Clarifying this whole 'becoming' thing

orasis :"So, in a moment of mindfulness, I have a choice to either experience perfection of this moment with all its glorious imperfection, or I can get back to this painful work."

Well, you say "in a moment of mindfulness", implying that there are moments of no mindfulness. So maybe all you have to do is to only have moments of mindfulness.

And when all of your moments are as mindful as what you consider now a "moment of mindfulness"... hmm, maybe some moments will be more mindful than that, and others less? And the more mindful moments will be what you then consider a "moment of mindfulness"? Perhaps time, then, to be _that_ mindful in all moments.

And perhaps that might happen a few times... your definition of what is mindful and what isn't (thus, what is suffering and isn't), constantly changing.

This is what I have noticed. And I've noticed that I have had so far to go from what I used to think was being mindful, that I don't see a reason to try to 'rest' in what I currently consider a moment of mindfulness... instead using that opportunity as a reason to be even more mindful.

EDIT: And I would say, when your goal is to be more mindful, this work probably won't seem painful.

End: Yes. I can appreciate your perspective.

I was heading through the Yukon territory on my way to Alaska once and met a person there that had never left the Yukon in their entire life - not even to see Alaska or British Columbia. I was totally shocked since I find traveling to be quite valuable. Their answer was "Why leave? I'm perfectly happy here"

No worries, I understand your point.

If you change your mind in the future, I hope some of these conversations will benefit you then.

beoman: Actually, I can't really say that my experience of the perfection of the moment/awakeness/mindfulness moments has significantly changed in the last two years. The minor factors that have changed aren't experiential, but rather just a more inclusive conceptual understanding and less confusion:

- I used to think that recognition of awareness/awakeness was a *state* that included brightness, lucidity, openness,etc. I now see that these things highly correlate but are not "it"
- I used to think that awakeness was antithetical to thinking. I am now able to include conceptual thought as just any other phenomena.
- I used to have painful/confused situations where I was "trying" to be awake but couldn't - this was due to not clearly seeing selfing. Because of noting practice, I now know what to look for and it vanishes. (EDIT: this was my last shift and made things quite nice)

So actually, my practice has advanced quite a bit, but awakeness is still pretty much the same - I expect my practice has a very very long way to go, but I do not expect much to change in the fundamental experience of awakeness. It will be very interesting to me if I am wrong.

These conversations are always a benefit, truly appreciated, and I'm sure will continue to illuminate.

"
EDIT: And I would say, when your goal is to be more mindful, this work probably won't seem painful."

Yup, more mindfulness is nice - no disagreement there.

"However, I still think that it is an open question whether traditions that postdate the Pali suttas (Tibetan Buddhism, Advaita) are talking about something that is not as deep as the suttas, or are talking about the same thing in radically different language."

The Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya), from de Dzogchen teachings, is kinda like a synthesis of the 12 nidanas after one has become enlightened. However, these 12 nidanas are free of suffering and even birth and death, even though things appear to arise and cease. Chogyam Trungpa talked about this in one of his books, I can't remember at the moment the name of it. Basically what he said was that Dharmakaya corresponds to the emptiness aspect, Samboghakaya corresponds to the process before becoming, and Nirmanakaya corresponds to apparent becoming. The Nirmanakaya is never deluded, it is a completely enlightened manifestation (that one can observe) of the purity of emptiness.

Chris wrote: 'The point I am making is simple -- all the selfing and emotions and the arising of all kinds of wonderful, and/or nasty things doesn't matter and does not cause suffering if the realization that it occurs inside the infinite, timeless, and untouchable awareness is present, all the time, right now. If I'm in that experience right now there is no problem, period, no matter what happens, now or in the future -- a future that need not even be considered unless I have some fear that I will suffer... then. I don't because I have the confidence that whatever occurs will occur in the way THIS is occurring, right now. Emptiness matters "

That's it Chris. A deep penetration of self/emptiness makes a preoccupation with phenomena mute. But then we knew that long ago. Apparently we all just got really distracted for the last 2 years or so... Curious.

Can those of you who down voted Adam's post please explain why? I have no clue how anyone can find contention with these points? Is there something in your experience that makes these statements sing untrue to you?

I sincerely want to understand what drives this difference in perspective - it seems like people are coming at this path from (at least) two very different angles and I'd love to understand why this is.

" But then we knew that long ago. Apparently we all just got really distracted for the last 2 years or so... Curious. "

This is a straightforward 'what I think' post. I think Adam may come off as being a bit snarky in some of his posts. This is how they seem from how myself and others I've talked with interpret them. I think people are reacting (pressing 'no') towards his possibly perceived arribista mahayana-is-superior perch and seeming tendency to make absolute claims (impressions can be wrong). It doesn't help steer the conversation in a helpful and practical direction but seems to stall it. It stalled it before with the 'asperger' comments which should have been moderated. I hope I am wrong and an open to impressions on an internet forum being wrong as they often can be.

snark·y (snärk)
adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide.
2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

adj
Informal unpleasant and scornful
[from sarcastic + nasty]

EDIT FOR EMPHASIS: THIS IS JUST AN IMPRESSION. IMPRESSIONS, ESPECIALLY ON AN INTERNET FORUM, MAY NOT HOLD ANY TRUTH AT ALL.

Let's keep this on the up and up now. No more posts about anyone else's person, personality, and so on. I'm leaving all the posts here for now, not removing any -- assuming that we're all adults and can follow this simple entreaty from now on. But with the next transgression by anyone I'll lock the thread or selectively delete.

Thanks.

"
Let's keep this on the up and up now. No more posts about anyone else's person, personality, and so on. I'm leaving all the posts here for now, not removing any -- assuming that we're all adults and can follow this simple entreaty from now on. But with the next transgression by anyone I'll lock the thread or selectively delete.

Thanks."

Agreed.

"A deep penetration of self/emptiness makes a preoccupation with phenomena mute. "

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is what I believe/know I did while actualising jhanas. There was 'deep penetration' into the 'self' and sense of 'existing' and emptiness of it all. So much so that 'self' and sense of 'existing' stopped arising as they once did. Here is what myself and Owen and others have done to great effect:

thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com/2011/07/...ualizing-jhanas.html

cmarti: "If I'm in that experience right now there is no problem, period, no matter what happens, now or in the future -- a future that need not even be considered unless I have some fear that I will suffer... then. I don't because I have the confidence that whatever occurs will occur in the way THIS is occurring, right now. Emptiness matters ""

I just want to point out that this same can be said for a PCE. There are lots of similarities...

" But with the next transgression by anyone I'll lock the thread or selectively delete.
"

And with that, I feel a little chill in the air.

Hey, I think I have identified the #1 source of ALL HUMAN MISUNDERSTANDINGS:

Communication.

Chris, I know you have a job to do as moderator, but how can we have a discussion about the MOST personal issue that humans can have (i.e. our felt identification of ourselves AS a person) , without letting it get personal?
For example, take this unfortunate Asperger's comment. I agree with Nick in that I think that comment did put did halt to an important conversation. When you read a broad put-down like that it does not serve much of a useful purpose unless you can get to the specific perceptions of the person doing the put down.
Specific behavioral observations takes us away from "Asperger's", and into what HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED that Adam sees as problematic. What behaviours does Adam see that give him that impression? Both Adam and Kenneth have an anti AF stance. The conversation MUST get awkward and personal in order to get away from broad swipes like Kenneth calling AF "nonsense" or Adam's Asperger's reference, and into what specific behaviours they see as troublesome. Using that as a starting point, you can leave the Asperger's reference behind, and move the conversation into a more productive direction.

Nick has said he has no problem with personal feedback, which makes perfect sense, since he claims no sense of "I" to feel frustration, embarrassment, anger, and so forth. Can two mature adults have a conversation about sensitive matters on this forum? Can you let it play out a little before you start deleting posts and locking threads? (Assuming Adam wants to).
I'd start the conversation myself, but I don't have a strong anti-AF stance right now.
(cont)

I know some people have suggested that the ones here interested in pursuing AF should go to a different forum. But I would point out that commentary critical of AF does not have a place at the DhO. Tarin and Trent will ask you to leave if you ask too many critical questions or make too many critical comments. The derogatory comments I have made on this forum about AF would not put me in good standing there. At this forum I can criticize AF and try out parts of it as well.

People get excited about MRI's or Loco's test of AF claimant's voice stress patterns. I would just like to see how AF people (besides Richard) relate to non AF people in the tight and awkward corners of critical inquiry. Somewhere, sometime, that conversation needs to happen.

I wrote this before noticing the locked threads. I have to say, I appreciate the irony of a locked thread on "right speech".

Gary

"
People get excited about MRI's or Loco's test of AF claimant's voice stress patterns. I would just like to see how AF people (besides Richard) relate to non AF people in the tight and awkward corners of critical inquiry. Somewhere, sometime, that conversation needs to happen.

"

Hi Gary,

I've decided enough is really enough. This place is branded dharma. It IS Kenneth's site. It is his take on awakening. It is not exactly mine (if I were to instruct). They are his teachings, not mine. It is his reputation and livelihood, not mine. It really isn't my place to change or add or put at jeopardy any of it.

I am also seeing that only those who are truly interested in the idea of ending suffering as talked of by myself, End and others, will eventually navigate through their own doubts, fears and reservations to make that decision for themselves.

If you have any queries concerning how I live my life, by all means come to the HP and ask. if you are interested in experimenting with the techniques, by all means come over and ask questions. But I will not be participating in any dialogues here nor at the HP where my perceived task is to defend AF or defend this and that against aggressive stances. I'm not interested anymore. Enough has been said. You either work through your own doubts and obstacles, or you don't. A full blown PCE will answer many of them. And if it doesn't, then you can stop thinking about it all and do something else.

When more of the advanced yogis start wondering what the fuss is all about, practice and get it done themselves, perhaps that is when it will be a time where talking about such progressions in dharma will be completely unavoidable for all, including Kenneth's site.

Thanks, Nick.
Well said.

"It really isn't my place to change or add or put at jeopardy any of it."

Maybe true for me too.

Gary, you are free to start a topic about whatever you like. There is a difference between open discussion and evangelism. Use common sense. Feel free to engage Adam in a discussion. What can't happen is that KFDh become an Actual Freedom forum and that folks with a teaching that differs materially from Kenneth Folk's use the KFDh audience to further their own very different teachings. It's really pretty simple. I think there's some confusion and dismay right now because the evangelizing has been going on for a while and imposing a few rules just seems different.

Everyone is welcome here as long as those very simple, straightforward rules are followed.

Chris - thank you for the concrete, clear explanation. These things are often gut calls, but thank you for the clarity.

"But I would point out that commentary critical of AF does not have a place at the DhO. Tarin and Trent will ask you to leave if you ask too many critical questions or make too many critical comments."

This is only the case if you post in the "Actualism" sub-forum. If you post on the "Dharma Battleground" sub-forum, no one will ask you to leave. Though, whether you'd find people to take you up on the debate is another matter.

"People get excited about MRI's or Loco's test of AF claimant's voice stress patterns. I would just like to see how AF people (besides Richard) relate to non AF people in the tight and awkward corners of critical inquiry. Somewhere, sometime, that conversation needs to happen"

Gary, I hear you on this and I agree, you should be able to discuss Actual Freedom openly. You can. It's not a discussion about Actual Freedom that causes the problem, especially if the conversation is reasonable and balanced. BALANCE is the key. Most of those conversations here turn toward evangelism by some, with post after post after post extolling the virtues of AF or AF-lile practices.

Understand the skepticism here -- it's only fair that we all keep an open mind and a skeptical attitude about this. Not an attitude of fear, hatred or denial, but open to the possibility and yet questioning a reasonable as in the tone of your comment. What these folks are claiming is offered up as an almost inevitable extension of the path. I'm not so sure. I really don't know. So I maintain a reasonable skepticism. If proven wrong, I will gladly, ecstatically, admit my error.

There is a pretty big audience here at KFDh and they come for the Kenneth Folk part. Those are not by any means all advanced practitioners. The audience matters, and it matters a lot. If this becomes a forum that is essentially a place to talk about other practices then Kenneth's purpose here is lost. That can't happen.

Make sense?

"Make sense?

"

I really am not trying to be confrontational, here, but I am a bit confused.

At first, I thought the new "rule" was that only conversation about Kenneth's practices was to be accepted. That is very straightforward, and I am totally fine with that - I will simply stop posting here and post on HP or DhO.

From what I get from your latest posts, you would be fine with threads about Actual Freedom, so long as there isn't AF "evangelism" in those threads? Is this correct?

If so... you say: "What can't happen is that KFDh become an Actual Freedom forum and that folks with a teaching that differs materially from Kenneth Folk's use the KFDh audience to further their own very different teachings." In what way could somebody who thinks that Actual Freedom is a valid goal participate in a thread about Actual Freedom, especially one being critical of it and practices leading to it and the rhetoric (which being critical is not a bad thing necessarily), without furthering that teaching in some way? (How can a proponent of Actualism reply to a critique about Actualism without talking about it in a positive light?)

Basically, I'm curious what you mean by "evangelism".

I post this not with the intent to spark confrontation, but with the intent to avoid it in the future. Based on your answer I will either post in AF-related threads or not.

Evangelism is selling. Evangelism is making it a point to entice others to practice your version off the dharma. I really don't think this is confusing but here are some tips:. talk about the merits of other teachings, refer folks to other sites using links, talk about your personal experience but don't monopolize a conversation thread with lots of long posts extolling the virtue of YOUR way. Again, BALANCE is the key to this.

Hope that helps, beoman.

"In what way could somebody who thinks that Actual Freedom is a valid goal participate in a thread about Actual Freedom, especially one being critical of it and practices leading to it and the rhetoric (which being critical is not a bad thing necessarily), without furthering that teaching in some way?"

If you really think Actual Freedom is a valid goal I think you should find an Actual Freedom oriented forum to dig into the details and the practice of Actual Freedom. But that does't mean you cannot post here using a reasonable approach and balance. I think folks pretty much know when they're selling/evangelizing and when they're not. I intend to rely on the nature of the audience here -- intelligent, adult, common sensical, interested in practicing Kenneth's dharma. This is something we may have to feel our way through a bit and if that makes you uncomfortable then just lurk for a while and see how it works.

cmarti: "I think folks pretty much know when they're selling/evangelizing and when they're not."

This is the reason I asked - I am not sure what you are considering evangelizing and what you are considering a reasonable approach. I don't think I have been evangelizing, for example - just talking about my point of view, answering other's questions, asking them questions about points where I disagree, etc. But perhaps others see it as evangelizing?

I don't see a clear distinction. It seems that conversation about these topics starts, and posts are made freely. Then at some point it becomes difficult to make posts about it since there are reactions such as talk of closing threads and desire for the conversation to stop. Perhaps that is the task, then - to see where that line is and not to cross it. I will do what I can to adjust my posting habits.

Yes, those genuinely interested in AF and practices that seem to lead to it, should just post on the DhO on the Actualism sub-forum, or on the Hamilton Project forums. And that is where I usually talk about these things. I post here to attempt to reconcile different points of view with it, and to dispel what I think are misconceptions about it, as I think people would benefit. Maybe that is evangelizing? Why post if I don't think others would benefit?

Well, hopefully some have found my posts useful and not intrusive. I will likely be posting less often here in the future.