscious attention

---

ooooooOOOOO*********************

one gets rid of identity at enlightenment, one gets rid of being during PCE.

Alright, if we posit Primordial Awareness as being the same thing, does it meet the criteria we discussed in terms of duration, entrance, exit, sleep aspects, relationship to the mode of cycling/jhanas/ñanas/etc., way of perceiving reality, wondrous clear delight in the sensate world, method of access, etc. ?

Are you quite sure we are talking about the same thing phenomenologically, particularly as it relates to the things we discussed as it relates to the parallels and divergences of what you call No Dog and what I am calling PCE mode?

I still think that terminological, descriptive, precise work needs to be done carefully and I do not think we are there yet so that when we have the conversation we are actually all talking about as close to the same thing as possible.

And with respect to this discussion, where are the videos?

"It may not %100 connected to this post, but I see why CMarti brought it up. That or he was just being kind and trying to re-direct the conversation. Or being mean and trying to suck me into a mexican food fight. ;-D"

When I posted the link to your blog, Vince, it was because you addressed very beautifully in your most recent essay that a state is a state and any state can be a prison, so it seemed related to the discussion here. But at this point I'm more interested in the Mexican food fight.

"In modes of perceiving things where this distortion appears to not be present, I personally find things distinctly more to my liking on all fronts, but I ask that people do the experiment for themselves, take the risk, look and see: is there, as has been asserted here, something left, some last thing or at least one more thing to see clearly? That is simple enough, though seeing it is not necessarily that easy, and may require a new or different set of assumptions to be adopted for some time as a point of practice."



Or instead of a different set of assumptions maybe the dropping of all assumptions.

Now, I echo Bruno - video?

"What it IS, though, in the moment, might be sorrow and a lack of freedom. When your feelings run roughshod over you and you find yourself lashing out at someone, and then a few moments later you can laugh and it effortlessly dissolves - that's all good and well for you, but someone still got a lashing. That's non-harmlessness. When the person you want to lash out at isn't present, the lashing occurs over and over in our minds - until it effortlessly dissolves. We still suffer during the time it occurs. Because we are actually the recipient of our own anger. Not only are we the SOURCE of our anger, but we are the RECIPIENT of our anger."

Craig, if there is any one thing I would tell you about this it's the following -- it's possible to think that by smoothing, leveling or otherwise reducing the variation of your emotional existence from moment to moment that you are thus both making your own life more pleasurable and having less negative effects on others. Here's the punch line -- human life doesn't work that way.

You are going to have a zillion effects on other people, good and bad, no matter what and, oddly enough, the people close to you, especially your wife and children, will want ALL of you, not the evened out, smoothed over parts you decide that want to portray. As I've said here before, emotions, ALL emotions, convey information, and that information is conveyed not just to you but to those around you. By doing what I see being described in regard to Actual Freedom it appears to me as a giant take away, both for you and those around you. It's starting to look to me like the philosophical core of AF is essentially "I hate my humanity."

We're human beings. We're not perfect creatures. We have what nature and evolution gave us. I plan to work with that.

YMMV

"Alright, if we posit Primordial Awareness as being the same thing, does it meet the criteria we discussed in terms of duration, entrance, exit, sleep aspects, relationship to the mode of cycling/jhanas/ñanas/etc., way of perceiving reality, wondrous clear delight in the sensate world, method of access, etc. ?"-Daniel

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the PCE is primordial awareness. Primordial awareness is, after all, not an experience or a state. My point was that when you say "there is a way of things being known that shows that all those stages and states are themselves an artifact of a more fundamental coloring of the field of experience, and without that, those stages and stages do not arise or apply," you aren't saying anything that is news to those who recognize primordial awareness. Again, I see the PCE being touted as something that solves a non-existent problem.

From a phenomenological perspective, it isn't possible to describe primordial awareness because it isn't a thing, although it is possible to say that sometimes it is recognized and sometimes not. The important thing here, though, is not to compare and contrast the PCE and primordial awareness; that's comparing apples and air because the PCE is a state and primordial awareness is not. I'm pointing to what I see as the problem of trying to sell ice to eskimos or trying to sell euthanasia to healthy people; the problems that the PCE solves are not problems to me.

(cont)

(cont)

Here's a story to illustrate my point, based on "The Emperor's New Clothes:"

Tailor: I have a wonderful suit for you, made of a revolutionary new fabric, never before seen. Look at this!

Emperor: Look at what? I don't see any suit. Besides, I don't need any more suits.

Tailor: Only the wisest of the wise can see this suit. It is invisible to fools.

Emperor: Maybe so, but I still don't see it and I don't need it.

Tailor: It will keep you warm in the winter!

Emperor: No need. I have wool.

Tailor: It will keep you cool in the summer!

Emperor: No need. I have cotton.

Tailor: It's completely transparent!

Emperor: No need. I go naked most of the time anyway.

Tailor (as he's being shown the door): Fool!

Regardless of whether or not this solves a problem that someone has, the very basics, trying to get the language and the phenomenology right is important, as without even this basic work, a conversation is more convoluted and difficult.

Without people having even done the experiment just to check out the thing and see for themselves, all the reactions seem excessive and out of place.

I am not finding this to be the sort of clear, functional, practical, scientific, careful, open-minded dialogue that helps clarify, catalogue, sort out verifiable truth from the rest, and empower as much as I find people simply assuming their untested assumptions must be the right one.

Anyone interested in that sort of work?

Daniel, I am interested in a serious discussion about this matter.

In particular, I would be interested to know more about your understanding of PCE in relation with Theravada Buddhism, especially because I understand that you are not interested by AF as such, but more about some of its techniques.

I know that PCEs have nothing to do with cycles and all that, but what about no-self (anatta), emptiness (sunnyata) and suchness (tathata) ?

Tarin said that he completely lost the sense of being. I guess that what he means is that the sense of being (the body-mind dissolves in pure non-local consciousness (since the sense of being is directly related to consciousness).

How do you see it? How do you find it helpful or interesting in relation with the 'embodiment' of enlightenment after awakening?

Hi Chris

You said that human life doesn't work that way, we're not perfect, we have what nature and evolution gave us, and you plan to work with that.

I believe human life can work that way - I went so far as to sort out the aspects of experience that are shared and that are not and I believe it holds up. You said that the people close to me will want ALL of me, and that may be true - but is it in their best interests to want it? If I can escape the prison I will, and I'll tell others how to escape too, I'm not going to stay there so that we can all complete our sentences together

I agree, we have what nature and evolution gave us, and I work with that too. I work with it by seeing what's set in stone and what can be changed - and so far, I have found much that can be improved. We're not perfect, but it's available for those willing to do the work.

Craig

[edit to add] PS just wanted to mention that I recognise and get the perspective are you communicating - I too felt exactly that way until early this year. It's the classic enlightened perspective, where we face everything and reject nothing. It's beautiful, wise, engaged, humble, human, and accepting.

In 2010 for me, seeing other people succeed in becoming actually free, realising it's not a pipe dream, doing the work and seeing the results has changed me... so I have put the enlightened perspective aside.

"
Post 163: "I was never able to say with 100% certainty whether I attained 4th path or just 3rd (and that's OK with me)."

Post 261: "...so I have put the enlightened perspective aside."
"


Hi, Craig

First of all, I believe you are way more awakened/self-realized/enlightened than most people -- certainly far more than I am.

However, I don't find you to be a very credible advocate for AF, because you don't seem to be sure of what you've accomplished in the Theravada/Mahayana/Advaita realm. With your own admission that you may not have attained 4th path and have no interest in making sure, for instance, it's hard for me to really buy-in. Does that make sense?

I mean, of course you're a seeker sharing your experiences here, not just a salesman or something like that. And I also understand you may not have interest in getting back into meditation and cycling and all that. But I think your voice might be received differently in dialogues like this one if you really nailed down your own attainments in the framework of your interlocutors. At least, it would make a difference to this reader. Does that seem sensible and reasonable?

Cheers,
Ryan

p.s. To anticipate one possible response, I realize that perhaps the same could be said of Kenneth, Michael, Chris, et al. in regard to AF.

Edited to clarify which posts I was quoting.

Yeh, I agree with Ryguy.

The fact that you say you never got to 4th path makes it hard to except that you know what you are (supposedly) going to miss out on when and if you get this A/F state permanent. Maybe you should get it done (4th path) and then it may be even easier to get yourself "actually free'. Then you can argue to your hearts content on how Arhatship sucks, and A/F is the bees knees. And I also agree that it goes the other way too. But I "think" I have experienced the PCE. I don't think I want to cultivate to the exclusion of everything else. I am having to much fun with all the other stuff. Again I think it comes down to "each to his own". And Daniel and Kenneth, videos?

Nick

@AugustLeo you didn't offend me and please don't feel a need to retreat from posting in this thread on my account. My point about you keeping your style wasn't saying don't do it around me, it was that I had tried it and found it wanting. I'm replying here so as not to interrupt your commentary thread since you said you're not interested in discussions.

@Ryan Yes that's entirely sensible and reasonable to doubt my level of accomplishment. I don't advise taking anyone as an authority, me, the Buddha, Kenneth, Daniel, Richard... let experience be your authority. Let the rest just act as guides to help you experience it for yourself. I'm not really too keen on being a salesman, or getting you to buy-in to actualism anyway. To channel Jack Valance for a moment... believe it, or not

@Nick "The fact that you say you never got to 4th path" actually I didn't say that. I was trying to say I could never be certain about it or confirm it 100%, and the reason for that is that after I experienced what I consider to be enlightenment, I then had about 3 days of mind blowing PCEs that I could bring on with almost no effort. Then they faded away and I couldn't reliably bring them back. I never felt "done" as a result. Being done is one of the hallmarks of arahatship. My doneness was robbed, damn you PCEs!

Imagine buying a new Toyota Prius, then while you wait for it to be delivered they give you a brand new Ferrari as a loaner. You take the Ferrari out and really make the most of it while you have access to it, and fall in love with it. Finally your new Prius arrives. Everyone else with a new Prius is raving about it but you can't get that Ferrari out of your head, and no one understands why you keep talking about wanting to hear the roar of the engine when the Prius is almost silent.

It's all good. I'm going to get my Ferrari.
Craig

"Everyone else with a new Prius is raving about it but you can't get that Ferrari out of your head, and no one understands why you keep talking about wanting to hear the roar of the engine when the Prius is almost silent. It's all good. I'm going to get my Ferrari."-CGN

Ah, now you are close. While you are enjoying your Ferrari, your next-door-neighbor is salivating over his Lotus. The guy two doors down is singing the praises of his Lamborghini. Across the street is a guy who swears by his Hummer.

To bring it closer to home, you are in love with the PCE. I have a friend who is a devotee of Meher Baba. Another friend is a born-again Christian. Another is an orthodox Jew. How would any reasonable person choose between you? All of you have something to believe in and some experience or idea you value above all.

When I was in primary school, it occurred to me that all the major (and minor) religions were mutually exclusive. Based on this obvious fact, I reasoned that *none* of them were true. I set out to find something more fundamental than belief.

Tonight, I rode into Manhattan with my wife and family to see a play. On the way there and walking around the city, I cultivated the PCE. I grooved on the visual aspect of the headrest in front of me while in the car. It was wonderful. I grooved on the shapes of the buildings, the colors of the clothing, the subtle interplay of light and shadow on the faces; it was delightful. I had no emotion and needed none.

My wife's face was just one among the crowd; I watched the interplay of light and shadow on her face. I had no problems. I could have been just as happy on a desert island as in the middle of the greatest city in the world. I was less than or more than human, depending on how you'd like to spin it.

Are you f-ing kidding me? The PCE is a pleasant escape. Pull up your pants and be a human. You are not the only one here.