And the Pursuit of Happiness

In the United States,  “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” is a well known phrase which purports to describe the rights of every citizen as written in The Declaration of Independence.  What is telling about the phrase is that life and liberty are “givens,” while happiness must be pursued. The phrase could easily have read, “life, liberty, and happiness” rather than “the pursuit of happiness.”  The state does not give you life, by all unemotional accounts does not give you liberty, and of course, cannot give you happiness; but only happiness is spoken of in such honest terms–its very invocation in this phrase suggests failure.

Happiness, as it has been noted at length elsewhere, is an amorphous concept that no one can adequately define.  Alan Watts put it this way, “If you ask someone to describe their version of heaven, ask them to write a long essay, they’ll be unable to do it. Nobody knows what they mean by heaven.”  What we find, if we look closely, is that what most people mean by happiness is “pleasure” or “pleasurable feelings and experiences.” It can get incredibly complicated to define happiness; there are myriad philosophical explorations of the topic, not to mention a glut of “self help” books on it as well.  My goal here is not to define happiness in painstaking philosophical or psychological terms. Instead, I would like to rest upon our common conception of happiness–the happiness that most people think of when they believe they are pursuing it or when they believe they have achieved it.

As a working definition, I will use the one from the PBS series “What is Happiness?” “Happiness is thought of as the good life, freedom from suffering, flourishing, well being, joy, prosperity, and pleasure.”  The way “the good life,” “freedom from suffering,” “prosperity” and “pleasure” have typically been defined correlates very much to the accumulation of material wealth and power–power to control what happens to one’s self, and the resultant experience of pleasure that typically follows from relative wealth (being able to pursue leisure activities, eat good food, take vacations, etc.) and having a say over one’s time, being able to choose one’s labor, being in good health, and so on, all of which flow from a feeling and experience of power and perhaps luck, or of being divinely blessed, or of being “good,” in some way (smarter, healthier, moral, etc.).

If this can be taken as a working definition of happiness, then what relationship does happiness bear to being awakened or enlightened? Many people pursue awakening, of one sort or another, because they want to “be free of suffering,” which is another way of saying that they want to be happy.  In the self help industry, much symbolic use has been made of Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism in the name of pursuing and achieving happiness.  But can one awaken if one is pursuing happiness?  If one’s contemplative practices are undertaken for the purpose of being happy, can one succeed?

On the first several 10 day silent meditation retreats I did, I applied myself quite forcefully to the technique. I bent my will and sat for up to 13 hours a day in meditation, believing that perhaps if I could just meditate long enough and hard enough, I’d magically become enlightened and would never suffer again. What did I want in my imagining of enlightenment? I wanted to never have another nightmare. I wanted to never experience ennui again. I wanted to feel blissful and happy all the time. After all, when you see those laughing Buddhas, don’t they look happy and blissful?

(If only it were the development of a rotund abdomen that was the key to enlightenment! Then we’d all be in bliss!)

And though I achieved some superficial success, and acquired a lot of knowledge about meditation techniques and Buddhism, I did not find myself perpetually blissful.  This wasn’t because I was meditating incorrectly or not enough. It was because I was operating within the structure of the ego, trying to get to a place the ego could not take me. This is like trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps–it cannot be done. (Trust me, I’ve tried.)  To lift yourself up, from the ground, by your bootstraps requires that you be able to levitate.

If I am totally honest about it I can admit that when I imagined Nirvana what I thought it would be was an endless acid trip, psychedelic, wondrous, and infinitely pleasurable. Well this is a fantasy of the ego, which likes to imagine that one can achieve a state whereby nothing undesirable, painful, or unwanted ever happens.  Or–that if one has Nirvana, these undesirable things will never happen to you, because of your really great vibes. Or–that if bad things do happen, you will magically experience them as wonderful, because of your enlightenment.  All of these, however, are delusional fantasies produced by the ego which is in retreat from actuality.

One of my favorite Buddhist stories is about a woman who, at the time of the Buddha, lost her young child to death. She’d been an older woman when she gave birth, certain that she’d never bear children.  When this child was born, she was overjoyed and the child was her whole life. A few short years later, the child died. So inconsolable was she, she refused to release the child’s body for cremation.  She was walking around holding the corpse of the child as it decomposed.  Realizing she was not in her right mind and no one could comfort her, they encouraged her to visit the Buddha–who was renowned as a magical and great spiritual teacher.  So she went to the Buddha and asked him to bring her child back to life.  Seeing that the woman’s mind was so locked up in grief that she would never be able to receive any teaching about the nature of impermanence and suffering, he told her he would revive her child if she brought him a cup of rice from a house where no one had died. The woman was very happy and off she went to gather this cup of rice.  But every house she went to, someone had died.  She would tell the inhabitants of the houses her story and they would all reply, “I would gladly help you, Miss, but last year my mother died,” or, “Yes, well, my brother died 5 years ago now.” or “My daughter died of illness just three weeks ago, kind lady.”  By the time she’d knocked on every door in the village, her grief was transmuted into peace and acceptance because she realized that the death she experienced was part of being human, was part of life. She realized that life was not victimizing her, but rather that it was just unfolding as life does.  In this way, she came to peace.

This is not a story about happiness. This is a story about peace and radical presence.

The “you” that desires to experience perpetual bliss is not really you. It’s a thought pattern (the ego) that you have mistaken for yourself; as such, it (what you think of as “you”) can do nothing more than what it always does–which is think.  Now you might counter: “Well, then I can think happy thoughts and then my ‘me,’ whether it’s actual or not will be happy.”  But one cannot control one’s thoughts, not for very long–anymore than one can control one’s hunger. The mind is made for thinking and thinking is what it will do, in response to stimuli–which one cannot control–for as long as you are alive.

Several years ago, while at one of these same meditation retreats, I arrived at the meditation hall in a clearly seditious mood. Despite the instructions being intoned through the speakers to do the technique of body scanning, I rebelled. A little voice inside my head said, “All you have to do is sit here.”  Suddenly, all the tension in my body disappeared. For my readers who have been to such retreats, you know what a big deal tension in the body is at these retreats. After sitting for days and days, hours upon hours, the body becomes tight, tense, and in pain. We are told that these body pains are “sankharas,” old negativities and defilements stored in the body that rise to the surface as challenges in meditation. Our job is to simply observe this pain equanimously and not judge or react to it.  This advice is the core of meditation and also the path to awakening.  Despite constant reminders that we are not to attempt to apply our will to change our experience while meditating, one will see meditators sitting on ever more elaborate pillow constructions in order to alleviate the pain of sitting cross-legged on the floor all day.  One will hear other meditators moving around incessantly trying to get comfortable as their bodies ache in pain.  I also did all these things.

But this time, when I realized all I had to do was sit, I found I could sit on the thinnest cushion for hours with no pain. Time disappeared. Physical pain disappeared. And all that was left was bare awareness; there was sunlight through my eyelids as the day dawned. There was the buzzing of a mosquito in my ear. There was the feeling of wind against my arm as someone close to me readjusted their position. There was the smell of soap from someone near me and there was the smell of bread baking in the kitchen. And there was my mind–thinking, thinking, thinking constantly, but now it was like a babbling brook in the background.  Freed to do its own thing, I was simply awareness of every sense phenomenon, of which thinking is only one.

Did I feel happy? No–Who was there to feel happy? There was no feeling of happiness, which I think of now as a kind of giddiness. Did I feel pleasure? No–pleasure how? Pleasure from what? Who was there to feel the pleasure? Instead, there was stillness–and unassailable peace and an acceptance of the moment, the situation, and all that was experienced as it was in that moment.

Nirvana, if one looks directly to the original meaning of the word free of interpretation, means “blown out,” as in reference to a candle.

It is not, then, the “gaining” of something, but rather the absence of something.  It is not something we have to pursue, it is only something to be realized. The pursuit of happiness makes awakening more, not less, difficult.  Because to pursue happiness means that one is still deeply involved in the dream.  It is like trying to experience freedom while being in prison; it’s like trying to squeeze water out of a rock.

There is an analogy in Buddhism which describes the pleasures of the world as being like a honeyed barb; one licks the barb for the sweetness but also cuts the tongue in the process. Pursuing happiness is like licking the honeyed barb; we may experience some sweetness but it comes with the taste of blood inextricably mixed with it.  But if we still our minds and look very deeply at our human experience, we can also see that the pursuit of happiness, that meditation and spiritual practice as a means to an end in the pursuit of happiness, is a shallow and superficial motivation, devoid of pure intent.

What is pure intent? Pure intent is a term from the actualist lexicon which is defined by Richard, the progenitor of actualism, in this way: “Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself.”  This benignity and benevolence means that one undertakes contemplative practice to strip away the ego and the illusory self in order to take on the character of the universe itself, which is one of still awareness.

This stillness is characterized by what feels like, to those in the realm of the ego, compassion; but what is actually emanated is benevolence.  From this place, we become as still and benign as a tree, evidence of the spark of existence, in full and glorious acceptance of our being here now. This is a state characterized not by happiness, but by attentive presence–what I call radical presence.

Jesus put it this way, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness.”  The instruction here is not “Seek ye first happiness.”  In fact, this is nowhere in the teaching. To seek the kingdom of God first means that one’s intent must be pure; it means that the reason to awaken is to realize one’s actual beingness as similar to that of a tree, benign and benevolent, still and harmless.

If one can experience even a glimpse of this stillness, one then realizes that happiness is not the state of full awakening.  Furthermore, one realizes that one cannot arrive at stillness via happiness.  In fact, suffering itself is a much more intense catalyst for transformation than is happiness. Therefore, one should not run from suffering when it arises; one must go more deeply into it, embrace it as if you had chosen it, and fully experience it.  This does not mean that one should impose suffering on one’s self as many mystical traditions have done (and do). To do so would be to pursue suffering, which is the same as pursuing happiness–just the other side of the coin.  However when suffering comes, and inevitably it does, one can decide to fully experience it without the judgment that “something is wrong because I am not happy.”  If one accepts the first noble truth of Buddhism–that life is suffering–then there can be no surprise when suffering arises and also no fleeing from it. It is tied to you like a shadow, until you extinguish the light of the candle.

There is a Zen story of a Buddhist monk who, for many years, sought to become enlightened but it always failed him. One day, he was walking through town and he overheard a conversation between a customer and the butcher.  The customer asked the butcher to give him his very best cut of meat.  The butcher replied, “They are all good cuts of meat,” and the monk instantly became enlightened.

This is because he realized that enlightenment lay not in just “the good cuts of meat,” but in accepting everything about the living experience. Every experience we have, whether we egoistically label it “good” or “bad,” “pleasurable” or “painful,” “happy” or “sad,” is useful for our awakening.  By refusing to be present through our suffering and instead constantly pursuing happiness, we deny the fundamental nature of being alive and hence our actual selves and the actual universe, as it is.  This denial produces within us a divided mind, whereby we are in constant struggle against the universe and hence, in constant suffering.

To be radically present, which means to accept the moment fully, is to be of an undivided mind.  When conflict between what one thinks and wants and the universe is resolved, so that one is in alignment with what is, then suffering is extinguished.  The ego will resist because the ego is, in part, the idea that it alone can change the universe; that its will is stronger than the laws of nature. This is a delusion which has had, and will continue to have, disastrous results.  We may destroy the earth, and this will in turn destroy us; but we cannot destroy the Universe.

It may seem that I am suggesting that we put up with injustice when I say that we must be radically present and accept the now as it is.  Paradoxically, however, by doing less, we accomplish more. I show this here. By being radically present, we know what actions to take when action is required; we also know when not to take action. It becomes very clear that violence, to each other, to animals, and to the environment, are not actions we should take. They are illogical and not at all pragmatic if we look at the whole picture.

If we commit ourselves to radical presence for the sake of the totality of beingness, all the creatures of the planet and the planet itself, and not for the sake of our own pursuit of happiness, then we give up the notion that “I” can be happy because we give up the “I” altogether. This is what giving up the ego requires; it is utterly at odds with the pursuit personal happiness. It is also utterly at odds with personal unhappiness.

It is, instead, perfectly aligned with what is. This is a benign, benevolent and equanimous state from which all harmlessness flows.  It is a state free of affect, and so is neither happy nor sad.  It is a state of stillness, that despite appearing passive and weak, actually represents tremendous strength.  Consider the ways the power of stillness has been put to use:

http://images.hellokids.com/_uploads/_tiny_galerie/20100103/dream-speech-source_jfd.jpg

Of course all the people above are “doing” something; but what they do proceeds from a logic of doing nothing–nonresistance (not engaging the conflict at the level it is brought) and nonviolence arising from stillness. “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”  We stand, we listen, we sit, we–with tremendous strength born of stillness–stare down the barrel of a gun.

The pursuit of happiness can result in avoiding situations like the ones pictured above; if we focus on peace and harmlessness, then we accept the challenges of the present moment in a way that strengthens our ability to be here now, even if that “here” is at the barrel of a gun.  And while happiness can be destroyed by an unfortunate turn of events, stillness and peace once achieved, cannot be.

About these ads

18 thoughts on “And the Pursuit of Happiness

  1. Pingback: Green Peace ~ Drawing from Your Environment to Create a Relaxing Area for Meditation | Georgina Hillier-Kerr

  2. Hi Stefanie,

    Great blog and I really enjoy your writing style as it is very clear and articulate about what you are trying to say. One thing I wanted to say was that I’m not sure I agree with your fusion of buddhism and actual freedom. It may even lead people astray as far as what they want to achieve. Your experience sounds like what Richard describes as being at the center of the swirl of passions so that everything seems still rather than the stillness of the actual.

    What do you mean by “one realizes that one cannot arrive at stillness via happiness”? You only get to an actual freedom through a virtual freedom where you are both happy and harmless throughout the day (not through suffering).

    Pardon if you do not want to discuss this. Just wanted to share my thoughts. I will say I haven’t read your entire blog, but your entries are interesting so I’ll be getting to that eventually.

    • Hi Pistachio,

      Yes, I know that many people–on both sides of the argument–disagree with a blended actualism/Buddhist perspective. I write from that perspective because that is my experience. If others want to practice strictly in one tradition or the other, I leave that to them. I think it is quite possible that 1)every person’s path to awakening/actual freedom will be individual, and 2)that what one person means by happy another person does not mean by happy; and certainly what people in the grip of the ego mean by happy is not what an actually free person or awakened person means by happy.

      In the post you are responding to, I define happiness in egoistic terms–which is “experiencing pleasure.” And if one is seeking pleasure as one’s goal, one will ultimately be frustrated in terms of awakening or becoming actually free. I think this is made explicitly clear in the writings on pure intent. If one focused on pure intent, and not happiness, one would have better results (or, results, period). But if one focuses on happiness (i.e., pleasurable experiences) one may indeed attain something quite close but not the whole enchilada. This is my experience.

      I do not mean to suggest absolutes. The universe is infinite and the path is wide.

  3. Thanks for your reply Stefanie.

    I see, it just doesnt seem that both writings are pointing to the same thing (even if one follows strictly according to the pali canon). You’d really have to cherry pick. I do agree with you on the difference between happiness and pleasure you describe. But you need happiness (not pleasure) in order to get to an experience of pure intent as many people may not automatically recall such an experience and use it to guide them. The difference between pleasure and happiness is described on the AFT website as the difference between good feelings and felicitous feelings. I am assuming you mean something like bliss when you say pleasure. In addition, I am not sure the way you describe staying with suffering would lead to actual freedom. Perhaps I’ll read the rest of your blog and see for myself.

    Also is your ongoing experience that of an actually existing physical universe? Do you experience yourself as being that pure intent? Do you directly know physicality? Do you experience peace on earth or the meaning of life? Or is it something that you would not put in those terms?

    I think I sort of understand what you are trying to say, but if you had to pick one to call your experience which would it be? An actual freedom or enlightenment according to the pali canon (keeping in mind that this means exactly according to what it says and not a stripped down modernized version where there are no spirits or karma or rebirth). As you know the Buddha was able to speak to devas, perform supernormal powers, etc. I ask because you use the terms awakening and actual freedom as synonyms.

    I look forward to your response.

    • Hi Pistachio,

      If you read my “about” section, you will see that I avoid making claims. The writing of this blog is happening in a very interesting way; I don’t really see it as “mine,” per se. The posts come through me, but are not “me.”

      I do not have all of the distinctions and divisions in my experience you describe. For me, I see the desire and need to “pin things down” as part of the ego–which goes against my experience of being here now.

      This is why I refrain from claims, because I can make no predictions about what will manifest when. I can only talk about what is manifesting now. And most often, I am “without thought” or “beyond thought” so answering the questions you ask require me to enter a “thought realm.” In essence, I don’t believe in “tests.” Either one finds these words helpful or they don’t and either outcome is acceptable and okay with me.

      When we get into the analysis of one person’s experience versus another, in order to verify what that person is experiencing, then we are always moving away from awakening/freedom as opposed to toward it.

      Conveying to someone your experience in this matter is like describing what a mango tastes like. So I may say, “A mango tastes like a tangy peach.” While another will say, “No, not at all! A mango tastes like a sharp papaya!” Well, which is it? Who is right and who is wrong? You must taste the mango yourself to decide what it tastes like for you.

      One of the reasons I do not participate in the DhO forums is precisely because of the analytical and egoistic tendency to dissect; whereas I find my daily experience is one that doesn’t lend itself well to description or dissection. In fact, what I am saying is: stop asking me to tell you everything about the mango and eat a mango. Even if you read what I write and think, “she is wrong, this can’t be right,” hopefully that will lead you to say, “I must taste the mango for myself and prove she is wrong.” Well then I am happy because you have tasted the mango. Even if you read it and say, “this resonates with me, I must taste a mango.” Then, you have tasted the mango and I am happy.

      All that is to say, take it at face value. If you don’t like it, that’s okay. Find what you do like. But by all means, keep trying to figure out how to get a mango.

  4. It has been a while as I couldn’t reply. Maybe I can continue where I left off.

    You say most often that you are “beyond thought”, but what exactly is wrong with thought? Also what is the “thought realm” you speak of? Does it cause you distress to enter the “thought realm”? There is nothing wrong with thought from what I gather. I also do not see what the problem with analysis is either. It can be unhelpful if it is used self-servingly, but not if it is used to figure out what the other person is talking about. How can anyone even know that you are talking about a mango if you do not try to describe its taste? When enough people describe the mango, you know that they are all talking about the mango. There will be similarities mixed in with a few differences but it will be obvious. After that you get to make an informed decision on whether or not you want to eat the mango. Maybe many people have gotten sick by eating a mango. Is there anything wrong with this?

    • Hi Pistachio,

      I never said anything was “wrong” with thought. The thought realm is the realm of the ego, and especially the argumentative realm. Nothing is wrong with analysis either. Right/wrong is a dialectic I never invoked, that is the binary your post is operating within. It is also the one that structures all of your questioning, from beginning to end. However, I think you will quickly see that this method of questioning is unproductive for you and has no effect upon me whatsoever.

      And no, it does not cause me distress, but why would ask? Do you walk up to random strangers and ask them if they are distressed? Are you just being egalitarian when you ask? Are you concerned about my distress should it arise? Are you asking out of care for me or are you simply testing to see if I am distressed as an indicator of lack of progress or insight? Are you asking me questions so as to “uncover” my status/state for reasons of your own? You do realize this line of inquiry you have started has nothing to do with me and instead has everything to do with you?

      So let me as you a few questions: Do you already have an idea about what you think, which is different from what I have written, and now you want to get me to concede your point for the sake of being right? Or, is there something in your own practice and experience that you are desperately trying to figure out and you think this line of inquiry will help?

      Are you gatekeeping? Do you feel that there is knowledge to protect with regard to awakening/actual freedom and so on? Do you feel that you must police boundaries for the protection of others? Is this the fiction your thoughts have spun for you?

      Do you feel that I am neither enlightened nor actually free? Well, then you’re right as I’ve made a claim to neither. Do you feel that my experiences/insight are inconsistent with any particular ideology? Well, you’re right and I’ve never made them conform to such.

      I think you should consider the impetus/energy behind your questioning. What is at stake for you in it? What are you trying to prove and why? What is it you think you will gain by it? If you are not using your analysis self-servingly now, then for whom are you using it?

      To go back to the example of the mango…yes, a person can read every single study about a mango. They can compare studies. They can even maybe get a quick taste of mango themselves, but perhaps they are not so sure what they tasted–so, they continue to debate the matter endlessly. None of that get the person one wit closer to full realization of the mango.

      I have been very clear about what I’m doing here and incredibly honest too. Now perhaps, if you want to continue the conversation, you reveal yourself and your motivations. Otherwise, what’s the point? If the conversation is not to help you and isn’t to help me, why are we having it?

  5. First of all, I am not a troll and I am asking these questions simply because I really think it is important to know the differences in the experiences so that you can make an informed decision on what you get yourself into.

    Second, yes you are right in that I am sure there is something at stake in this for me too. I am not fully free from anything. Perhaps I am trying to protect a part of my identity by debating with you. That is something that I will work on. I actually barely ever debate online or in public now for that matter. I am not gatekeeping. But that is not the entirety of it. Yes I do have an idea of what I think which is different from yours. I am not trying to figure out anything in my practice as I am confident about what I am aiming for and where it is headed. Another reason I am asking is because I am not really seeing or agree that it is beneficial to anyone for you to not make any claims and mix terminology. All anyone would get out of it may be something like “Oh that sounds nice”. Which may very well be tied to the thought I have that actual freedom and spirituality are not the same. Thus it will not be beneficial to consider that both paths lead to the same goal or something like that and fuse them.

    Third, I asked you if it caused you distress cause the way you phrased it I got the impression that it caused you distress to “descend” into the “thought realm” (I know you didn’t use the word descend, it is just my impression). Why even bother mentioning that answering my questions requires you to enter the “thought realm” isn’t that obvious? That is why I got that impression. Maybe I also asked so that it may get you to look at your state a bit more and question it. It sounds to me so far like you are most likely enlightened or in some other dissociated state rather than an actual freedom.

    Fourth I am asking out of curiousity. You are after all mixing all the actualist and spiritual lingo so yes I do want to know what it is you are experiencing. Whether it is one or the other, somewhere in between or whatever. I understand this is a process of the ego as you say, but I don’t plan on debating forever and a day. You are afterall the only one that is fusing both lingo right now and not claiming either of the conditions. I don’t see a problem with it. And a person can know whether or not they’ve tasted a mango even temporarily if they’ve been told beforehand with many accounts of what a mango tastes like. Then they are certain it is a mango and they want more of that mango. Of course I know I don’t have the full mango realization. It is just delightful to hear about another’s experiences. Or is this delight based on ego or something? But it is best to question someone if what they’ve tasted is a mango because maybe you would rather eat a papapya than a mango so that you can avoid the mango altogether. Can I not use analysis simply because it is enjoyable to do so? I am not hurting anyone in this case am I? It is mostly curiosity. I am aware that I still have ego, but that doesn’t mean I am going to stop all questioning. I actually only lurk most of the time anyway. And lastly, if it is that you do not want to have a conversation simply for having a conversation or you think it is hurting someone then I will stop.

    Sorry if I missed any of your questions, I think I covered them. If I didn’t I’ll reply in the next post. Your questions did help me to look at myself. It was a reminder for attentiveness so thanks for that.

    Thanks

  6. Thanks for your honesty, Pistachio.

    I think, on the blog, I make it pretty clear what I’m experiencing. I also say, in the About section, that I realize my blending of a various ideologies/traditions will appall the ecumenical types. I see that I was correct. :)

    I have no quarrel at all with your critique of the blending spiritual/actualism lingo and terminology. Actually, if you look carefully, you will see that I use only a minimum of actualist lingo and/or concepts. It is perfectly alright with me if you feel that way. But that doesn’t mean I have to conform to your belief, does it?

    And as for thinking and not thinking; I can certainly think when I please. But if you exist in a state of bare awareness all the time or most of the time, what you quickly come to realize is that everything you thought mattered so much, does not. You would like to argue with me, for fun, for curiosity, and because it is what you are given to do. But what if I have no preference for argument?

    Can you imagine a scenario where one might prefer not to argue? It would be something like this (and this is sort of what this conversation seems like to me):

    Hopefully, that amused you. It certainly amused me. Well, you want some McNuggets. I’m telling you, no McNuggets here. And yet, you insist.

    I have said many times I am not a guru or a teacher; I am more like a spring of water, just happening in this way. I am doing my thing. If you can quench your thirst here, then by all means, do so. If you are not thirsty or find this water brackish, then no need to drink either.

    Your curiosity, your desire to “analyze,” your desire to argue should all be looked at through the lens of what inhibits your own experience of enlightenment or actual freedom. If you are an actualist, you’ll be familiar with the ways anti-actualists spend all their time tearing Richard down, arguing the points bit by bit–in just the way you are doing here. I always thought all of it was silly; if you aren’t so awake to our own experience every single moment of the day, so that you are too busy to sit up dissecting someone else’s experience, then you are not practicing–you are procrastinating. Richard has got himself free, he has spoken his truth, he has “done his thing,” and good on him for doing so. Who are we to pick apart and analyze and so on? My view was to take and use what I could, to stand upon the shoulders of those who came before–and how grateful I am–and then to set out in the tundra of my own experience and chop my own path to the top of the mountain. This is what I did, this is what I am doing. You can dislike it all you want, but for those rogues and rule-breakers and thinking-outside-of-somebody-else’s box types, they might find some fun here and perhaps even something useful.

    My goal is not to liberate the world. I am not a messiah. Each one must liberate him or herself. And when they do, I would sure enjoy hearing about it. Why? Because it’s fun. Why do I do this blog? Because I enjoy it and if it can help someone, or be interesting, or entertain, or even provoke aversion and deeper questioning, then I am all for that. So your responses are just fine with me and you should feel free to keep on with them as you like. As William Blake said, “A fool who persists in his folly shall become wise.” Who is the fool, you or I? Well I’m sure I don’t know. I do know, however, that it doesn’t matter.

    And as for your assertion that I should question myself…why? Should I question myself because I have made a claim (I have not). Should I lie about the multiplicity of approaches I have found helpful, so that I can satisfy the ecumenical demands of those driven by an ego-based interest in hierarchy and distinction? Should I question myself because I am getting rich off this? (I am not, I actually have to pay to publish this website.)

    It seems to me, and I may indeed be wrong, that you would like for me to question myself because you are questioning yourself, and this is the source of your discomfort, dissatisfaction–your dukkha. You need very much to believe that it is not possible to achieve anything worth achieving unless one subscribes to the view that some have that it must be done in just this way, with all the mental exclusions practiced perfectly–otherwise, one must be wrong and one can’t possibly be free of suffering, because after all, that one (that would be I) is not “doing it right.” Well if that is what you think, then do that. But maybe that is *not* what you think, which is why my approach is so irksome to you.

    Consider an analogy. If you see a person changing a tire with a stick, and managing to do it quite well at that–you might have to pull over and say–“hey there fellow, that is not how you change a tire.” Well, if you did that it would clearly show your insecurity at the fact that this unconventional fellow has figured out how to change a tire with a stick!

    I am of the view that the universe privileges diversity over homogeneity; that new things become possible all the time–that rules change, creatures evolve, some die out and so on. If you look around at a forest of trees, you will see that a tree will grow sideways out of mountain if that growth pattern gets the most sunlight. Now the other trees might look at it and say, “Wow wee, you are one queer tree, how could this possibly be!” Well those other trees have not understood the fundamental nature of the universe and hence have not, in fact, understood themselves.

    The universe knows no exclusion. Everything that arises is derivative of the universe, so whatever arises is a manifestation of it. What is outside of the universe? Of course, nothing. So if you cleave your mind in two or three, then your mind is behaving out of accord with universal phenomenon and flow, and from that resistance against what is, you will get suffering. Understand that from a universal perspective, your resistance means nothing. “Resistance is futile,” the Borg said with the drone of the whole universe.

    The reason to write about the ego, the reason to evolve our consciousness, is so that human life can be more bearable for the whole. But we can destroy nothing, for we are not the creators of anything. We do not create; we derive and such, we are derivations from the process of grand creation. Your breathing, the operations of your body, the function of your brain–from which all of your apparently intentional actions arise–are all out of your control and care not one wit what you decide to do or not to do. You can argue, you can not argue. You can be happy or you can be sad. And yet, all of what you truly are, and all of the universal unfolding, continues on utterly unabated.

    Herein lies liberation from suffering. In this realization. I have said it and perhaps it can be absorbed, to a certain extent, on the level of thought. But to actually realize it and experience things as they really are, you have to stop trying to think your way through it. Thought will not get you there, for thought is the very thing that gives you the feeling of a self.

    I suggest you look closely–more closely, take some time–at your own thought pattern here. There is an opportunity for you to get real with yourself and to use all of this as a portal to expanded consciousness and experience. Keep in mind that all I’ve suggested on my blog is for the sake of human relations we should get rid of the ego–how do we do that? Be here now, be radically present. Don’t spend your money on gurus and diets and exercise regimes. Try to sit still and do nothing. Be honest, with yourself first and foremost and also with others. What is, is all there is that is actual, that actually exists. This is the teaching, a universal teaching that characterizes, at its core, every single ideology and teaching; this is what I have written.

    So what battle are you fighting and with whom? I cannot fight with you, for to do so would be to fight with myself. The words here have irked some spot on the body of your ego, so you squirm here. That is good, actually. Stay with the discomfort, with the disagreement, and so on. But understand that you are talking to yourself.

  7. Thanks for the detailed reply Stephanie.

    By no means am I suggesting that you conform to what I say. It sounds like what you are saying is that you are not driven to argue so you have no preference for it (but some might?). Certainly I’d say that there is some part of me that is driven to, but are you suggesting that if I were in your enlightened state and read this blog that I would not come here to ask the questions that I am?

    Yes I have noted that you use minimum actualist terminology. You also seem to place heavy emphasis on thought and ego rather than feeling and soul. This is another indication that it might be enlightenment rather than actual freedom.

    That video was not only amusing, but also scary. I don’t think it was her thoughts that made her react like that though. It is not my thoughts that drive me, it is my feelings. And I don’t know why you would compare this conversation to that video. I hope I am not coming off like that lady lol.

    And I asked to question yourself because then you can know where you are and if there are further territories that you can explore. Maybe there are subtleties that you do not notice because you do not question. I don’t think there is anything wrong with questioning. By the way I am not disliking what you are doing, I hope that is not another impression I am giving off.

    One of the main points I disagree on is when you say “thought is the very thing that gives you the feeling of a self”. Actually it is obvious from my experience and investigations that when there is no feeling of self then ego-thought stops. It is the feeling of self which comes first. There is a thinking self but that is not the feeling self. Going after thought and ego does not end feeling of self. Thought is required to investigate the feeling self. Also I am certainly not trying to think my way through it.

    With the analogy of the tire, I don’t think that that is what I’d do. I’d probably really wanna know if using a stick is really easier than doing it the conventional way.

    Also regarding your advice to sit still and do nothing, do I just sit still and do nothing literally? How does that do anything? I have done that and it does not produce results. How does that get rid of the feeling of self? Is this one of those things where I am told to “just do it” rather than question?

    Hmm, I’m not sure if I am irked. I am not feeling that right now as I am actually feeling quite well. I think mainly I was curious about your experience and wondered perhaps if you were mistaken. But you made it clear that your experiencee does not match an actual freedom, so perhaps it is me that was mistaken. I do agree with your last sentence though. Arguing on here out of discomfort would mean I’d only be fighting with myself.

    Thanks for replying to all my posts so far!

    • Glad you’re not irked. :)

      The video cracks me up, but I am easily amused. Sometimes the persistent grasping of the self is much like this poor lady.

      As I’m sure you realize, there are many debates about what precedes what–thought or feeling. I am not so interested in the abolition of feeling, which is why I don’t talk about it much.

      Having said that, I also don’t experience much feeling myself; but that doesn’t mean that when other people do, there is something wrong with this. For me, in the absence of thought, there is no feeling. Feelings, in my experience, come with stories–which come from thoughts. How do you even know what a feeling is in the absence of language? If you can identify it, you are thinking. If there is no thought, I have no feeling. I realize the actualist view is the opposite, but that is not my experience.

      Furthermore, I believe that the critical fulcrum of it matters only to humans. From the perspective of the universe, nothing we do matters much anyway. As I say in a previous post, we may destroy ourselves, but we cannot destroy the universe.

      If the universe is perfect, how can anything that manifests therein be imperfect? For me, the issue here is if we want to live easily or with difficulty. It is up to us.

      As for unexplored territory, I have no desire for any experience other than the one I am having. You see, I have surrendered. There is nothing I lack, so there is nothing to seek.

      As for sitting, yes–you sit and simply listen, feel [the wind or air or sun] (edited for clarity, since the word “feel” for actualists almost always indicates affect and not sensation. Here I am speaking of sensation.), and so on. Don’t actualists sit out and enjoy nature or a cityscape? Isn’t that just sitting? :) Isn’t that just “doing nothing?” I can remember once sitting outside a restaurant with two other actualists for about an hour. During that time we did nothing; we didn’t talk, we didn’t fidget, we didn’t practice a technique–we did nothing.

      In fact, when you are developing attentiveness, what you are really doing is allowing your senses to function without interference–that is to say, doing nothing.

      I don’t think a world of enlightened people and world of actually free people would be less harmonious than the current one. I don’t see any reason to parse the details. The desire to do so, to my mind, seems very much like all Western ideology which is very interested in categories and putting things in their place.

      The Universe doesn’t care for actuarial tables. :) Those methods of exclusion and definition exists for those who can’t handle the wiggly, squirmy, raw nature of the Universe as it is.

  8. Ha yes I thought it was funny when she said she would go super saiyan lol.

    But is it not feeling which drives people to do the horrible things they do? There is indeed feeling without thought. Maybe it is not expressed, but that subjectivity is always there. Feelings do come with stories, but not all the time. You can derive a story out of a feeling if you want to but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist without the story. What about the raw instinctual fear? There is no story behind it, but it may form into one if you let it. A persistent feeling requires thought to investigate. This really can make a difference in what state you end up in. You said that you don’t experience feeling much yourself? When do you experience feeling?

    I agree that the universe is perfect. It is very apparrent sans the feeling being.

    This method may lead to dissociation. It ignores feelings and the feeling being entirely. If you are not feeling happy and harmless or felicitous before paying attention to the senses, then you ignore feelings. But usually I find that sensuousness happens almost automatically for me if I am sufficiently felicitous. If not you’d end up dissociating. Also, I don’t think that sitting out and enjoying nature is primarily an actualist thing. But with that said I do enjoy those things myself. Actualism is about being in the marketplace and with people, things, and events as they are. Before doing nothing as you say the feeling being needs to become as happy and harmless as possible.

    That is not what attentiveness is. While attentiveness itself is a sensuous attention, it is not all it is. Attentiveness is also an affective awareness. Attentiveness is paying attention to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (affectively). So it would be attentiveness that notices the change from happy to sad. So once you notice with attentiveness that you are no longer feeling good, you do whatever you can to get back to feeling good and keep up leveling it till your baseline is feeling perfect. Trying to be sensuous directly will leave the feeling being intact and eventually out of your awareness, thus giving the impression that it is gone. I’m not sure if you follow the yahoo group but there was someone who detailed going in and out of that dissociated state.

    I would have agreed with you quite a while back on how that would be a harmonious world, but now I don’t think enlightenment and actual freedom are the same. They are quite different in fact. Enlightened people would be driven to spread their truth and thus creating more dogma and mayhem in their wake. An actually free person is not driven to spread their truth. There is reason to parse the details.

  9. So if actually free people, or actualists, are not compelled to spread their ideology…how do you explain all that you wrote above?

    Consider that I did not invite your participation here, you did that all on your own. In other words, I did not come to you asking about actualism. You are the Jehovah’s Witness…knocking on my door. :-)

    I have told you, on more than one occasion, that each one should do what works for them and have invalidated nothing and no one. If you look with open eyes you will see that you are the one stuck in dogma.

  10. I am not actually free. I replied to your post because I was curious about your experience. Then you said some things about attentiveness and I pointed out that that is not what is stated on the AFT website. I said what I did because my understanding was different so I wanted to know if you meant the same thing or something different. No where was I trying to get you to “convert” to any ideology. In fact, there is no dogma in actualism. I’ve seen people writing it left and right as if what is being presented on the AFT website is for you to take on board as a belief. That would simply not get you anywhere. There are plenty of other beliefs that are better and will make you feel good if all you were looking for were beliefs. This is a conversation and I am enjoying it and I’m learning about what your views and methods are in detail.

    I am aware that you did not invite me. But this is a public blog so I wanted to ask some questions about your experience. This being a public blog in itself is an invitation for questions and conversation. It’s as simple as that. It is plain clear from all the different writings on enlightenment and on actual freedom that different methods lead to different places. So to be succinct, yes I understood that you have invalidated nothing and no one but I am just here to learn more about your state. I didn’t see anything wrong with that. Pardon if I seem to come off like I am trying to get you to believe some dogma.

    • Hi Pistachio,

      I was merely pointing out that in the midst of writing a long (unsolicited) post about actualism, you end by suggesting that non-actualists would be prone to evangelism–when, by any impartial review, you have been trying from the beginning of the conversation to ascertain if I am actually free (I have said I am not, so why you are trying to ascertain what I’ve already answered, I don’t know) and to demonstrate, presumably to me, that the actualist method is superior to what I’ve written about here.

      That is not much different from proselytizing. Surely you know, given my history, that I am aware of the words written on the AFT website. You also know that I have chosen a different path. So, your sharing of information certainly can’t be because you think I am unaware of the words–they must be because you are advancing some kind of argument. You’ve already admitted you like to argue, yes?

      I long ago realized that this conversation is not about me, it is about you. And I’m willing to talk to you as long as you need so you can go through this discursive process which it clearly seems you need. I am just wondering when you will realize it and instead of worrying about what state I am in, focus on what state you are in.

  11. Hi Stephanie,

    Yes and then I agreed that what you write does not match what is written on the AFT website. And actually I think it is more so that enlightened people are driven (by some impulse or such) to spread dogma to everyone and their followers simply copy them because they believe they will get some reward. The main problem being that they spread dogma rather than speak about facts. No where do I suggest that the actualist method is superior to what you write here. All I did was point out that what you mean by attentiveness is not what is written on the AFT website. The actualist method will lead to to an actual freedom and other methods lead to their own goal. Which is one of the things I don’t understand. How is everyone headed to the same place?

    Actually I think it is more so because I think you misunderstand the words on the AFT website. Hmm I’m not sure I agree that I like to partake in the connotations of the word argue. I just like to discuss about these things. I don’t like to argue when I know that what I am clearly doing is defending myself or ideology or whatever. That would mean I have something to look at in myself. Sometimes I do end up doing it for whatever reason. In this instance I don’t think that is so much the case.

    Okay, I am not sure how this conversation is about me. Will you tell me how it is about me, why I should stop doing whatever I am doing, and how I can do that?

    • You should stop because you don’t really want any advice from me and I do not want any advice from you. You simply want to engage me in argument, for reasons of your own.

      And, you can stop quite simply by stopping–by ceasing to write.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s