Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss

"Yes, it did convey an implied syllogism:

I am accused of being rude
I am like the Buddha
Therefore I can use the Buddha's words"

Hehe, I took it more as: Even the Buddha sometimes wasn't polite - does that mean I can't be impolite sometimes?

Hopefully this isn't off-topic: I mention this to to point out how vastly different the same words can be interpreted, as we seem to be talking about communication now (which I think is important to talk about).

cmarti: "Lately, reading comments here of KFD, I get the impression that vertical progress is being confused with horizontal progress, or maybe is being preferred to it."

What's the definition of vertical progress, and of horizontal progress? I think I see what you mean but I'm not entirely certain.

cmarti: "And this place sometimes seems to take on the attributes of an athletic competition. Faster, further, better, deeper can become the theme..."

This seems to come up occasionally. Can you point out where it comes off as a competition? Are you referring to things like what I just posted:

"Even now I am still surprised when the world becomes clearer than it ever has been, which happens on occasion. From what I hear, I am going to keep being surprised by what clarity is possible."

Or the comment about paying as much attention as possible, on another thread?

I can't speak for others, but those posts of mine are not in the spirit of one-upmanship or competition... just a suggestion to not sell yourself short, to see for yourself whether there is anything more to see. Practice advice. Like telling a pre-pather in Equanimity Nyana: concentrate your ass off! Good things are coming! (Not to equate anyone I'm talking to with anyone else, just to indicate the spirit in which it is said.) Motivation is important, no? The biggest thing I've gotten out of the pragmatic dharma community has been motivation. Reading MCTB, in particular, did wonders for that.

"Hehe, I took it more as: Even the Buddha sometimes wasn't polite - does that mean I can't be impolite sometimes?

Hopefully this isn't off-topic: I mention this to to point out how vastly different the same words can be interpreted, as we seem to be talking about communication now (which I think is important to talk about)."

I shared your impression Beo but that's actually beside the point. The point I think is that, as you said up thread Nick, some things are simply easier to read, socially, with tone of voice and body language than with text.

Interacting in a text based format requires care in interpreting another's intent as it's very easy for things to come across as expressing one emotion when they actually express another (or none in particular). I submit that probably everyone here has experience with writing a post and being very surprised about how it was taken by others.

If one holds the view that AF claimants should never write posts that *could be interpreted as* expressing things like impatience and anger, than one will always be able to find "evidence" of that-- because the text format is very, very open to (mis)interpretation of tone.

It's one thing to respond to the content of a post: say, name calling, ad hominem attacks, misleading paraphrasing to create paper tigers and so on. That's useful critique. But picking apart word choice and order at the nit picky level aimed at Nick in the recent posts on this thread... seems not so useful, to me. The very fact that different people had such different interpretations of what you were responding to, Chris, suggests that we are all bringing our own interpretations/reactions to what each other are writing and therefor the only person in a good position to clarify his or her own intent is the poster under consideration.

And on a related note: Nick, while I think your determination to craft an optimal communication style is admirable and I believe quite sincere, there are limits to language and communication generally, and no matter how well you express yourself you are always ultimately speaking to *someone else* who will make of it what they will.

There is no such thing as a perfectly crafted sentence which every listener will take the same way, so I submit no matter how skillful you become there will always be moments and interactions in which another sees something in what you post that you didn't put there because of their own associations to the words you used, their current mood, what's going on in their life, and how much or how little coffee they had that morning

The issue is one of group dynamics: how we read each others' posts is just as important as how we write our own. Communication is a teamsport!!!!

Reading this thread, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

On the one hand, I feel like I'm watching a hidden camera reality show where the unwitting participants are being sent into a tizzy over a scenario that the producers know is utter 'make believe'.

On the other hand'¦ you want to talk about 'fabrication'? Look at the way we're fashioning weapons with our words, and creating worlds of meaning through filtering ancient words through the thicket of our own thorny assumptions.

Seriously, though - is it not clear to anyone else just how ridiculous it is to get tangled up in these debates? Does anyone else not see just how the way we use language and derrive meaning affect our results? We're lying to ourselves if we think there's some objective Buddha Dharma out there that we just need to uncover through translation. That wasn't ever the point.

I, for one, feel that this forum has spun way off into dissociation from Kenneth's original intention. I'm not blaming Kenneth specifically. We all played a part in this.

I'm all for freedom of expression and 'open' dharma, but can we give Kenneth his space back? I would LOVE to see this place once again be representative of Kenneth's teaching style. If you're here to spout off about your own views on all things dharma'¦ well, you can always start your own blog or forum. Out of respect for Kenneth, take the material that belongs elsewhere and take it'¦ elsewhere.

This is my opinion. I haven't talked to Kenneth about this, so I don't know what he wants from this site at this point. I do know that this site would be way more effective if everyone with a specific agenda (save for Kenneth, of course) would just go and do their own thing.

Let's put the Kenneth Folk back in KFDh.

I think, Jackson, that you have made a very nice point.

Jackson, since I wasn't here when this forum started, what was the original intention of this forum?

The reason I ask this is because, although I have known the KFD forum since 2010, just recently I started reading it more, contributing, sharing my practice and getting to know the people here. Just this last month I learned so many things from this forum, both from advanced yogis and beginners. Has this community gone awry to the point of no return?

- Alejandro

"Has this community gone awry to the point of no return?"

I'll say no, because I'm optimistic.

The way I remember it, Kenneth started this forum because he developed some wonderful teaching and practice methods that were very effective for himself and other he was working with (myself included). He decided that a new forum would be the best way to get his teachings out into the world. I think it was at the suggestion of his wife that he call the place "Kenneth Folk Dharma" - which clearly suggests that the site was to revolve around his teachings.

I don't think there's one particular reason for the current disarray. You're right in saying that there's a lot to learn here from quite a large number of serious practitioners. That's the plus side. The downside is that there is no longer any predetermined focus or mission. Whoever posts the most, and uses the most words, and dominates with endless jargon and Pali canon excerpts, wins. That's sad to me.

It all depends on what Kenneth wants. If he likes it this way, than I'll say no more. But I would hope that this place could once again be a venue for discussing Kenneth's unique contribution to Dharma and how to apply it. The rest can be taken elsewhere. There's no reason why this forum has to be all things to all people. The internet is big enough for everyone to find their own space, for whatever purpose they would like. Kenneth, then, should have the final say about how interaction at KFDh - the site which bears his name - should be conducted.

P.S. Can any of us read the majority of the current posts to this forum and seriously and ingenuously conclude that we're discussing Kenneth's teachings?

" The internet is big enough for everyone to find their own space, for whatever purpose they would like."

Jackson, your point about this being Kenneth's site can't be argued with! It's a good one. However, some would say that the excerpt I've quoted points to both the upside *and* the danger of the internet. The danger is that without dialogue and openness, without divergent positions meeting in the same space, there is an increased risk of group think and one sidedness.

It's Kenneth's site and his call, indeed. But I think it's worth considering the need for balance in this as in other things.

I agree, Jake. There are benefits to a totally freestyle, open-ended, no-central-focus type of group. That isn't how this place started, and it certainly ended up going in that direction.

I think it's OK to find whatever blend and balance works, I just think it should be a conscious decision. And I would hope that the participants of any forum take into consideration the vision that the founder has for it. Otherwise, our forums spin off into less effective shadows of their former selves (so to speak).

No forum exists in a vacuum. But, there has to be a way to keep things focused enough to remain coherent.

EDIT (P.S.) - I don't really have anything more to say. I'm going to stop while I'm ahead, so as not to succumb to the same behaviors I'm speaking out against.

So, how 'bout that Three Speed Transmission?

I don't think the community has gone awry so much as I think it has taken a jaunt down some paths that are not in keeping with the phrase "Kenneth Folk Dharma." I'm pretty sure Kenneth has a vision for this forum, so I'll let him speak to that. From my perspective it's gotten very focused on vertical development to the detriment of horizontal development. In other words, folks are getting very deeply into one or two particular aspects of the path and either ignoring, or in effect de-emphasizing, all the others.

Human development is a very broad topic and awakening seems to follow. It's not just about our experience of emotions, it's not just about non-dual awareness, it's not just about compassion, it's not just about being mindful, it's not just about being present, it's not just about any number of the facets of the jewel of awakening. Here, as of late, it has become mostly about one of those things. I think that's misleading and it does a disservice to those who come here because they read the home page or hear about Kenneth's very unique teachings elsewhere. What those folks find when they arrive here doesn't appear to me to match very well any more with the original theme.

"Yes, it did convey an implied syllogism:

I am accused of being rude
I am like the Buddha
Therefore I can use the Buddha's words

Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Probably didn't, but the rest of my comments stand. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to reconcile what I hear you claiming as opposed to how you project yourself in your comments recently. Those thing do not square up as I see it. Now, there may be a thousand reasons why this is so, but the contrast seems pretty obvious to me.
"

Nick appears to be giving factual, verifiable information rather than any sort of speculation in this thread. I find it ridiculous that you choose to infer an "implied syllogism", which is quite clearly due to your own preconceptions and beliefs, and then use it as a criticism against someone who is, as far as I can see, innocently trying to work towards a clearer understanding, freed from the idiosyncrasies of Richard & Co., of this axis of development. I interpreted no such syllogism from the words as I re-read them on screen, and I have read nothing which implied "anger" or "impatience", on the contrary I would say that Nick's continued willingness to clarify and re-word his statements indicate the opposite.

If we're talking about how people "project" themselves in their writing style and how it tallies with their "attainments", perhaps you should take a look at your own posts.

"The way I remember it, Kenneth started this forum because he developed some wonderful teaching and practice methods that were very effective for himself and other he was working with (myself included). He decided that a new forum would be the best way to get his teachings out into the world. I think it was at the suggestion of his wife that he call the place "Kenneth Folk Dharma" - which clearly suggests that the site was to revolve around his teachings.
"

Well said, Kenneth's methods, as we all know, are effective, efficient and verifiable so detours and runaway threads don't do justice to his teachings.

Peace, however you get there.

@ Chris and Jackson-- Yes, I see what you guys mean--- it could be seen as a bait and switch from the POV of someone coming with the understandable expectation that they will be receiving Kenneth's teaching from Kenneth and from other practitioners of Kenneth's methods.

I think that once Kenneth steps in and asserts himself in relation to this trend things will self-organize and that will be that, provided there is a clear (and whenever necessary repeated) message from Kenneth.

Part of the complexity though is that some of Kenneth's techniques do seem quite related to the realizations being expressed by Nick et al-- some seem to have used DM and noting to achieve similar things that others used actualism for, and yet others used different strains of Vippassana and achieved comparable results.

Perhaps it would be good for Kenneth to update his presentation of his teaching as it seems that a lot has been going on behind the scenes and many participants here seem confused about what Kenneth's teaching actually is since late last summer.

I wonder if some of the non-Kenneth Folk Dharma teachings happening here reflect this apparent confusion. It's like there was a very firm KFD vision, then a period of instability in which the founder seemed to retract or revise many aspects of that vision, followed by a big silence in this regard.

I think it would help people if Kenneth would do his best to articulate just exactly what is Kenneth Folk's Dharma now a days! Without such a clear assertion I bet folks will continue to use this forum as they are now using it, as a slightly more heavily moderated version of DhO with different aesthetics

edit for simultaneous post to clarify the context of my response

"
Human development is a very broad topic[...]. It's not just about our experience of emotions, it's not just about non-dual awareness, it's not just about compassion, it's not just about being mindful, it's not just about being present, it's not just about any number of the facets of the jewel of awakening. **Here, as of late, it has become mostly about one of those things**."

emphasis mine via asterisks

Let's keep in mind that these conversations seem to be cyclical. In other words, for a few months one facet will dominate discussion, for another few months another one will, and so on. Every conversation isn't going to be about all the facets of awakening, nor will the sum of all current convos add up to equal representation at any given time. Things ebb and flow and come in waves in nature, and everything's nature! So we need to be careful in my opinion of the way our own preferences for and against certain of these facets conditions whether we feel a given forum is diverging or converging with it's "ideal state". It would be easy-- and I'm not saying you're doing this, Chris-- but it would be easy to feel like things were going off on a tangent when for a period of time a given facet we don't (yet or any more) resonate with is the hot topic.

What I think IS reasonable (as opposed to every convo being ABOUT the whole jewel, or the sum of all current convos being a balance of all major facets) would be to evolve, as a community, an overall sense of respect for the multi-faceted jewel, including the way that some individuals will likely prefer a few of the facets while other individuals will prefer more holistic approaches. I think Nick's initial intent in this thread reflects the evolution of such a discourse since, unlike earlier presentations of this distinction, he isn't painting a black and white picture of affective vs. affectless compassion.

With Kenneth rarely participating in this forum, and very little information available about his new 8 stage path(some videos) I think it is to be expected that the forum would change. The more advanced yogis seem to be having similar results as AF practitioners, maybe.
Frankly, the lack of info about the upper stages smells a bit like mushrooms to me.

Jake, sure, I get you.

I'm not at all suggesting every comment include all aspects of the path. What I'm saying, as both a moderator and a participant, is that the general trend on this forum for quite some time now, months not weeks, has been in the direction of over-emphasizing one aspect of the practice. I doubt this is a revelation to anyone who has participated here for any amount of time longer than about a year. That needs to be addressed. I've explained why already. When one aspect of anything - but in this case it's our practice and the dharma - begins to overwhelm the other aspects than balance gets lost. I think that tipping point was reached here some time ago. Again, this has payed out over many months, not weeks. It's not a fleeting phenomenon but a long term trend.

The terminology here has become laden with Actual Freedom references. The tone has likewise. The ultimate goal of practice has been changed from something akin to "let's discover the nature of mind" to " let's get rid of all our suffering by eliminating our sense of self and affect." While those things are clearly related, and I respect and really do admire the things being reported here, it's also true that that they are not very broad and do not address the other aspects of the path and the confusion that I mentioned in #135.

Kenneth started this forum after first having begun giving his teaching on his friend Dan Ingram's Dharma Overground forum. I encountered him there and followed him here. Kenneth has achieved a remarkable degree of realization and formulated a direct approach to teaching the Path that combines the best of traditional methods with pragmatic modern techniques. He has been very open to a range of other points of view expressed by people who have come to this place. But there is a real danger, in my view, that so many divergent views -- of varying degrees of actual value for genuine development -- can simply by their volume and frequency, completely overwhelm the capacity for one man -- Kenneth -- to respond and guide the discussion back into more fruitful directions.

"This whole thing seems to be getting into the territory of meditation as a spectator sport, just a form of entertainment. "Lets create some conflict between Nik and Kenneth and watch the fireworks".
"

I felt personally insulted by that remark. I had a beautiful idea and you turned it into something crass and offensive.
I got angry. I wanted to strike back. Teach you a lesson.

I had to meditate on it instead. Never mind why- I just had to sit with it because of my life situation.

Where does this feeling of insult come from? He does not say my name, but I KNOW he must mean me because no one else on this thread has lamented the lost opportunity for conversation between Nick and Kenneth and then go on with the HUBRIS to suggest topics and questions as fodder for continuing dialogue.
He must mean me. Why has he insulted me?
1) Did he not read my first few sentences where I explained how "I hoped to see some conversation develop between two advanced and respected adepts."
Does that sound like I want fireworks?
2) Did he perhaps read it, but not believe me? Did he decide that I just said that to conceal my REAL motive- i.e. to CREATE conflict between them and watch fireworks?
Possibly.

Then again, possibly he just did not think about it all that much. Possibly he just went from point a to point b and accidentally stepped on my foot.
He got an erroneous impression of "someone's" intent (perhaps not even me), and he ran with it. Then, possibly, I got an erroneous impression of his intent to personally slam me, and got angry.
He stepped on my foot. What do I need to do about it? (right now)

Because I only have this moment to live the way I want to live. I don't get to lash out now and meditate like a Buddha later.
In this moment I can create what my world will become,
with this post,
with these words.

" In fact, thinking about it now, I have made a mistake posting here. I allowed other conditions to think it was ok. I was wrong. Best I retreat from KFD. I apologize to those who did not gain anything from my posts.

"

Hey Nick,
Well that completely and utterly sucks. I would ask you to reconsider and stay on at KFD. I think the community here needs people like you who scout out unknown territory and report back. Also the community here can help you learn what you need to know. Ever see pretty polished rocks? You know how those rocks get polished? They put them in a tumbler with other rocks and a gritty compound and the rocks tumble over and over each other and get polished.
I think that works for me. Some combination of things has helped me here, your words, other peoples words, getting in the tumbler...
I have a clumsy learning style. I complain loudly. I write too much. I fight with all my teachers. I get goofy. I break things.
Somehow I get in the tumbler and it does not matter. The rough areas get smoothed over little by little.
So you think you made a mistake in posting here. Fuhgetaboudit!
I've left a trail of mistakes a mile long. Just now I think I made a big one. I got some "hubris pain" from that one too. I learned from it though. I expect to make more mistakes here at KFD, until I get bored or they throw me out.
KFD has a thriving base and a strong immune system.

Anyway, if you don't stay, I'll email you a report on the places where I think you missed the "intention" of my points. Since you asked, I figure it's the least I can do to make amends for contributing to this mess.
Stay well,
Gary

It's a real shame alternate views of wisdom are not welcome here.
Be well.

"I felt personally insulted by that remark. I had a beautiful idea and you turned it into something crass and offensive.
I got angry. I wanted to strike back. Teach you a lesson."

I am very sorry that you felt that way. I was simply expressing what I was interpreting in the undertone of the conversation as a whole. If anything, my motivation was to reduce what I interpreted as unnecessary tension rather than create new tension - apologies.

Hi RevElev!

I don't think that it is about alternative forms of wisdom not being welcome here, as I see a great deal of diversity here. Massive amounts, actually.

As I see it, it is more about the communication styles of a small cliche of practitioners on this and other associated boards. These styles I see to be unnecessarily aggressive and exclusive of other people's view. The style appears either adversarial or dismissive. Resulting these practitioners assuming an authoritarian and 'expert' mode of communication and role on said boards. This stifles dialogue, oppresses and dominates other practitioners and their perspectives.

I often see very little skillful means or wise action around communication amongst this cohort. Certainly little evidence of benevolence, harmlessness and or selflessness. This style seems to assume a great deal of hubris and entitlement.

Some practitioners appear as though they are not able to formulate an accurate theory of mind around what other students of the Dharma are thinking and feeling, and so demonstrate very low emotional intelligence; appearing more like a presentation of Aspergers syndrome, in some respects.

From my perspective, in life it really is not what you say, but how you say it. In the academic, professional and social worlds, challenging other people, their beliefs and actions is highly appropriate in many contexts. However, I perceive that we must be mindful of communication as a function of power and control and its misuse in oppressing others and their experience of being human.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for clarity.

I just deleted two posts that I thought likely to spin us into another round of us-vs-them partisanship. I have been noticing a disturbing trend: posts that seem critical of AF or AF-inspired thinking are immediately voted down using the "do you find this helpful" buttons, followed by what often seems like a knee-jerk response to defend AF. I'd like to see this stop. Let's stop using the voting buttons entirely. If you have a considered response to someone else's post that is not driven by a compulsive need to defend this or that ideology against any and all attacks, go ahead and post it.

Frankly, I want criticism of AF to be heard here. I want people to feel safe to express their misgivings about AF and AF-inspired memes without fear that they will be shouted down by a small but vocal minority of idealogues. At the same time, I welcome criticism of Buddhist ideas. What I am objecting to is the politicized nature of some posts, where the agenda seems more to stifle criticism than to share insights.

Finally, I agree with some of the posters who have suggested that if AF advocates want a protected place where they can discuss their ideas without challenge, this is not the best venue for them. Perhaps it's time to start a dedicated AF forum for that purpose.

I agree on the anonymous voting buttons - I think they add zero value to these conversations.