Design and the Language of AF

"Ok, right. Love is a messy term, and can lead to a bunch of confusion. But confusion is not always bad if it helps you let go of ideas. Ideas do not fit through the door, which is what gets burned into you during the anagami dilemma (virtual freedom).
"

Agree. Also, if certain terms are "loaded", why not unload them? I don't think "love" is messy if we perhaps use Nick's descriptions or other practical definitions.

Also, maybe unloading language is what allows us to make equivalences like "sensuousness = right mindfulness". Purified speech?

"I foolishly attempt to draft a consensus position:

Birth to 1st Path:
Not sure if there is a path out of fundamental suffering. Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail.

1st Path to technical 4th Path:
Pretty sure there is a path out of fundamental suffering. Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail.

Technical 4th path to dropping 'selfing':
Fundamental suffering is seen through. Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail.

After dropping 'selfing':
Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I was actually chatting about this as a model for Jud, the neuroscientist at yale who is going to give me another scan this Saturday.

This simple developmental model is nice since it avoids all the non-linear bits of the others - given that different styles of practice might cause development to proceed out of order across traditions. These are probably the only consistent signposts we know about.

"I foolishly attempt to draft a consensus position:

Birth to 1st Path:
Not sure if there is a path out of fundamental suffering. Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail.

1st Path to technical 4th Path:
Pretty sure there is a path out of fundamental suffering. Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail.

Technical 4th path to dropping 'selfing':
Fundamental suffering is seen through. Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail.

After dropping 'selfing':
Don't take any ideas too seriously. All words fail."

One thing I want to point out is that it seems one can go from 0 to AF without even getting technical model stream entry (Peter, Vineeto, some more of those Aussie folks)... though whether a full-blown PCE changes the brain in a way that would align with one or more of those technical paths is hard to say.

That is to say: even this attempt at a non-linear model is still too linear =P.

But, I think so long as one has the end in sight, with people already there to guide them, one will be just fine. The path might simply be:

hang out with Noble Ones... ask them for advice on how to end your suffering... follow the advice as best you possibly can until you no longer consider yourself to be suffering... chat with some Noble Ones to see whether you are indeed no longer suffering... repeat until you are satisfied.

only issue being: what's a Noble One? which is the same issue as: what is suffering?.. gah not again!

But it's safe to say that, following someone's advice, if they do indeed know what they are doing, you will likely get to where they are. so i guess the path is as above, except replace "Noble One" with "someone who appears, to you, to have ended suffering in a way that you want to end it as well"

"Agree. Also, if certain terms are "loaded", why not unload them? I don't think "love" is messy if we perhaps use Nick's descriptions or other practical definitions.

Also, maybe unloading language is what allows us to make equivalences like "sensuousness = right mindfulness". Purified speech?"

Yes. "Why not unload them?" That's great, APriori!

Beo, is the possibility of "misleading people into cultivating affective love" more dangerous than that of encouraging people to feel a social-identity-superiority- complex (masking insecurity, presumably) of feeling "in" by using approved, non-affective language? I notice that sometimes, those attracted to official actualism, particularly those for whom it doesn't seem to gain traction, seem actually to be dissociating, as the thinking-I, from the feeling-me, and the extremely dualistic framework of richard's teaching may encourage that, ironically. What do you think?

Oh, also Beo, I think you make a good point about being able to skip, in some way at least, many milestones taken for granted in the pragmatic dharma scene. I'm thinking of Jill's experiences, as recounted on the DhO, for example of someone who didn't seem to experience TM 4th path (although I could be completely wrong about that) but was practicing in a mainly Buddhist framework up till AF or TF Arhat. Also, Chuck Kasimir's descriptions of his path transitions always sounded very different to me from the more mainstream descriptions of TM paths, and were much easier for me to relate to. As Chris said, the actuality of myriad practitioners is far more complex than any model.
-Jake

"Beo, is the possibility of "misleading people into cultivating affective love" more dangerous than that of encouraging people to feel a social-identity-superiority- complex (masking insecurity, presumably) of feeling "in" by using approved, non-affective language? I notice that sometimes, those attracted to official actualism, particularly those for whom it doesn't seem to gain traction, seem actually to be dissociating, as the thinking-I, from the feeling-me, and the extremely dualistic framework of richard's teaching may encourage that, ironically. What do you think? "

Hmm... well, a few points...

<redacted - see post 62>

About the superiority-complex... I'll speak for myself, here. I really really seem to like concepts. My entire actualist practice up to my first PCE (which somehow managed to happen) was not even really actualist practice, in terms of attentiveness or sensuousness, but seemed more to be really trying to figure out the concepts and fit them into a framework, with some practice happening by accident on the side. thus for me it was really quite important to get everything straight, and the way i did so was by being really precise with terms, perhaps rejecting other approaches in the process. (cont...)

(...cont)
so, personally speaking, it was more of a personality thing. perhaps people with such a personality are more attracted to actualism. perhaps a correlation, but not a causation.

that being said, i still think precision is very important. when i actually started practicing instead of conceptualizing, most of my concepts were lined up pretty well, so it was easy for me, once gaining actual insight and thus dropping the concept, to make connections with other things, which i think was helpful, and wouldn't have been as easy had i been less precise.

as a final point, i was averse to and scared of love far before i started meditating. perhaps more metta would have helped. so perhaps i did repress love, which is _not_ what the actualist practice dictates one to do (to neither repress nor express), so again, i can't really fault the practice. if my karma was different i would have stopped repressing it, which would have led to its expression, then i would have stopped expressing it, which would have led to calm, earlier than i did. though maybe purposefully expressing it might have helped counter the repressing...

(...cont)
however, i was delighted to find parallels with very precise buddhist language, informed by conversations with AFers. thus i think i'm more of a precision-freak than a superiority-complex freak.

that being said, i did feel bad when people dissed actualism, and really had a huge stake in convincing other people that it was awesome. seeing the emotion it caused activated my precision-freak even more, cause i didn't want to misspeak, knowing that i was just going off concepts and not acutal experience. (needless to say my practice wasn't focused in quite the right places)

i will also say that i have ignored a bunch of issues that have become more + more apparent as i went on. when doing vipassana i put it all in the 'dark night' category, not thinking that one could be equanimous while not in the equanimity nyana (a point which i perhaps wish was made more explicit in MCTB, though it is mentioned, so i can't really complain). with actualist practice i guess i figured "this bad stuff doesn't happen when not at place X, so i'll just practice when i'm not in place X".. avoidance, basically

i don't think you can say the actualist site or framework encouraged such putting-aside of emotional issues, because it does repeatedly state that you should not ignore anything that comes up, that you shouldn't sweep anything under the carpet, that you should - must - have the pure intent to see everything as it comes up, so that one can get back to feeling good. perhaps i ignored that for the same reason i ignored the stuff about equanimity in MCTB.
(cont...)

"non-affective language"

Can there really be such a thing in itself? Language is as much in the listener as the speaker. Language is always a double-edged sword, beyond control, able to confuse or clairify with the same sentence.

I deserve to be beaten twice with the zen stick for saying that.

Good point, Betawave; that's sort of what i was trying to articulate about the possibility of using official actualist terms to fortify a very affective and selfy experience, and thus suggest that straightening out everyone's language use according to an official lexicon will always be problematical.

That said, Beo, you make some very reasonable points as usual. I can relate to the "precision-freak" thing myself for sure. Also, I think it's really important (for some people... perhaps us precision freaks )-- to get the concepts straight first. There is something to be said for seeing how the model hangs together, how the concepts fit, how the logic of a view holds up. This has always been my way, probably because I'm good at learning concepts and words. I don't think there's anything suspect or wrong about that, although it gets a bad rap in dharma circles both pragmatic and mainstream, as if having a clear conceptual view is evidence of a lack of practice experience. I too find that having the conceptual view clear first is useful once actual practice gets underway, and one sees how the experiential logic of the unfolding process is mirrored in the conceptual logic of the languaged view, and thus one's confidence grows as one sees more and more of the territory show up more or less as predicted on the map. But--- that's an individual process, and each practitioner needs to find the verbal-conceptual teaching with the aesthetic that inspires THEM to actually delve in to practice

What I think is important about Justin's thread topic is the notion that such verbal-conceptual shells can be constructed with intention to connect with various different kinds of people.

"Can there really be such a thing in itself? Language is as much in the listener as the speaker. Language is always a double-edged sword, beyond control, able to confuse or clairify with the same sentence.

I deserve to be beaten twice with the zen stick for saying that. "

Not at all. This is a very valid point and those wishing to convey as much clarity in their communications should consider it as much as possible and choose their words wisely for the desired result: clear understanding on the listeners end.

Also Beo, about Richard's stuff, yes: for example, he says again and again that one must be willing to completely, unreservedly feel the whole spectrum of feelings as they actually arise; yet often people come away with the opposite impression. It's worth considering why that is, without assuming it's because "feeling beings are clever" for example. I think there is a design issue, in Justin's phrase. There's a lot of incredibly useful practice advice there... but it's surrounded by a really dualistic, polemical discourse. I once had a boss who yelled at the employees. He complained that they always made the same mistakes. I explained to him that it was probably because, instead of telling them what to do in a calm friendly tone, he always yelled and acted crazy, and regardless of the information content, the only thing anyone remembered from these encounters was that... he was pissed! Likewise, many people just get the impression that Richard has a big chip on his shoulder about "spirituality" and that he has a cynical view about human emotion, and a sarcastic way of expressing it! (Check your dictionary... neither cynicism nor sarcasm are necessarily affective... but they certainly do tend to push affective buttons in listeners!! )

"I will concede that, the idealistic idea of completely selfless true love, does point in the direction of affectless actual compassion. However, 'true love' doesn't exist, as an affective state, so just trying to intensify 'love' until you are filled with it won't get you there. However, perhaps cultivating affective love + compassion will get you into the 5th jhana, at which point you can mash it against actual affectless compassion, thus dropping the parts that seem like love, as Owen said. Perhaps that's what he was getting at. It's important to note that, for someone trying to do this, the idea is not to intensify the affect, but to compare it against the actual and drop it."

i want to take even this back. 'true love' is usually thought of as between two people, such that they will be 'together no matter what'. this assumes there is a separation there. this really still has nothing to do with the affectless compassion/actual caring of the actual world/5th jhanic perspective. i don't see the benefit in trying to shoehorn the word 'love' to mean 'affectless compassion'... even the word 'compassion' has problems, as Alex pointed out. i think instead we should just present a reasonable discourse on love, not only pointing out its negatives, but also pointing out the positive that is left once love is no longer there. actually, that's why i find actualism more appealing in some ways than the buddhist take - it points to the positive qualities of nirvana, instead of focusing only on elimination (of suffering).

"... It's worth considering why that is, without assuming it's because "feeling beings are clever" for example. I think there is a design issue, in Justin's phrase. There's a lot of incredibly useful practice advice there... but it's surrounded by a really dualistic, polemical discourse... "

Hmm.. after this, along with your post #59, i think i finally see what Justin was getting at.

i will say this: at first, Richard's writing might be extremely repelling. however, once one's concepts are more aligned with actualism (which is not necessary for all people, and only a means to an end, as concepts must be dropped and will drop with practice anyway), Richard's writing is extremely evocative. just by reading the AF Trust site i get into a better mood, i get a sense of excitement at the possibility of it all being able to happen.. i can focus on what is being said and tune into it easily.. i think Nikolai's first PCE came from really carefully reading that apperceptiveness essay.

so i think he did it with a purpose. mad ramblings imply lack of premeditation, but i suspect he pored over each word as he was writing it.

that being said, perhaps some preparatory discussion/practice/reading is necessary before reading the AF Trust site, to get the full benefit from it =P. talking with AF people really helps a lot.

" 'true love' is usually thought of as between two people, such that they will be 'together no matter what'. this assumes there is a separation there. this really still has nothing to do with the affectless compassion/actual caring of the actual world/5th jhanic perspective. i don't see the benefit in trying to shoehorn the word 'love' to mean 'affectless compassion' [...] actually, that's why i find actualism more appealing in some ways than the buddhist take - it points to the positive qualities of nirvana, instead of focusing only on elimination (of suffering)."

Okay, but to your first point: what you're calling "true love" just isn't what most people, in my experience, think of love as. It may very well be what most people between adolescence and perhaps through their twenties think of as "love", but with a broader base of experience, that perspective is seen to be really closed and simplistic. Pining for a romantic partner and the feelings associated with it, for a mature adult who has seen the projection, idealization, fear and selfishness in that (and in whom the hormones raging behind such pining have somewhat subsided), is like playing with childrens' toys is for an adolescent: one remembers that one once did that, but can't imagine how one could ever possibly do it again with the same mindset. So, while your associations with the term "love" may be typical for the internet/prag dharma demographic, it seems more like a sign of a certain stage of life to folks in a different stage.

And as for pointing at the positive, yes, again, that's why many people enjoy mahayana and vajrayana and taoism-- because instead of defining experience in negative terms (impermanent, no-self, suffering) there is pointing at the freshness, openness, and delight revealed in experience as one drops false views and resistances to life.

I note the word 'love' sometimes during Mahamudra noting. It is not dual, but inclusive of everything. It is very close to compassion, but with a slight tweak, so my mind labels it as love.

An interesting thing about noting is that the words aren't there to clarify something to a listener, but rather exist as the observer's conceptual labeling of a dominant characteristic of true experience.

"perhaps some preparatory discussion/practice/reading is necessary before reading the AF Trust site, to get the full benefit from it =P. talking with AF people really helps a lot."

One could unload "love", the mahayana and vajrayana language, just as one could unload the AF Trust Language to get the full benefit of the teaching, language or semiotic structure.

What is to unload? Perhaps purify language of dualistic cognitions. Like I said, purify speech to use it for the benefit of a) oneself and b) others.

EDIT: After all, languages, concepts and words DO appear even though they don't "actually" exist.

"EDIT: After all, languages, concepts and words DO appear even though they don't "actually" exist."

Well, to be precise: words exist as speech (sound waves) and text (photons). The capacity to form these (languages) exists - actually free people can certainly talk and write. These things are actual. Thoughts are also actual.

For concepts, you have to be careful how you define it. Concept as 'papanca' (read Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought) is 'real', not actual... concept as reasoning based on belief is 'real', not actual.. though concept in terms of understanding how multiplication works is actual.

But to address your main point, I agree... language + thoughts, by their very nature, very easily form into concepts for non-released folk.. so with any set of teachings, one has to very carefully unload it to get at what it's actually referring to (or more precisely, to allow one to actually experience what it is referring to and thus remove the need for a concept around it). some teachings might be more easily unloaded than others, and this probably depends on the person...

"Well, to be precise: words exist as speech (sound waves) and text (photons). The capacity to form these (languages) exists - actually free people can certainly talk and write. These things are actual. Thoughts are also actual.

For concepts, you have to be careful how you define it. Concept as 'papanca' (read Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought) is 'real', not actual... concept as reasoning based on belief is 'real', not actual.. though concept in terms of understanding how multiplication works is actual.

But to address your main point, I agree... language + thoughts, by their very nature, very easily form into concepts for non-released folk.. so with any set of teachings, one has to very carefully unload it to get at what it's actually referring to (or more precisely, to allow one to actually experience what it is referring to and thus remove the need for a concept around it). some teachings might be more easily unloaded than others, and this probably depends on the person... "

Yes, I agree completely. This is how the vajrayana works. All deity visualizations, symbols, mantras and prayers are understood as actual. Never real.

Unfortunately, not all vajrayanists discern this in the right way.

"Well, to be precise: words exist as speech (sound waves) and text (photons)...
language + thoughts, by their very nature, very easily form into concepts for non-released folk.. so with any set of teachings, one has to very carefully unload it to get at what it's actually referring to (or more precisely, to allow one to actually experience what it is referring to and thus remove the need for a concept around it). some teachings might be more easily unloaded than others, and this probably depends on the person... "

Can I offer that there is a delight, for some, in full on geekery and detailed analysis of words and such and it is a blessing that there are places for that sort of discussion to be pursued (like here - enjoy!).
It might be worth keeping in mind that one can also apply the "more rock less talk" teaching successfully. That is, if one sits with a basic mindfulness or noting type practice, without knowing a single bit of technical jargon, one can get pretty darn deep into a meditation practice, even to awakening and beyond.
Just to point out not only are there myriad paths, there are myriad styles. Sometimes a teaching doesn't work for a person not because it is not sufficiently over-explained, but because it is simply not the approach to awakening that happens to resonate for them. I think that's perfectly okay. There's plenty of room in the universe for variety.

"Yes, I agree completely. This is how the vajrayana works. All deity visualizations, symbols, mantras and prayers are understood as actual. Never real.

Unfortunately, not all vajrayanists discern this in the right way."

With the disclaimer that I know just about nothing about vajrayana, thus I'm not sure what you are trying to point out (so I won't address it), I want to point out that one loses[1] the ability to visualize once one is actually free... visualizations (meaning images in the mind's eye) aren't actual.

[1] again, though this sounds like a loss, one doesn't actually lose anything... read actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcor...ce/sc-creativity.htm for more.

"With the disclaimer that I know just about nothing about vajrayana, thus I'm not sure what you are trying to point out (so I won't address it), I want to point out that one loses[1] the ability to visualize once one is actually free... visualizations (meaning images in the mind's eye) aren't actual.

[1] again, though this sounds like a loss, one doesn't actually lose anything... read actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcor...ce/sc-creativity.htm for more."

I see. Well, I know the visualizations are just tridimensional symbols that "represent" (among many other things) actuality but are not in fact actuality. Advanced practitioners don't need them, they just rely on Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

Some of the "technical" stuff gets way out of hand for my tastes, too. It's no doubt interesting to some of you but I REALLY like what was said in #70 -- it is simply not any kind of requirement for awakening. Just wanted to reinforce that point

So just to clarify, AF and its proponents think that being actually free means having no emotional life or experience whatsoever? So those who claim the status or imply it, are saying they feel nothing emotional whatsoever? Nothing!! They do not love their partners, mothers? No compassion for others' suffering, whatsoever?

(1) From my experience of complete selflessness, I don't believe the above is actual freedom; nor are things like universal, impersonal, love or compassion, or the amazement of existence / aliveness, predicated [on] a sense of self; nor are they a source of suffering, in any way. They are realised as present in the absence of a sense of self that obscures their cognizance;

(2) If a person is literally emotionally free in every sense (blunted affect), it is certainly pathological; not a desirable human state;

(3) I think it is not literally true, but there is a terminological issue, making it look true to some. Excellent Experience and the joy of actual freedom, which Richard has described elsewhere, clearly is not a blunted, emotionally free experience. However, AF terminology is unable to describe his experience as being within the dimension of emotion, given the circularity of the language and definition. And where it is believed to be true, a confusion exists for those who think it is (given the language issue), when in fact for them, it is not. They simply cannot describe their experience accurately, given this. There may be an absence of 'personal' emotions, 'maybe' (even though, no self may be seen or identified with this), but not an absence of emotions, period.

Just my opinion.

Carry on.

Adam. edited for clarity.