New post on kennethfolkdharma.com: Outcomes

Attentiveness, sensuousness and the pure conscious experience (PCE)?

"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." Malunkyaputta Sutta

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." Bahiya Sutta

NOTE: In my own experience and opinion, these two sutta references seem to be a precise description of cultivating PCE mode if taken literally.

An actual freedom from the human condition of malice, sorrow, craving and aversion???

* "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world." Dvedhavitakka Sutta

NOTE: I got 4th path, yet I am still not satisfied with the result.It does not match the Buddha's description above IMO. Kenneth offers his alternative path. I follow mine. Each to his own interpretations, motivations, goals, objectives and desires.

NOTE: All sutta references taken from the access to insight website. All translations are by the venerable Thanissaro.

"

it would be helpful to people like me if someone were to pursue the relationship at a theoretical level

"

Hi Laurel,

There's a special sub-category on the Dho for traditionalists:
->
"Theoreticians and Traditionalists (T&T)
For those discussions focused on technical points of tradition, dogma and doctrine, and sectarian debates over which tradition, term and theory is better rather than actual practice and realization."

Also I don't see where you get the impression that threads get shut down, usually when they veer of track pertaining to the practice of various techniques they get split off and moved to the DhB (The Dharma Battleground ) where other things apart from actually practising can be discussed to one's heart content.

-Nicola

Final Note: I understand that others will interpret these references differently to me. But suffice to say, i am not like other AF nor Dharma practitioners in this regard. I would like to prove Richard's, Kenneth's, Daniel's and others' ideas on certain things wrong. The hardcore theravadan in me dies hard. Perhaps, I am more similar to the wandering rhinoceros than first thought.

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html

I aim to end suffering in this lifetime and will not turn anyone away if they ask for help. So maybe I will be like a paccekabuddha. Meh! I still have the tendency to believe that I AM practicing the Buddha's way. It has just got pegged with another modern name. But each to his or her own.

This thread was asking for comments on Kenneth's audio. It was not to propagate the AF path. If you include references to practioners of AF in the audio, best to give them the space to respond. This is Dhammic IMO! Best not to reference or fling mud at anyone if you don't want them to respond. Best not to disparage anyone (and that goes for myself) if an adult exchange is not possible on both sides. Best not to disparage ANYONE if you want to propagate the bodhisattva path.

Affectively agitated,

Nick

"Those threads have the same problem as this one, namely that the people speaking against Actualism don't seem to understand it very well.

"

Hi. While I think my posts on the referenced KFD thread hold up to my experience, my comments on that thread in regards to actualism were based on hearsay and a presentation of actualism through what I consider to be an ill informed reactionary filter.

Such presentations are understandable given the polemical discourse within which Richard wraps his presentation of the actualist method and result(s). Although interesting critiques of problems such as spiritual bypassing which can trap spiritual practitioners are embedded in Richard's discourse, it seems clear to me that he presents them in a highly dichotomous, generalized way (180 degrees?).

It's therefore ironic but understandable that much of the response to actualism is polemical and dichotomized, peppered with verifiably false and misleading critiques such as equating AF people with pratyekabuddhas and assuming that AF people live alone. Truly silly nonsense, based on nothing but speculation; but understandable given Richard's equally polemical and dichotomous presentation of "actualism vs. spiritualism".

Finally, I think that the actualist method has much to recommend it, and I don't see it as "opposite" to all forms of Buddhist practice by any means, nor do I buy into the construct that all forms of spiritual practice are dissociative inherant in the actualist critique of buddhism.

There is room for actual communication and shared insight here, but polemics, generalizations, and absurd micharacterization are not the way to do it-- whether Richard's, Kenneth's, or anyone else's.
-Jake

Thank you, Nicola and Nikolai. I will spend some quality time pondering what you've posted, Nikolai. I have in fact visited your website. It is obvious that for me this touches a nerve. A point of reference: I teach Reformation history, which documents in stunning detail a period when people burned, drowned, impaled, imprisoned, exiled, and shot one another over differences in beliefs. I feel tremendous gratitude to be here now. Thank you all for patience, lovingkindness, and a willingness to help and teach others on this forum and, yes, on DhO. Thank you Daniel for your splendid book and your continued seeking, Kenneth for your splendid teachings, and all of you over and over. Metta, Laurel

"It's therefore ironic but understandable that much of the response to actualism is polemical and dichotomized, peppered with verifiably false and misleading critiques such as equating AF people with pratyekabuddhas and assuming that AF people live alone. Truly silly nonsense, based on nothing but speculation; but understandable given Richard's equally polemical and dichotomous presentation of "actualism vs. spiritualism"."

Jake, I agree with you that irony abounds. There are some things you can do to help, though. For example, rather than characterizing ideas you disagree with as "absurd, silly," etc., you might simply state where you disagree and why. Maybe you will win us over with your well-crafted arguments! And rather than speculate about whether other people are speculating, you might share the fruits of your own research. After all, polemics and generalizations can never be defeated by more polemics and generalizations.

Thanks!

Kenneth

"Jake, I agree with you that irony abounds. There are some things you can do to help, though. For example, rather than characterizing ideas you disagree with as "absurd, silly," etc., you might simply state where you disagree and why. Maybe you will win us over with your well-crafted arguments! And rather than speculate about whether other people are speculating, you might share the fruits of your own research. After all, polemics and generalizations can never be defeated by more polemics and generalizations.

Thanks!

Kenneth"

I'm not here to win anyone over or to make arguments, well crafted or otherwise. I simply intended to point out the futility of making what seem to be ad hominem attacks on the lifestyles of the AF claimants which seem to be completely divorced from the available facts. Ad hominem attacks on paper hominems, so to speak. Not helpful. I apologize if the words "silly and absurd" offended you or hurt your feelings, and your point is well taken. I shall try to use less loaded language in the future.
--Jake

edited to add: given the apparent disconnect between your assessment of AFer's lifestyles and the easily verifiable facts, and the similar disconnect between the pejorative pratyekabuddha assessment and the available reports of the phenomenology of actualist practice and results, I am frankly confused about your motives in this regard.

I think you've done a good job of clarifying your position Kenneth (around or before page 3), whereby I can see how you have arrived at your presentation. A pity people didn't then pick up from there, instead of returning to attacking your presentation; that's not where the meat of the argument is!

And thanks for the Chapman link ( www.thebaptistshead.co.uk/index.php?opti...iew&id=406&Itemid=32 ).

I don't know how anyone can read Nagarjuna on 'the emptiness of emptiness', or taste for themselves that 'from is emptiness, emptiness is form', and still take Richards attack on Spirituality seriously. Surely what he describes is closer to the Hindu traditions the Buddha moved beyond. Perhaps Richard confused a trancendental state with enlightenment, and moved beyond that. But when practitioners compare AF to particular Suttas, I am forced to question their own understanding of 4th path, or perhaps more realistically, whether there is any coherency to 4th path at all. (If Nik calls AF the permanent absence of one's sense of self as an appropriator of experience, I have to ask, when was the sense of self ever the appropriator of experience?)

So many people seem unable to express their enlightenment in ways that are free of the old paradigms, so to speak (as if thought can't catch up with perception, that the new vision is always expressed in the old language, or the perceptual paradigmatic shift fails to educate the conceptual), that perhaps peoples spiritual intuitions are attracting them to AF for the wrong reasons. Alan's diagnoses could be spot on.

Well since my speculative thinking is as good as anyone elses, I'll throw it in:
I think that the experience 'AF' people are describing is the final release, and whats making people feel bad about it is attachment.
Such as: fear of not being able to relate to people, thinking affective compassion is necessary to live in society, with a spouse, with people, etc.

Contrasting the current situation with the time before, during and after 'Kenneths experiment', seems similiar: resistance, then moving forward, but now the same situation, which will probably dissolve down the road again.

Lets just keep going, shall we?

"Well since my speculative thinking is as good as anyone elses, I'll throw it in:
I think that the experience 'AF' people are describing is the final release, and whats making people feel bad about it is attachment.
Such as: fear of not being able to relate to people, thinking affective compassion is necessary to live in society, with a spouse, with people, etc.

Contrasting the current situation with the time of 'Kenneths experiment', seems similiar: resistance, then moving forward, but now the same situation, which will probably dissolve down the road again.

Lets just keep going, shall we?
"

I think you are generally on the right track with this, Yadid, but I would disagree with the hierarchy. I think the Five Ranks of Tozan addresses this directly. The "final release" is only the 3rd Rank. The return to humanity is the 5th.

My own brush with AF-style techniques last fall is precisely what informs my current position, so thank you for pointing this out. When this community blew up late last year, it was because people perceived that I was no longer listening to them, no longer available, no longer accessible, no longer human. So they left. My reaction at the time? I was fine! I didn't need them, I didn't need anything.

So, what happened? I returned. I made myself vulnerable again. I dedicated myself to teaching compassion and social responsibility alongside the technology for awakening. I need this community. And I am available.

It may well be that I spiral through it all again, making more mistakes and learning more lessons in the meantime. But I no longer am confused about the hierarchy of understandings. The final stage of evolution is not the release; it is the return.

edit: typo

"edited to add: given the apparent disconnect between your assessment of AFer's lifestyles and the easily verifiable facts, and the similar disconnect between the pejorative pratyekabuddha assessment and the available reports of the phenomenology of actualist practice and results, I am frankly confused about your motives in this regard. "

Hi Jake,

Can you be more specific? Are you able to cite "easily verifiable facts" in order to demonstrate the inaccuracy of my assessments? I don't mind being proved wrong, but if your own data is speculative we will get nowhere. I would also ask that in refuting my assertions you quote me directly rather than someone else's interpretations of my words. (I mention this because of an incident last fall in which you railed mightily against my position while overlooking the fact that you were actually responding to someone else's assessment of my position. Again, I am willing to be proven wrong, but don't want to be taken to task for things I haven't said.)

As for the "disconnect" between my pacchekka buddha assessment and the "available reports" about the Actualist practice and results, it sounds to me as though your opinion simply differs from mine, in which case I wonder about all the bluster. There are no objective facts here, only interpretations. It isn't helpful to imply otherwise.

Hi Kenneth. Through reading posts on the DhO, I'm under the impression that Stef is a parent, Trent has a girlfriend, Tarin I don't know about, and so on. In other words, AF claimants seem to have perfectly normal living arrangments. Someone allready mentioned this up thread. I don't know why you assumed otherwise. Don't care why I guess, just seems irresponsible.

As for the pratyekabuddha stuff, you posted a bunch of quotes describing the methods and results of their path up thread and the quotes were so far from the phenomenological reports of actual actualists (hehe) and AF claimants that I am left scratching my head wondering what you are doing. And why.

But like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Merely wanted to point out that you aren't doing anyone in our scene any favors by posting this sort of attack.

I suppose I am disappointed. I have been liking the "kinder, gentler" Kenneth who has emerged in the past eight or ten months. You seem much more easy going, much less defensive, and perhaps much happier.

I think you are better than this nonsense. Practice what you practice. Teach what you practice. And if you feel you really MUST take a stand against another set of practices and other goals, check your motivations, investigate your strong feelings which constitute the "against-ness", and make sure you aren't critiquing a paper tiger-- or a shadow on the wall.

Kenneth: "I think the Five Ranks of Tozan addresses this directly. The "final release" is only the 3rd Rank. The return to humanity is the 5th."

Can you link to a description of them that you use? I've been googling but haven't been able to find anything that sounds like that. This site, awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/02/...s-on-five-ranks.html , says about the 3rd: "In this rank, the Mahayana bodhisattva does not remain in the state of attainment that he has realized, but from the midst of the sea of effortlessness he lets his great uncaused compassion shine forth.", and calls the 5th "Unity Attained". Another, www.ttem.org/forum/index.php?topic=1796.0 , describes the 5th as "It is the stage of perfect inner freedom".

Kenneth: "The final stage of evolution is not the release; it is the return."

What do you think 'the return' would look like for an AF person? You realize that asking them to start feeling affective compassion (as opposed to actually caring, which they already do) is akin to asking a 4th pather to re-do his knot of perception and go back to what he was like before being enlightened?

Kenneth: "When this community blew up late last year, it was because people perceived that I was no longer listening to them, no longer available, no longer accessible, no longer human. So they left. My reaction at the time? I was fine! I didn't need them, I didn't need anything.

So, what happened? I returned. I made myself vulnerable again."

Listening to others does not require being vulnerable.

As it seems your state was not permanent (since you were able to fall out of it) it also doesn't seem to have much to do with the state of Actual Freedom, so drawing parallels between them might not yield accurate results.

OK, Jake, it's time for you and me to have a showdown. I think you are trolling.

"Through reading posts on the DhO, I'm under the impression that Stef is a parent, Trent has a girlfriend, Tarin I don't know about, and so on. In other words, AF claimants seem to have perfectly normal living arrangments. Someone allready mentioned this up thread. I don't know why you assumed otherwise. Don't care why I guess, just seems irresponsible." -jhsaintonge

I just called your bluff, Jake. I know you see this, but I will spell it out. In post #80, you huffed and puffed about "verifiably false and misleading critiques such as equating AF people with pratyekabuddhas and assuming that AF people live alone," implying both that you had more accurate information and that you were concerned about integrity. And yet, when asked to produce the "easily verifiable facts," you reply, "Through reading posts on the DhO, I'm under the impression that Stef is a parent, Trent has a girlfriend, Tarin I don't know about, and so on." Translation: you have no idea; you have simply done what you accuse me of doing.

You have not shown how my assertions are contradicted by facts. (You would have to quote me as having made an inaccurate statement, which you haven't done. And it's not that I don't make inaccurate statements; being human, I do it all the time. But you are not being sincere; you are just making trouble. That's what I mean by trolling.)

"I think you are better than this nonsense." -Jake

This is an ad hominem, and as I pointed out to another poster upthread, is not welcome on this forum.

Finally, in light of what I perceive to be disingenuousness and trollish behavior, the advice you offered at the end of post 88 just sounds manipulative and condescending. Please stop.

"I think the Five Ranks of Tozan addresses this directly. The "final release" is only the 3rd Rank. The return to humanity is the 5th."

Found a link; the 3rd rank doesn't sound much like AF at all ( goo.gl/EgJjX ):

"The experience in this realm is one of detachment from the physical world, even to the point of not caring for physical existence." AF people really care about their safety; Richard said he is probably more careful when he crosses the street than most people. They are also fully immersed in the physical world, seeing as they are their senses.

"... denial of the suffering of the physical world is still a denial, albeit a sublimely subtle one." They don't deny there is physical pain, and they don't deny that others suffer, it's just that they themselves do not.

They aren't Rank 4 either: "At some point, one begins to realize the remnant of his subtle ego." no ego remains, though you have to take their word for it or see for yourself whether you have any subtle ego in a PCE

"From this great transcendental realm, one fall into a greater realization of the need to interact with the physical world." They already only interact with the physical world, not with any other egos or spirits or entities. Richard puts it as (paraphrasing): "I only meet flesh and blood bodies here in the actual world."

Parts of Rank 5 sound like AF but in general it doesn't, but it might just be phrasing, e.g. they don't have great affective compassion for others, though they care enough to teach them about what freedom is possible if they ask. In other words, I don't think the 5 Ranks line up with AF very well at all.

This is just a random description I found; if you're using another, then let me know which.

(For what it's worth, Rank 3 doesn't sound like "Final Release" either.)

Hi Beoman,

Here is my interpretation of the 5 Ranks of Tozan:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/Phys...els+of+Enlightenment

As you are making your analysis of AF and the various models, keep in mind that our ideas are influenced by our values (which was the essential point of the talk that gave birth to this thread). If you have decided in advance that coming to the end of the "human condition" is good, you will see validation everywhere. If you think fully embracing your humanity is good, you will find validation for that. In other words, values precede conclusions. I'll say it again: values precede conclusions. It is pointless to try to find objective standards for the "right values." Values are socially constructed and they can change throughout our lives as we live through new experiences.

A note on "transcendence:" You are right that AF does not seek transcendence in the religious sense, which is:

4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

AF does, however, seek to transcend (go beyond) the human condition, and this is the sense in which I am using the word:

Definition of TRANSCEND (Mirriam Webster Online)

transitive verb
1
a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)
2
: to outstrip or outdo in some attribute, quality, or power

Kenneth: "AF does, however, seek to transcend (go beyond) the human condition, and this is the sense in which I am using the word"

That's precisely what I'm saying AF *doesn't* result in. There is no rising above the human condition; no going beyond it. There is no triumphing over the human condition as there is no one left to triumph over anything. There isn't anyone who is prior to it, or beyond it, or above it. There is simply no 'being' left at all, no achiever, no doer, no triumpher, no one rising above anything as there's nothing to rise above - all the sorrow and malice and desire and clinging and aversion is simply *gone*, suffering uprooted at its source, total extirpation. To quote a popular homeless guy:

"When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Precisely because there is no transcendence, no going above of anything and nothing to go above, is why there is no possibility of a return.

"That's precisely what I'm saying AF *doesn't* result in. There is no rising above the human condition; no going beyond it. There is no triumphing over the human condition as there is no one left to triumph over anything. There isn't anyone who is prior to it, or beyond it, or above it. There is simply no 'being' left at all, no achiever, no doer, no triumpher, no one rising above anything as there's nothing to rise above - all the sorrow and malice and desire and clinging and aversion is simply *gone*, suffering uprooted at its source, total extirpation. To quote a popular homeless guy:

"When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Precisely because there is no transcendence, no going above of anything and nothing to go above, is why there is no possibility of a return."

www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/humancondition.htm

"The only way to become free from the Human Condition is to facilitate and actualize an end to both one's social identity and one's instinctual based '˜self '. The elimination of the '˜identity' in its entirety is simultaneously the demise of both '˜good' and '˜bad' within oneself. Then '˜Good' and '˜Evil' vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... that is the only place where they can live in. Because there is neither good nor evil in the actual world of sensual delight '“ where I live as this flesh and blood body '“ one lives freely in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, free of the Human Condition of malice and sorrow."

Kenneth: "If you have decided in advance that coming to the end of the "human condition" is good, you will see validation everywhere. If you think fully embracing your humanity is good, you will find validation for that. In other words, values precede conclusions. I'll say it again: values precede conclusions. It is pointless to try to find objective standards for the "right values." Values are socially constructed and they can change throughout our lives as we live through new experiences."

I agree, and I wish we were just talking about values directly, as that's essentially what this is about. Your values are such that you take affective love and compassion to be part of what makes you human, and you don't want to give that up. Therefore, you think AF is nihilistic crap and you don't want it anywhere in your forum. And that is fine - that's your choice and it's for everyone to make, and I respect that. No need to refer to 5 Ranks of Tozan or Pacchekabuddhas or anything like that. And it would have made for a far shorter talk =). But when your arguments seem (to me) to have factual errors I see it fitting to comment.

"But when your arguments seem (to me) to have factual errors I see it fitting to comment." -Beoman

Fair enough, Beoman, but you still have not pointed out any factual errors. You have only shown where your interpretations differ from my own. It's an important distinction. To constantly shout about factual errors without demonstrating them is specious.

Indeed, there is a rather glaring factual error running through some of your own posts, which is the continued denial of AF's goal to end the "human condition," as clearly evidenced by Mumuwu's post #94 above.

I will reproduce it again here for convenience:

www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/humancondition.htm

"The only way to become free from the Human Condition is to facilitate and actualize an end to both one's social identity and one's instinctual based '˜self '. The elimination of the '˜identity' in its entirety is simultaneously the demise of both '˜good' and '˜bad' within oneself. Then '˜Good' and '˜Evil' vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... that is the only place where they can live in. Because there is neither good nor evil in the actual world of sensual delight '“ where I live as this flesh and blood body '“ one lives freely in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, free of the Human Condition of malice and sorrow."

Kenneth: "Indeed, there is a rather glaring factual error running through some of your own posts, which is the continued denial of AF's goal to end the "human condition,"..."

I didn't deny the goal is to end it. I denied the goal is to transcend it. There is a difference. And the result is not as you describe, of somebody who doesn't care at all about anybody - there is no affective caring, but actual caring remains. You have continually ignored this distinction, between affective compassion and actual caring - what is your take on it? You can read the AF take on it here: actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ15.htm .

Kenneth: "Fair enough, Beoman, but you still have not pointed out any factual errors."

Factual errors I have pointed out:

* Mischaracterization of AF as a transcendence where one "doesn't need to feel". Already went over this.
* Mischaracterization of AF as Pacceckhabuddha. You simply redefined it to ignore what the old texts say (that it's one who can't or doesn't teach) to be what you think it is (one who doesn't feel affective compassion).

A new one: Mischaracterization of AF as your 3rd Rank of Tozan. You say:

"At some point, the enlightened Third Rank yogi, who has become accustomed to thinking of himself as unaffected by trivial human concerns may come to the rude awakening that he is still walking around in a human body, and thus subject to karma. He will step in a big bucket of dukkha and be unceremoniously ejected from his throne. This is the fall from grace, the Fourth Rank of Tozan. He will feel humble and human, and seek to pick up the tattered threads of his life."

There is no such rude awakening possible for an AF person as he fully and completely and utterly realizes he is still walking around in a human body - that's the whole point=).

"denial of AF's goal to end the 'human condition' "

Nobody denied that AF's goal is to *end* the 'human condition', they have pointed out that ending something, or being rid of something entirely, is not the same as *transcending* it.

If you have a toothache you can transcend the pain (eg. treat it as a bare sensation, stop spinning stories about a 'me' who suffers the toothache) and go about your business. Or you can have the tooth out and end it altogether, so *there is no toothache to transcend*, no on-going vigilance needed, and no possibility of recurrence. They're different responses with different results. It's a distinction worth making.

Alex

Beoman: "Factual errors I have pointed out:"

Beoman: "* Mischaracterization of AF as a transcendence where one "doesn't need to feel". Already went over this."

Looks like we need to go over it again. AF seeks to transcend the "human condition." To transcend, as I am using the word here, means to "go beyond." I pointed this out in post #92, even going so far as to cite the dictionary. In any discussion, it's important to listen carefully to the way people are using words. You can ask people to define their terms. Once they have done so, to redefine their terms to suit your own argument is to create a straw man. This is not a convincing style of argument.

Beoman: "* Mischaracterization of AF as Pacceckhabuddha. You simply redefined it to ignore what the old texts say (that it's one who can't or doesn't teach) to be what you think it is (one who doesn't feel affective compassion)."

Surely you can see the difference between interpretation of ancient texts and facts?! Besides, you seem to have missed post #19, where I quoted from this ancient text:

"This mind, however, like that of the fourth level, lacks compassion for other beings. (To this level belongs the engaku, the self-enlightened person who achieves liberation by understanding causation.)"

From Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism (T. Yamasaki, Shambhala, 1988, p. 95 - 96)

Shall we move on? I understand that you don't agree with me. But you have not pointed out any factual errors, no matter how many times you repeat it. Repetition of a logically flawed argument will win neither arguments nor friends.

(I like you just the same either way, Claudiu, but we aren't making headway with this.)

Affectionately,

Kenneth

"OK, Jake, it's time for you and me to have a showdown. I think you are trolling.

"Through reading posts on the DhO, I'm under the impression that Stef is a parent, Trent has a girlfriend, Tarin I don't know about, and so on. In other words, AF claimants seem to have perfectly normal living arrangments. Someone allready mentioned this up thread. I don't know why you assumed otherwise. Don't care why I guess, just seems irresponsible." -jhsaintonge

I just called your bluff,... I know you see this, but I will spell it out[...] you reply, "Through reading posts on the DhO, I'm under the impression that Stef is a parent, Trent has a girlfriend, Tarin I don't know about, and so on." Translation: you have no idea; you have simply done what you accuse me of doing. **J-- huh? you're not making sense. My point was, with a cursory familiarity with the posters claiming AF, I can see that they are not reclusive. Therefore I conclude you either have less than a cursory familiarity, or are being disengenuous.***

You have not shown {...} But you are not being sincere; you are just making trouble. That's what I mean by trolling.) *J- I really don't get it, but OK.*

"I think you are better than this nonsense." -Jake

This is an ad hominem, and as I pointed out to another poster upthread, is not welcome on this forum. *J-Huh?*

Finally, in light of what I perceive to be disingenuousness and trollish behavior, the advice you offered at the end of post 88 just sounds manipulative and condescending.
*J-Huh?*
Please stop. *J-OK.*"

Showdown? Trolling? Are you serious? LOL. You're the big dog. You win.