--- In virtualconvivium@yahoogroups.com, sridr84 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- Claudiu Saftoiu csaftoiu@ wrote:
> > I don't think the people on the DhO are actually free,
>
> i don't want to disrupt the flow of practice oriented questions in this group, so i am tagging this email with OFFTOPIC as is customary to do so in many mailing lists.
>
> so you do not consider tarin and jill to be actually free? and this realization hit after you flew to australia to meet richard? just what exactly made it obvious to you? i was pursuing tarin/jill's instructions for a while during my vipassana practice. i met tarin briefly, and exchanged video/textual conversations with jill remotely. jill in particular claims that she has no feelings or any sense of identity (to use her words, "the identity slipped out").
>
> i don't know about tarin, but i've read many of jill's reports - and nothing in what she wrote tells me that she is not free of identity. so my question is - what made you so sure that jill is not actually free?
>
> i can understand that nick's state of non-objectification, for one instance, has got nothing to do with what i understand to be AF, but i don't see the conflict with jill's experience.
>
> -srid
>

H i Adam -

Also not free, so do with this advice what you will.

The answer of whether to focus on just attempting to feel felicitous via pure intent or do sometimes painful introspection work seems to be too... do both. There are times and places for both. In general it seems best to stay felicitous but watching for feeling that arise based on circumstances and then investigating them, even if that temporarily halts felicity.

I don't have the quote in front of me but Richard makes it very clear that deep into his AF practice (so to speak) there were considerable moment of anguish and pain as the process of dismantling the identity can be painful. I personally wouldn't expect a full ride of felicity. However, you may not consider her AF, but SKD told me she did not have any sense of struggle on her path to what she considered AF. Food for thought.

Here are (3) quotes I like regarding this. The first (2) from Richard, the last from SKD. (emphasis is mine). The statement about pride and prison is my favorite. Pride is a tough one for "me".

Richard

To end the separative social identity, one can whittle away at all the social mores and psittacisms ... those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images, reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning. One can examine all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions ... and all the other schemes and dreams. One can become aware of all the socialization, of all the conditioning, of all the programming, of all the methods and techniques that were used to control what one finds oneself to be ... a wayward ego and compliant soul careering around in confusion and illusion. A `mature adult' is actually a lost, lonely, frightened and cunning psychological entity overlaying a psychic `being'. It is never too late to start in on uncovering and discovering what one actually is.

So, the first thing to be aware of is that you are doing the very business of dismantling your social identity by questioning and challenging your dearly held beliefs. The second thing is that they don't magically disappear by themselves. It requires stubborn effort to dig in and question and you will find much resistance, wariness, hesitancy and objection in yourself to devoting the necessary time and effort required. The third thing is that it is something you have to do yourself to the point that the `penny drops' for you, otherwise you are back with simply swapping beliefs or adopting another belief – a useless enterprise that will do nothing to free you from the human condition.

SKD

We take on role identities and use it to construct an identity and that is exactly what you will lose when you get AF, but that may not change behavior, just the feeling about the actions. If you can remove that, you can remove a whole bunch of junk, so take any aspect of your socially conditioned identity and realize that it is ideological and affective, and it is designed politically to keep people doing certain kinds of things and thus is the opposite of freedom, and so it is never good to have pride in anything, as that is identity, and that is the outline of your prison. You can take it as a given that almost anything you think about yourself is socially conditioned, and this is a good place to realize the implications of being a feeling being.

On the path to actual freedom I did not bother to try to solve the moral or ethical problems of what is `good' or `right' but focused my attention instead on discovering my own ethical and moral values – my social identity in action. `Ah, I'm trying to find out what is right? I'm upset that someone did the `wrong' thing? I'm aiming again to be a `good' person?' These were indications that my moral identity was in action and I used my awareness to examine this very identity and learned to step out of it.

Take care

Ed

--- In virtualconvivium@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <hunterad93@...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys, I have a pretty simple question. I'd like people to answer from their own experience because I am well aware of the AFT's stance.
>
> So: does simply being felicitous move one towards becoming actually free? Or should I try to "investigate" stuff. The last week in my practice I've been basically in a continuous high felicity mood, mostly just by keeping in mind that I don't have to become less relaxed, happy or harmless to do anything ever. This has become a real conviction. The AFT suggests that continuous felicity yields progress towards actual freedom, what does progress in this sense look like and is continuous felicity somehow automatically deconstructing identity? I ask this not because I am particularly discontent with the way I am living ATM but because I know that I am still capable of sorrow and malice if I stop reminding myself not to resist, and I want the total security of the extinction of the potential of those things. I don't know that anyone who wasn't actually free could answer this question, because until one simply maintains felicity and is freed of identity one couldnt be sure, but I'd still hear everyone's thoughts.
>
> For now the only thing threatening this extended felicity is this particular worry, so until I hear an answer I am satisfied with (which might not exist) I will treat this worry like any other worry as I have been doing.
>

FELIPE: Why does he consider the possibility of AF for the last two but not for the first three mentioned?

--- In virtualconvivium@yahoogroups.com, Claudiu Saftoiu <csaftoiu@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Felipe & Srid,
>
> > FELIPE: It's less off if we translate it into practice terms...
> > In other words, Claudiu, did you talk with Richard about Trent, Tarin,
> > Jill, Christian and Stefanie? [...]
> >
> This information could be very valuable in practical terms to stop going
> > 180 degrees wrong, if that is the case in some of us.
> >
>
> I did indeed, and it was indeed very valuable for me in practical terms. I
> thought that Trent, Tarin, Jill, and probably Nick, were indeed actually
> free, and there was just an issue of misunderstanding or miscommunication
> or something. I couldn't see the difference, which meant I couldn't make
> the choice of whether I want to go to what they are experiencing (which
> might even be more than one thing) and to what Richard & Vineeto are
> experiencing.
>
> FELIPE: Why does he consider the possibility of AF for the last two but not
> > for the first three mentioned?
>
>
> Let's start here (with Christian & Stefanie). Richard said it was possible
> they were actually free, but one can't be sure because of the low amount of
> information they've given. However, what posts they did make don't indicate
> that they are not. Take a look at all of Christian Ballhaus's posts on the
> DhO. Don't they have a vastly different flavor to them than Tarin's or
> Trent's? Most of Chris's posts talk about how much he is enjoying life. As
> to Stefanie, I don't know. She never blurred the lines between actualism or
> buddhism. Perhaps a somewhat odd criteria that Vineeto mentioned was this:
> look at how people reacted to Stefanie's posts, and look at how they react
> to Tarin's. Stefanie caught quite a lot of flack from people rather
> quickly, whereas Tarin's posts are greatly cherished by a good many people
> there. It's like people intuitively know Tarin is on 'their' side, and that
> Stefanie isn't.
>
> FELIPE: What did they do differently in practical terms? In which points
> > exactly some of them got it wrong? ...
>
> I already read about the differences in their conception of pure intent
> > {Tarin saying 'I am pure intent and pure intent is me', and Richard the
> > contrary}, but what else?
>
>
> Pure intent is the main one, I think. I never understood pure intent as I
> do now by talking with Tarin, Trent, or Nikolai, both online and in-person
> with the first two.
>
> Another is Trent thinking Buddhism and Actualism are pointing to the same
> thing in different ways. To me, it is pretty obvious that they don't, and
> that anyone who were actually free would see that. As for Jill, just read
> her posts, and let me know if they make any sense in terms of actualism or
> would lead one closer to actuality at all. I've stopped reading the DhO a
> few weeks ago and don't quite want to start again, yet, but if need be I
> can fish out some posts and comment on them explicitly.
>
> FELIPE: What is the practical advice from Richard to avoid the results
> > reported by them?
>
>
> The most concise form of the practical advice is contained in his first
> message to me on the actualfreedom yahoo group:
>
> RICHARD: 1. Cease aiming to be aff, forthwith.
> > 2. Stop listening to the affers, period.
> > (I am presuming, of course, that the affers pronounce those terms of
> > theirs – those [quote] `AF'/'AFer' [endquote] designators they use for
> > their mongrel state of being – in the way that the first syllable of, say,
> > the word affectation is pronounced).
> > 3. Turn around 180 degrees from the direction you have been travelling
> > thus far and come to your senses (both metaphorically and literally).
> > 4. Put the actualism method – enjoying and appreciating being alive each
> > moment again – into practice as the number one priority in your life.
> > 5. Tap into pure intent and you will no longer be on your own in this the
> > adventure of a lifetime!
>
> http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd26.htm
>
>
> All 5 points were quite accurate, though I didn't see it at the time.
>
> SRID: so you do not consider tarin and jill to be actually free?
>
>
> I don't.
>
> SRID: and this realization hit after you flew to australia to meet richard?
> > just what exactly made it obvious to you?
>
>
> Well, here's one of them:
>
>
> > SRID: i was pursuing tarin/jill's instructions for a while during my
> > vipassana practice.
>
>
> Why would an actually free person recommend vipassana practice at all? It's
> pretty clear to me Vipassana practice is 180 degrees opposite to the
> actualism method, and will lead one no closer to actuality.
>
> It's mostly things like this. It's sometimes hard to look at their exact
> descriptions and tell from that (though not too hard with Nikolai) because
> they use a lot of the same words and are well-read regarding the AFT site.
> However, you can look at their actions, and deduce things from there... for
> example:
>
> - Why do they think Buddhism & Actualism point to the same thing? (e.g.,
> why does Nikolai like Dzogchen so much?)
> - Why do they apparently not care at all that Richard - who is the foremost
> expert, so to speak, on what an actual freedom is, given that he discovered
> it - does not consider they are actually free? Nikolai's reply to having
> found out that Richard has read his entire online history and concluded he
> was not actually free was 'Ok.'... and he goes right on considering that he
> is, indeed, actually free. Would it not be important to resolve these
> issues? Tarin's reaction was to half-heartedly relinquish his claim in
> public. Contrast to my reaction to finding out that Tarin doesn't consider
> himself actually free, and that Richard does not consider Tarin actually
> free: flying halfway around the world to see what the heck is going on.
> - And, if they don't think Richard is the first to discover what he is
> experiencing, and they think Buddhism and Actualism are the same
> (disregarding the fact that Richard explicitly states they aren't), why do
> they even care to go on using any of the terminology associated with it?
> Why not just drop it and go on doing Buddhism like people have been for the
> past few thousand years?
>
>
> > SRID: i met tarin briefly, and exchanged video/textual conversations with
> > jill remotely.
>
>
> I've met Tarin & Trent in person and I can say that they behaved quite
> differently, based on my *subjective* experience of them, than Richard and
> Vineeto. Generally speaking, Richard & Vineeto were much more vivacious and
> full of life - more animated, more interested in enjoying life's pleasures
> (such as trying out all the croissant places in town to find which places
> made the best ones on which days). They would also talk about the meaning
> of life, and they would get these very pleasant smiles on their faces once
> in a while when the topic of purity came up. These things I didn't
> experience with Tarin or Trent.
>
> SRID: jill in particular claims that she has no feelings or any sense of
> > identity (to use her words, "the identity slipped out"). i don't know
> > about tarin, but i've read many of jill's reports - and nothing in what she
> > wrote tells me that she is not free of identity. so my question is - what
> > made you so sure that jill is not actually free? i can understand that
> > nick's state of non-objectification, for one instance, has got nothing to
> > do with what i understand to be AF, but i don't see the conflict with
> > jill's experience.
>
>
> As I said to Felipe, I don't know much about her, but as I gradually
> figured out what was going on while in Australia, I was able to look at her
> posts and see clear indications that she wasn't talking from a place of
> actual freedom. Try checking out the ones where she gives practice advice.
>
> I hope this has been useful! If not, let me know, and we can take it
> off-line or stop talking about it altogether.
>
> Cheers,
> - Claudiu
>

ADAM: Claudiu, I'd like to point out that tarin frequently mentions how much he enjoys life and he met with both criticism and appreciation as did SKD, I would say tarin was actually embroiled in more controversy than SKD and as a point of fact Trent was banned from a Kenneth folk dharma for his talking about actualism.

Well, for example, people prefer to read the DhO for actualism advice, instead of reading the AFT... why do people prefer to read Tarin's words vs. Richard's? 

ADAM: Also tarin and Nikolai have explicitly withdrawn their claims.

Tarin withdrew his claim, which was a skillful idea, but he did not do it very sincerely. Everyone I spoke to simply got the impression that Tarin considered it just a matter of labeling, and that actual freedom is whatever Richard says it is - as if Richard is changing the definition to exclude Tarin on purpose. That was the impression I got from his post, and that is the impression others got, too. 

About Nikolai, he still insinuates all over the place he is actually free. On this very forum, in fact:

NIKOLAI: When you all become 'af', you can then speak with authority and add more
validation to such a set of instructions and even know for sure if it is worth
it or not. (I would say it is) 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualconvivium/message/102 

That was 14 days ago. I haven't read anything by him lately, so if he has since withdrawn his claim again, let me know.

FELIPE: - To me, Tarin's and Trent's buddhistic advice was mostly in the cases of 1. if you tried hard and couldn't do this AF thing straight, go hit a jhana or stream entry or whatever and then come back to see it's easier to practice actualism,

Yea, that was Tarin's take. He says Buddhistic practice helped him understand how 'i' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me', so he recommends it for people to be able to figure that out. But, as I understand it, buddhistic practice is indeed 180 degrees opposite from actualism. So, if you can't get actualism straight, why would going 180 degrees in the opposite direction for a while help you understand actualism? It didn't, for me. I read all of Tarin's & Trent's posts on the DhO for a while and spoke to them in person, and took their advice, yet I didn't really understand actualism until I went to visit Richard for a few days. And apparently, it didn't for Tarin, either, assuming that he is not actually free. 

 

or 2. simply to be generous and give advice in a topic they are knowledgeable {both being arahats before}.

As far as I can tell, buddhistic practice leads to rather delusional things, so why would someone help people manifest their delusions? I am personally never going to recommend anyone meditate ever again... not after seeing it for what it is.

 

FELIPE: - As for behavioral aspects, what you wrote about Richard and Vineeto being more vivacious and Tarin and Trent not being that way, this could be due to their idiosyncrasies. I don't think achieving AF changes, say, your introversion or extroversion. Or your tendency to enjoy food or sex more than others. Justine, for example, said he preferred to be celibate, while Richard advocates for the sexual pleasure.

Indeed it could be. What I wrote was my general impression of them. I also tried intuitively feeling out Richard & Vineeto and immediately understood there were no vibes around them whatsoever, that it was literally impossible for them to harm 'me', on an affective or psychic level. I had tried feeling out Tarin & Trent earlier, with an equal bias/lack of bias (I thought they were actually free at the time), and I did not get that impression from them. It wasn't a clean read of no vibes at all. With Tarin I immediately felt some sort of dullness across my chest, and with Trent, I got something that I couldn't figure out what it was. I didn't know what to make of it at the time so I dropped them both, but it was very different from when I did it with Richard & Vineeto. Again, this is all subjective.

 

FELIPE: Perhaps we should leave it at that because these discussions never end and don't contribute much to what's important. 

Probably not a bad plan. I'm fine with not continuing to talk about it. 

FELIPE: I'm curious about one thing tho... whatever happened to Peter? does he live with them? Never understood why he's not considered completely AF and he suddenly disappeared from the scene.

Richard said Justine is a good example of why Peter is keeping quiet, in this intermediary period... namely the somewhat odd e-books that Justine has come out with. As to why he's not considered meaning-of-life free, I think that's because he isn't, yet. Only Vineeto & Richard are, currently. As to why that is, Richard & Vineeto didn't know, either. 

Cheers,

- Claudiu

--- In virtualconvivium@yahoogroups.com, Claudiu Saftoiu <csaftoiu@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > ADAM: Claudiu, I'd like to point out that tarin frequently mentions how
> > much he enjoys life and he met with both criticism and appreciation as did
> > SKD, I would say tarin was actually embroiled in more controversy than SKD
> > and as a point of fact Trent was banned from a Kenneth folk dharma for his
> > talking about actualism.
>
>
> Well, for example, people prefer to read the DhO for actualism advice,
> instead of reading the AFT... why do people prefer to read Tarin's words
> vs. Richard's?
>
> ADAM: Also tarin and Nikolai have explicitly withdrawn their claims.
>
>
> Tarin withdrew his claim, which was a skillful idea, but he did not do it
> very sincerely. Everyone I spoke to simply got the impression that Tarin
> considered it just a matter of labeling, and that actual freedom is
> whatever Richard says it is - as if Richard is changing the definition to
> exclude Tarin on purpose. That was the impression I got from his post, and
> that is the impression others got, too.
>
> About Nikolai, he still insinuates all over the place he is actually free.
> On this very forum, in fact:
>
> NIKOLAI: When you all become 'af', you can then speak with authority and
> > add more
> > validation to such a set of instructions and even know for sure if it is
> > worth
> > it or not. (I would say it is)
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualconvivium/message/102
>
>
> That was 14 days ago. I haven't read anything by him lately, so if he has
> since withdrawn his claim again, let me know.
>
> FELIPE: - To me, Tarin's and Trent's buddhistic advice was mostly in the
> > cases of 1. if you tried hard and couldn't do this AF thing straight, go
> > hit a jhana or stream entry or whatever and then come back to see it's
> > easier to practice actualism,
> >
>
> Yea, that was Tarin's take. He says Buddhistic practice helped him
> understand how 'i' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me', so he
> recommends it for people to be able to figure that out. But, as I
> understand it, buddhistic practice is indeed 180 degrees opposite from
> actualism. So, if you can't get actualism straight, why would going 180
> degrees in the opposite direction for a while help you understand
> actualism? It didn't, for me. I read all of Tarin's & Trent's posts on the
> DhO for a while and spoke to them in person, and took their advice, yet I
> didn't really understand actualism until I went to visit Richard for a few
> days. And apparently, it didn't for Tarin, either, assuming that he is not
> actually free.
>
>
> > or 2. simply to be generous and give advice in a topic they are
> > knowledgeable {both being arahats before}.
> >
>
> As far as I can tell, buddhistic practice leads to rather delusional
> things, so why would someone help people manifest their delusions? I am
> personally never going to recommend anyone meditate ever again... not after
> seeing it for what it is.
>
>
> > FELIPE: - As for behavioral aspects, what you wrote about Richard and
> > Vineeto being more vivacious and Tarin and Trent not being that way, this
> > could be due to their idiosyncrasies. I don't think achieving AF changes,
> > say, your introversion or extroversion. Or your tendency to enjoy food or
> > sex more than others. Justine, for example, said he preferred to be
> > celibate, while Richard advocates for the sexual pleasure.
> >
>
> Indeed it could be. What I wrote was my general impression of them. I also
> tried intuitively feeling out Richard & Vineeto and immediately understood
> there were no vibes around them whatsoever, that it was literally
> impossible for them to harm 'me', on an affective or psychic level. I had
> tried feeling out Tarin & Trent earlier, with an equal bias/lack of bias (I
> thought they were actually free at the time), and I did not get that
> impression from them. It wasn't a clean read of no vibes at all. With Tarin
> I immediately felt some sort of dullness across my chest, and with Trent, I
> got something that I couldn't figure out what it was. I didn't know what to
> make of it at the time so I dropped them both, but it was very different
> from when I did it with Richard & Vineeto. Again, this is all subjective.
>
>
> > FELIPE: Perhaps we should leave it at that because these discussions never
> > end and don't contribute much to what's important.
> >
>
> Probably not a bad plan. I'm fine with not continuing to talk about it.
>
> FELIPE: I'm curious about one thing tho... whatever happened to Peter? does
> > he live with them? Never understood why he's not considered completely AF
> > and he suddenly disappeared from the scene.
> >
>
> Richard said Justine is a good example of why Peter is keeping quiet, in
> this intermediary period... namely the somewhat odd e-books that Justine
> has come out with. As to why he's not considered meaning-of-life free, I
> think that's because he isn't, yet. Only Vineeto & Richard are, currently.
> As to why that is, Richard & Vineeto didn't know, either.
>
> Cheers,
> - Claudiu
>