To Whom It May Concern

Sensuousness = Right Mindfulness.

Let's drop the creepy and confusing AF lingo.

That is all.

I agree with this entreaty.

I disagree with the term right mindfulness meaning sensuousness.


Right mindfulness = apperception

Bhante G

"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)

Richard

"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)"

* Sensuousness = the point of contact of a sense object and its corresponding sense door (sight/eye, sound/ear, taste/tongue, touch or sensations/body, smell/nose, thought/mind). In other words, sense door contact or point of contact, to be more exact in how I would use sensuousness. BEFORE the mental sequence of mental proliferation arises.

* Attentiveness = vipassana (vi=intensifier, passana from passati=to see)

In other words, 'attentiveness to sensuousness' = Vipassana as explained above, which means seeing in focused detail the point of contact of a sense object with its corresponding sense door.

My 2 cents.

Edit: If terms are not pleasing to others, it best we agree on their correct definitions and then change them, no?
Edit: Attentiveness to Sensuousness is classic Bahiya Sutta instructions IME and IMO.

Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there
is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no
you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This,
just this, is the end of suffering." (Bahiya Sutta)

Yes, yes, yes.

Apperception = Right View EDIT: Disregard previous equivalence. Its incorrect. I agree with Nick's take on it, I got lost in my own translations .

"Sensuousness = Right Mindfulness.

Let's drop the creepy and confusing AF lingo.
"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

For what it's worth, Thanissaro Bhikkhu appears to have a third interpretation of mindfulness (different from yours or Nick's / Bhante G).

To some extent, it will be a matter or *deciding* how to make these things correspond more than anything else.

If the purpose is to talk about getting or instructing someone to get AF/release/or whatever you wish to re-term it, then these term changes must be exact. Exact! The emphasis is important. They cannot be read in multiple ways as 'right mindfulness' can be. Or at least where these practice goals and objectives are discussed with willing yogis who are relying on such instructions, in a thread or the website as a whole, there must be unanimous agreement on the meaning of the term.

Not doing this is how very effective practices get lost. Losing their original effectiveness is a big no-no in my books. Best to be as precise about such things instead of playing to how one 'feels' about terminology. It isn't about how one 'feels' about a term that is important. It is whether or not the intended instruction and idea is conveyed 100% without alteration IMO. If one wishes to do other practices that do not lead to release/AF or whatever you wish to call it, then by all means mix and match such terminology to your heart's content.

Nick

If I recall, Thanissaro argues that mindfulness concerns remembering---remembering to do the practice, remembering to regard phenomena in certain ways, remembering not to allow one's attention to wander, remembering not to get caught up in sensuality (or whatever is relevant at the stage of practice a person is at), etc. Perhaps what "heedfulness" means.This isn't at all like apperception and this isn't at all like sensuousness.

This kind of mindfulness is important to the path, but whether one explicitly comes up with a term for it seems to be quite optional. I don't recall ever hearing anyone talk about it in such an explicit way until reading some of Thanissaro's work...and yet, it's not as if, lacking a term for it, we (the pragmatic dharma community) have never put such a thing into practice...

If you're interested, I'll try to dig up wherever I read Thanissaro's take on what "mindfulness" means. I could be misremembering, but I do recall that when I first read it, it struck me that it was quite different from the past ways that I had heard the term used.

Also, as a general point, I'm not really keen to place myself in the role of judging whether Thanissaro is right or whether Bhante G is right or whatever. I certainly am not a Pali scholar and would need to be in order to state anything for certain in this regard. But Owen has one view, you have another, Thanissaro has a third...and yet, it does seem that all these different ways of using the term (and the practices that they relate to) seem to work, no?

As End seems to be describing various ideas of 'mindfulness' from a more general means of using new terminology, who is right or wrong in the general scheme of things does not matter at all as far as I'm concerned.

I am coming to it via the sole purpose of understanding instructions and keeping them fully comprehensible and reproducible as clearly as humanly possible for those who wish to take on the objective of release/af or whatever you wish to call it.

I care not at all if a term is accepted or not in a certain way in the general pragmatic community because it makes people 'comfortable', 'at ease', 'feel uneasy' or 'creeped out'. What matters is that willing yogis know exactly (EXACTLY!) what to do to reproduce the results some of us have talked about here.

What is the purpose of changing terms? Is it to feel better about and less intimidated by notions and instructions from such outside upstart schools of thought? Or is it to know exactly what to do to reproduce the same results for oneself within one's own conceptual framework? I care for the second option.

Nick, you have just convinced me to change my previously posted opinion!

Ok, Nick wins.

I'm sold on the terminology needing to capture the practice. In that vein though, apperception might be better described as "bare attention" which is the way it was done here:

www.amazon.com/Heart-Buddhist-Meditation...ulness/dp/0877280738

(amazing book btw)

So what other terms are up for discussion? Have we been getting collectively screwed by 100+ years of misleading translation from the pali stripping away important contexts?

I don't much want to get caught up in a discussion about this, but I'd like to say something, and then bow out.

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html

It does appear, from a cursory reading, that mindfulness *as the suttas describe it* is not apperception or sensuousness, but a method of conceptualizing or attending to phenomena (the frames of reference, i.e. ways of framing experience for the sake of regarding it properly).

What we call "vipassana" or "discernment" or "mindfulness meditation" appears, from a cursory reading, to be an exercise in cultivating right view. It seems that cultivating sensuousness or apperception is a form of cultivating right view (i.e. knowledge of the way leading to the end of suffering).

What AFers call "pure intent" appears, from a cursory reading, to be the full development of right resolve.

To the extent that these cursory readings are correct, and to the extent that we want to describe the path in a way that's continuous with the suttas, we (as a community) should give serious thought to how we make our terminology match up.

We don't have to describe things in a way that's continuous with the suttas. (If I said otherwise, I would be a great hypocrit, as I have mashed up so much terminology from different traditions over the course of my practice.) But perhaps it would be good to get an explicit consensus on that being the best, most practical, most-likely-to-help-others way to go, if that's the direction that some of us are inclined to go down. Or at least to recognize that we would be choosing a way that appears to be discontinuous, if that's what we do.

For what it's worth, I think there's a reason that the suttas describe the path in the way that they do. But perhaps we know better. Perhaps times have changed. Maybe.

I agree with End.

If we are to use terms that are exact and to the point of the instructions they need to be for those following them, then some terms from the suttas may be the best option. Although one may have to add explanation to some to avoid misinterpretations or just plain different interpretations that already exist in the contemplative world.

The instructions would then be couched in the 'comfortable' buddhist language so those who are affected by supposedly 'creepy' foreign language may at least accept from afar the ideas, instructions and objectives of awareness release/af. Those already working within a buddhist conceptual framework and with a desire for release will then have an easier time of adjusting their practices to aim in the desired direction.

If a glossary and detailed explanation accompanies the initial attempts to re-term concepts, instructional and explanatory, then I would go with traditional buddhist terms that have as little baggage as possible attached to them. And/or again a detailed explanation that is accessible to those interested should be made available so that there is no possibility of a term becoming less specific, wrongly interpreted or having an unneccessary connotation, thus losing the original meaning. Of course all terminological changes should have as priority the aim of conveying 100 % clearly the route that some of us took to what we are calling af or release (thus far).

Nick

What a great thread. Very illuminating. There should be a wiki to collect explanations of terms, something that would distill the salient points made in this thread into a few cogent paragraphs perhaps with relevent sutta citations and links. It would be a centralized resource that could be pointed/linked to when someone asks "What is it you mean when you use the term 'senuouness'?" It would be something that would help to keep un all on the same page when it comes to the terminology (to the degree that that's possible. . .).

I've been sifting through different forums looking for various things lately, and the haystacks need a lot of sifting to find the needles in question. Soon this thread too will be just one more needle buried in the haystack.

Well - in science whenever you solve a problem mathematically you are supposed to clearly define all the variables at the beginning of the problem solving process. It would be nice to see practice instructions done in the same way:

define all the words as clearly as possible in an experiential way so someone could use their own experience to guide them, then explain the process using the defined words.

Someday I hope this is done for all practices and results in such a way that there could be an 'ecyclopedia of meditative transformation' - where someone could look at the end results, decide on a path, and know very clearly what experience(s) to cultivate or not cultivate to get there.

Most/many/some on this and other forums seem to be seeking something that has been described by someone else in words.

Those words of someone else become the seemingly personal thoughts that make up one's day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute experience. To most/many/some such a situation seems normal, since it seems most/many/some accept such a view of the world. To most/many/some it seems that without the ongoing stimulation of word/thought world life is unbearably boring.

Look for whatever it is that preceeds words and thoughts, and then look to find whatever preceeds that, and then look to find whatever precedes that, etc. ...

Hint: don't bother trying to discuss your understanding. Words and thoughts will only serve to obfuscate what was so clearly known.

AugustLeo

"

So what other terms are up for discussion?


"

Hey Owen,

How about this bit of AF speak: "180 degrees opposite" (to all spiritual beliefs, including Buddhism.) I think this one causes some consternation.
It looks like they based it on a superficial understanding of Buddhism (see this link)
actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/180-degrees.htm
Does this idea have any practical value for you? Did it apply to anything in your practice?

Also the term "actual freedom" itself. Do you prefer "no-self"? "10 fetters release"?
Gary

"How about this bit of AF speak: "180 degrees opposite" (to all spiritual beliefs, including Buddhism.) I think this one causes some consternation.
It looks like they based it on a superficial understanding of Buddhism (see this link)
actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/180-degrees.htm
Does this idea have any practical value for you? Did it apply to anything in your practice?
"

Although directed at Owen...

When I investigated into the AF approach, many similarities stood out that seemed very much to be pointing to what the Buddha taught yogis to do in the suttas of the pali canon. The Buddha of the pali canon taught yogis to aim for the end of bhava, which means 'being' or 'becoming'. The AF path aims for 'elimination of being'. As far as I was concerned both approaches were pointing to the same thing.

It became clear to me that yes, af IS 180 degrees in the opposite direction of most spiritual teachings as not many spiritual paths aim to 'end being/becoming'. Even schools under the umbrella term of 'buddhism' do not seem to have this aim. The pragmatic dharma scene seemingly did not have this aim. But the suttas point to it over and over. I disagree with Richard on including the pali canon teachings in that 180 degrees opposite assumption.

Considering the idea of 180 degrees opposite led me to discover more stuff i had not considered in the suttas, and the fact people were saying it was possible to end being led to gaining more motivation within the original theravadan conceptual framework I had , as a yogi, started up in.

....one sees what this mind/body organism is like without it. The process of self-immolation seems the same as the process of "obliterating the I AM obsession" talked about in the following sutta www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html


There is some speculation and views that the PCE, a full blown one which is rare, is an actual path moment according the Ayya Khema. The infamous PCE is the experience of actuality, which is the experience of the absence of the flow of being/becoming, temporarily. It has been called the actual "fruition attainment" by some advanced yogi (that Owen and Kenneth know). In fact, if you have access to fruitions (cessations), you can trigger a PCE at the exit of the cessation. You can find a means of triggering PCEs in the Bahiya sutta.

Joy is one of the factors of enlightenment in the suttas. Joy leads to a more pliant, luminous and malleable mind. So does cultivating felicity. The sublime abodes are also a means of making the mind pliant, malleable and luminous in order to end the flow of becoming. Just like felicity. A 'pliant, luminous and malleable' mind helps one to discern 'sensuousness' more easily and at a very subtle level.

The technique of HAIETMOBA (How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?) is just a pointer to remain attentive to the senses. This is yathabuta. Seeing actuality/reality as it arises. It's vipassana really.

The cultivation of wonder is also talked about in the suttas where the Buddha talks about seeing beauty as an object in everything. Same as wonder. This leads to the mind becoming more malleable and pliant in order to dismantle the flow of becoming.

I think Richard stumbled ala paccekabuddha style onto a way to achieve the same goal as the Buddha of the pali canon.

Similarities:

In place of observing sila, there is the pure intent to be happy and harmless, which is the objective of sila. This is in order to be able to cultivate a refined mode of becoming that is conducive for dismantling that flow of becoming.

Instead of the cultivation of felicity, which is taught on the AF path, the Buddha taught to cultivate the jhanas. Both felicity and the jhanas are refined modes of bhava (being/becoming). Both allow for the dismantling of the entire flow of becoming. This is done via cultivating dispassion for becoming. The flow of becoming, according to the Buddha, comes in 3 realms or modes. The mode of kama (desire-sensuality) and the mode of form (rupa jhanas) and formless (formless jhanas). Felicity is like a jhana. It is a base to jump to attentiveness to sensuousness

Attentiveness is basically 'paying attention' i.e. vipassana (vi=intensifier, passana from passati=to see). Sensuousness is, in my own experience, the point of contact of a sense object and its corresponding sense door (sight/eye, sound/ear, taste/tongue, touch or sensations/body, smell/nose, thought/mind) BEFORE the mental sequence of mental proliferation arises.

'Attentiveness to sensuousness' is seeing in focused detail the point of contact of a sense object with its corresponding sense door.

Seeing the 3 C's in phenomena, especially in the jhanas, is a means to generate dispassion for the flow of becoming to ultimately end it. The cultivation and triggering of PCEs is also a means of cultivating dispassion for the flow of becoming as...

continued below:

Jhanas are accessed by AFers. This isn't talked about openly. The type of jhanas accessed are just "actual" and free of affect. The arupa jhanas in particular have aspects which are all present in a full blown real deal PCE. Nirodha samapatti, the type described in the suttas not commentaries, is also accessed by AFers. This I can confirm myself.

Freedom from being/becoming was 180 degrees opposite to most other spiritual traditions at the time of the Buddha. It seems to be the case somewhat still, perhaps even within the pragmatic dharma community as well, although that is now an option.

Not to intrude too much but I keep seeing references to some wispy "advanced yogi" or some such. Nick, what is that about? Is it someone who prefers to remain anonymous? I have no interest in knowing who it is but the veiled references to someone who seems to know so much yet won't share openly are provocative, especially on a message board whose purpose is to share openly.

Hi Chris,

I think people may be able to guess who the other 'AFers' are. I thought it might have been wiser not to mention their names as one, I haven't asked them if I could and two, they may have already had some negativity and criticism projected onto them in the past here at KFD, and mentioning them by name would perhaps make people uneasy. I wanted to avoid that.

I guess perhaps it was not as wise a choice if it makes one suspicious of what I say. I will ask them if I can use their names openly in the future if I decide to reference their guidance again.

Apologies for the veiled-ness of it all. It was not intentional to sell anything from this angle. I was just trying to maintain etiquette and avoid possibly troubling others.

Nick

Well, now I know. It just seemed so secretive that i was prompted to ask about it. It's not a problem.