New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

The buddhist model implies that a paccekhabuddha can develop further and grow into a richer, more mature humanity, learning compassion along the way, because s/he has merely transcended his or her feelings for humanity in the quest for personal salvation. A paccekhabuddha can (eventually) get his or her head out of the clouds and can come back to the marketplace to teach and to help other people.

An AF person is in a different place altogether. S/he can never feel (or espouse) compassion because the very capacity for feeling (either compassion, or the suffering which makes compassion necessary) is undone, erased, permanently. They have not transcended their feelings, any more than you "transcend" a toothache by having the tooth out. It is gone. It cannot return.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue the respective merits of affect-free AF vs compassionate Buddhism, but it's not at all reasonable to subsume AF into buddhist doctrine by equating it with paccekabuddha phenonemon, thereby dismissing it as an incomplete, immature spirituality. It is an entirely different way of operating. It's true that both lack compassion, but it is for entirely different reasons.

I don't see you addressing this point anywhere, and that's why I don't think your comparison is helpful.

Alex

"The buddhist model implies that a paccekhabuddha can develop further and grow into a richer, more mature humanity, learning compassion along the way, because s/he has merely transcended his or her feelings for humanity in the quest for personal salvation. A paccekhabuddha can (eventually) get his or her head out of the clouds and can come back to the marketplace to teach and to help other people.

An AF person is in a different place altogether. S/he can never feel (or espouse) compassion because the very capacity for feeling (either compassion, or the suffering which makes compassion necessary) is undone, erased, permanently. They have not transcended their feelings, any more than you "transcend" a toothache by having the tooth out. It is gone. It cannot return.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue the respective merits of affect-free AF vs compassionate Buddhism, but it's not at all reasonable to subsume AF into buddhist doctrine by equating it with paccekabuddha phenonemon, thereby dismissing it as an incomplete, immature spirituality. It is an entirely different way of operating. It's true that both lack compassion, but it is for entirely different reasons.

I don't see you addressing this point anywhere, and that's why I don't think your comparison is helpful.

Alex
"

OK, Alex, that is a well-reasoned argument. If you are correct that an AF person has no possibility of return, then I would consider it all the more pressing to encourage spiritual seekers to think twice before signing up.

My interpretation of what you just said would be that while a pacceka buddha is immature, AF is an utter dead end. How unfortunate.

Yes, an absolute end. That explains both the attraction and the revulsion, IMO.

And that's where I believe your talk hits the target, that's where values come into it. What to aim for.

I think it could be extremely interesting - if done well - to read some debate about the respective merits of loving, compassionate modes of caring versus the AF modes such as "actual caring", "fellowship regard" , intrinsic benignity and so on.

From a purely personal POV, I also find AF intuitively and aesthetically unappealing in many ways, but I also find it stands up well to rational scrutiny. That presents quite a dilemma.

Alex

How do you know this? I've been under the impression that people can enter and leave PCEs at will, and that achieving Actual Freedom is the ability to stay in a PCE, not the inability to leave it. Can anyone pursuing the practice clarify this? thanks, Laurel

Just a few words from the plebeian side lines:
Over the years I've noticed how normal it seems to be for enlightened students to
go their own way and not necessarily follow in the steps of their teacher or their
tradition. The successor of my 1st Buddhist teacher renounced Buddhism, her
position, and teacher role and started working with people in non-traditional way.

There was a lot of debate, soul searching and, in the beginning, some acrimony
and accusations. I don't think there is a way to sum up what happened except
that over the years things settled down and people don't fight about it anymore.
I did what many did when the large Buddhist community split up, and spent
some time exploring other traditions and teachers, but at some point it seems
like you just want to pick a practice you have confidence in and a teacher
you have affinity with and let the controversies go.

If you can attain 4th path, sure seems like you've earned, and it must be natural,
to go your own way. But it looks like those of us just trying to do the basic practice
here have confidence in it and in Kenneth. People are getting enlightened here.

Edit: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this conversation. It's amazing
to be a fly on the wall around advanced yogis.

I just listened to Kenneth's talk yesterday, and read this thread this morning... I think it's a brave and fascinating talk, which makes explicit issues which have certainly been on my mind over the past months, and I'm very glad that Kenneth gave it.

I think it's cogent to bear in mind the old category of pratyeka buddha, in the context of DhO and the rise of AF - though there is obviously a debate to be had about the equation of the two. That category turns up all over the place in the texts, and seemed like nonsense when I started out in Buddhist practice!

Something that has occurred to me is that there are transformations in one's emotional life as one practices - a move from non-deconstructed relatively solid emotions, to seeing all the elements of an 'emotional' experience early on; seeing the cyclic and repetitive nature of emotional to-ing and fro-ing, and the pointlessness of this ie its unsatisfactoriness...

I think a major shift is from giving energy to ordinary emotional processes to being based in equanimity, as one sees through them. The brahmaviharas are not emotions, they are wisdom-based, and because they fundamentally arise out of equanimity, are a better basis on which to relate effectively to others. Along with that wisdom-basis comes a different way of seeing into other beings and why they suffer too.

I don't know whether AF is the completion of this process. For me, the transition described above has been and still is a fairly slow and difficult transition, and I can imagine if it had happened too quickly I would have had some extreme or one-sided views and way of relating to others. I am pretty intensively involved with people, and have to integrate what I learn as I go along. So it seems to me I don't have a 'choice' in the path I take. I wonder if the AF people feel they have a 'choice'?

For what little it is worth, I will weigh in here and add to the din.

While I have huge respect for Kenneth--he knows that, he helped me through some major hurdles in my practice--I was one of the people who drifted away from the community in large part because of the AF experiment and because that path was not something I could relate to or felt I really wanted to. I moved back in alignment with the Tantric traditions, in particular because their end stages discuss love and compassion.

I should say, however, I left with an open-mind: Maybe there is a 7th stage that involves the complete eradication of affect. And maybe I'm just not ready. Same outcome, this isn't the path for me and might never be. I am therefore fascinated to find out Kenneth has shifted his position in line with those views.

Since my achievement of 4th path, my life has changed significantly. Indeed, the changes are actually speeding up. But the changes are largely to do with opening my heart emotionally and heart chakra. These correspond with a deepening engagement, capacity for love and capacity for openness. They also seem to correlate to significant openings in wisdom and insight--higher states of consciousness than 4th path allows, so I do indeed believe in higher stages. However, the wisdom and insight come in tandem with love and humanity. They are twinned.

I should also say this: It is only with the capacities of 4th path that I can even begin to tolerate the seismic emotional changes and increased openings that have come after. I find true spiritual love and its dictates overwhelming (who does? who knows? what remains of one's ego after 4th, which can contain a boatload of karmic tendency, at least in my case).

Mark

"Since my achievement of 4th path, my life has changed significantly. Indeed, the changes are actually speeding up. But the changes are largely to do with opening my heart emotionally and heart chakra. These correspond with a deepening engagement, capacity for love and capacity for openness. They also seem to correlate to significant openings in wisdom and insight--higher states of consciousness than 4th path allows, so I do indeed believe in higher stages. However, the wisdom and insight come in tandem with love and humanity. They are twinned."

Inspiring stuff Mark! It certainly helps me think that all this dark night crap will one day be worth it

From an impersonal point of view,
if the condition of AF is the utter elimination of all suffering, the extinguishing of it, the uprooting of the final and deepest cause (Paticcasamupadda, Buddhism 101),
the resistance which arises within beings is nothing but that last hard core of suffering, which is not going to give up without a fight, so to speak.
"Mara"'s last army?

The fact that those who have gone far (4th path and beyond) are already experiencing a larger degree of freedom, allows this last subtle attachment to manifest in creative ways,
such as: 'It is selfish', 'I dont want to *lose* compassion, affective feelings', 'wont be able to relate to others', 'I am doing this for others', "I am already free and content, this is enough", and so on.

The fact that the strong view remains that this is too far, too non-human, even when presented with actual factual reports of those who have gone 'all the way' that they are fully functional humans, further highlights, for me, the fact that it is indeed the last army of 'Mara', that doesn't want to leave its comfortable home.

In addition, looking at the Actualist method kind of dissolves all the hysteria surrounding "getting rid of your humanity" and "paccekabuddhas":
The method, according to my understanding, involves getting really, really into genuinely enjoying being alive (paraphrasing tarin greco here).
So, any of those opposed to AF see anything bad, wrong, or 'paccekabuddha'istic about enjoying being alive?

The argument for purely ascending spirituality is bulletproof, Yadid, when viewed from within its own assumptions. Come to think of it, most arguments are like that.

But here is something to ponder: generally speaking, it is young men (men under 40) who find the purely ascending vehicle attractive. Women of all ages and men over 40 tend to view the purely ascending vehicle as immature. (I understand that there are exceptions, but I think you will agree with me that this is the trend.)

With this in mind, i.e., the fact that a path whose goal is return/engagement rather than elimination/escape is more appealing to those with more maturity (women tend to mature emotionally earlier than men), does it make sense as a young person to commit to something that is advertised as irreversible?

If you cut off the possibility of return before you are developed enough to recognize the value of return... well, you see where I am going with this.

Bill Hamilton used to say, in a slightly different context, "Don't sign up for anything you can't get out of." Sage advice?

Well,
I am now working, almost full-time, on stream-entry, which is advertised as an irreversible change in the mind.
Should I reconsider?

Seriously now.. This is Buddhism 101, eradicating the causes of suffering. If we are to believe the stories, Buddha taught exactly what you are now talking against.
So what is it now.. Go almost all the way, but stop a bit before you get there? Really don't get it.

Hello,

Has anyone else noticed that all of the people in this thread, regardless of their position, are being compassionate? And look at what has come of it ... hatred, ill-will, malice, insincerity, and aggression. And for what? What is the point of this compassion? Oh ... 'to help others stop their suffering'. Yet here we see it as the impetus for the very suffering it seeks to ameliorate.

What's going on here?

Loka

"Well,
I am now working, almost full-time, on stream-entry, which is advertised as an irreversible change in the mind.
Should I reconsider?

Seriously now.. This is Buddhism 101, eradicating the causes of suffering. If we are to believe the stories, Buddha taught exactly what you are now talking against.
So what is it now.. Go almost all the way, but stop a bit before you get there? Really don't get it."

This is wrong, Yadid! Actualism is not Buddhism! Where on earth did you get that idea? Ask any Actualist and they will tell you that the goals of actualism are 180 degrees away from those of Buddhism. Maybe we should just take them at their word.

actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/buddhism.htm

Worth a read

If the Buddha taught nothing but "suffering and the end of suffering" perhaps he was also referring to universal suffering as a whole.

It blows my mind when I think of the enormous karma of the moment that the historical Buddha decided to teach rather than keep this to himself. We exalt his enlightenment, but wasn't it really his decision to teach that was actually the most important?

Having attained even minimal progress on the path, let alone 4th path, seems like an amazing platform from which to start to open to others and serve. Of course, I will never judge someone for their choices - their karma is their karma, but you have to admit the power that someone with high attainment wields as compared to their former selves.

So to me, being "happy" and "harmless" seems like a pretty weak aspiration. I can understand it if a person has experienced significant trama in their lives, that aspiring to harmlessness is infinitely better than the past wreckage strewn in their wake, but for a balanced person, this seems pretty weak.

If the human race is to survive much longer, it seems to me that significant progress needs to be made toward 'the end of suffering' universally. Those with the ability and karma to make significant progress towards this should do so, which includes keeping the next generation on a path that contributes to the end of suffering.

(note: when I say "should do so", I'm not talking about a moral imperative here, I'm coming at this from the point of "why not?" When you exist in the Now and have no preferences, then why not choose in a way that has positive relative side effects.)

"This is wrong, Yadid! Actualism is not Buddhism! Where on earth did you get that idea? Ask any Actualist and they will tell you that the goals of actualism are 180 degrees away from those of Buddhism. Maybe we should just take them at their word."

Well, thats your opinion.

From the information I gathered from Daniel and Tarin, it is simply a further step to see through further causes of suffering, allowing them to come to an end.
I care not for the envelope it is dressed in ('AF', 'Richard', or the AFtrust website).

"Hello,

Has anyone else noticed that all of the people in this thread, regardless of their position, are being compassionate? And look at what has come of it ... hatred, ill-will, malice, insincerity, and aggression. And for what? What is the point of this compassion? Oh ... 'to help others stop their suffering'. Yet here we see it as the impetus for the very suffering it seeks to ameliorate.

What's going on here?

Loka
"

Hi Loka,

Good question. It's good to remember that compassion doesn't just mean "making nice." Trungpa Rinpoche, for example, is the first one I know of who used the phrase "idiot compassion," which means mistaking niceness for compassion. He talked about compassion that was appropriate to the situation; sometimes being nice is called for and sometimes it's more appropriate to be fierce in order to do what is best for yourself and others. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Richard: "All Buddhists (just like Mr. Buddha) do not want to be here at this place in space ... Does one wonder why one never saw his anti-life stance before?"

Personally after I looked at the picture intro to AF I was turned off with the tacky layout, and some of the content. For example, the inconsistant typical life is becoming hell on earth pitch:
"time of increasing safety, comfort, leisure and pleasure", but then on the other hand, "There is no evidence that human malice is abating '“ quite the contrary."
Ssee this talk by an eminent scientist:


Also it may be helpful to make a list of AF claims that are making some uneasy like the above, for instance:
1.Love and compassion only exist as long as malice and sorrow exists (both '˜good' and '˜bad' become extinct).
2. Suffering is eliminated (via immolation).
3. Gratitude is a hindrance on the path to an actual freedom.

Still, it seems a number of serious dharma practitioners that are going AF, so I will take a closer look and take it seriously. Many questions & answers reamin for me, for instance what exactly is pachekka buddhas and does that apply to AF at all?

"Well, thats your opinion.

From the information I gathered from Daniel and Tarin, it is simply a further step to see through further causes of suffering, allowing them to come to an end.
I care not for the envelope it is dressed in ('AF', 'Richard', or the AFtrust website)."

There are various ways to come to the end of suffering, some more skillful than others. Suicide, for example, may work, but I don't advocate it; it isn't necessary. It's possible to solve your problem of suffering without such a drastic approach.

Once you have solved your own problem, it is natural to want to help others, to fully embrace your humanity. I am speaking from my own experience. At this point, the only thing I can imagine that would motivate me to self-immolate would be fear, something I no longer have.

This is one of the things that puzzles me: how could anyone who is enlightened be interested in Actualism? It makes no sense. Where is all this aversion to the "human condition" coming from? The human condition is fine, just as it is.

"This is one of the things that puzzles me: how could anyone who is enlightened be interested in Actualism? It makes no sense. Where is all this aversion to the "human condition" coming from? The human condition is fine, just as it is."

Well why don't you just ask your friend Daniel?
Keeping in mind that the possibility that he "went off track", "went nuts", or is not "seeing clearly" are very , very unlikely (at least to me).
We could say that the odds that Daniel "went off track" are perhaps equal to the possibility that you are missing something here.

"Good question. It's good to remember that compassion doesn't just mean "making nice." Trungpa Rinpoche, for example, is the first one I know of who used the phrase "idiot compassion," which means mistaking niceness for compassion. He talked about compassion that was appropriate to the situation; sometimes being nice is called for and sometimes it's more appropriate to be fierce in order to do what is best for yourself and others. There is no one-size-fits-all solution."

Hello,

I did not mistake "compassion" for "making nice." What I did was point out that the compassion being made sacrosanct by you is part of the suffering it is supposed to be interested in eliminating. For the record, compassion is defined as: "sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it." And since nowhere in that definition do I see anything about harmfulness, it goes without saying that you are simply using the guise of "compassion" as a self-righteous justification to dominate others' minds with your overbearing need for control ... if the control seems to be getting away, it's OK to put things back in line with one's aggression, because that's "compassion", hmm?

There is never an appropriate time to be fierce or feisty or forlorn -- no amount of ill-will will see the end of suffering, and so there is indeed a one-size-fits-all solution ... it's called: harmlessness.

Loka

Hi Loka,

I see that you are playing the role of the true believer, repeating the AF party line. That's okay, as far as it goes, but you may as well know that many people here will not take you seriously if you continue to take that stance. And for the sake of full disclosure, I am one of those people who finds fundamentalism tiresome. So, if that's "all you got," this forum probably is not the right venue for you.

Thanks for understanding,

Kenneth

"From the information I gathered from Daniel and Tarin, it is simply a further step to see through further causes of suffering, allowing them to come to an end."

Yadid, Actualism ain't Buddhism. Go over to one of the AF forums or groups and see what sort of reaction you get from that comparison, I'm fairly sure it won't be a favourable one.

"There is never an appropriate time to be fierce or feisty or forlorn.
"

Bullsh*t.

"Yadid, Actualism ain't Buddhism. Go over to one of the AF forums or groups and see what sort of reaction you get from that comparison, I'm fairly sure it won't be a favourable one."

Hey Tommy,

I care not for 'Isms', I listen to people I respect and see if what they say makes sense.

I never took up Buddhism, nor will I ever pick up Actualism.

I was merely making a point that any method which is aimed at investigating and seeing clearly conditions which give rise to suffering, and allow those conditions to stop, is 'Buddhism 101', so to speak.
Gotta say, AF looks much more like the traditional Arahat.