Ongoing confusion.

JLaurelC said: "(...) what I'm saying is that anyone could utilize your argument to make a case for whatever practice he or she favors."

I think we will eventually arrive at an impasse if we follow through this line of thinking (and I agree with what you are saying here). Relativism can come back around and bite one on the ass (almost literally)

Reading your post I see that we're nearing the point where our difference in thinking become clear and it seems we are not failing in our communication, but are actually of differing opinion. To illustrate:

JLaurelC said: "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."

To this I would say that one shouldn't criticize even heroin use (misuse is another issue, and defining "misuse" is yet another challenge, but I understand you mean misuse) unless one has tried it oneself. As you can now clearly see, we are of differing opinion. I would wager that you are some years older than me and that that correlates with the difference in opinion we have.

JLaurelC said: "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."

Of course I agree with this. But how far up or down can we take the proverbial notch before we reach our limit? It is interesting (and off topic, sorry), and I think ultimately insightful, to ponder these things.

Keeping an open mind, which also means being open to being closed, is not as easy as it sounds

Great communicating, Bill. I feel I understand your position. As you said yourself, my objection was based completely on the two assumptions mentioned in post #40, and that is why I explicitly described them.

And as you clearly stated that those assumptions do not resonate with you I feel we've understood each other and there is not much more to say.

Bill said: "I have wondered often if there are things more important than personal enlightenment?"

*puts his thinking hat on*

Stiangh,

It is obvious you were hurt, threatened or offended by something I said to the degree that you felt the need for mockery. This is unfortunate as I was trying to raise what seems a signifigant question and perhaps gain a better understanding of something I don't at this point understand. It seems to me that if my search for personal salvation is fueled by a false view my own results will be skewed. This is why personal enlightenment strikes me as a slightly absurd concept since the desire to be separate from experience seems more the problem than the experience itself and the "self" who I want enlightened will never get enlightened. I wish you luck.

You got me all wrong, Bill (alternatively, I didn't express myself clear enough). There was no disrespect or mockery intended in my reply to you. What I wrote is what I sincerely meant and so I appreciate your further writing on the question "is there anything more important than personal enlightenment", but the first part of your last post was completely unnecessary.

I understand that pure text is not exactly the best way to express oneself.

EDIT:

This seems like a good opportunity to mention that over at the DhO it is generally accepted (to my knowledge) that one can not progress to what is known as AF without first cultivating pure altruism. In AF lingo/jargon, this is part of what is called "pure intent". One can not rely on motivation generated by 'me' to be free of 'me', and so have to seek and cultivate altruistic motivation, to at all be able to attain an actual freedom.

Kenneth: "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."

That's a good point. Part of right speech: "[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." (Abhaya Sutta).

I personally think the end goal is the same. I am interested to see how those who currently oppose the Actualist lingo will describe their experience once released.

I try to hold to this statement: The only reason I say anything is in order to help orient one's practice. It seemed to me that Adam's post evidenced some views he held which might prevent further practice. If I interpret his words such that the universal feeling tone he talks about means the sweetness that I experience in a PCE or close to it, then it makes sense. I just think it's important to note that that "feeling tone" is of an entirely different nature than a self-ish experience that most people would use the word "emotion" to describe. I think the word "feeling tone", if Adam is using it this way, indicates both something that remains when released (the compassion Nick talks about) and something that does not (emotions, as the word is usually understood). This might confuse someone who is investigating their experience.

Either way, pay attention both to that which you think is suffering, and that which you think is not. Try not to hold any preconceptions. Reality is right, whatever it is - you can contend with reality and suffer, or you can pay attention to it and not.

To follow up a little on the EDIT of my last post:

By complete chance I stumbled over this question on the AFT site. I have not read a single page of the AFT site but this just jumped out at me from nowhere.

Alan: "Am '˜I' going to continue, in the knowledge that the end result is '˜my' demise. Or, am '˜I' going to give up and settle for '˜second best'. Perhaps this is where '˜pure intent' comes in. It is not a phrase I have been entirely comfortable with or, rather, completely understood."

(...)

Richard: "With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric."

(...)

Alan: "And Richard is correct '“ altruism is necessary. '˜I' cannot do this thing or rather '˜I' cannot will this thing. It has to be '˜my' sacrifice for the whole of humanity. It is the only thing '˜I' can do."

Richard (paraphrased): "And after 'the adventure' of become free, there is the motivation to 'seduce' one's fellow human being into being happy and harmless. (...) There is so much more to life than the process of becoming free."

---

The question seems to be buried deep and I decided not to link to this specific conversation. If you are interested in this I would do as probably many have done before me: suggest that you check out the Actual Freedom Trust site. Reason for not linking, and probably also the reason why many have dismissed AF, is that one would miss so much context by jumping straight into the conversation. And context is in my opinion paramount when learning about something new.

This is where I'd like some more clarification: If we are using the most precise language we can, what is each persons experience of Karuna?

Should we be calling it feeling, or emotion, or can we use more precise language to describe something that is universal / of the absolute / not a relative, ordinary feeling? Are we talking about the same thing here, the issue being language, or have we come to a fundamental difference in our experiences of awakening.

When Kenneth referenced the text that talks about the Buddha "extending his mind net" and recognizing the suffering of beings, this resonates with me and my own experience of compassion. When Kenneth talks about feeling others' suffering in the body, and Karuna accompanying this, this resonates with me and my experience.

We can probably all agree that the full awakening being pointed to is the "End of Suffering". But what does this really mean? Does this mean we have amputated our ability to experience suffering, or we have cut off our tendencies to fuel it? I think it means the latter. I think Enlightenment should not be limited. I think that Enlightenment is about expanding our spectrum of awareness, encompassing more of the continuum of experience with our awareness. I think that any permanent limitation on experience might appear contrary or as a limiting factor to Enlightenment.

I don't see why feeling the suffering of others, need disturb the recognition of the true nature of this moment for an awakened being. Once one has awakened, I think it should be possible to feel and recognize the suffering of others, that it's natural for Karuna to accompany this, and that this need not be a conflict to ones awakening. I don't want to place limits on what awakening may entail, It appears to me that there may be something paradoxical about feeling vs suffering with full awakening.

cont.

I think if we over intellectualize, and try and use the texts and interpretations of them to guide our path we can overlook the paradox that is recognized in the experience of the path.

I think then we could falsely conclude that the end of suffering is the obliteration of our capacity to feel or suffer, to have amputated our ability to feel, or to have permanently limited ourselves somehow. This doesn't feel right when I consider that Enlightenment is about freedom, not limitation. I would suggest that what was referred to as the end of suffering may be more paradoxical that one might initially interpret. That it might not exclude the recognition of others' suffering, feeling.. and that how Karuna relates to this, we should attempt more dialogue and hopefully we can clarify for one another.

metta!

Justin

malt said (paraphrased): "I consider Enlightenment to be about freedom, not limitation."

That freedom is not, in my opinion, the freedom you define it as. It is the freedom from suffering. And literally removing suffering is, I submit, a limitation of human potential. How "bad" this limitation is, is a whole different issue to me.

I see that you are presenting many of your own opinions in your post, malt. That is not a problem, of course, and it contributes to the dialogue, but I ask you, do you recognize the existence of opposing opinions?

EDIT:

At this point I'd like to point out again that I have very little experience with the method of actualism and don't consider myself to have attained to anything that that method will lead to. I'm merely trying to discuss this with an open mind, drawing on what I have learned about the subjects in question.

I think that the "ongoing confusion" has a lot of roots in language. And going by what I have read here on KFD so far, people here are very wary of that, which I think is good.

You, malt, say that when you hear what the Buddha did (with his mind net) there is a resonation in you. I believe that this resonation is part of a class/category of experience that will disappear permanently upon attaining an actual freedom (or temporarily in a full PCE). Do you see how the event horizon ends there? One can not grasp what is beyond that event horizon. One cannot know whether AF is the end of suffering until one has experienced it. But luckily, one can temporarily test that for oneself.

From this point of view, much of your post simply doesn't make sense. I am not attacking your post at all, but pointing out where, and more importantly why, there might be difficulties combining these views. (Please don't take this personally. Consider it merely a point of view).

Imagine how impossible it would be to try to share what is beyond that event horizon with fellow human beings. Only the informed (people who have had a full PCE or attained an actual freedom) would fully understand. Hence the copious amounts of text on the AFT site.

malt said: "I don't see why feeling the suffering of others, need disturb the recognition of the true nature of this moment for an awakened being."

Similarly, Nikolai has tried to convey that he doesn't see why the complete loss of what he calls "affect" need disturb the recognition of the suffering of others.

(continued...)

Hi StaianGH!

Nice to hear from you!

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have not tested my practice nor utilised practices that are recommended by Nik, 'AFers', or those found in most other traditions on this planet.

I even ended my last post with: "practice and decide for yourself". If I wasn't clear, I meant test and see for yourself. I have reiterated that point a number of times in previous posts on this thread.

I will try to write more clearly.

Adam.

"You, malt, say that when you hear what the Buddha did (with his mind net) there is a resonation in you. I believe that this resonation is part of a class/category of experience that will disappear permanently upon attaining an actual freedom (or temporarily in a full PCE). Do you see how the event horizon ends there? One can not grasp what is beyond that event horizon. One cannot know whether AF is the end of suffering until one has experienced it. But luckily, one can temporarily test that for oneself."

I am probably using poor language. All I mean by resonates with me, is that the way the buddha recognizes the suffering of others and is moved by compassion in that story, seems in accord with my own experience and understanding. "This resonates with me" .. is to say that I recognize this parallel where my experience seems to fit this description. This seems to fit my own experience of practice / testing when I do for example, direct mode practice.

I have done quite a bit of direct mode practice lately, and as far as I can tell I have had PCE's. I don't know much about Actual Freedom, or it's terminology, however.

I understand how difficult it is to try and describe transcendent experiences to those who have no experiential basis for them. In these cases really all you can do is to say "do the practice and you will see". We do a lot of pointing on these forums, and even if we may not describe these things very well, I think often times we can do well enough to recognize when we are pointing to similar recognitions / insight.

cont

I would agree that the loss of affect need not disturb a superficial recognition of the suffering of others, however it is my experience that when we embody the non-dual, the experience is direct, similar to our own sense impressions of our own bodily sensations, not to imply there is becoming or self referencing or identification.

In this case the removal of "feeling" may limit one's understanding of others' suffering. In order for Karuna to be acted upon effectively to remove suffering, we must understand how that suffering arises. The only way to do this is to investigate it, sense it, make contact with it. Is there a point where this is no longer necessary? I don't know. But it seems to me that any path that causes us to become disconnected with the reality of others' suffering would inhibit our ability to respond effectively from Karuna to alleviate their suffering.

If our personal motivation for this practice is indeed for the benefit of all beings, and if I were to be convinced that final awakening removed the possibility of sensing others' suffering, to feel as others feel, then I might respond that in this case, it would be logical to delay such an awakening until we have addressed the suffering of all beings. However, taking the historical account of the Buddha, and how effectively he was able to address the suffering of others, and assuming he was indeed fully awakened, this doesn't seem to be the case.

metta!

Justin

Regarding "the resonation": I understood what you meant, and you further clarified that. The part of that resonation which is the actual sympathizing (which in this context means to mirror [a feeling] - as opposed to empathize [meaning to intellectual grasp e.g. a feeling]) is what I am suggesting would forever disappear.

I would also like to comment on the meaning of "karuna". As per another active thread here on the forum (Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss), I gather that karuna is the call to action, not the source of the call to action, and I see Nikolai arguing that while his source for call for action have changed, this has all but made his "karuna" clearer.

malt said: "(...) any path that causes us to become disconnected with the reality of others' suffering would inhibit our ability to respond effectively"

I agree. And so it seems to me that our difference in opinion lies in whether or not an actual freedom disconnects one from the suffering of others, and what exactly that means.

I invite you all to participate, or at least read, this thread on the DhO. I feel it has a more direct approach to discussing this, and I didn't want to cross-post it here on KFD as several others have made it clear that they'd rather not have any more discussion about this.

dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussio...ards/message/2298993

Adam West: Unless you have tasted the fruit of practice, I do not see how having engaged in the practice would qualify for knowledge about its fruit. If one were to do vipassana until the point of the dark night and arrive at the conclusion that vipassana is "dangerous" because it makes one feel fear and therefor end the practice... That conclusion would in my opinion not qualify as a properly informed conclusion.

See post #7 on 'Is debate fundamentally painful' for further elaboration on the question of fruits of practice.

Adam.