first ever practice journal!

Actualism is like vajrayana + psychotherapy. Take the fruit (enlightened mind) as the path, and apply some mental health tips to help manifest it here and now. Works for some. Depends on how much you incline towards a subtle kind of practice and how much you like psychotherapy.

But it doesn't seem to be the only way. The only professional-grade tool in my yogi toolbox is a hammer. That's vipassana. It can be used very well. Smash, smash, smash! Like a bull in a china shop, destroying the basis for the ignorance that conditions craving. Destroy enough of it, and suddenly, enlightened mind peeks out from under the debris. Just like the Buddha says.

Also, just to document my practice right now. After anagami I found that I could access a quite deep version of any jhana just by turning my attention to it, the same for the 5 pure abodes, and the same for some kind of unique metta-jhana. (Jhana is NOT absorption [i.e. with a non-sensory nimitta]; absorption is wrong concentration; deep jhana can be accessed in the middle of everyday life and is deeply supportive of the path). Trying to figure out whether and how to integrate this new skill with my insight work.

Just a random thought.

The suttas say that the first jhana arises from being withdrawn from sensuality and its pleasure is born of that withdrawal. What does that mean? The senses of an arahant operate just fine, but they are always free of sensuality. Understanding that fully, as far as I can tell, is the key not just to right concentration, but to *everything*.

Very weird progress of insight cycle. I walked around, noticing that experience is filled with sense objects and grasping at sense objects, and the grasping slowly became visible in more detail---a string of naming, judging, imitating, commenting on, feeling good or bad about, identifying, etc. directed at sense objects. 5 times per second. 10 times per second. 30 times per second. On and on and on. I thought this was getting a little out of hand and decided to lie down. When I got to the point of observing it 50-100 times per second, I was blown away that it was possible to see so precisely and yet still be able to think and function normally. The grasping crossed sensory modalities in a way that I understand but can't describe. On and on. 1000 times per second? 10000? Do I dare suggest even more? Beyond a certain point the types of mental objects that they are cannot even be named because no word in English could possibly correspond with them. Like looking into the writhing, bubbling cauldron of the fundamental passions of the mind, the ultimate fuel that feeds the thing.. Some of it was fantastically interesting and pleasant in a conventional sense (perhaps like a high-level self-produced psychedelic experience), but all of it, every single moment, was suffering in an ultimate sense.

At times I wondered if I would remain sane while seeing it ("will I have to live like this forever?"), but always remembered that that very thought was part of the grasping.

I think the whole thing lasted about 2 hours. It does surprise me that this was not a concentration-fueled experience (except that my default level of concentration is now extremely high).

It seems that the more completed cycles like this there are, the less affect and the less fundamental suffering there is, as the mind absolutely rejects the things it's seen and to some extent is no longer fueled by that sort of madness. Right now, things are VERY good.

"Your whole view of self changes at this point. You begin to look upon yourself as if you were a newspaper photograph. When viewed with the naked eyes, the photograph you see is a definite image. When viewed through a magnifying glass, it all breaks down into an intricate configuration of dots. Similarly, under the penetrating gaze of mindfulness, the feeling of self, an 'I' or 'being' anything, loses its solidity and dissolves. (Mindfulness in Plain English)"

I think this describes where I am now. All of the things 'I' identify as, all the things that are grasped at, all the affects, are just millions of tiny dots, millions of instances of the mind writhing, wriggling, bubbling, or pulsating. The common names that I would use for these experiences only seem accurate in a conventional sense; looking closely, there really isn't anything there other than a seething mass of objectless grasping.

For a while I imagined Bhante G's description was pointing at late 3rd path, but, as usual, the truth comes into plain view when one takes descriptions of experiences like these extremely literally. I'm a stubborn person, though, and so could never actually do that (listen to these descriptions and not project my own ideas onto them) without seeing the experience for myself. As usual, my loss.

"Those things that we called hindrances or defilements are more than just unpleasant mental habits. They are the primary manifestations of the ego process itself. The ego sense itself is essentially a feeling of separation -- a perception of distance between that which we call me, and that which we call other. This perception is held in place only if it is constantly exercised, and the hindrances constitute that exercise. (Mindfulness in Plain English)"

'I' am 'my' feelings, and 'my' feelings are 'me,' amirite?

"When you first become aware of something, there is a fleeting instant of pure awareness just before you conceptualize the thing, before you identify it. That is a stage of Mindfulness. Ordinarily, this stage is very short. It is that flashing split second just as you focus your eyes on the thing, just as you focus your mind on the thing, just before you objectify it, clamp down on it mentally and segregate it from the rest of existence. It takes place just before you start thinking about it--before your mind says, "Oh, it's a dog." That flowing, soft-focused moment of pure awareness is Mindfulness. In that brief flashing mind-moment you experience a thing as an un-thing. You experience a softly flowing moment of pure experience that is interlocked with the rest of reality, not separate from it. (Mindfulness in Plain English)

When one first becomes aware of something, there is a fleeting instant of the clean perception of sensum just before one recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception) and also before one identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and this '˜raw sense-datum' stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Clear perception is in that instant where one converges one's eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing...it is the split-second just as one affectively subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from the rest of pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place...just before one's feeling-fed mind says: '˜It's a man' or: '˜It's a woman' or: '˜It's a steak-burger' or: '˜It's a tofu-burger' ...this fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness...could be called...in a word: apperceptiveness. (Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness)"

Many thanks to Richard for skillfully pointing out what the Buddhists have been trying to say.

"Mindfulness is very much like what you see with your peripheral vision as opposed to the hard focus of normal or central vision. Yet this moment of soft, unfocused, awareness contains a very deep sort of knowing that is lost as soon as you focus your mind and objectify the object into a thing. In the process of ordinary perception, the Mindfulness step is so fleeting as to be unobservable. We have developed the habit of squandering our attention on all the remaining steps, focusing on the perception, recognizing the perception, labeling it, and most of all, getting involved in a long string of symbolic thought about it. That original moment of Mindfulness is rapidly passed over. It is the purpose of the above mentioned Vipassana (or insight) meditation to train us to prolong that moment of awareness. (Mindfulness in Plain English)

Apperceptiveness is very much like what one sees with one's peripheral vision as opposed to the intent focus of normal or central vision....this moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity '“ apperceptiveness '“ contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one's mind to accommodate the feeling-tone...in the process of ordinary perception, the apperceptiveness step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable.One has developed the habit of squandering one's attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept, emotionally recognising the qualia, zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it. When the original moment of apperceptiveness is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of '˜How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?' to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperceptiveness... (Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness)"

(EDIT: Mindfulness in Plain English was written in 1990, not 2002. AFT seems to be from 1997. The resemblance is uncanny! Did Richard know about this?)

Never encountered a Buddhist description of dependent origination? I think it's been available since, oh, the Buddha.

Chris, what chapter in MCTB was that from? I don't remember it.

Random note. Metta jhana = PL2. Oops.

MCTB? Nah, much too new. Pali Canon reference material:

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html

Somewhere among contact, feeling and craving.....

It was tongue-in-cheek.

I know!

But as a result of your original comment I'm just having some fun thinking (and posting) about how this stuff gets re-realized by various people from various traditions over time. Of course, we ALL have to realize it for ourselves before it's of much use to us.

"But as a result of your original comment I'm just having some fun thinking (and posting) about how this stuff gets re-realized by various people from various traditions over time. Of course, we ALL have to realize it for ourselves before it's of much use to us.

"

Very true!

Short practice note: big path moment, new baseline experience seems to be 95% of the way to a PCE. Unlike all previous cases, where vipassana immediately brings up new vibrations to analyze, there appears to be very little left. We'll see if that changes.

EDIT: The vibrations just get successively finer and finer with each cycle. There has got to be some physical limit to how many mind-moments there can be per second. Presumably, whenever the hell that limit is reached, and everything is analyzed, that will be the end.

"Deeply buried in the mind, there lies a mental mechanism which accepts what the mind perceives as beautiful and pleasant experiences and rejects those experiences which are perceived as ugly and painful. This mechanism gives rise to those states of mind which we are training ourselves to avoid--things like greed, lust, hatred, aversion, and jealousy. We choose to avoid these hindrances, not because they are evil in the normal sense of the word, but because they are compulsive; because they take the mind over and capture the attention completely; because they keep going round and round in tight little circles of thought; and because they seal us off from living reality. (Mindfulness in Plain English)

Deeply buried in the psyche, there lies an intuitive mechanism which accepts what the heart perceives as beautiful and loving experiences and rejects those experiences which are perceived as ugly and hateful. This mechanism gives rise to those states of being which one is alert to avoid ... states like rapture, euphoria, ecstasy and bliss. One chooses to avoid narcissistic spiritual entanglements, not because they are diabolical in the normal sense of the word, but because they keep malice and sorrow subliminally alive; because they take the mind over and capture the attention completely; because they keep going round and round in atavistic circles of calenture; and because they seal one off from this living actuality. (Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness)"

Guys. All of these quotes from Richard are SO SIMILAR to Bhante G's stuff. At times, the phrasing is nearly identical! Not that it matters in terms of practice, but...has Richard played a practical joke on everyone, railing against Buddhism and spirituality but describing his main ideas in ways that he borrowed directly from a Buddhist meditation manual?!?!? AHAHAHAHA it's hilarious!

By the way, if true, this isn't a criticism of Richard in any way. In my view, freedom is the most important thing. I daresay that the main reason that those of us in the pragmatic dharma community who are aiming at it are doing so is because of Richard, not because of traditional Buddhist teachings (most of which we previously rejected in favor of what we wrongly thought were the "core" parts). So he understands skillful means very, very, *very* well, and I have the utmost personal gratitude for his sharing of what he's done, because it indirectly set me off on this wonderful path that I'm pursuing.

But AHAHAHAHAHA, hilarious! The Buddha might have been more precise, but Richard has a better sense of humor.

Brilliant find. That's definitely a lifted and slightly edited piece of writing if I ever saw one.

Oh come on, it's just plain old dishonest:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

And every time I repeat what I understand to be Buddhist teachings, that's just me plagiarising the Pali canon...

I dunno. Freedom is the most important thing. Richard has found a way to get many of us to aim at it. The Mayahanists call such a person a bodhisattva. REALLY.

Thats interesting - Mindfulness in Plain English was the very first Buddhist book that I read. I will have to re-read it again.

Thanks for your posts EndInSight. When you complete your current project, please keep posting updates because these experiential journals are invaluable.

Metta.

-Justin

"... that's just me plagiarising the Pali canon..."

Well. if you repeated it almost word for word with the same sentence structure... not that that kind of behavior is all that rare in this realm. I know it's not. It's really not a big deal,either, but I do think it makes sense to be forthright about it when we see it, and I do note the interesting juxtaposition in regard to what's said about Buddhism versus what's being used pragmatically, as you mentioned.

"Actualism is like vajrayana + psychotherapy. "

Actually the question "how am i ..." is probably the first you will be asked when you start a Gestalt-Psychotherapy and they will ask you this question over and over again through your therapy. If you read Fritz Perls books you will find this "new" method eloquently described in the 1970ies. i think there are also youtube videos of therapy session where you see him ask this question.

LocoAustriaco, I'm interested in reconciling all this stuff (if it can be reconciled); do you have a good link to something? (I may not get around to looking at it until my vipassana adventure ends, but I'll save it for later.)

I'm going to step away from the internet (it's making me unproductive, as usual), but let me say a couple of things about Richard and Bhante G first.

1) There's a prima facie case that Richard copied and rephrased large parts of Bhante G's book. The AFT site is huge, and most of the material is unique, but not all of it is.

2) The AFT site appears to be a non-profit organization, so Richard receives no financial benefit from promoting his ideas.

3) Richard has brought many of us, directly (Trent and Tarin, maybe others?) or indirectly (me, Tommy M, others), towards aiming at or attaining the end of suffering, which is probably the very same end of suffering that the Pali canon describes.

4) Richard's state, by his own description of it (which we have every reason to believe) is one in which he could not receive any sort of personal or egoistic aggrandizement from copying anything or promoting his own ideas.

5) A bodhisattva vows to liberate sentient beings, and the Mayahanist schools emphasize that this can be via skillful means; without causing harm, whatever the situation requires.

6) Richard's work is brilliantly attractive to those who dislike "spirituality" or those who like some forms (Buddhism) but have a wrong view of where they lead.

6.1) Many of us, who followed the pragmatic dharma to it's known endpoint, dismissed what the traditionalists were saying, but were receptive to what Richard and co. were saying.

7) Actualism can be thought of as a form of vajrayana. Actualism works. Actualism may work better than any other form of Buddhism for some people, depending on their individual traits.

(cont)

I don't know what Bhante G would think, but I am confident that, as a devout monk, he would be much more interested in having the dharma spread and having practices that accord with the dharma be adopted than he would be interested in receiving credit for a text that is prima facie based on his.

9) The end of suffering is, in my opinion, truly the most important thing in life, truly a wonderful thing to attain, and truly the most perfect happiness imaginable. From an academic standpoint, plagiarism is bad; from an ethical standpoint, I have nothing but admiration for Richard and his tireless promotion of AF / actualism.

9.1) My own practice, which I adopted only because I came to believe that AF was arahantship, has so far given me a happiness that is permanent and literally beyond all sensual pleasure, and which has literally been the most important thing to happen to me in my entire life; and so I could not condemn a person who has helped me to reach this (and hurt no one in the process).

10) Anyone who rejects AF should carefully consider whether it's because Richard's terminology is confusing, or because they have a wrong view about the goal of Buddhism, or whether Bhante G has a wrong view about the goal of Buddhism.

10.1) Many suttas state that wrong view generates bad karma which leads one to hell. Whether this is literally true is debatable, but wrong view surely keeps one from reaching the goal of Buddhist practice...and, as I see it, that is equivalent to being in hell. (Every moment outside a PCE has millions of affects / millions of instances of grasping, each of which is suffering, no matter how pleasant the affect or the grasping-object is, whether or not they are recognized as happening or recognized as suffering.)

11) Supposing that Richard did plagiarize, the joke's on us (the pragmatic dharma community), and it's a *really* clever one!