Design and the Language of AF

@Adam

I think that in this issue the limitations of language can get in the way. Words like emotion, feeling, mind state and body state are inaccurate and insufficient for describing the actual experience. I have found that after a certain point in my practice it has been almost impossible to tell others about my experiences using these words.

I cannot speak for AF as I have not done those practices, but I have noticed that it seems to be possible to laugh, have fun and deeply care for other people without having the emotions that one would normally associate with these situations.

When the self is absent, surprisingly the body can do all the tasks just like before, even more efficiently it seems. Thoughts emerge and words come out of my mouth without having to think about it and I am often surprised what just came out. Something similar seems to happen to emotions or mind states also. Some features of the experience are gone with the duality and there are many ways people try to describe this and often in vain.

In my experience there is a feeling of love that is beyond separation, beyond this body/mind. And it is universal and all encompassing.
Its not that you lose the emotions and feelings for close family and friends, but that it becomes impossible to segregate feelings.
All feelings of love are universal, for every blade of grass, particle, empty space.
This is getting all too religious sounding for my liking , so i'll quit while i'm ahead!

I think this language issue is a huge stumbling block. I am gradually guessing that one or more of the following are true:

1) some people way past 4th path (whether using the AF approach or otherwise) have the responses we call emotions, but do not feel attached to them in anyway - they just happen in the same way eating or talking happens, with no doer/sense of self/little guy driving the car.

2) 'emotions' is being used only to refer to what the average (non practitioner) might call bad emotions, such as lust, greed, anger, etc. but not to what the average person would call good emotions like love, happiness, joy, enthusiasm etc.

3) the natural qualities of awakening such as compassion, openness, peace, joy, etc. are being named as "not emotions" to separate them from the habits of mind (clinging/aversion) that may continue to arise post awakening. The word 'emotions' is only used in reference to responses that contain this hangover of clinging/aversion.

4) The talk of absence of emotions (and some of the war-like "root out and destroy the last shreds of self!" kind of talk) resonates to a certain audience, while really turning off others. This is why it's a blessing there are a thousand roads to Rome - everyone can find one that resonates with them.

"I think this language issue is a huge stumbling block. I am gradually guessing that one or more of the following are true:

1) some people way past 4th path (whether using the AF approach or otherwise) have the responses we call emotions, but do not feel attached to them in anyway - they just happen in the same way eating or talking happens, with no doer/sense of self/little guy driving the car.

2) 'emotions' is being used only to refer to what the average (non practitioner) might call bad emotions, such as lust, greed, anger, etc. but not to what the average person would call good emotions like love, happiness, joy, enthusiasm etc.

3) the natural qualities of awakening such as compassion, openness, peace, joy, etc. are being named as "not emotions" to separate them from the habits of mind (clinging/aversion) that may continue to arise post awakening. The word 'emotions' is only used in reference to responses that contain this hangover of clinging/aversion.

4) The talk of absence of emotions (and some of the war-like "root out and destroy the last shreds of self!" kind of talk) resonates to a certain audience, while really turning off others. This is why it's a blessing there are a thousand roads to Rome - everyone can find one that resonates with them."

Great post !

"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?
"

Please define phenomenologically the following terms:

love and compassion

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

I cannot for the life of me generate any affective emotion. I was able to generate felicity at will. I cannot do that anymore. When I try, there is just the ever present stillness and phenomena apperceived (perceived at the point of contact). I cannot generate any emotion. Anger, I cannot. Sadness, I cannot. Fear, I cannot. Even happiness I cannot. Depending on how one understands the term 'love', I cannot. Yet certain, let's call them 'qualities', are inherent in the stillness. Equanimity, appreciation, good will, caring, virtue are all present yet they are nothing like there affective counterparts. They lack any affective emotional tone at all. I cannot generate any emotion as I once did when a sense of 'being' was arising, as it is now not arising at all.

I do not seem to come off as pathological, at least in the past 5 weeks. In fact no-one is the wiser. Even my wife, a trained psychologist, does not think of me as pathological. Stupid, silly, fun to be around, yes. But pathological, no.

Edit: I would certainly say that the current mode of living that I find myself in is immensely desirable. I would have bypassed all previous developments to live like this. My wife would probably say that I am much nicer to be around this past month and for her me being like so is also desirable.

"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.
"

An excellent experience is as close as one can get to a PCE without the sense of 'being' dissapearing temporarily (going into abeyance to use AF speak). It is not indicative of what AF looks like. There is no sense of 'being', no affective emotions arising like before, no sense of identity of any kind, at least for these past 5 weeks. As it is 'just your opinion', Adam, I am assuming it is not 'just your experience'. A PCE will give glimpses of what it is like to live life sans 'emotions'. What lies underneath that 'becoming'(1), is impossible to imagine, as imagination and anything affective lies within the realm of 'becoming' (1). I would advise anyone wanting to understand more so what it looks like, to experience a full blown PCE for themselves to be able to make a more informed judgement on such things.

Nick

(1) I equate 'becoming' to any affective emotion, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Even the affective equivalents of the sublime abodes are forms of 'becoming' according to the Buddha of the pali canon. Their affectless versions inherent in the push/pull-free stillness are not.

"Please define phenomenologically the following terms:

love and compassion"

Clearly these words can be understood in a range of ways.

"love" for a hormone-laden young person is a kind of sexual longing, desire for affection, agonized wanting of connection and safety and comfort; for a mother towards a child might be a strong protective feeling and the joy of holding their child; for someone else can imply a deep bond of affection, respect and caring for a friend, family member or stranger; in a more spiritual sense can imply "unconditional love," which is quite hard to describe but includes perhaps joy, openness, acceptance, connection, peace, good will and so forth....

likewise compassion for many people implies a sympathy for another's suffering that can include a wish to change them or their circumstances, empathy for the suffering noticed in self or others, etc. or can be a less attached good will, unconditional lovingkindness, equanimity and so on.

Words are limiting, no?

"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;
"

If you are referring to the affective 'emotion' versions of 'universal, impersonal, love or compassion' I would disagree with you that it is the experience of 'complete selflessness'. I would define any affective emotion as the very same sense of 'being'/presence/location/inner world that, for myself, vanished 5 weeks ago, along with it any affective emotion. They are one and the same, in my experience.

Perhaps you could define 'selflessness' before I continue to discuss this point as it may be different to my take on it. I would call it the complete absence of any felt sense of self/being/inner world/presence/location/me-ness/push and pull of craving and clinging. Is this what you mean? If you are referring to affectless nothing-to-do-with-emotion qualities, then perhaps we are on the same page somewhere. Can you clarify, Adam?

"Please define phenomenologically the following terms:

love and compassion"

A buzzing or warmth in the chest - I can't quite tease out the phenomenological distinction between those two so perhaps it is contextual or perhaps there is a slight difference in tone.

"A buzzing or warmth in the chest - I can't quite tease out the phenomenological distinction between those two so perhaps it is contextual or perhaps there is a slight difference in tone."

I know this might be difficult for some, but can you sense a felt sense of presence/ being/ me-ness/ location/ inner world when feeling such 'buzzing' or 'warmth' in the chest or any emotion for that matter? These mentioned terms I would equate to the flow of becoming.

I only began to become aware of such thing when it was seen to dissapear (PCEs). So I was able to get a grasp as to what it felt like. If 'love' entails any felt sense of the mentioned terms above, then I would call that 'love' an affective self-centred-at-its-core 'love' as it is support for the continued arising of 'me' or flow of becoming.

When investigating this type of affective 'love' and 'compassion' in the past, long before I delved into AF practices, they were both seen to support this flow of becoming. Although they were refined modes of becoming which could lead to acts that benefited others, all the same, they were still seen as modes of becoming. The sense of being/location/me-ness was manifesting as those qualities, becoming those qualities, being reborn again and again as those qualities, still manifesting as the flow of becoming. These refined modes of becoming are useful. I am not saying they should not be cultivated as they lead to a malleable, pliant and luminous mind, fit for discernment.

When there is no felt sense of being etc, there is a stillness that has an inherent affectless equanimity to it, as well as caring and sense of respect for others, appreciation of the world and the beings in it, recognition and appreciation of beings who interact with you. Can these 'qualities be re-termed 'love' and 'compassion'?

This is my own experience.

"When there is no felt sense of being etc, there is a stillness that has an inherent affectless equanimity to it, as well as caring and sense of respect for others, appreciation of the world and the beings in it, recognition and appreciation of beings who interact with you. Can these 'qualities be re-termed 'love' and 'compassion'?

This is my own experience. "

I agree. This is what I mean when I say we should "unload" these words. Love is openness, not affective states. Same thing for compassion. Although I still have a sense of self, affective experience, etc., what you're describing makes perfect sense to me. I still cannot express this as precise as you do but I definitely agree with the inherent love within the "push/pull stillness" <

---

(By the way, this is an excellent way to describe bodhicitta. If there is no push, there is no agression. If there is no pull, there is no aggression). Based on my experience, true Love and compassion are more logical, coherent, precise, practical and efficient, than emotional.

My definitions based on my practice and experience:
- Love: practical adjustments in behavior, direct experience and the six sense bases to improve one's or someone else's wholesomeness.
- Compassion: practical adjustments in behavior, direct experience and the six sense bases to heal, reduce one's or someone else's unwholesomeness.

What is wholesomeness in my experience? The push/pull free stillness. (selflessness)
What is unwholesomeness in my experience? Unnecessary push/pull in our experience. (delusion)

Regarding post # 80 and others.

@ Nik: Exactly, Nik. Exactly. Nothing more need be said. You experience likes and enjoyment of HBO tv, movies, love for your wife, caring, good will. They arise in and out of the impersonal, inclusive stillness. Their presence is exactly why you are not pathological, and not presenting with blunted affect. They are there. That is all I am saying, even in the absence of a self, i.e. even in the presence of enlightenment. They do not resemble unenlightened emotion, simply because there is no self there to crave or fixate. No self to suffer, grasp or present with aversion. Preference, enjoyment, care for others, some kind of refined love, all there. No self though. No suffering though. Still emotional. Just of the 'refined' kind. Refined because they are not coloured, define or defiled by the grasping and fixation of a sense of self and its suffering - its sense of separation from life / reality / stillness. All affective, but not of the pre-enlightenment kind. Hence, the fetters model is all true, and no need for AF nonsense, language and distortions.

By the way, I feel no need to convince anyone. People think for themselves and make up their own mind.

Adam. Edited for final sentence.

"Regarding post # 80 and others.

Still emotional. Just of the 'refined' kind. Refined because they are not coloured, define or defiled by the grasping and fixation of a sense of self and its suffering - its sense of separation from life / reality / stillness. All affective, but not of the pre-enlightenment kind. Hence, the fetters model is all true, and no need for AF nonsense, language and distortions.
"

Hi Adam,

For the sake of clarification and to answer your statements all I'll say is 'not quite'. Does it not seem strange to you in hindsight that you think you know in detail what my ongoing experience is and are adamant about saying 'it is so'? I'll leave it there till one day you might experience it all yourself and then we can then further discuss whether or not you would use the same 'affective' descriptive terms again. I would not use them. Appreciation is affectless/emotionless. But this cannot be conveyed via posts on an internet forum.

For anyone confused and wishing to 'make up their own mind' as to what is talked of here, best one aim for a full blown PCE at least. Otherwise, one may continue indefinitely to believe it a certain way based off of affective projections and imaginations which will always remain outside of and barred from the experience of actuality sans sense of 'being'. Regardless of whether it is in order 'not to convince anyone' of what can and can't occur when certain practices are optimized, best to remain pragmatic and open about such things.

Nick

I take your point Nik. Convenient that the argument is, I cannot know what you know, so only you are in a position to define truth, given your enlightenment / pce. Sounds like every other argument based on 'exclusive' first-person knowledge of the topic in question. Every other religious nut job out there.

I have had many episodes of complete selflessness, and complete freedom (Rigpa, otherwise known in the Tibetan tradition as complete enlightenment here and now. Complete.). When you know it, you know it. So I have sympathy for the position that it is clear to you, but that it may not be to others who have not had it. Only difference is I don't assume I am the only person qualified to define the experience. It is clear that your enlightenment has not developed any humility in you.

I wonder, do you know what my experience is? Is it possible that we may have had the same experience and that I interpret and define it linguistically different to you?

But, I get that this is as far as the convo can go. No worries. Carry on.

Adam.

In case anyone cares, Jud (our resident psychiatrist and neurobiology researcher - aka the man with the FMRI) recently declared me free of mental illness and I have it in writing. Figured that might come in handy now.
Whatever this is, it isn't pathological.

Hi Adam,

As I do not experience any affective humility, you are correct to say that I have no humility arising. However I do not have the opposite of humility arising either no matter how my posts came across to you. I am working on making my means of communication as clear and unambiguous as possible concerning what I wish to convey. I may make mistakes now and then as I try not to convey what you seem to have read in my posts.

I posted only to convey what I think is most useful for others. There was no intention to make you feel bad or fuel any dislike against AF, as there is no urge out of 'spite' or what have you arising to fuel and colour my current posts. I only wished to clarify what I see as misrepresentations of my own and others' experience.

So, please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings. It seems that you have a problem with AF that you wish to address and it seems to fuel your posts and the terms you use. 'Nonsense' being one of your more common usages. I do not have a beef with anyone or any school of thought and have only posted to be clear about certain things from my end. The last post was a closing down of any potential arguments as I do not have any urge to argue with you of what you have already decided is 'nonsense' and what isn't. That is ok. It is your right and I never wished to question that. I wish you the best.

Nick

"I wonder, do you know what my experience is? Is it possible that we may have had the same experience and that I interpret and define it linguistically different to you?
"

Hi Adam,

I do not know your experience. From what little you have expressed I would say we have not had the same experience. I do not think so, even linguistically speaking. I do not wish to have this thread be a source of agitation for anyone so perhaps it best we leave our differences be.

Be well.

Nick

"Edit: I would have bypassed all previous developments to live like this. "

How feasible is this, Nick? If you were starting over again, pre-path, with your current state as goal, what would you do?

Alex

"I know this might be difficult for some, but can you sense a felt sense of presence/ being/ me-ness/ location/ inner world when feeling such 'buzzing' or 'warmth' in the chest or any emotion for that matter? These mentioned terms I would equate to the flow of becoming.

I only began to become aware of such thing when it was seen to dissapear (PCEs). So I was able to get a grasp as to what it felt like. If 'love' entails any felt sense of the mentioned terms above, then I would call that 'love' an affective self-centred-at-its-core 'love' as it is support for the continued arising of 'me' or flow of becoming.
"

I played around with this a bit. I don't doubt at all what you are experiencing, but my interpretation is different. Stopping this flow of becoming is essentially about breaking a causal chain. This causal chain is a different dimension than awareness itself. It doesn't determine whether or not this is a moment of awakeness. Rather, the causal chain influences which phenomena are likely or unlikely to arise in current and future moments.

Though this particular causal chain seems quite special, breaking causal chains and preventing phenomena from arising is not at all special. As a stupid example, if every time I see my cookie jar in my kitchen an urge to eat a cookie arises, I can simply throw the jar in the trash and it will be significantly more rare that the cookie-eating-urge phenomena arises.

(cont)

The implication in this conversation is that if the phenomena of 'love' and 'compassion' don't arise once the chain of becoming is broken, then experiencing them is ignorance. From my current experience, this does not seem to be true. The perfection of this moment can be experienced, the cat next to me can be seen and it can be known that we simply arise together. The cat is not "real" per se, nor the enveloping love of all experience, but cat, love, and universe arise nonetheless even though the concepts themselves are known to be illusion.

This place of perfection and timelessness also breaks a causal chain - I cannot see how anxiety can arise in this place. I cannot see a storied narrative self arise in this place. I cannot see conditional love arise in this place. I cannot see true fundamental belief in concepts arise in this place.

Anyway, I'm probably not explaining this very well. I am just trying to point out the difference between momentary awakeness and causal dependancy.

"How feasible is this, Nick? If you were starting over again, pre-path, with your current state as goal, what would you do?

Alex"

Hi Alex,

It has been done. There are people who have bypassed technical 4th path by their admission. It seems at least 1st path being a bare minimum needed to do the work quickly and technical 4th path being more ideal. However there are others supposedly who went all the way without any technical paths. But who is to say what they didn't pass through on the way there. There are many examples of yogis in the Buddha's day of jumping (fetter model) paths.

However with the quickness and ease that people get technical 4th path these days, there do seem to be more examples of people using that as an ideal jumping board.

I think it is feasible to jump and bypass the technical paths if one's pure intent and dhamma desire is of the highest level. The technical model seems to be more about a physio-energetic mind strata development than a fetter cutting endeavor. Just ask Stef at the DhO. 1st path --> AF in a relatively short time (a few months).

Nick

Thanks Nick. Whatever uncertainties remain, at least it's now very clear that the fruits of traditional practice are not "180 degrees opposite" to AF, as had previously been taught. They're useful stepping stones, that much is beyond doubt now. I think that's good news for all of us because it opens up a wealth of different practice methods for different propensities and personalities.

Having said that, I do agree with Richard that the results are substantially different from other types of selflessness, and it's not [just] a matter of semantics. I don't buy the attempts to compare between apperception and "primordial awareness" by whatever name.

I think I'll go where the bulk of the evidence lies: take vipassana practice all the way to 4th Path, then see how things look. If it still looks like the way to go, it'll be that much easier, and there will be no need for doubts about the road not taken.

Appreciate your writings!

Alex

"Whatever uncertainties remain, at least it's now very clear that the fruits of traditional practice are not "180 degrees opposite" to AF"

Hi Alex,

I do believe there are few spiritual traditions as far as I know that profess that their goal is the end of becoming/being and end suffering. There are many spiritual traditions especially under the umbrella term of 'Buddhism' that do not have this goal. Their aim is perhaps more to refine the flow of becoming so that it becomes a tool to help others, yet the goal is not to end it.

Then we have the pali canon suttas that go on and on about cutting the flow of becoming for good. And Richard's AF, the elimination of 'being'. It is still 180 degrees opposite to many spiritual traditions who aim to only refine the flow of becoming. The way I see it, the buddhadhamma of the pali canon is aimed in the same direction. 180 degrees opposite to becoming/being.

Nick

"I do believe there are few spiritual traditions as far as I know that profess that their goal is the end of becoming/being and end suffering. There are many spiritual traditions especially under the umbrella term of 'Buddhism' that do not have this goal. Their aim is perhaps more to refine the flow of becoming so that it becomes a tool to help others, yet the goal is not to end it.

Then we have the pali canon suttas that go on and on about cutting the flow of becoming for good. And Richard's AF, the elimination of 'being'. It is still 180 degrees opposite to many spiritual traditions who aim to only refine the flow of becoming. The way I see it, the buddhadhamma of the pali canon is aimed in the same direction. 180 degrees opposite to becoming/being.

Nick"

IMHO (and this is just speculation based on my practice and the teachings of my spiritual tradition), Individual-AF should come anyway if the goal is to help beings reach AF. This has been my goal since I started meditating (2008) and the goal itself IS cultivation of a selfless nature. It is hard as hell because the goal reveals our preferences, attachments, narratives and harmful patterns ruthlessly. If they're revealed, they can be juxtaposed with actual aspects.

By no means I devaluate Individual AF, on the contrary, it is very inspiring to see that it is possible. Also I do not see any difference between attaining individual AF before, during or after Collective AF.

Is Collective AF possible? I don't care about its contingency. What matters to me is that having this goal AS PRACTICE yields wonderful results. Collective AF as goal reveals my affective aspects and includes affective aspects from others (I don't need to reveal them, our egos are already experts at doing this). So then I juxtapose all our affective aspects with actual aspects in order to discover that everything was actual since the very beginning.