New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

But the inevitable question arises of how much do you need of each?

Is fourth path as we understand it here at KFD the most logical cut off point to stop transcending and start descending? Or at least to shift the focus from one to the other? Because there are plenty of people in my life who regard things like going on retreat as already too transcendent! They say, "Sure. Do some meditation in the morning to calm your nerves. But then get on with something useful!"

"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?"

Yes, why? That is what Im interested in. What is at stake? A lot of your criteria is not matching up with what is being seen and experienced by others and myself. This then begs the question why be so persistent to peg a term to a practice and practitioners you openly disagree with? I'm not being mean. i'm being sincere about this, Kenneth. Why do you need to justify your path by pigeon holing others into easily manageable but ultimately misleading labels? And a label which kind of implies a path that is inferior to the one you wish to teach.

Of course, the no-affective love and compassion point as well as not relating to AFers is valid. Although I would say only initial impressions first time communicating with Tarin for example were seen as unrelatable. I kept talking with him over a period of time and that barrier dropped away as I saw how my own (anti-AF paranoia) projection of him and his behaviour was being filtered through this madness. Maybe it would be best to chat with Tarin for a few more times longer before coming to that conclusion.

I've expressed my opinion on the recent Hamilton Project podcast for all to hear about what I think of affective love and compassion. My affective self feels like proving you completely and utterly wrong on all the misrepresentations I see here once I attain AF.

I repeat, what is at stake? My motivation is not that of a pacceka buddha nor will I ever be of one. I think it is selfish for "me" to stay.

"why try to pin this term onto the AF people?" -Beoman

Because I believe this question of how AF fits into Buddhism has been thoroughly dealt with for thousands of years and there is no need for us to re-invent the wheel. I want people to understand that in spite of AF doctrine, AF is not the natural and inevitable result of contemplative practice taken all the way. It is, rather, a choice (in my opinion a foolish one) determined by values.

People who value "self immolation" and "overcoming the human condition" can choose AF. People who value compassion, lovingkindness, and sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another in addition to their own freedom can choose Buddhism or any number of proven pathways to happiness.

My purpose for expressing my opinion about this is to present an alternative to a very aggressive and successful AF campaign aimed at converting Buddhists to AF.

Let me spell it out: I think AF is at best misguided and at worst immature. I hope that some of the AF folks will eventually come back to the land of the living, re-embrace their humanity and their compassion and quit peddling their nihilistic nonsense on my website.

My opinion: anyone who considers him or herself to be "Actually Free" has a further step yet to take. That step is the return to humanity. I look forward to the day when one of them makes this final leap from Actually Free to actually human.

I have no animosity toward Richard, Trent, Tarin or any other AF advocate. Far from it. This is not an attack against any individual, but rather an invitation to consider that in 2500 years Buddhism may have figured out something that AF doesn't know yet.

"
Because I believe this question of how AF fits into Buddhism has been thoroughly dealt with for thousands of years and there is no need for us to re-invent the wheel. I want people to understand that in spite of AF doctrine, AF is not the natural and inevitable result of contemplative practice taken all the way. It is, rather, a choice (in my opinion a foolish one) determined by values.

People who value "self immolation" and "overcoming the human condition" can choose AF. People who value compassion, lovingkindness, and sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another in addition to their own freedom can choose Buddhism or any number of proven pathways to happiness.

My purpose for expressing my opinion about this is to present an alternative to a very aggressive and successful AF campaign aimed at converting Buddhists to AF.

Let me spell it out: I think AF is at best misguided and at worst immature. I hope that some of the AF folks will eventually come back to the land of the living, re-embrace their humanity and their compassion and quit peddling their nihilistic nonsense on my website.

My opinion: anyone who considers him or herself to be "Actually Free" has a further step yet to take. That step is the return to humanity. I look forward to the day when one of them makes this final leap from Actually Free to actually human.

I have no animosity toward Richard, Trent, Tarin or any other AF advocate. Far from it. This is not an attack against any individual, but rather an invitation to consider that in 2500 years Buddhism may have figured out something that AF doesn't know yet."

Wow! Thanks for being so clear and straightforward with your feelings and motivations, Kenneth. I wish you all the best.

Nick

I've begun to think over the past few years that the whole ascending/descending debate might be a bit of a false choice. At the end of the day, they both end up in the same place, assuming you don't fall into some of the well known traps.

Ascending traps: denial of the body, non-useful solitude, losing compassion, general space cadet syndrome.
Descending traps: denial of the spirit, wallowing in form, pathological hedonism, etc

But the thing is if you descend far enough, you wind up right here, right now. Same for ascending. Like it says in the heart sutra, form and emptiness have the same mailing address. I think calling AF'ers pratyekabuddhas might have some truth to it, but it's also not entirely accurate (AF people do teach). The pratyekabuddha label also might be seen as a touch insulting to some of the folks here, so I'd be hesitant to use it.

My two cents: AF is a something you can optimize for post 4th if you really want to. It's one of a lot of possible lines of development. I myself don't want to loose the ability to feel love and compassion so I'm not practicing that way. I'm not making value judgements. I understand the impulse, it's just not my bag baby.

I think there are enough of us who got past the big hump now that there will developmental diversity, I just think it would be healthier for everyone involved if we don't spin our wheels resurrecting the old sectarian polemics.

"Is fourth path as we understand it here at KFD the most logical cut off point to stop transcending and start descending?" -Andy

Thanks for the question, Andy. Of course, everyone can choose what to focus on all along the way, depending on their values; there will always be people who seek to embrace their humanity and people who seek to transcend it. But the real critical point comes when a yogi has seen through the mirage of emotions. At that point, mind states no longer exist; emotions are seen as body-states, sometimes with some thoughts thrown in. And it becomes possible to make a choice. You can cultivate certain states and let others atrophy. For example, upon recognizing the constellation of painful body sensations that signal sadness, you can open to that and transmute it into compassion. Similarly, when you notice tension or agitation in the body you can focus on the release rather than the tension, which can lead to the body sensations associated with joy and you can cultivate those. Joy becomes bliss and bliss becomes lovingkindness because when you are rich you can afford to be generous; having solved your own problem (unhappiness), it is natural and spontaneous to want to share your own joy and well-being with others.

What I have just described is the Buddhist way of approaching this, one that appeals to me personally and one that I practice. It is a path that actively seeks to balance the ascending and the descending. Alternatively, of course, one could choose not to cultivate any body states at all, seeing them as painful and therefore suffering and therefore something to be eradicated. This, as I understand it, is the purely ascending (AF) route.

The important thing for me is to let people know that they have a choice and that all routes do not lead in the end to transcending one's humanity. Let the transcenders transcend. But let us not pretend that transcendence is superior to the balanced approach.

Thanks for spelling it out, Kenneth - that's what I was looking to hear, your opinion on the matter, beyond labels and what people wrote a while ago. Some final words:

Kenneth: "People who value "self immolation" and "overcoming the human condition" can choose AF. People who value compassion, lovingkindness, and sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another in addition to their own freedom can choose Buddhism or any number of proven pathways to happiness."

Convo I had w/ trent:

trent: friend of mine lives south a couple of hours got it [AF] most recently i think. i have not heard of anyone since
me: neat, did he go direct AF or enlightenement first?
trent: direct. ive known him since i can remember; grew up together. always been quite sincere, so he did not even read the website much. just spoke with me a bit periodically. then came up and spend a couple of weekends with me and messaged me one day saying it was done
trent: i was delighted to say the least

"My purpose for expressing my opinion about this is to present an alternative to a very aggressive and successful AF campaign aimed at converting Buddhists to AF."

Nobody is forced into following the path to AF. If it makes sense to you, then do it; if not, do something else.

"Let the transcenders transcend. But let us not pretend that transcendence is superior to the balanced approach."

And let us not pretend Actual Freedom is transcendence.

And let the others following along not believe what anybody else says without investigating it for themselves, be it Buddha or Kenneth or Richard or my mailman.

"I've begun to think over the past few years that the whole ascending/descending debate might be a bit of a false choice. At the end of the day, they both end up in the same place, assuming you don't fall into some of the well known traps." -Owen

It sounds plausible, Owen, but I don't see any evidence for that. People who cultivate ascendence ascend. People who cultivate descending descend. And people who cultivate balance get balanced. Richard of AF doesn't feel compassion. Mother Teresa wasn't happy. The Dalai Lama is the Dalai Lama.

"But the thing is if you descend far enough, you wind up right here, right now. Same for ascending. Like it says in the heart sutra, form and emptiness have the same mailing address." -Owen

(See my thoughts above.) It's comforting to think it all turns out the same, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

"I think calling AF'ers pratyekabuddhas might have some truth to it, but it's also not entirely accurate (AF people do teach)."

I don't think the essential characteristic of paccekka buddhas is whether they teach. For example, the Rhinoceros Sutra was written by a paccekka buddha. I think the essential characteristic of the paccekka buddha is transcendence of the human condition and the inability to feel compassion or lovingkindess.

The Buddha didn't call it the middle way for nothing. Its all about balance if you ask me!

"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,
...
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."

Without joining in the argument I'd like to clarify something which seems to be getting confused.
Actualism is not about transcendence, it is about coming fully to one's senses (as opposed to detaching from the senses and identifying with Awareness, or Void or Oneness or Suchness or any metaphysical plane - for example Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj). It is about physical reality (hence the term actualism). The practise is to be fully alive, fully engaged, and enjoying as much as possible the sensory experience (as opposed to treating the body and the world of sensory delight with contempt or moral imperiousness). It is un-intoxicating like Samadhi, as it is the simple experience of exclusively being here now without passionate imagination or sentimentality (and not in a blissful state). It is not about "complete cessation of their body and mind", but about being here now in this actually existing moment, with these physical existing objects, as this flesh and blood body, without the veneer of emotions and identity (which sounds empty, but the AF proponents describe it as rich and pure, among other words).
For these reasons (and many more) AF people describe it as 180 degrees *opposite* to transcendence and many spiritual and mystical approaches. Kenneth stated the point of immolation or elimination in his talk but then seemed to equate it with transcendence, which to me implies something very different.

- Martin

"The Buddha didn't call it the middle way for nothing. Its all about balance if you ask me!"

I agree. And it really is up to each person what path to follow. The single issue I have is that I feel AF and Actualism is being mischaracterized, and people are making decisions based on that mischaracterization. I've tried to clear those up where I could.

Most people don't have the choice to follow a path, they just stumble down one according to their karma. I am grateful for all aspects of this discussion because it illuminates possible choices and outcomes from many perspectives and gives those of us lucky enough to read it the ability to choose. Thank you all.

I am also so grateful for this precious moment we have in history when all of the wisdom traditions are finally being brought together to be dissected, synthesized, and optimized so that the next generation of practioners can find happiness that much easier. You are all doing such a wonderful service to humanity. Thank you.

Well said orasis. This is an amazing time to be on the mystical path. Whenever I get pissed off with the Dark Night, my stuff or the dogma, I try and think of what we're doing as a kind of test run for the future.

I mentioned this on the DhO and it seems worth mentioning here: I think we need to be careful of trying to shoehorn one description to fit another.

Do we really need to line up Buddhism and AF? I no longer see any value in doing so.

Keeping them both seperate seems the most reasonable approach, in my opinion at least. Just my two cents worth.

I agree with Orasis, we are indeed lucky.

My goal is to never hurt any person ever again, be it me or any one else.
Whatever method will take me there will be the one I will take, in proper time.

Paccekka Buddhas sound a lot like "jhana junkies" but not at all like AF people. Paccekka Buddhas and jhana junkies haven't eliminated malice and sorrow. They have not uprooted its cause. They have withdrawn from the world, and they stay zoned out where nothing can affect them. This is - experientially and philosophically - quite the opposite of AF. On the one hand you have complete self-absorption (ie. complete absorption in an affect-based / affect-dependent state), and on the other hand you have no affective state at all. AF is sensate reality experienced with a type of wonder and delight which - according to the testimony of those who have made it there - is permanent and invulnerable because it is intrinsic to apperception. This is not described anywhere in Buddhist tradition to the best of my knowledge.

AF people do not "live alone", they do not "meditate deeply on the 12 links", they do not "gain supernatural power", they do not aim at "complete cessation of body and mind", they do not withdraw from engagement with the world. Any such comparison stretches the truth too far to be helpful. It seems more like an opportunity for easy, unreflective dismissal to ease the cognitive dissonance that AF evokes so powerfully.

To rigorously question AF's elimination of love and compassion as well as malice and sorrow (which many people consider throwing the baby out with the bath water) is a good foundation for some honest debate on the subject. It is necessary to find out whether "actual caring" and "fellowship regard" can indeed be more beneficial than love and compassion - or whether they are not up to the task. However, lumping AF into the been-there-done-that and buddha-knows-best categories does not benefit anyone, IMO.

The people in this forum should be capable of better than this.

Alex

Hi Akyosti,

I don't expect all the textual references to paccekka buddhas to describe every AF individual. That would be unrealistic. When have generalities covered every case? Still, I believe that the paccekka buddha word points to a phenomenon that is remarkably similar to if not identical to AF. And I found several of your assertions unconvincing. Here's why:

"They (PBs) have not uprooted its cause." Wrong. Please research the topic before making bold assertions.

"(PBs) have withdrawn from the world, and stay zoned out where nothing can affect them." Exactly. Boat in Australia, for example. As for zoned out, that's a pretty good description of AF folks as I experience them. And "nothing can affect them" is the whole point of AF as I understand it.

"AF people do not "live alone." I think you are mistaken. Can you point to any who live with spouses or family or are deeply engaged with a flesh and blood community?

"they do not aim at "complete cessation of body and mind." Depends on how you interpret the phrase.

"they do not withdraw from engagement with the world." Depends on how you interpret it. I would say that AF folks I've heard about tend to be pretty disengaged, internet forums notwithstanding.

"The people in this forum should be capable of better than this." Cheap shot, ad hominem. Not welcome on this forum. It is enough to say that you disagree and politely explain why.

"I don't expect all the textual references to paccekka buddhas to describe every AF individual"

But none of the textual references to paccekka buddhas describe any AF individual.

"Boat in Australia, for example".

Australia happens to be part of the world where Richard was born and raised. He didn't move there to escape "the world". As for boats and rivers, for the vast majority of his post-AF life, Richard lived in a lively town on the east coast of NSW called Byron Bay. He didn't live in isolation at all.

As for "zoned out" and "nothing can affect them", the key difference is the type of non-affectedness:

I suggested above that being a Paccekka Buddha is - experientially and philosophically - quite the opposite of AF. The PB state is one of complete self-absorption (ie. complete absorption in an affect-based / affect-dependent state), while AF is no affective state at all. AF is the apperceptive experience of sensate reality which, according to those who have attained it, is intrinsically perfect and benign. There is nothing to withdraw from, and nowhere to withdraw to.

IMO, those are different kinds of non-affectedness resulting from a completely different experiential condition.

"Can you point to any who live with spouses or family or are deeply engaged with a flesh and blood community?"

Yes. Richard has always lived with a female partner. Peter and Vineeto lived together as a couple and probably still do. Tom and Pamela are a married couple. Tarin, I think, has a partner. I'm not sure about Trent or Stefanie. That's all of them, as far as I know. Do you know any who live alone and uninvolved?

Alex

This may all be well and good, but the real question for me is why anyone who had attained arhatship, or even just stream entry, would practice AF at all. What would be the point? I can see why some people who had meditated and gotten stuck in Dark Night, or maybe just gotten to Equanimity but then cycled back, would do it, or why people who'd had no contact with the Dharma at all would do it. But for someone who'd attained stream entry, I can't see it. I get nothing from reading the testimonials of AFers other than that it's very pleasant to experience the world in this way. I guess I personally seek more from a path than simply being in a pleasant state without any disruptive emotions. I'm seeking insight into the Way Things Really Are, and even enlightenment. Maybe that's arrogance on my part, but there it is.

I also don't see what relevance AF has to Buddhist practice at all. I guess the obvious answer is that it doesn't have any, in which case why is it taking a dominant role on a Buddhist forum (DhO)? I thought the whole point of hardcore Buddhism was for people to get enlightened. That's why I was attracted to it in the first place. We can argue all we want on this thread over whether it's fair to call AF people Paccekka Buddhas, but the facts on the ground are that AF has nothing to do with enlightenment; it has to do with feeling good. People can do all sorts of things to feel good, but none of those things is the dharma, or the pursuit of enlightenment.

(cont.)

Some posters on this thread wonder why people feel threatened by this practice or feel the need to run it down. I don't feel threatened by it, but I feel frustrated and confused when I see people abandoning the dharma to follow this path, and then carrying on about it on a what is supposed to be a Buddhist forum. I can't understand it. It's as if someone who claimed he or she wanted to become a history professor started a graduate program and maybe even began work on a dissertation, or maybe even completed a dissertation and even went to the trouble of defending it (all of which represents a substantial commitment of time and energy) and even got the damned Ph.D., and then turned around and enrolled in a summer program at an unaccredited school with a teacher with no credentials or roots in any academic tradition, and said, no, this is the real deal.

If you don't want to follow the teachings of the Buddha, then don't. If you want to do something else, then do that. While you're at it, have the honesty to say, I don't pursue Buddhism, and get yourself a nice AF forum, and set up practice threads, and have at it. Don't tell Buddhists who object to the practice that they're being divisive, or lecture them about how wonderful this is and how they really ought to give up what they're doing and try it out, or insist that it's somehow okay for AF practice to start taking a dominant role on a Buddhist forum. Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. Metta, Laurel

If we had a post-of-the-month award, I would nominate JLaurelC's post #45/46 (directly above this one).

Thank you, Laurel, for stating that so eloquently. I could not agree more.

May you awaken in this lifetime,

Kenneth

Believe me, Kenneth, I'm working on it, and believe me when I say that I have no plans to allow myself to get sidetracked. Thank you for all you do for the benefit of all sentient beings, Laurel

Hi Laurel,

'Buddhist' is a label, and 'Enlightenment' could mean various things to various people.
A Sociology lecturer in my uni is also very interested in Enlightenment. A few days ago he told me very happily that 'Full Enlightenment' means "feeling subjectively that you are god" (He is a very dedicated practitioner, by the way).
My point is that Enlightenment is what you think it is. Actually, several people see AF as more closely matching what they thought 'Enlightenment' would be!
What a coincidence, ah ?

The Buddha, when asked to summarize his teachings, said he teaches nothing but *suffering and the end of suffering*.
The practice called 'AF' is aimed at further elimination of suffering, and therefore is relevant to the practice. It has a sub-forum on the DhO and is welcome there.

Just because you don't understand why someone who has gotten enlightened would be interested in AF, does not at all mean it does not make sense.
Actually, Daniel Ingram, who seems like a very mature and enlightened practitioner, is a perfect example of this.
So reality proves that for many people, it does make sense! For people who have gotten first, second, third and fourth path.

If you are sick of hearing about AF, then don't read about it , no one is forcing you

Laurel: "... the real question for me is why anyone who had attained arhatship, or even just stream entry, would practice AF at all. What would be the point?"

Have you tried asking someone who has gotten stream entry, then 2nd, 3rd, and 4th path, then AF, why they switched and whether it was worth it and why, in their opinion, it was? Have you tried reading this: nickdowntherabbithole.blogspot.com/2011/...explanation-for.html ?

Laurel: "I get nothing from reading the testimonials of AFers other than that it's very pleasant to experience the world in this way ... AF has nothing to do with enlightenment; it has to do with feeling good."

AF has as much to do with feeling good as enlightenment has to do with attaining jhanas and being equanimous.

Laurel: "I guess the obvious answer is that it doesn't have any, in which case why is it taking a dominant role on a Buddhist forum (DhO)?"

The first bullet point in the DhO's main page is: "*pragmatism* over dogmatism: *what works is key*, with works generally meaning the stages of insight, the stages of enlightenment, jhanas, *freedom from suffering in what ways are possible*, etc." Actually, the word "Buddhism" doesn't even appear on its main page.

Laurel: "While you're at it, have the honesty to say, I don't pursue Buddhism, and get yourself a nice AF forum, and set up practice threads, and have at it."

That's what the Actualism/AF subsection of the DhO is for. Kenneth asked for comments on his talk, here.