Ongoing confusion.

Hi Nick!

I would prefer not to get personal. But since you mention my reaction to you and your views, I would say that I don't feel intimidated by you or your perspective. I would reiterate, as I have simply said, people have their experience of realisation and interpret that realisation in hindsight. People use theoretical frameworks to do so. Often the frameworks themselves are not completely understood, and particularly their implications.

If we take a closer look at those frameworks, we find they are composed of a number of premises and a conclusion. Conclusions become premises and so it goes. Change the premise(s), you get a different conclusion.

You have your experience, I have mine; others have theirs. You frame it in a way that makes assumptions about your experience. You make meaning of it. Those assumptions are informed by theory, which in turn informs how you interpret your experience; which of course informs theory - reciprocal - and not at all necessarily linear like that. Experience also includes intuition in terms of direct revelation of knowledge.

I'm saying that our experience does not give rise to 'necessary' realisation or knowledge about our assumptions or more broader truths about reality. That is, I am saying that our knowledge remains incomplete. We fill in the gaps with inferences. We utilise beliefs. Thus, for this reason and others, we see so many different people with many different realisations.

(cont.)

The language and frameworks we use constructs our experiences; how we describe it to ourselves and others. Meanings ascribed. How others describe our experience to us. How we collectively frame our reality.

I have said that the use of the term affect makes a category error. That it fails to accurately describe enlightened experience. That it pathologises human experience and confuses the nature of enlightenment and reality itself.

(cont.)

I have no need for you to stop telling your story or go anywhere else.

It is not about you. Not personal.

It is about the discourse that is presented, and what I feel to be, a misrepresentation of enlightened experience. More harmful than that, I feel AF is a misrepresentation of the human experience. I know you don't represent AF. I never said you do. You do utilise their language and some of their basic premises. I am addressing the premises or assumptions, by virtue of the language used. If you feel the language obfuscates, perhaps you oughta consider its utility?

From my perspective I am simply presenting an alternative discourse for appropriate consideration. I expect people to think for themselves. And more importantly, practice for themselves. Look for themselves.

Personally, since it has become personal, I think you have contributed great things on this form and on your blog. Practical ways of practicing. I'd say that the same practical advice is available in Zen, Dzogchen, and Taoism, not to mention Theravada. In my opinion, such advice can be found without the distortions, and certainly without the absurdities of extreme rhetoric.

I am very pleased your relationship with your wife is much improved. We all deserve happiness!

I have found your findings and practical advice is great. You have passed on your own findings, as I am now. I am saying that how it is framed or interpreted is problematic and needs to [be] considered very carefully. My opinion. The implications are significant. My opinion.

I have found your communication style problematic, as have others found mine. But that is not the point of my post. I am not interested in you or me.

I hope I have cleared up any misconceptions that may have arisen.

Adam. edited for [ ]

"

I have found your communication style problematic, as have others found mine. But that is not the point of my post. I am not interested in you or me.
"

As this is of interest to me personally, would you elaborate on what is problematic about my communication style and how it could be improved? What are the results of the problemtaic style? What I mean is, does the information not get conveyed or understood? Does it not hash well with one's take on certain things? Does it make one feel a certain way which is problematic? Or is it just a disagreement with terms? Or is it just a complete failure to understand where I am coming from?

These I am interested in for the development of my communication style.

Nick

"Personally, since it has become personal, I think you have contributed great things on this form and on your blog. Practical ways of practicing. I'd say that the same practical advice is available in Zen, Dzogchen, and Taoism, not to mention Theravada. In my opinion, such advice can be found without the distortions, and certainly without the absurdities of extreme rhetoric."

What are the distortions and 'extreme rhetoric' in my own writings so we can address them specifically? Please give examples of what I have written, not what can be found on the AF website. I have read little of that website. I am talking from my own experience.

Do you claim to have gotten to the same place that many are now describing as af ? If so, what is wrong with our descriptions? If not, how do you know at all that we are wrong and distorting things? Do you have any, and I mean any of the following subtle or gross mentally felt sense of :

self / self-obsessing chatter / being / presence / location in the world / subject to objects / duality / inner world / me-ness / instinctual passions / any affectively felt mind state / moods / being of any kind / being the absolute / being one with everything / being one with anything / being connected to everything / being space / being infinite consciousness / being no-thing-ness / being the void / being anything / imagination / the flow of time / existing

This is not a oneupmanship display of "my awakening is better than yours". I don't care for such displays. If the basis of all your arguments is not from the place many more people are now finding themselves (af), then it is important that others know you are not speaking from the same experience. If you have any of the above as part of your ongoing experience, I ask myself how on earth you know how I have distorted things. Things that you have read? been told? Practiced to the point of...? This is perplexing.

Oh, for a world where everything really was either this or that

Adam -- I'm not a fan of Actual Freedom, as I think I've made very clear. That said, a few folks whose experiential reporting I do trust have been experimenting with Buddhist techniques that they claim have produced somewhat similar results. I remain skeptical but not ideologically opposed. Your very periodic comments here seem more ideologically opposed. I used to see it that way, too, so I very much understand how you feel and where you're coming from. Please take some time and read this thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/46...rounding+of+emotions

I trust Alex Weith to report accurately and objectively, and some aspects of my own practice have been trending in the same direction. Also, the work of Dr.Jeffery Martin can be found (see below) on Buddhist Geeks, and it's worth a read or a listen in regard to the same kind of experiences:

www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/07/bg-224-the...bolic-consciousness/

So... I remain somewhat more open minded than I was a year ago in regard to certain practice *results* and *experiences* (not the philosophy and language of Actual Freedom, which still sound ridiculous to me, and have come to see the same argument, made over and over again, as the same arguments being made over and over again. And, I think most folks here have moved on at least a bit from where things stood a year ago.

JMHO, and YMMV, of course.

Oh, as a moderator here, I request that all the comments on this thread stick to the issues and not become personal or about people's tendencies, personalities. or personal attributes. Otherwise we might have to close the thread.

"
Oh, as a moderator here, I request that all the comments on this thread stick to the issues and not become personal or about people's tendencies, personalities. or personal attributes. Otherwise we might have to close the thread.

"

The issue seems to be very very much just that. I do not represent the AF website and Richard's views on many things. I do however represent myself. And this thread is an indirect reaction towards what I had written on the compassion thread. That is obvious.

All those views that I expressed on that thread are based off of my own experiences. If Adam wishes to address AF of the AF website, he can do so without any reference to me as I do not speak for them. If he or anyone else wishes to address what was written in that thread, then it is me they should address.

I am speaking from my own experience and having talked with 8 more people who say they have also done the same thing as well as several others on the way there, there are too many similarities to think we may be distorting this via the language we have used.

If it gets personal towards me, I will not be offended Chris, so no need to close any thread because of that. If I get personal, then please call me on it.

Nick

'Theories are neither right nor wrong. They are attempts at explaining the inexplicable. It is not the theory that matters, but the way it is being tested. It is the testing of the theory that makes it fruitful. Experiment with any theory you like - if you are truly earnest and honest, the attainment of reality will be yours"' -- Nisargadatta

Hey Nik!

I really am not interested in talking about myself or you. I have made a number of arguments that point to the merits of yours and the AF presentation. See previous posts if you are unclear about the arguments. I have shown that they are not personal and I am seeking to engage on the merits of those arguments.

I will speak on a personal level just this last time. I will not respond to discussion around yours or my personal failures or strengths beyond this one post. Clearly we both have many, and public discussion of them, I feel, is not helpful. The merits or logic of an argument are quite different, however.

I do not experience compete freedom at all times. I regularly do so. I mean freedom as articulated by the fetters model and the Mahayana. I perceive It to be complete and absolute enlightenment in that moment. Literally. Complete recognition of reality as it is now. I am working to stabilise and further explore that. It is an ongoing discovery of reality, which I perceive to be unending.

(cont.)

I do not recognise that you have achieved the end of the path, or what I am talking about. I know you perceive the same in me. I believe you to have a realisation, one that is incomplete. I don't think you're fee from a personality conditioning that clouds your clarity and causes unrecognised reactivity and narrowing of your view. If you think otherwise I would suggest you have much insight yet to be attained, and need to broaden your definition of complete freedom. Just my opinion. Who cares what I think, right? I don't! Enlightenment is an ongoing process of realisation, in my view. No end point. Mine is not complete, nor is yours. The lack of clarity in your presentation supports this for me. See my previous posts on this thread if you are unsure of what I am speaking of.

I don't think you use extreme rhetoric; I was referring to the AF trust. You do use their language, which, to me, entails their presuppositions. If that is not the case, you might consider that the use of their language is confusing to your readers and reconsider using it.

You do take a few extreme positions though. (1) The definition of affect is exclusive and actually a category error (see previous posts); (2) human emotion is by implication pathological (see previous posts); (3) enlightened persons experience no emotion (same).

(cont.) edited for clarity.

I have argued on a couple of threads that these are very clearly false propositions; and false for you. You fail to recognise your own wholesome states as being emotional in feeling-tone. An example would be compassion. You conflate unwholesome states with wholesome states. Hence, demonstrate lack insight into your experience. That is my judgement. Obviously you would disagree. You can't seem to account for love and compassion as a felt experience, but instead try to reduce it to a void-like wise action or some such. I would suggest the confusion is around No person, No feeling. That is yet another conflation, and failure to recognise that there never was a person. All are but appearances, unwholesome and wholesome alike. In the absence of unwholeseome states, wholesome states go unobscured. But I would prefer not to keep repeating myself. I have explained this in previous posts.

(cont.) Edited for clarification.

If you wish to take up points of the argument that are not about you and me, please feel free to do so. Personally, I suspect there is limited value in this, as I have presented the premises as best I can and the differences in our positions remain clear. I would be happy to try to clarify further. We are working with different propositions; thus, different conclusions. Our experiences inform some of these premises. Clearly our experiences are different. I find the '˜I am more enlightened than you argument, so listen to me', a weak one; limiting the possibility of critical reflection and examination upon said distortions. So there is little further we can go if the conversation remains a personal one.

I just wanted to bring attention to the inconsistencies around your position as it relates to human experience, both enlightened and unenlightened, as reported by hundreds of enlightened adepts, including Kenneth and so many from so many traditions. People can check their own experience and the literature, and decide for themselves.

I again urge people to read my previous posts if they are unsure of what my argument is. My words are chosen carefully.

Finally, Kenneth Folk said it better than I ever could. So here it is:

"35. RE: KARUNA isn't an affective feeling: Discuss
Tuesday, 2:26 PM EDT
As the story goes...

Sakka, the king of the gods, saw this. So, he went to the Buddha and asked the him to cast out his mind net and see what he could see. The Buddha complied and what he saw was the suffering of all sentient beings. He was moved to compassion.

He wasn't doing anything. He was feeling compassion. It was this felt sense of compassion that compelled the Buddha to spend the rest of his life teaching.

Similarly, another of the Brahma Viharas, mudita (sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another) is not an action. It is a feeling.

Let's continue to resist the urge to plant flags, to put a lid on what this practice can be. Let's take the lid off.

Maybe we don't yet understand how to reconcile freedom and compassion. But just as we have conditioned the mind to be free, we can condition it to be free while feeling compassion. This is not a race to the bottom to see who can feel the least. It's an ongoing experiment in human development and it is always guided and influenced by our values and assumptions. We can and should reflect carefully upon our deepest values. For those of you who hold compassion as a value but seem to be in a place where it is not accessible, I submit that the challenge is not to rationalize that situation but rather to find a way to access compassion at the new level.

I'm talking about compassion not as an abstraction but as a felt sense: "a quivering of the heart upon seeing the suffering of another." This can be felt in the body.

Let's take the lid off."

Practice and decide for yourself.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for missing end quotes on Kenneth's extract.

Ok.

As I am not completely free, I feel the urge to post here in an effort to humbly try to enlighten the situation. I must mention right from the start that although I am no 'actualist', my ultimate goal is to attain to what several people have called an Actual Freedom or AF, and intend to pursue this goal in the same manner as those same people.

I will hopefully not be touching on any of the 'content' (of a box) of Adam Wests discussion, but rather its 'structure' (the box itself).

There are two assumptions that I will make and I would like to point those out: You intend to attain the highest possible degree of freedom from suffering, with absolutely no reservations. You entertain a belief where the historical Buddha is believed to have attained to this and his words are meant to guide one towards the same.

The Buddha said that one should always test theories for oneself.
The Buddha said never to believe that one had found 'Enlightenment'.

The permanent state of what has been called AF is available for temporary testing.

Why is it that you, contrary to the intentions mentioned previously, hold the stance of 'I will not test this state and see for myself whether it is the highest possible degree of freedom from suffering'?

Is it because you have reservations and are looking for a pick-and-choose Enlightenment to fit with your own idea(l)s?
Or did you simply forget about the words of the Buddha?
Or have you already defined "Enlightenment", even before you have tested all other testable states?
Or did I just get it all wrong with regards to the two assumptions mentioned previously?
Or did I get the words of the Buddha wrong?
Or is my assumption of you not having tested this state false?
Or is my logic fallible?

I'd say your logic is fallible, because you are proposing up front that out of many possible practices some people could choose, this is the one that everyone ought to choose, or at least try. Someone could just as easily say that everyone should just try accepting Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior, because this is the path to salvation. Lots of people have done it, and claim to have been saved. And in fact, if someone wants to do that, I have no problem with it at all. I also have no problem with people pursuing AF practice, in whole or in part, if the practice is appealing to them (and yes, I was less tolerant a few months ago, but that was then). I don't have a problem with Zen, or Tibetan approaches, or Kriya Yoga practice, or any of a large number of practices. However, just because any of these practices has proven liberating for any number of people, I would not say that people unwilling to try one of them are ignoring the words of the Buddha.

I think at a certain point, it's most expeditious to choose a practice and get to work with it. Too much "shopping" can prove to be counterproductive; for example, at this point in my own path, if I gave up vipassana for AF I would undermine the progress I've made. I have faith in my chosen method and am testing that for myself. I would not claim that everyone else must do the same.

So, to sum up: it is a logical fallacy to claim that just because something could be attempted, it must be attempted, by everyone who takes the Buddha seriously. I say this in all sincerity to answer your question as best as I can, and not to pick a fight with anyone.

I completely agree with what you are saying. But in your conclusion you are suggesting that I propose that anyone should try any practice. That was not my intention, at least.

What Adam West seems to be doing is directly pointing his criticism at actualism, without having specifically tried his own arguments to the full extent of actually testing this state. Why would one do that, if not only to strengthen ones own view by shooting down any attempt to challenge that view?

"What Adam West seems to be doing is directly pointing his criticism at actualism, without having specifically tried his own arguments to the full extent of actually testing this state."

I heard Adam's comments differently. He seems to be taking issue with a certain quirky interpretation of Buddhism through an AF lens. Let's call it Buddhafism (Buddhism with AF stuck in the middle of it). In this, I find Adam to be the voice of reason. I think Buddhafism is odd, dry, soulless, over-intellectualized, and generally unappealing. I would hate to have newcomers to KFD come away with the impression that most of us endorse Buddhafism. I, for one, do not.

All of the emphasis on loss of "affect" as defined by Actualism is off-putting to a lot of people, myself included. I find it odd that this particular style of discourse has become so prevalent on the boards. I would like to see the posters here find ways to communicate that are more inclusive, less jargony, and less focused on creepy sounding stuff like loss of affect and self-immolation. The Buddha himself was a good example of someone who could make his point in simple language that did not threaten the sensibilities of his listeners. Many other teachers have followed this lead.

Anticipating a possible objection, i.e., that if you are speaking the truth it doesn't matter whether people like it or not, I would reply that if your "truth" cannot be heard by the people you are trying to share it with, you would do better to learn a better way to say it because people won't be helped by something they cannot hear or understand.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that some of the advanced yogis here have accomplished extraordinary things in their practice. Now let's add khanti (patience) to the mix as we learn how to express the new insights. And let's see if this is just another phase before we beat the drum of final release.

"But in your conclusion you are suggesting that I propose that anyone should try any practice"--not exactly; what I'm saying is that anyone could utilize your argument to make a case for whatever practice he or she favors.

From what I gather, though, your objection is not to people not wanting to try actualism, but to their criticizing it without trying it. I'm going to say that one need not try everything one criticizes; I haven't tried heroin, for example, nor do I intend to, but I would strongly advise others not to try it either. That's an extreme example, I grant you. To take it down a notch, I might suggest that someone who is trying to find enlightenment through samatha exclusively is barking up the wrong tree. I haven't tried to find enlightenment that way, but I have good reason to believe that I won't get there by those means.

Really, though, I think what we might want to ask is how much criticism people are willing to accept of one another's practice. A couple of weeks ago I got hit between the eyes with some severe criticism of my noting practice, and of my working with Kenneth in an online forum, by a traditionalist who believes that the only true sangha is one consisting of monks and nuns. It wasn't pleasant and I was mad. But I learned a lot from the experience, and even met with the guy for coffee and ended up understanding my own practice a lot better as a result. So sometimes vigorous challenges can be good for people.

On the other hand, sometimes people get worn out and have to agree to disagree. I don't know if this is one of those times; there are people on this forum who are sick of hearing about it, but there are others who find these exchanges to be valuable. A couple of months ago I shot my own mouth off with full conviction and a whole lot less understanding than Adam has shown here, and I learned a lot from the experience.

Nikolais take on "Enlightenment" is as uncompromising as I have seen yet. He holds no reservations, not even towards "odd, dry, soulless, over-intellectualized, generally unappealing, off-putting, jargony and creepy" "Enlightenment". And what he has achieved with such an attitude I find very inspiring - just as I find so many other peoples attainments (such as the people in this discussion) inspiring.

My previous line of discourse, concluding that one should try out for oneself, of course still stands. And I think most of us agree on this (or am I projecting that?).

In a thread on the DhO I speculated openly that I believe the Mahayana ideal to be the fulfillment of the potential of human experience. To be able to reach this ideal, I speculated that there are reservations. Specifically, AF is a trajectory of development which would be off limits to such a fulfillment because it effectively limits the potential of human experiences. For example, a person that is actually free can not experience suffering (and I speculated that the Mahayana can not really be said to "suffer" either). And you can see how Adam and Nikolai seem to belong to either of these ideals. (I want to mention again that this was pure speculation on my part).

Kenneth said: "Anticipating a possible objection, i.e., that if you are speaking the truth it doesn't matter whether people like it or not, I would reply that if your "truth" cannot be heard by the people you are trying to share it with, you would do better to learn a better way to say it because people won't be helped by something they cannot hear or understand. (...) The Buddha himself was a good example of someone who could make his point in simple language that did not threaten the sensibilities of his listeners"

This view I completely concur with (and I believe this was the Buddhas genius), and I want to say that I feel that we are all on the same team, trying to both teach and learn from each other whatever we can teach and learn.

Kenneth said: "I would hate to have newcomers to KFD come away with the impression that most of us endorse Buddhafism."

This sounds to me like "pick-and-choose Enlightenment". Please understand that I have no issues with anyone choosing this for themselves (I actually personally believe that the Mahayana ideal is just this). What I have an issue with, and only because it makes communication and the aforementioned attitude of teaching-and-learning-from-each-other difficult, is anyone claiming to have an uncompromising view of enlightenment, yet still hold reservations (maybe unbeknownst to themselves). And of course the definition of an "uncompromising view of enlightenment" can vary.

Let me rephrase this: I do not personally have issue with this thread. My post was a humble attempt to enlighten the situation to the best of my ability, and in best of intentions. If it has not become clear yet what I tried to cast a light on: the (to me) apparent dissonance between Adam and Nikolais take on what "Enlightenment" means.

(continued...)

Stiangh,

If one finds the results demonstrated by such a practice as reported by those who practice it to be unappealing to one's own desires/goals in this process, what would be the incentive to try it out?

Bill

I guess that is a rhetorical question, but I will offer my personal take on it:

In such a case, if one feels that ultimately ones expectations have been met and one has attained "Enlightenment" then one can choose to cherish that attainment. Or one can remember the word of the Buddha and never settle on such a conclusion*. The outcome of that choice would probably traditionally (and dogmatically) be described in terms of previous merit and karma.

Notice how this also applies to AF.

* I sound like a traditionalist here. Hehe, I am not Good advice though.

EDIT: I didn't read the question thoroughly and changed my reply.

Stiangh,

Thank you for answering my question despite your feeling that it wasn't really a question. It was. I understand what your saying, and you may indeed be right, but let me present this by way of analogy: If I know of seven people who have been to a neighboring town and all of those people's reports of the goings on at that town are not interesting or attractive to me, I will probably not drive there to see if what they have reported is true. I just read over this posting in whole and noticed that you have made two assumptions in post #40, neither of which particularly resonate with me. I can understand completely if your first assumption was true for me why it might be wise to further explore Actual Freedom. Personally, I have wondered often if there are things more important than personal enlightenment? I suppose this is a personal choice, but I would assert if I passed a certain point where I had lost the capacity to hold certain experiences like love and compassion of the impersonal, unconditional variety, I would rather not be enlightened to that extent. That may be blasphemy on this board, but it is where I stand and have stood for some time. This is a personal choice based upon my own deepest intentions which include more than just freedom from suffering.