New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

"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?

!
"

Hi Tazmic,

I can't really understand what you're saying here, can you elaborate some?

"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."

Hello,

Hmm ... you do realize that if your happiness ends ("if ... i suffer, so what?") , then it was dependent upon a condition, right?

I'm not sure if you're trying to say so or not, exactly; but I haven't attacked Kenneth or his writing or anything else. You see, I am lounging in a chair quite literally thousands of miles away from any of you.

Loka

"Hello,

Hmm ... you do realize that if your happiness ends ("if ... i suffer, so what?") , then it was dependent upon a condition, right?

I'm not sure if you're trying to say so or not, exactly; but I haven't attacked Kenneth or his writing or anything else. You see, I am lounging in a chair quite literally thousands of miles away from any of you.

Loka"

This moment is the only one that exists. I can't factually say anything about a future moment.

If you do not deeply understand what I am saying, then there is no basis of understanding, and thus our communication will be shallow and likely to be misunderstood.

"This moment is the only one that exists. I can't factually say anything about a future moment.
"

Hi,

Alright then, this moment is the only one that exists. Your previous comment suggests that you might suffer again in a future moment, which I presume is based on recognition that you still suffer (however periodically or rarely is of no matter here). So when that moment happens-- the only moment that exists-- you'll be suffering. As suffering has nothing to do with happiness, it will then seem that your happiness was indeed, then, dependent upon a condition.

Loka

@Orasis post 148:

Orasis: " 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?"

Nice!!! Sounds like you know this through experience here-and-now

Orasis: "Eradication of suffering for all eternity is a fictitious concept. "Eternity" and anything other than this moment is a fiction. Concepts are a fiction."

Maybe you don't need to worry about this bit at all. People can mean many different things by 'eternity' and although what you mean by it may be a fictitious concept, for someone else it may be a description of part their understanding of being here now.

Many here can speak of going through transitions, awakenings, what have you, in which some degree or type of suffering has fallen away "for good" (so far, and presumably so long as their transformed brain isn't damaged).

Kenneth just mentioned up thread that he no longer has fear, for instance. Considering the possibility that there may be such a transition/liberation/awakening after which simply no more suffering can be found, perhaps it is better to keep an open mind, and admit that you don't yet know either way, rather than believing in either possibility (it's possible/it's a fiction).
--Jake

edited to say: just saw the following posts in which Orasis and Loka are having an exchange. My post here isn't intended to be taken in that context, but simply as my own response to Orasis in post 148. Thanks!

What exactly is the technique of actualism? (open question to others).
"The method of becoming happy and harmless, 24 hrs. a day, every day, is both devastatingly simple and ruthlessly efficient. One needs only to continually ask oneself the question ... how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?"

Quote from Sabbasava-sutta:
By reflecting on things that should not be reflected on, and by not reflecting on things that should be reflected on, defilements that have not yet arise arise, and defilements that have already arisen in him increase. Then he reflects unwisely (unnecessarily) in this way:
1. Did I exist in the past?
2. Did I not exist in the past?
3. What was I in the past?
4. How was I in the past?
5. Having been what, did I become what in the past?
6.Shall I exist in the future?
7. Shall I not exist in the future?
8. What shall be my future?
9. How shall I be in the future?
10. Having been what, shall I become what in the future?
Or, now at the present time he is doubtful about himself:
11. Am I?
12. Am I not?
13. What am I?
14. How am I?
15. Whence came this person?
16. Whither will he go?
When he reflects unwisely in this way, one of the six false views arises in him:
1. I have a Self: this view arises in him as true and real
2. I have no Self: this view arises in him as true and real
3. By Self I perceive Self: this view arises in him as true and real
4. By Self I perceive non-self: this view arises in him as true and real
5. By non-self I perceive Self: this view arises in him as true and real
6. Or a wrong view arises in him as follows: This my Self, which speaks and feels, which experiences the fruits of good and bad actions now here and now there, this Self is permanent, stable, everlasting, unchanging, remaining the same for ever and ever.

(Cont.)
Rather, reflecting wisely on the 4noble truths, the 3 fetters fall away by insight.
Sakkaya-ditthi is the fetter of self/personality-belief/self-idenity/false idea of self.
Diffrent from self-immolation?
Is the actualist practice of questioning "how am I experiencing ..." expressing doubt on a matter which the buddha said should not be reflected on, perhaps resulting in view Self perceiving non-self?
Quote Peter: "For an Actualist, realizations are simply a serendipitous by-product of their investigations into their '˜self'. It is clear that it is '˜I' who have realizations or startling insights into the Human Condition in general, and about '˜my' feelings, emotions and behaviour in particular. These realizations, if combined with an uncorrupted objective in life, can lead to irrevocable change and it is actual change that an Actualist seeks '“ not just imagining or feeling that one has changed. This difference, yet again, points to the fact that the spiritual process is diametrically opposite to the process of becoming actually free of the Human Condition."

What do you make of this?

"Hi,

Alright then, this moment is the only one that exists. Your previous comment suggests that you might suffer again in a future moment, which I presume is based on recognition that you still suffer (however periodically or rarely is of no matter here). So when that moment happens-- the only moment that exists-- you'll be suffering. As suffering has nothing to do with happiness, it will then seem that your happiness was indeed, then, dependent upon a condition.

Loka"

Again, I'm just an immature, beginner, newbie, baby buddha. I find it extremely unlikely that I will behave like Hitler in a future moment, but hey, I'm just getting used to my new skin so what do I know? I'm just trying to be as honest as I can, so I can't extrapolate. I absolutely do not represent the many many people that have progressed on the path further than I.

When suffering does arise, I look at it, soon after remember to wake up, and in that moment I again am fine. In the moments I suffer, so what? So what? By the time I remember to realize that I suffered, its gone. No longer real. I can remember some previous suffering right now, but its just a fiction. I can be convinced that the relative world is "real" to a certain extent, but I doubt that I will ever again put much stock in the past and future.

Ciocoiu: "Is the actualist practice of questioning "how am I experiencing ..." expressing doubt on a matter which the buddha said should not be reflected on, perhaps resulting in view Self perceiving non-self?"

The end result of Actualism, Actual Freedom, is one in which there is neither self, nor Self, nor non-self, nor non-Self. Simply no 'being' of any kind, and no experience of 'not-being', either. This sounds exactly in accord with those 6 wrong views being wrong - an AF person holds none of those views.

Until you arrive, though, you think there is an 'I'. Actualism seems to make really good use of that 'I' while it still thinks it exists. However, that is not the point, as the quote you mentioned points out: To him, it's clear that the 'I' is the thing that has realizations. However, that 'I' having realizations is not the point. To him, the point is the actual change - the lessening of the 'I' until, one day, it is no more.

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

No. What makes you think I am?

I'm going to close this thread, folks, with apologies to anyone who feels they didn't get a chance to say their piece. My own impression is that the thread has pretty much run its course. Also, and perhaps most importantly, I'd like to return center stage to the practice threads, which are the really the heart of what this site is all about. Thanks for participating in this discussion!

Kenneth