New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

Hi everyone,

I just posted Tuesday's NYC talk on the other KFD website. Leave me a comment there!

kennethfolkdharma.com/2011/05/nyc-talk-outcomes/

Thank you. I think thats the best explanation I have heard yet. It really is about our personal values, choices.. I know where mine are, and I dont have to decide. They are already there. I recall having a strong 2nd Jhana A&P a while back with zero suffering, for about an hour, looking around at all the people's faces I saw, seeing all the pain and tension inside, and I knew there was only one thing I wanted. Only one. - But thats just me. I am amazed at the depth of possibiliy this path(s) opens up for human existence.

Thank you so much. I have been in a state of confusion and unhappiness about this ever since I went to DhO and stumbled on this practice I'd never heard of (AF). I would appreciate it if you could either say something here about how people on DhO came to discover the Actualist practice, or else post a link to wherever such an explanation already exists. It seems rather obscure in its origins.

One thing I would add, however: people like Tarin Greco and others do seem to want to help other people on DhO (and maybe elsewhere as well) learn to relieve their suffering by encouraging them to undertake AF. I also get the impression that some of the individuals involved in it have had considerable suffering in their lives, either prior to taking up meditation practice or through painful cycling as a result of vipassana meditation, or both. I really can't blame them at all for wanting to find relief. I don't get the impression you're blaming them either; what you're saying is there's a better way, and that the way they've chosen has its limitations.

I think there's a problem when people feel so much empathy that they're paralyzed by it and can't help others. But I have been troubled by some of the testimonials on DhO of people who claim they are actually free of the human condition. In the Christian tradition, which is where I began my journey, theologians resolved the problem of Jesus' identity by the doctrine of the hypostatic union--claiming that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In the first few centuries of that faith tradition, there had been people arguing that he was only one or the other. I think the solution that won out is truer than I ever realized. The point is that our goal is to be both/and--both fully human and fully enlightened, not even half and half, but fully both.

Thank you for the clarity. I was also interested to find a deeply unsettling feeling arise from your description of the goal of AF.

I really like your quote from Tarin how "you get what you optimize for". That reminds me of Tami Simon once describing Eckhart Tolle's presence as something like a "black hole of nowness".

I think this may also explain a bit of why I'm not attracted to the surface-level zen I've seen with all of the exhortation to ignore the phenomena. Sure, looking at the content of the phenomena is probably not going to move me toward the Ultimate Goal, but sometimes it is damn cool and its happening right now so why not hop on and ride the wave a bit!

-Justin

I got confused by the whole thing also. Being in DN didnt help, as I was/is running around looking for something to fix my pain

Well I'm glad everyone has support for whatever path they are on, because its clear we all need it. I am amazed still though by the huge range of possible modes of being we get to explore. I couldnt pick a more interesting life to live.

* An important point which I put last since I might bungle it is that the description of the goal sounded inaccurate. orasis wrote: "I was also interested to find a deeply unsettling feeling arise from your description of the goal of AF.", and that's not surprising as it talks about someone who is very transcended, implying living in a far-off land, so much so that they 'dont need to feel anymore'. AF, however, is not a transcendence, but an elimination of that which causes suffering. The effect is not one of being removed from the world, but one of being very much in it, to quote Richard: "Apperception is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now." And the result isn't that you 'dont need to feel', its that it becomes impossible for affective emotion to arise as that which causes it is no longer there (and it never really was, in the first place - much like 4th path undoes an artifact of perception; "Put succinctly: '˜my' demise was as fictitious as '˜my' apparent presence").

hope that was useful!
- Claudiu

* The next point might be a matter of opinion. The argument presented, as far as I can tell, for picking feeling-others-pain Enlightenment vs. no suffering (not even others reflected in yourself) is essentially that is that helping others become free is important, and feeling the pain of others helps one to do that. Without feeling the pain, there's no reason to help others, and normal folk won't become free like we are. This is the same argument as 'without fear, I won't be able to avoid bad things' or 'without desire, I won't be able to accomplish my goals'. Seeing that AF people do indeed seem to help others a lot, it seems more like a personal choice one can take on one's own, and that losing that affective compassion won't force you to not help others. And those AF people consistently report they care more about others in their state - they call it 'actually caring', and it sounds a lot to me like compassion without clinging.

Additionally, feeling the pain of others is still suffering, so if the goal is to eliminate suffering in all beings, that can't be the final step. The question then is, would it work better (every human being becoming free of suffering faster) to have almost-fully-free beings that can still feel pain helping (or not helping, as it is their choice) others, or having fully-free beings that don't suffer at all helping (or not helping, as it is their choice) others? This I can't answer, though one can look at the general trend of how clinging and aversion affects one's efforts.

First off, I agree - you get what you optimize for, and what to optimize for is up to each person, and each person is free to optimize for what they think is best. However, I think there is some misrepresentation in the talk. So, without wanting to start a flame war, I want to chip in. DISCLAIMER: I have a personal stake in this, evidenced by emotions arising when I listened to the talk, and evidenced by me basically defending something that needs no defense (and I'm in DN now and that is fueling the passion, heh), but I hope that, despite that, someone can find value in what I write.

* My strongest point is: I don't see how one can characterize AF people as Paccheckabuddhas. Taking Richard as an example only: Richard spent 10 years at his keyboard, participating on the mailing list he created and publishing material on the AF trust site. He flew to India when a woman from there contacted him to let him know she thought she had succeeded. Richard always seemed eager to offer his perspective to those people who complained to him about various problems, which I gathered by reading his journal, and I remember a few quotes where he said he wanted to make sure his words were preserved so the path would be accessible after his death. I don't mean to glorify Richard here, just that that is hardly a description of a recluse who can't be bothered to share his discovery with others. Also just seeing the effort Tarin took in bringing Actualism to the DhO despite massive resistance, how much Tarin and Trent (for example) participate and help those on the path, etc. They seem helpful folk, going not only by what they say but by their actions as well.

Interesting talk..

I really don't see how you could classify AF as the Paccekabuddha phenomena, though.
Looking it up on the Internet, I found "one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world".

While the people who have attained AF are doing nothing but share what they have found, despite of extreme resistance.

Also it looks like they have 'returned to the marketplace', since Tarin / Trent / Stephanie Dunning are normal individuals with jobs friends relationships etc, who also help people a lot with Insight / AF practice.

I think this hinayana/mahayana angle is just a divider. We all just want to be happy, no?. We help others where we can. I haven't stopped helping people since I started with all this brain changing stuff a year or so ago. I don't think I will stop helping people along the path post-AF. But not all of us are drawn to be outright teachers.

I'm currently IN the market place, and I will continue to live IN the market place post-AF. I see it differently. I'll return with a greater capacity to help others. Why do I need to take on their pain? I do not need to.They do not need me to. But I can help where I can. Intention to help does not disappear.

I am speaking from the experience of prolonged PCEs interacting with my wife. She is not reacting badly to me not "feeling" her agitation. In fact, her agitation is reduced due to me always taking her side. She doesn't need me to "feel" her pain. She needs me to be there for her. And I am always available when she needs me when "I" am not there. I see nothing but positives in my experience.

So to insinuate that we are selfish with "our" enlightenment, that we have "transcended our humanity", whatever that means, smells fishy to me. I just don't see that happening. Sorry for disagreeing with you but why the need to sell "your path" via this route? Attract and retain students? You will always attract students who are not attracted to this. Always! There will always be humans who react against this route. It is counter-intuitive. Why then the need with the oneupmanship? Seems like the mahayana/theravada split of yesteryear repeating.

Why do we need to make people and their paths into the boogeymen? Why cause more division and start calling people terms which kind of come off as derogatory in my opinion. My path motivation is better than yours? Really? Is this what you want to sell, Kenneth?

"Why then the need with the oneupmanship?... Is this what you want to sell, Kenneth?" -NikolaiStephenHalay

Hi Nick,

There is an important difference between comparing outcomes of practices on the one hand and questioning/attacking the motivations of an individual on the other. One is a valuable resource for people who need to make a choice about how to proceed in their own practice. The other is just mean.

Please don't be mean here.

Thanks,

Kenneth

Hi Kenneth,

I did not have the intention to be mean. So apologies if it was taken as so. But your talk comes across as quite disparaging towards those you disagree with. Almost scaremongering. That is the impression myself and others have gotten.

I know I risk getting banned from here for disaggreeing but I just had to add to this conversation.
Nick

"I know I risk getting banned from here for disaggreeing but I just had to add to this conversation." -Nick

I will never ban you for disagreeing with me, Nick.

I request that we move beyond the ad hominem attacks, though.

Kenneth

I think Nick's response stems from the conclusion that you make in the talk Kenneth.
That AF = unrelatability, AF = 'selfishness', AF = go live in a cave, AF = not helping others (paccekabuddhas).
Which I really can't see any AF person exhibiting these traits.. Can you?

All AF people I have spoken with were relatable, opposite of selfish, very helpful (not paccekabuddhas), encouraging, and fun to talk to.

You think it is important to feel pain of others to help them, ok.
Other people think it is possible to help others even more without pain, ok.

So far I can see the differences, but I can't see the traits you attributed in the talk (listed above).

Yadid is correct. Those were my impressions from the talk. And apologies for the adhominen attack. The talk, although talking about what differing motivations there may be for people, also came off as pigeon holing certain practitioners and their practices and classifying them as selfish paccekabuddhas. This isn't mean? This may not have been the intention but it certainly is the impression it gives.

Nick

"I think Nick's response stems from the conclusion that you make in the talk Kenneth.
That AF = unrelatability, AF = 'selfishness', AF = go live in a cave, AF = not helping others (paccekabuddhas). Which I really can't see any AF person exhibiting these traits.. Can you?" -Yadid

Yadid, I'll respond to each of your points regarding your interpretation of my talk:

Un-relatability: Yes, I find AF people un-relatable. I don't relate to Richard's writing, or Trent's, or Tarin's. I have spoken to Tarin twice since his AF attainment. I found him helpful, polite, and pleasant, but not relatable, in marked contrast to how he was before his attainment.

Selfishness: I didn't say that.

Go live in a cave: Richard lives a life of seclusion on a boat. Not a criticism, just an observation. Unlike in olden times, we now have the internet. Which means that even recluses can easily communicate their ideas to millions of people. This seems to be confusing a lot of folks as they wonder how I can compare AF and paccekka buddhas. If paccekka buddhas had had the internet, we might have heard more from them too.

Not helping others: I didn't say that. I said that paccekas are probably unassuming and helpful; if you ask a pacekka buddha for advice you will probably get it. And what advice will you get? How to become a paccekka buddha.

AF = Paccekka buddha: Yes, I believe that this is very likely the phenomenon that is being pointed to in the textual references to paccekka buddhas. And I believe the essential point, the essential characteristic of both paccekka buddhas and the AF is that they do not feel love or compassion.

This was the point of the talk: each of us can choose our own values. So we have a right to know what we are getting into. AF is for people who seek to overcome the human condition, losing love and compassion in the process.

Thanks for the reply Kenneth.
I now understand your point better.
But I still think paccekabuddha refers to one who doesn't teach,
While richard does (for all I know you could be living in a cave too).
And Tarin and Trent live normal lives as well.
i dont think the texts claim paccekas dont have love and compassion.. They refer to not teaching..
No?
Thats what I found looking for info on it.

"Un-relatibility": I agree. That doesn't seem to hinder their ability to help others, though, as was implied in the talk, at least those who want to be helped

"Go live in a cave": I thought your main point was that a paccekka buddha wouldn't go out of his way to help other people. yet spending hours a day typing words to others so they can become free does sound like a lot of effort. whether they are orating or typing seems like a minor distinction.

"Paccekka buddha": from Wikipedia: "... According to the Theravada school, after rediscovering the path on their own, Paccekabuddhas are unable to teach the Dhamma ... Pratyekabuddhas do give moral teachings, but do not bring others to enlightenment ... They leave no saá¹…gha as a legacy to carry on the Dharma." Richard helped others to become AF when nobody even knew it was possible or if he was just a freak of nature. he created the mailing lists, which is basically a Sangha. tarin helped bring it to DhO, also basically a Sangha.

I feel like the introduction of the term "Paccekabuddha" is unnecessary and confusing. It brings in an element of the old texts, and thus sounds more legitimate, perhaps, but it's just a label which doesn't even seem to line up. So, what is it exactly that you are trying to say, without using this derogatory label?

"I believe the essential point, the essential characteristic of both paccekka buddhas and the AF is that they do not feel ... compassion." they don't feel an affective compassion, but are they lying when they say they actually care about their fellow human beings?

"love": love has suffering as a prerequisite condition - the sense of separation. helping someone because you love them is selfish - it makes you feel good, and as a side-effect it happens to help the other. non-clinging compassion, 'actually caring', helps directly.

"The mind Free of the Seeds of Karmic Causation (batsu goiju-shin). By understanding the process of karmic causation, the person on this level has destroyed the ignorance that is the seed of bad karma. This mind, however, like that of the fourth level, lacks compassion for other beings. (To this level belongs the engaku, the self-enlightened person who achieves liberation by understanding causation.)



From Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism (T. Yamasaki, Shambhala, 1988, p. 95 - 96)

A very important point which also makes me think the distinction is incorrect is that I don't see the difference between a Paccekabuddha and a Buddha to be a difference in the state of their enlightenment. From Wikipedia: "Pratyekabuddhas (Pali: paccekabuddha) are similar to Samyaksambuddhas in that they attain Nirvāṇa without having a teacher. Unlike the Samyaksambuddha however, they do not teach the Dhamma that they have discovered. Thus, they also do not form a Saṅgha of disciples to carry on the teaching, since they do not teach in the first place." The difference isn't that they are more or less enlightened, or enlightened in a different way, it's simply that they don't teach.

The one possible distinction is: "In some texts, they are described as 'one who understands the Dharma by his own efforts, but does not obtain omniscience nor mastery over the Fruits". However, the difference between Kenneth's paths and AF is much more than obtaining mastery over the Fruits.

It boils down to what Kenneth said the essential point was (regardless of labels): the fact that he sees feeling affective love and compassion to be important, whereas AF people see it as simply another form of suffering which disappears along with the rest.

Now that the actual point is understood, the debate would continue by going over the merits of feeling affective love and affective compassion versus not, which IS A CHOICE, yes, but it should be well-informed. Are they actually forms of suffering? Do you help others better without it? Tarin or Trent might be better at answering those if you care to ask them on the DhO, and there's lots of info about it on the AF trust site, e.g. www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/love.htm . Important to remember that they make a clear distinction between compassion and 'actually caring': actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ15.htm

So, regarding getting what you optimize for - do we actually have an effective way of optimizing for helping others, where that process involves becoming enlightened. I've wondered this myself, on discovering and pondering the concept of the boddhisattva oath. I can't really work out how my becoming enlightened can be for the benefit of everyone everywhere.

Assuming we want to ultimately "go back to the marketplace with help-bestowing hands", the "help-bestowing hands" should be something that is gained or strengthened through whatever paths of enlightenment one chooses.
It seems to me that something is missing here, the gaining of some "proper" help-bestowing hands. There are some demonstrated abilities from enlightenment, as far as i've been able to see, that might fit. I'd suggest the following:

1: The ability to help others deal with their issues without being caught up in your own stuff.
2: Leading people to the mundane "fruits of the path" (mindfulness, ways of dealing with your stuff, ways of relating to things, et.c.)
3: Leading people to the supramundane "fruits of the path" (Enlightenment. What Kenneth does (among other thigns))
4: (Perhaps) Being a calming presence for people around you because of qualities gained from enlightenment.

The thing is, none of these are specifically gained from "optimizing for help-bestowing hands", as far as i can see. You can argue for developing your teaching capabilities here, but it somehow seems to me that there should be *more* - that there should be more direct ways of developing the ability to help others through the process of becoming enlightened.

I would like to hear if you guys have any ideas for what such abilities could be, and how they might be developed.

I would obviously like to hear any takes of this, but personally, i was mostly thinking of the intersubjective manifestations of enlightenment i've seen hints about here and there.
- Alan Chapman talks about a kind of direct recognition of the quality of enlightenment in others, somewhere on openenlightenment
- There's the phenomenon of Shaktipat, which i really don't know what to think about, but if at least some of the reports of it are true, there might be some useful intersubjective aspect of enlightenment at work here.
- There's the ability to visually see the emotions of others, one of the "powers" described in the vimuttimagga, which might help you help others. I like this one for having a nice naturalistic explanation while still possibly being useful.
- Perhaps some possibilities could be explored with a relation-oriented version of ping-pong noting, where you note how you percieve the partner.

Am i making any sense?

Another post about paccekka buddhas that might be interesting:

"The pratyekabuddhas riding on the Deer-cart are taciturn.
They live alone like the horn of rhinoceros, or in a group.
Meditating deeply on the Twelve Links of Causation,
They gain supernatural power by a hundred aeons' discipline.
Extinguishing their karma, actual and potential defilements,
They aim at complete cessation of their body and mind.
They abide quietly in samadhi, long, as though intoxicated;

But being awakened by the Buddha from their slumber,
They are to be directed to the palace of One Suchness."

(Hakeda, p. 194 - 195)

The above two quotes are from Kukai: Major Works (Y. Hakeda, Columbia University Press, 1972)

"Meditating deeply on the Twelve Links of Causation,
They gain supernatural power by a hundred aeons' discipline.
Extinguishing their karma, actual and potential defilements,
They aim at complete cessation of their body and mind.
They abide quietly in samadhi, long, as though intoxicated;"

as far as i can tell: actually free people don't meditate; don't claim or aim for supernatural power; don't aim at cessation of their body and mind; don't abide in samadhi (jhanas, I'm assuming?).

why try to pin this term onto the AF people?

Another great talk Kenneth. Way back in my Christian Mystic days I encountered the equivalent of Ascending vs. Descending, which in that tradition they call John (the mystic evangelist) vs. Peter (the disciple who started the church), or Mary (who sat at Jesus' feet) vs. Martha (who got on with the washing up!).

I decided very early on that I wanted to do both: the karma yoga and the jhana yoga. And so when I finally started on Buddhist meditation, I was all into Thich Nhat Hanh, Ken Jones, Joanna Macy and all those Buddhist activists.

But the trouble with the Descending position - and this is so rife in Western Buddhism - is that you start to expect every awakened or advanced yogi to be a saint. And I found it very traumatic to discover that this was very often not the case. I caused myself a lot of suffering agonising over the various misdemeanours of Buddhist teachers, from Genpo Roshi's money-making seminars and Chogyam Trungpa's sexual and alcoholic exploits to the involvement of pretty much the whole Zen establishment in the Japanese war effort, including Nanking and all the rest.

I can't tell you how liberating it was to encounter the idea that enlightened people weren't necessarily moral saints, nor vice versa.