New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

"Gotta say, AF looks much more like the traditional Arahat." -Yadid

Why do you say that, Yadid? What does "the traditional Arahat" mean to you?

"Well why don't you just ask your friend Daniel?
Keeping in mind that the possibility that he "went off track", "went nuts", or is not "seeing clearly" are very , very unlikely (at least to me).
We could say that the odds that Daniel "went off track" are perhaps equal to the possibility that you are missing something here.
"

It's a fair question, Yadid. Daniel and I talk about these things from time to time.

From what I gather, Daniel did not find what he was looking for. I did. That is the difference.

"Why do you say that, Yadid? What does "the traditional Arahat" mean to you?"

End to craving & aversion.

"End to craving & aversion."

Define craving and aversion. Keep in mind that these are English translations of Pali words. What do you think the Pali words "lobha" and "dosa" mean?

I will think about this and respond tommorow, as I am just about to go to sleep.
Good night!

Kenneth: "With this in mind, i.e., the fact that a path whose goal is return/engagement rather than elimination/escape is more appealing to those with more maturity (women tend to mature emotionally earlier than men), does it make sense as a young person to commit to something that is advertised as irreversible?"

Yadid: "I am now working, almost full-time, on stream-entry, which is advertised as an irreversible change in the mind. Should I reconsider? "

Hmmm... I recommend that you continue. But be warned! Stream entry (and the entire Buddhist path) will make you more sensitive to pain, not less. It is through this very sensitivity that you will come to the end of suffering. And, having solved your own suffering problem, you will not shy away from feeling pain. You will see pain everywhere, and you will do what you can to help. This, I would say, is a path for grown-ups.

"There is never an appropriate time to be fierce or feisty or forlorn -- no amount of ill-will will see the end of suffering, and so there is indeed a one-size-fits-all solution ... it's called: harmlessness.
"

It might be an idea to develop the harmlessness before rejecting the compassion lokaviduh. (Do read your post again. In fact, in the interests of harmlessness, perhaps you should delete it?)

Or do you think there is no harmfulness unless there is a feeling of ill will?* It seems that actualists consider all emotional pain to be self inflicted, (which follows naturally from seeing emotion as unnecessary).

But how does an actualist avoid accidentally inspiring someone to 'hurt themselves with their feelings' (as an actualist once put it) without a "sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it"?

*Is the actualist the fourth monkey? (Feel no evil...)

"I see that you are playing the role of the true believer, repeating the AF party line. That's okay, as far as it goes, but you may as well know that many people here will not take you seriously if you continue to take that stance. And for the sake of full disclosure, I am one of those people who finds fundamentalism tiresome. So, if that's "all you got," this forum probably is not the right venue for you.
"

Hello,

Hmm ... I have not said anything about my beliefs, nor have I said anything about my background; and that means no one has seen what stance I take on anything whatsoever. What part of yourself are you seeing in the words I type, Mr. Folk?

That aside-- why have you not responded to my critique of the essence of your argument? It is stated on the page "concept and mission statement" that the forum (members) are "focused on directly realizing the happiness that does not depend on conditions." If you are sincere about that and claim responsibility for this forum, then it seems to me obvious that you would be eager to engage in conversation with someone pointing out flaws in your reasoning, because any flaw in your reasoning is going to be passed on to anyone that takes your ideas on board. This is not to say, necessarily, that there is anything flawed at all, however; but since you have yet to respond meaningfully, I can only assume you're more interested in righteousness than peace.

Care to prove otherwise?

Loka

"It is through this very sensitivity that you will come to the end of suffering. And, having solved your own suffering problem, you will not shy away from feeling pain. You will see pain everywhere, and you will do what you can to help. This, I would say, is a path for grown-ups."

Kenneth, would you say, in your own past experience, that your ability to respond to another's suffering has been limited only by your own aversion to suffering? So that freedom from suffering, is in some sense, a freedom *to* suffer, which upon liberating you in this way from your own suffering, frees you finally, to suffer for others?

Or am I confusing traditions?

"It might be an idea to develop the harmlessness before rejecting the compassion lokaviduh. (Do read your post again. In fact, in the interests of harmlessness, perhaps you should delete it?)

Or do you think there is no harmfulness unless there is a feeling of ill will?* It seems that actualists consider all emotional pain to be self inflicted, (which follows naturally from seeing emotion as unnecessary).

But how does an actualist avoid accidentally inspiring someone to 'hurt themselves with their feelings' (as an actualist once put it) without a "sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it"?

*Is the actualist the fourth monkey? (Feel no evil...)"

Hello Tazmic,

I think it's a great idea to develop harmlessness before all else, and not just before compassion. My post was constructed carefully, as opposed to heedlessly, with the interest of harmlessness as the entire point. Are you suggesting I delete what I have written because it unsettles something about your beliefs or your relationships with this place or with the people here?

From what I have read, both Buddhists and Actualists consider suffering to be 'self' inflicted ... isn't that why there's all the talk of freedom from one's self, freedom from suffering, selflessness, and so on?

How does anyone avoid accidentally inspiring someone to 'hurt themselves with their feelings', period? I suppose the best anyone can do is be caring and considerate ... and I'm none too sure desire is necessary at all for that.

Loka

Kenneth: "I like you just the same either way, Claudiu..."

Thanks for that, Kenneth, and this is an important point. It's easy to forget that we are all after the same thing, really - the end of suffering, for ourselves and for others.

I did an interesting core transformation exercise with Vincent Horn (thanks for recommending him!) The goal is to start from a desire, then, imagining that desire fulfilled, what would I want, then? The chain was something like this:

I want to meditate. I want that so I can have peace. I want that so I can not have any problems. I want that so I can enjoy my life. I want that so I have optimal efficiency in whatever I do. I want that so I can create and learn as best as I can. I want that so I can contribute to the world and help others. I want that so I can be well-liked. I want that so I can be OK. I want that so I can have peace, but this time a really deeper more pervading peace. I want that so I can be fully disarmed and so maliciousness won't arise any longer. I want that so I can live in harmony with myself and others. I want that so I can bring harmony to others who lack it. I want that so there can be global harmony. I want that so the human race can be the best it can be, perfectly harmonious, optimal. I want that so I can be a part of that wonderful planet. I want that so I can know that whatever I do is the best thing to do, fully allowing myself to enjoy everything. I want that so I can be fulfilled. And, I want that so that I can just CHILL =).

I found it interesting that it went from a personal peace, then using that to allow a global peace where everyone is free, and then finally being able to be part of that global harmony. And I really think Actual Freedom is the best route, both for my own freedom and for others. This debate is simply a difference in opinion. All I'm saying is, let's all be extra civil! =).

Kenneth: "... you seem to have missed post #19, where I quoted from this ancient text ..."

I didn't see the link between that and a Paccekabuddha - it's all in Japanese, not in Pali. You didn't make the link explicit and I didn't see a reason to think they are talking about the same thing. (Maybe they are, but you didn't point that out.) But, more importantly:

Kenneth: "Surely you can see the difference between interpretation of ancient texts and facts?!"

Why mention ancient texts at all, then? Just use your own words. I won't think it's more or less legitimate. Don't say Paccekabuddha, as people interpret it differently, say "people who don't feel love or compassion".

Alex: "I think it could be extremely interesting - if done well - to read some debate about the respective merits of loving, compassionate modes of caring versus the AF modes such as "actual caring", "fellowship regard" , intrinsic benignity and so on."

As that is the only reason this conversation is happening - that love and affective compassion are seen as important and not to be lost - that is exactly what has to happen if the meat of the issue will ever be gotten to. I look forward to it if Kenneth ever decides to start that thread. You could post that question on the DhO if you yourself are curious.

Kenneth: "Looks like we need to go over it again. AF seeks to transcend the "human condition." To transcend, as I am using the word here, means to "go beyond." I pointed this out in post #92, even going so far as to cite the dictionary. In any discussion, it's important to listen carefully to the way people are using words. You can ask people to define their terms. Once they have done so, to redefine their terms to suit your own argument is to create a straw man. This is not a convincing style of argument."

In post #93 I specifically replied to #92, using the words you yourself used to describe transcendence in order to show that AF is not that. I meant to point out that, using the word as you yourself define it, it does not apply to AF. By "already went over it", I didn't mean to say that the issue was resolved and understood, just that I was awaiting your reply on that point.

Kenneth: "OK, Alex, that is a well-reasoned argument. If you are correct that an AF person has no possibility of return, then I would consider it all the more pressing to encourage spiritual seekers to think twice before signing up."

Becoming AF absolutely cannot happen without your full and unequivocal, 100% approval for it to happen. There is no danger of accidentally becoming AF. When they say that you can turn back at any time, they aren't trying to trick you - at any point on the path you can simply decide to go no further. For example, take the story of Richard's wife at the time he became AF. After years of living with him, likely having PCEs by the bucketload, basically in a Virtual Freedom, she fell in love with another man and simply left. She never did become AF.

If you really didn't know, before this thread, that AF was a point of no-return, then it seems like you really didn't investigate it too closely. By investigate, I don't mean become AF to see for yourself, I mean to take a careful (intellectual) look at what is presented, read their arguments, etc. I feel you would make a far more convincing point against AF if you took more care to read what they present.

continued...

... By the way (repeating myself from #93 here), that's why the word 'transcendence' does not apply. Transcendence implies a moving above, such that I am up here and the stuff I have left behind is down there. That allows the possibility of a return - simply go back to what you left behind. AF is not transcendence but elimination.

Kenneth: "My interpretation of what you just said would be that while a pacceka buddha is immature, AF is an utter dead end. How unfortunate."

What distinguishes the permanent end of suffering from an utter dead end?

Orasis: "If the human race is to survive much longer, it seems to me that significant progress needs to be made toward 'the end of suffering' universally. Those with the ability and karma to make significant progress towards this should do so, which includes keeping the next generation on a path that contributes to the end of suffering."

Indeed. That's why Richard wrote his Journal, planned to publish a book with his writings before realizing he could use the internet, then spent years helping Peter and Vineeto on the path and defending his findings from all manner of arguments. That's why Trent has chatted for hours with me, answering my questions and giving me advice.

Kenneth: "Once you have solved your own problem, it is natural to want to help others, to fully embrace your humanity."

Indeed, that's why Richard helped (and still helps - I think he's active on the AF mailing list) many others and why Tarin and Trent and Stefanie continue to help others. I'm not sure that is exactly equivalent to "fully embracing your humanity" the way I think you are using that phrase, though.

Kenneth: "This is one of the things that puzzles me: how could anyone who is enlightened be interested in Actualism? It makes no sense. Where is all this aversion to the "human condition" coming from? The human condition is fine, just as it is."

Kenneth: "Daniel and I talk about these things from time to time. From what I gather, Daniel did not find what he was looking for. I did. That is the difference."

So you mean you don't think Daniel is enlightened?

Have you tried asking Tarin or Trent or Chris Ballhaus? It might be useful to get more data points if this is a question that you actually want answered.

Loka: "There is never an appropriate time to be fierce or feisty or forlorn."

Tommy: "Bullsh*t"

Awesome =).

"How do you know this? I've been under the impression that people can enter and leave PCEs at will, and that achieving Actual Freedom is the ability to stay in a PCE, not the inability to leave it. Can anyone pursuing the practice clarify this? thanks, Laurel"

Actual Freedom is not the ability to stay in a PCE forever. It is the elimination of the that which causes suffering, the self (according to Actualists - others may disagree). The result is essentially a never-ending PCE, though more pure and clean (from descriptions I've read). It is not really a PCE, though, as a PCE is the temporary abeyance of the self, and upon an Actual Freedom, there is simply no self left to be in abeyance. That is why you can't "leave it" - there's nothing to leave anymore.

"Loka: Are you suggesting I delete what I have written because it unsettles something about your beliefs or your relationships with this place or with the people here?"

Can you think of an alternate explanation without the projection of emotion?

I suggested you delete your post as it was an unfounded projection of emotion.

> What part of yourself are you seeing in the words I type, Mr. Folk?

!

Alex: "I think it could be extremely interesting - if done well - to read some debate about the respective merits of loving, compassionate modes of caring versus the AF modes such as "actual caring", "fellowship regard" , intrinsic benignity and so on."

IMO a very worthwhile pursuit, it was instrumental towards getting me completely into AF.

I noticed, for instance, that when I act out of compassion or love, I do it because I am compelled (by the feeling), and this causes me to have a stake in the outcome. Then, for instance, if the person is not interested in my compassion, I will get hurt; or I will pity this person. If my actions are not being helpful I will become frustrated, which then interferes with the doing of it. If I succeed, then I am glad to listen to the compliments of others, and I "feel good," and engage in pride. I feel interconnected with others, as if part of a big network of mutual aid, where we all depend on each other for support, and trust that we will be helped.

But when I help someone out of simply having decided to do so (which I do often because helping someone simply makes sense), then I have no stake in the matter, nothing to gain or lose. My intentions are clean, so-to-speak. It gives me greater flexibility. Yet I am not compelled by any force at all; I do not wish to be helpful, I simply decide to do so. If the person is not interested, I just move on or help anyway (depending on the circumstances). If I fail, I move on or try again. If I succeed, I just move on to enjoying the next thing (meaning I don't engage in pride or other fantasies). I helped this person because the opportunity presented itself, and because I decided to take it, and yet we are independent, and neither the other person, nor any network of persons, owe me anything.

Mark: "But the changes are largely to do with opening my heart emotionally and heart chakra. These correspond with a deepening engagement, capacity for love and capacity for openness. They also seem to correlate to significant openings in wisdom and insight--higher states of consciousness than 4th path allows, so I do indeed believe in higher stages. However, the wisdom and insight come in tandem with love and humanity. They are twinned."

Indeed, love and compassion are potent and important and denying them will do nobody any good. But don't forget to include love and compassion themselves as part of your ongoing investigations!

"It is stated on the page "concept and mission statement" that the forum (members) are "focused on directly realizing the happiness that does not depend on conditions." "

Loka: Even though my development is infantile, in most moments, I do have a happiness that does not depend on conditions. In this moment, this is true. If, in a future moment, I suffer, so what? Eradication of suffering for all eternity is a fictitious concept. "Eternity" and anything other than this moment is a fiction. Concepts are a fiction.

As far as I can tell, in this moment, Kenneth's teachings are true in their promotion of "a happiness that does not depend on conditions" and there is absolutely zero merit in attacking them as providing otherwise.

"I did an interesting core transformation exercise with Vincent Horn (thanks for recommending him!) The goal is to start from a desire, then, imagining that desire fulfilled, what would I want, then? The chain was something like this:"

This a twist on the "5 Why's" practice for finding root causes in any problem. I believe this was started (or at least popularized) by the car company, Toyota. This is a VERY useful practice for uncovering the root of ANY problem.

Google '5 Why's' for more info.

"Loka: "There is never an appropriate time to be fierce or feisty or forlorn."

Tommy: "Bullsh*t"

Awesome =)."

Are you, a practicing Actualist, encouraging the suffering of another?