New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

Hi Beoman,

You are right that the DhO is not officially a Buddhist website, judging by the home page. In fairness to Laurel, though, we should remember that Daniel Ingram, the founder of the DhO first came into the public eye by way of his book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha and through his appearances on the Buddhist Geeks podcast show. Because of this, I think people can be forgiven for feeling themselves the victims of a bait-and-switch when, upon arriving at the Dharma Overground ("Dharma" is a Buddhist word, by the way), they find the site dominated by an anti-Buddhist "tradition" that is less than 50 years old.

Granted, Daniel has a right to change and explore whatever calls to him; it would be unfair and unrealistic of us to expect him to remain always the same. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to hope that the "Dharma Overground" will be about dharma.

For those who would like to see more discussion on this topic from a non-AF point of view, you might want to look here:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/40...et=260&maxResults=20

and here:

www.thebaptistshead.co.uk/index.php?opti...iew&id=406&Itemid=32

To be fair, 'Dharma' doesn't just mean 'Teachings of the Buddha', but also (From WikiPedia, Dharma): ""phenomenon", and "nature" or "characteristic", Dharma also means '˜mental contents', and is paired with citta, which means heart/mind. "

Kenneth, did you get into Dharma for its own sake, or to end suffering?
You, having a self-proclaimed "I'll try anything eclectic" approach, would be the last person I expect to dismiss things for being non-Buddhist or Non-Dharma.

"To be fair, 'Dharma' doesn't just mean 'Teachings of the Buddha', but also (From WikiPedia, Dharma): ""phenomenon", and "nature" or "characteristic", Dharma also means '˜mental contents', and is paired with citta, which means heart/mind. "

Kenneth, did you get into Dharma for its own sake, or to end suffering?
You, having a self-proclaimed "I'll try anything eclectic" approach, would be the last person I expect to dismiss things for being non-Buddhist or Non-Dharma."

I must not have expressed myself clearly, Yadid. My point is not to dismiss something simply because it is non-Buddhist. As you say, that is the last thing I would do. My point is that no one can be blamed for expecting the Dharma Overground to be dedicated to dharma.

Okay.

edit: removed stuff I'll pm instead.

Can i ask what PCE is/are?

Steve

"My point is that no one can be blamed for expecting the Dharma Overground to be dedicated to dharma."

Spot on.

Steve, PCE is an actualist term which refers to a "pure consciousness experience" where there is no longer any sense of "being", and no emotion/affective faculty whatsoever. It's a wonderful, pure and very beautiful experience although it's not unique to AF.

"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.
"

So enlightenment is whatever I say it is? And hard-core Buddhism is maybe following the Buddha, maybe following anything else anyone wants? You quote the Buddha as saying he teaches nothing but suffering and the end of suffering--what about the 4th of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path to the end of suffering? Do you think if the Buddha read Richard's website he'd say, oh yeah, that's what I meant, go ahead and do that!? By which I'm saying, please don't quote the Buddha selectively to suggest something that is just plain wrong about what he might have intended when he described his teaching as the end of suffering.

As for AF being welcome on DhO, that's precisely what I'm protesting against. Now Daniel can do whatever he wants with his own forum, but I respectfully and vigorously protest what he has done. There, I've said it. I'll say why in my next post.

Hi Laurel,

You are welcome to follow Buddhism if you want.
I, and others I am aware of, are into the path for the end of suffering, and that only. Any method or teacher / teaching I follow is for that purpose only.
I never took on Buddhism for Buddhism's sake.
This forum isn't Buddhist, either. Kenneth also practiced various methods which some conservative Buddhists will laugh at.
Whether there ever was a 'Buddha' is not a given. We really don't know. Whether the words he spoke were actually conserved in the Pali Canon, or whether it already lost it in the past 2,600 years is also unknown.

Laurel: So enlightenment is whatever I say it is?
Well yes, there is no objective 'Enlightenment' out there. Some people think it is 'Being one with god', some people think it is 'dwelling in god-consciousness forever', and some like you think it is.. X? I don't know. You tell me. Is it what you think the Buddha said? Kenneth? Daniel?
What is enlightenment, really?
Is it the result of Vipassana practice taken all the way, but not AF?

What will you gain by protesting the AF subforum on the DhO? Just take what you find useful for your own path.. I really don't see the point..

"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
"

Fair enough--let me specify, it doesn't make sense to me. As for Daniel: maybe I should just have the guts to go over to DhO and flat-out ask him, and while I'm at it tell him what I think. Actually, several months ago I got caught up in a controversy with Stefanie Dunning over there in which I pretty much did that, and Daniel didn't answer me. It was a frustrating exchange, I was new, and I didn't feel I had any credibility at all, and Stefanie had her vigorous defenders, and I thought, forget it, this is making me upset and contributing more heat than light. I eventually migrated over here because I was so turned off by AF over there.

Now that this thread has opened, I am grappling with it again. I think Daniel, a mature and enlightened practitioner, has let himself get sidetracked, and he has allowed DhO to get highjacked. From what I gather, people at that level are not saints or infallible.

"You are right that the DhO is not officially a Buddhist website, judging by the home page. In fairness to Laurel, though, we should remember that Daniel Ingram, the founder of the DhO first came into the public eye by way of his book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha and through his appearances on the Buddhist Geeks podcast show. Because of this, I think people can be forgiven for feeling themselves the victims of a bait-and-switch when, upon arriving at the Dharma Overground ("Dharma" is a Buddhist word, by the way), they find the site dominated by an anti-Buddhist "tradition" that is less than 50 years old."

This is precisely how I felt, and feel. I was drawn in by Daniel's book in the first place, went to DhO, introduced myself, and got some perplexing advice from Trent, with no idea where it came from, what relationship it had to the Dharma, and what I was supposed to do with it. Then I found myself reading thread after thread of totally unrelated stuff.

Daniel should attach some sort of disclaimer to his book: By the way, I no longer believe what I wrote here, that was then, this is now. Or else he should vigorously pursue the question of what the relationship between Buddhist and AF practice is, as well as outcomes. On those occasions when someone has tried to do that, however, he has shut down the discussion by saying that people are getting too theoretical. At least that's been my impression.

cont.

Actually, I take that back: I have no right to tell Daniel what to do. But it would be more honest for him to attach a disclaimer, and it would be helpful to people like me if someone were to pursue the relationship at a theoretical level, even if these forums are only dedicated to practice.

I suppose I have been misled and have misunderstood the purpose of these forums, and have taken Dharma in a thoroughly Buddhist sense. But let me ask you this: what would happen if I went over to DhO and opened a thread on the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, and started coaching newcomers in Ignatian spirituality? Do you think I'd get told to knock it off, or else be terminated? In other words, are there limits?

Hi Laurel.

I believe that if I asked Daniel to open a sub-forum for the Spiritual excercizes of Loyola for practical purposes, he would. But just guessing

Anyway - I can understand your frustration with not being able to see why this is happening or not agreeing with it, but I think the best thing to do is simply to carry on with your own practice, develop a trusting relationship with someone who got to where you want to get, and go deep.
Let others practice what they want, who cares?

Hi Laurel,

The DhO has a different structure than here, it is not 'Daniel's site' as such (I'm not sure he even reads most of the posts anymore), but rather a self-sustaining community of practitioners. It is made up of whatever contributions people make, and so if individuals ask questions and give answers regarding AF then that is what is prominent. It is self-regulating in that whatever people are most interested in gets the most threads (which is pretty good eh). Of course people also ask questions and give answers about insight and jhanas and plenty of other things. The point is it's based on individual interests, viewpoints, preferences and contributions (rather than one person saying "we're only going to discuss this, or only going to talk about a particular brand of Buddhism) - as long as it's in line with the broad purpose of the site which is meditation-type practitioner based ways of ending suffering.

- Martin

That's fine--I really do believe in live and let live. I just don't like not being able to understand what is going on, but then again there's a lot in this world that I don't understand, so I can deal with it. My complaint about the role of AF on DhO has to do with the experiences I've described as a newcomer there. I repeat: Daniel can do what he wants in his own practice and on his own forum, but it feels like a bait and switch, as Kenneth said.

P.S. to Martin: point well taken. I just saw your post. Thanks.

Martin, point well taken. Thanks. I want to apologize if I've gotten carried away here and offended anyone. I know conditional apologies are bogus, but in this case I really mean it--I don't want to be insulting.

Laurel: "I just don't like not being able to understand what is going on..." (and a few other similar phrases)

You really should just ask somebody, honestly. They aren't mean people - you can PM them using the DhO's system.

Laurel: "Or else he should vigorously pursue the question of what the relationship between Buddhist and AF practice is, as well as outcomes. On those occasions when someone has tried to do that, however, he has shut down the discussion by saying that people are getting too theoretical. At least that's been my impression."

Can you point out the threads where that has happened? I don't remember seeing those. I see lots of threads comparing AF with Buddhism.

Laurel :"I was drawn in by Daniel's book in the first place, went to DhO, introduced myself, and got some perplexing advice from Trent, with no idea where it came from..."

From Trent's experience with what causes pain.

Laurel: "...what relationship it had to the Dharma..."

Essentially it was a practice to pay attention to your physical and mental states to see what causes pain of both, much like insight practice except with a little more focus.

Laurel: "... and what I was supposed to do with it."

Try it and see if it causes the pain to increase, or decrease.

Laurel: "Then I found myself reading thread after thread of totally unrelated stuff. "

To be fair, I think a large reason for this is that the categories of the DhO aren't clearly differentiated. The 'Recent Posts' doesn't list under which category a thread is in, so if you open it you'd have to look no the top, see that it's in the Actualism/AF section, and then ignore it.

" kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/40...et=260&maxResults=20

and here:

www.thebaptistshead.co.uk/index.php?opti...iew&id=406&Itemid=32 "

Those threads have the same problem as this one, namely that the people speaking against Actualism don't seem to understand it very well.

It must seem quite diabolical - here is this weird practice that denies your humanity! And look, intelligent, enlightened people who take a closer look at it just get sucked in and are fooled by it and start practicing it! What possible explanation could there be for that? It might be because reading the AF Trust Site and talking with Actualists screws up your reasoning until you can't think for yourself. Or maybe it's something else...


EDIT: What do the following have in common: AF is transcendence; AF is descending into solely the physical; AF is solely about feeling good; AF is solely about maintaining the PCE; AF is about denying your emotions; AF is about denying your humanity; AF is about not caring.

Hi Laurel,

I got 4th path last year with Kenneth's help. Overtime, I had experiences of the infamous PCE. I ended up taking on the practice. It has given me a lot of happiness and peace in my life and not just for me but for my loved ones. Thus i continue on it. But I was a hardcore theravadan for a long time. I even became a monk in Burma to see if it was the path i wanted to take. So these tendencies die hard. Thus, I have the tendency to try and map the PCE practice to my readings of the suttas. I am not trying to convince anyone here to follow AF. This was for my own pleasing that I did this. but there seems to be so much crap thrown this way, that I thought it best say that what I think i am doing, the thoughts that I have when thinking about my practice still, are that I AM still following the Buddha's instructions. I know others don't think this. But each to his own motivation. These are the similarities I have seen thus far:

Cultivation of felicitous feelings?

* "A monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: he should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity. If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations. But when he attends periodically to the theme of concentration, attends periodically to the theme of uplifted energy, attends periodically to the theme of equanimity, his mind is pliant, malleable, luminous, & not brittle. It is rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations." Nimitta Sutta

NOTE: Felicitous feelings make the mind extremely pliant, malleable, luminous and not-brittle. From this state, it is easy to go in any direction one wishes such as apperception (PCE).

Cultivation of the pure intent to be happy and harmless?

* "There are these four right exertions. Which four? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are the four right exertions.

Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops & pursues the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, inclines to Unbinding." SN 49.1

* "And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying." Sabbasava Sutta

* "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless, uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities, just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head...
But if, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain uncovetous, without thoughts of ill will... & concentrated,' then his duty is to make an effort in establishing those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the effluents." Sacitta Sutta

* "And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with renunciation/non-illwill/harmlessness arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder in line with that even for a night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I do not envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed." Dvedhavitakka Sutta

* If a monk attains concentration, attains singleness of mind founded on desire/persistence/intent/discrimination, that is called concentration founded on desire. He generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are called the fabrications of exertion. This is desire, this is concentration founded on desire, these are the fabrications of exertion. This is called the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire/persistence/intent/discrimination & the fabrications of exertions. SN 51.13

Seeing through the sense of "being"?

* "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' (NOTE: sense of being?) of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"

"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"

"No, friend."

"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly."

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession (sounds like the sense of "being" to me). But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated." Khemaka Sutta

NOTE: This last paragraph sounds an awful lot like what is happening to me with PCE practice. The sense of "being" which I would equate to the arising of affect/ I AM is slowly losing ground. The residual obsession to exist via affect is getting obliterated.