Ongoing confusion.

I think compassion is intrinsic to all beings, enlightened or not, and presents to varying degrees in all of us, even as it may be pathologically absent or unrecognizable in some psychological states / personalities. It will present to any such being, dependent upon what obscurations are present. Obscurations simply mask our view of our inherent nature, of which the word compassion points to one of its basic qualities.

It is true that compassion has nothing to do with any of the emotional / afflictive states arising out of fixation, craving, aversion or grasping. However, it may arise in the presence of, or in response to, such states. Therefore, it is not affective, if affective is to refer to such feeling / suffering afflictive states. However, it is affective if it is to refer to wholesome, non-afflictive 'feeling' states.

Compassion is basic to being human. It is basic to universal reality. It is always present. Its presence may be obscured by afflictive states.

Confusion obscures it. Confusion of our true nature, arising in the form of grasping and fixation, otherwise known as dualistic cognitions. Dualistic cognitions give rise to all suffering affective states.

I would argue compassion is a higher order, 'impersonal', or non-dualistic impulse with a universal feeling / affective tone. Therefore, affect has two categories: (1) dualistic and therefore afflictive; and (2) non-dualistic, and therefore, non-suffering. (1) is synonymous with suffering and unenlightenment. (2) is synonymous enlightenment. Both have feeling. To be human is to feel. To be free is to feel. Let's not confuse this.

(cont.)

AF is completely wrong if their basic premise is feeling / emotion is the source of self, suffering and lack of freedom. Freedom from the fetters is freedom from suffering. Feeling is not of the fetters. Afflictive states is of the fetters. Fixation and grasping is the source of suffering and afflictive states, but not wholesome feeling states, of which compassion and love is not. There is NO self. There is only dualistic states of mind, arising from grasping and fixation. From which a sense of self and afflictive states arise.

Afflictive emotional states and a suffering sense of self is an effect, not a cause. Grasping and dualistic fixation is the cause. Dependent origination follows.

(cont.)

There is only empty luminous cognizance, inseparable from phenomena as the basic nature of reality. Confusion arises in that, as does the dependently arising chain of suffering. In this way AF's preoccupation with feeling states is a confusion.

Compassion is basic to mind and outside of the chain of dependent origination. However, it most definitely has a universal, non-dualistic 'feeling' tone. It is a wholesome feeling state that is basic to being human.

In this way the utilization of the term affect points to two categories, yet fails to clearly denote and demarcate either; with its use making the author subject to a category error. In this way, affect has limited analytical and technical utility and should be abandoned immediately.

Obviously compassion is something felt and an energetic feeling, with an impersonal, universal, transcendent emotional tone. It is nothing like the physical scratching of an itch, whether an automatic stimulus-response, or a psychological / emotionally / dualistically free, neutral decision to scratch oneself.

I would suggest that affect as it is currently used is unable to account for impulses / feeling states such as compassion and love, as clearly these have a feeling-tone to them, impersonal and universal as they are. AF is unable to account for feeling states whatsoever outside of a pathological discourse. A recent initial post on another thread is an attempt at reconstructing that discourse. One that fails.

Adam.

Yes.

Hi Kenneth!

I appreciate your patronage of, what I feel to be, a legitimate examination of the above questions. Lest KFD implicitly support an environment that privileges an AF discourse (and [an] erroneous analysis of dependent origination) that I feel to be at best, unhelpful, and at worst, very confused and pernicious.

Anonymous voting can very easily give rise to group-think and a general social psychology that oppresses alternative ideas, rather than addressing them on their merits.

Thanks again.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for [an]

No, to a few of the things you've said, Adam. But it has already been established you think 'AF' is nonsense in past posts. You have an agenda to discount 'AF'. That is understandable. Many do. I was never a 'follower' of Richard nor an 'actualist'. I ask you to refer to me as Nick or Nikolai or that Hamilton Project guy and not 'AF' in any future cross referencing of what I have written. I am speaking from my own experience. So please address me directly instead of assuming I represent a whole school of thought.

I do not represent 'AF'. I came to this using 'AF' tools, but also Buddhist tools as well. A hybrid mix. Whatever worked. I do not represent the AF website nor Richard. I am open to completely dropping the term 'AF' and using perhaps another term (anagami? arahat?) if it calms the mood of some. Please take all of this into account the next time you reference anything I post.

Hello, Adam. I recently posted several questions, comments and even an exercise regarding dependent origination. Did you see all of that here? Care to comment on it? I'm curious if that is what prompted this thread...

"No, to a few of the things you've said, Adam. But it has already been established you think 'AF' is nonsense in past posts. You have an agenda to discount 'AF'. That is understandable. Many do. I was never a 'follower' of Richard nor an 'actualist'. I ask you to refer to me as Nick or Nikolai or that Hamilton Project guy and not 'AF' in any future cross referencing of what I have written. I am speaking from my own experience. So please address me directly instead of assuming I represent a whole school of thought.

I do not represent 'AF'. I came to this using 'AF' tools, but also Buddhist tools as well. A hybrid mix. Whatever worked. I do not represent the AF website nor Richard. I am open to completely dropping the term 'AF' and using perhaps another term (anagami? arahat?) if it calms the mood of some. Please take all of this into account the next time you reference anything I post. "

Likewise, if you're referring to something I said (perhaps in the thread Chris mentioned), then address that specifically. My words are my own words. 'AF' is just a word describing a state. If you start talking about what 'AF' says or doesn't say, there will be lots of confusion. Refer to things specifically - when Nick said X, I disagreed... when Beoman said Y, I disagreed, etc...

It might be beneficial for you to investigate feelings (along with every other possible aspect of any part of your experience) with remarkable intensity instead of forming views about them. Don't hold any preconceived notions about them - don't believe they are suffering, don't believe they aren't. Don't believe to be free means to feel, don't believe to be free means not to feel. Investigate with an open mind. I can point out where I think your argument doesn't follow, if you like.

Hey guys!

There seems to be a lot of advice about what I should or should not being doing, thanks for that.

@Nick: I thought it was more respectful to address your AF based interpretation of your personal experience on a different thread, lest I be rude and do so on your own. We all have our own experiences, and we all interpret those experiences. Most of that interpretation is socially constructed and informed. I'm suggesting AF's inherent metaphysic is flat out wrong and should be challenged on several levels given it distorts the entire enlightenment project. See my above post for further details.

@beoman: Good advice. I'd be happy to see you comment on the merits of my post. With my personal experience of your good advice utilised (over the last 18 years of practice), I find the AF position confused. Feel free to address the merits of the argument.

@ Chris: I had a quick look when it first came out. I will take another look.

Adam.

" I'm suggesting AF's inherent metaphysic is flat out wrong and should be challenged on several levels given it distorts the entire enlightenment project.
"

I also read what you wrote and think it distorts the awakening project and objective of the buddhdhamma i took on board, that of the pali canon. At a later date, I may reply in detail. Work calls.

Alrighty. I'll be speaking both from my own personal experience, as well as from things I gathered from reading the Actual Trust site and chatting with those who claim the condition. I'll try to be clear which is from which.

Adam: "I think compassion is intrinsic to all beings, enlightened or not, and presents to varying degrees in all of us, even as it may be pathologically absent or unrecognizable in some psychological states / personalities. It will present to any such being, dependent upon what obscurations are present. Obscurations simply mask our view of our inherent nature, of which the word compassion points to one of its basic qualities."

This seems to be true. On the actual trust site, Richard calls it "actual caring". Nick has many posts about compassion. No conflict yet (between AF as a valid goal and feelings being equivalent to suffering).

Adam: "It is true that compassion has nothing to do with any of the emotional / afflictive states arising out of fixation, craving, aversion or grasping. However, it may arise in the presence of, or in response to, such states. "

The second sentence directly contradicts the first. If it has nothing to do with them, it wouldn't be caused by them, no?

Adam: "Therefore, it is not affective, if affective is to refer to such feeling / suffering afflictive states. However, it is affective if it is to refer to wholesome, non-afflictive 'feeling' states."

I don't see how this follows. What is your definition of affective?

Adam: "Compassion is basic to being human. It is basic to universal reality. It is always present. Its presence may be obscured by afflictive states."

Yes, "actual caring", once again. Richard talks about the universe being inherently benign and benevolent - perhaps he's talking about this? Nick mentioned in a post here I can't find that when he repeats metta phrases, his mind seems to take a 5th jhana perspective. When I walk around in the 5th jhana, I am still 'being' so there is still affect, but I get hints of some intrinsic goodness which is not feeling-based. Nothing too hard yet, though, I have to practice more to see it for myself.

Adam: "I would argue compassion is a higher order, 'impersonal', or non-dualistic impulse with a universal feeling / affective tone."

Going on what Richard + Nick + others are saying, this doesn't seem to be the case. They talk about actual caring, yet also about not feeling affect whatsoever. What do you understand by the word 'affect'? Perhaps that is the root of the confusion here?

Adam: "To be human is to feel. To be free is to feel. Let's not confuse this."

This also is a non-sequitur and doesn't add anything to the argument. EDIT: It also indicates an attachment, which is what caused me to say: "Don't believe to be free means to feel, don't believe to be free means not to feel. Investigate with an open mind."

Adam: "AF is completely wrong if their basic premise is feeling / emotion is the source of self, suffering and lack of freedom."

It isn't - their premise is that feeling/emotion _is_ self (not the source of). There is no self apart from feelings, and no feelings apart from self.

Adam: "Freedom from the fetters is freedom from suffering. Feeling is not of the fetters. Afflictive states is of the fetters."

This assumes a certain understanding of what the fetters are and what the breaking of them entails. You'd have to go into more detail here. The suttas mention other criteria for what release means.

Adam: "Fixation and grasping is the source of suffering and afflictive states, but not wholesome feeling states, of which compassion and love is not."

Perhaps what seems to be pleasant, upon further investigation, might actually be suffering? Investigate these wholesome feeling states just like the unwholesome ones. Do not cling to them or attempt to express them. See what happens to them then.

Adam: "There is NO self. There is only dualistic states of mind, arising from grasping and fixation. From which a sense of self and afflictive states arise.

Afflictive emotional states and a suffering sense of self is an effect, not a cause. Grasping and dualistic fixation is the cause. Dependent origination follows. "

I agree. From my own experience and readings, it seems that when grasping is totally eliminated, affective compassion and love will no longer arise. Yet, it seems affectless compassion does (see beginning of my reply).

Adam: "Confusion arises in that, as does the dependently arising chain of suffering. In this way AF's preoccupation with feeling states is a confusion."

You might want to read about what actualist practice actually entails. One does not repress feelings. One remains attentive. What does the damage, at the end, is attentiveness to sensuousness. The talk about feeling states serves merely to point out in which direction one should look, to point out potential pitfalls so one doesn't get stuck in a state in which there still remains the potential to harm oneself and others.

Adam: "Compassion is basic to mind and outside of the chain of dependent origination. However, it most definitely has a universal, non-dualistic 'feeling' tone.
...
Obviously compassion is something felt and an energetic feeling, with an impersonal, universal, transcendent emotional tone."

Perhaps you should try to experience the affectless compassion/actual caring that Actually Free people occasionally talk about.

Adam: "It is nothing like the physical scratching of an itch, whether an automatic stimulus-response, or a psychological / emotionally / dualistically free, neutral decision to scratch oneself."

Affectless compassion does indeed seem to be different than a sensation. It seems to be a perspective the mind takes - intrinsic to the very space around us. Yet, no affect-feeling-energetic charge whatsoever.

---

Some of these points have been raised before on this board. What do you take away from Nick's posts on affectless compassion vs. feeling-based compassion?

It is amazing to me that no matter how long ago and far, far away it is, Actual Freedom and arguments about it continue to plague this little eddy in the river of online dharma. Honestly, I'm just weary of the topic, as I suspect about 95% of the audience here is. I really do get the issues involved and to some extent, and to some people, they are important. To most of us, however, they are ho-hum, or nothing we really want to burden ourselves with as we go about pursuing our own practice. And I use the word "burden" because I suspect for most people this entire subject is either a bit frightening or extremely difficult to "grok" without a lot of research and more experience.

Anyway, it's certainly okay that this topic is here now, and that you guys are pursuing it, but I hope that this argument/discussion/disagreement doesn't spill over onto other topics and threads, or spawn a lot of related threads.

Just saying.

I have a simple question, and I expect as time goes on I'll develop more expertise in reading the suttas, but really, right now, I'd like to know--is there within Buddhist practice itself, without any AF practice involved, a substantial difference of opinion on this matter of affect and compassion? My own local teacher seems to take a view closer to that of Nick than of Kenneth, for example, yet he's never heard of AF. Nick has quoted the suttas in other threads on other occasions to support his understanding of the matter. I'm just wondering to what extent this controversy has been pursued among people doing various forms of Buddhist practice. Thank you.

I am quite greatful for and interested in this dialogue. I am far less confused about many things in my practice as a result of these discussions. Count me amongst the 5%.

Well, okay, maybe it's only 90%

But... one of my points in # 14 is this: this issue could easily have been discussed in the existing topic. There's just no need to create a brand new topic to discuss the issue of effect and compassion. Creating a new topic just to express one's opinion on a topic that already exists should be discouraged.

Make sense?

"
But... one of my points in # 14 is this: this issue could easily have been discussed in the existing topic. There' shuts no need to create a brand new topic to discuss the issue of effect and compassion. Creating a new topic just to express one's opinion on a topic that already exists should be discouraged.

Make sense?

"

Agreed.

Something just feels unhelpful to me when I read posts which are basically "They are wrong, here's whats right" stories..

Adam, you may think 'AF is wrong', but the way in which you express yourself, such as "should be abandoned immediately", "distorts the entire enlightenment project", and a few others, gives me the impression that you feel strongly against 'AF', whatever 'AF' may represent for you, and that just reinforces your opinions.

It just seems that if you're so strongly against something, you may be missing something.

I do not find this thread very helpful. This territory has been tread over and over. Adam, you seem to be stating your views on universal compassion as if they were fact. I mean honestly, I would agree with that part of your post, but i'm not sure at all how that view is contradictory to what I was practicing earlier this summer. The AF folks even refer to it, they talk about the benevolent nature of the universe.

The meta-physics of AF is a bit strange for my taste. That doesn't mean I haven't gotten a lot out of some of those practices, just like i've gotten a lot out of Theravada, Zen, and other traditions. The important thing to remember is that we all are going to make our own decisions about these things. There is really nothing so radical about the shift known as AF. Well, actually its incredibly radical, but not new or scary. I was even talking to a devout muslim friend of mine about it over lunch recently. His response, 'Yes, nothing you are describing sounds foreign to me.' Lets all put on our big boy pants and stop pontificating about this issue--the information is out there for the curious to sort through.

@ Chris: I appreciate your point. I think, however, it would have been wrong and rude to challenge the very premise upon which the question of compassion as affect was based. It is not my intention to take that thread or this board off on a tangent. Rather, it is my intention to show that the premise that enlightenment involves being free of emotion, or that to experience emotion is pathological is utterly false, and the worst kind of nonsense to present itself on this forum or any other in recent living memory. In my opinion that cannot be overstated.

I would have thought that you of all people would be concerned about such a premise being implicitly or explicitly accepted amongst Dharma practitioners.

I will continue to respectfully and impersonally challenge that pernicious discourse where ever I encounter it.

I think this is an important distinction to make.

You yourself originally made similar comments many moons ago when this stuff first came out. And yet, it is steadily making a home for itself via the ongoing utilisation of AF language (with its unavoidably embedded AF metaphysics [see my first post]), as it increasingly becomes integrated into mainstream KFD language on this board (not to be confused with Kenneth's writings).

Thanks for your understanding.

Adam. edited for typo.

Hey Clayton!

I was very clear to use qualifiers in my statements. Did you not see them?

That's my point. There's nothing new there, the practices are found elsewhere. Plagiarized from elsewhere. It is the basic premises that need to be challenged, in my opinion.

Adam. edited for typos n clarity.

"
There's nothing new there, the practices are found elsewhere.

"


So what is your problem? What is at stake for you, Adam if others do something that 'isn't new'? I'm free of malice and sorrow. What is wrong with that? My wife certainly likes that part of it. Why do you feel so intimidated by this stuff?

No-one has a gun to anyone's head. No-one has to walk towards these results if they don't want to. One must be willing to do so themselves and only when having tested the waters to see that their lives may or may not improve as a result. It is gaining popularity because it is improving the lives of those who are putting the practice into action. It wouldn't if it didn't. Why does that make you feel uneasy? Does it force you to question your own beliefs and attachments?

If Kenneth wants us (those who speak of such things) to leave, we will leave. But I am here and willing to be questioned if people are wanting to do that. I will leave though if it's 'too much' for some. But what I have talked about is not going to change anytime soon. If Kenneth wants we can take this to another forum.

Nick