×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.

Ingram's Essay on Experiments with Actualism

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14934 by Chris Marti
Thank you Nick Halay for posting this link on your Facebook wall so that I can post it here:

integrateddaniel.info/my-experiments-in-actualism/

I find that to be a fascinating essay for at least ten thousand different reasons!
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14936 by Tom Otvos
Wow, that was a really interesting read.

-- tomo
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14937 by Russell
To me this sounds like post 4th path type transition stuff. Nothing to do with Actualism. It is quite fascinating, but I wish he would be less vague about the practices and the experiences.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14938 by Ona Kiser
I was going to say something similar - giving allowance for individual interests/tendencies, variability of time-frame for individuals, and choice of vocabulary/framework/interpretation, it sounds like pretty normal post-awakening developments. (Based on the fairly small data set of people I know personally well enough to know about the trends their practice and experiences took in the years after they initially woke up.)
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14939 by Kate Gowen
Maybe I'm the only one of us who was unaware of most of the DhO Actualists' subsequent retraction of claims. I find *THAT* interesting.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14940 by Russell
Schism v3.0!!!!
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14941 by Ona Kiser
The thing about all the fuss about "post awakening" stuff is several fold, I think. One part is the dogmatism. I think it was Abre who told me once in conversation that we create frameworks - that's part of our human nature - but it's helpful to hold them loosely, and they generally tend in that direction (becoming looser).

In my current view there's nothing wrong with having a vocabulary, poetry, tradition, etc - in fact there can be a lot of good in it, I think, from offering a way to communicate to offering help in understanding things you are experiencing and not feeling crazy or alone (which is comforting). But probably most of us go through periods of being very rigidly attached to frameworks to the point where we build a heavy identity around them, and then we are... hm, defensive!...when that identity is threatened by people who criticize our framework. And a huge point of practice is to be seeing exactly THIS kind of stuff, and helping each other through blind spots - what am I attached to, where is the rigidity, what's being defended here? (Full disclosure, I go through/ have gone through this myself, regarding Santeria, pragmatic dharma, various practices of energy work and magick, Catholicism, and so on.)

And what is secondarily really easy is to jump on what I just said and say "yeah, see, that idiot couldn't see clearly, he was all rigid about his model, ha!" But people CANNOT take on frameworks they can't identify with at all. People can't, don't take on practices that don't make sense to them. No one who thinks an immersion in the full range of emotional expression is good would be very interested in Actualism, nor perhaps even in some of the early "leave your psychological stuff at the door" versions of pragmatic dharma. They would go do something else. And no one who is so uncomfortable with their emotional expression that they want to eradicate it would appreciate, for example, St. Augustine's prayer for the cleansing gift of tears. It would seem totally insane to them to encourage love and tears and passion and all sorts of intense emotion. Solitary people don't join the Hare Krishnas for communal chanting. People who don't believe in deities don't do devotional practices. Etc. So in a sense these kind of incidents are not a problem - they are the natural intersection of the wide range of students with the wide range of teachings.

And the other thing is that all this wouldn't be a problem if Dan and Kenneth and others hadn't started out with the premise that bam you "get fourth path" and you are an "arhat" and life is perfect... Obviously everyone figured out after a while that there's more onion to peel, integration of insight, personal crap to clean up, various deeper insights and shifts and so on. Which is perhaps what happens when you write a bunch of doctrine based on only a few months or years of hindsight, in that phase of things where one often feels very high and arrogant and excited about the change in perception. Some people seem to stay there a good while. I know I've been there. Stuff I wrote a couple years ago now seems half-baked to me - often with a good core of insight, but not fully understood and iced with a layer of pride.

PS - And can the men of few words who said "well that's interesting" expand a bit by saying what they thought was most interesting about the post?
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Ona Kiser.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14942 by Russell
I vote for a "INTERESTING!" button!!!
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14943 by Kate Gowen

Russell wrote: Schism v3.0!!!!


lol-- AND:

All the useful and interesting things to say about this subject are undermined by making it into a matter of "controversy," "schism," aggravated emotions, offended cherished opinions, etc. I had, and have, a view-- but I'm unwilling to see it dismissed in that way.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14944 by Shargrol

Russell wrote: Schism v3.0!!!!


Schism, schism, schism!!!
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14945 by Rod
Any excuse to use that word! :lol:



Sorry just had to include this.....
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Rod.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14946 by Shargrol
You all know that --- if we schism long enough and hard enough --- we'll be completely united in each of us being and seeing how we are from where we are. And then we'll have to get to know each other to understand each other, instead assuming that we know something because of someone expresses some fidelity to some label.

Anyway, gotta read the essay now...
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Shargrol. Reason: dropped a word...
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14947 by Tom Otvos

Ona Kiser wrote: PS - And can the men of few words who said "well that's interesting" expand a bit by saying what they thought was most interesting about the post?


I found it interesting for several reasons. First, it was a great chunk of PD history written down in way it has not yet been written down. Real "inside baseball" stuff that I just found fascinating. Second, I really dig Daniel's analytical approach to stuff, which is why MCTB resonated with me in the first place. You get the sense that he really wants to figure this stuff out, and it is neat to be on the sidelines, watching. Third, like Kate, I did not realize that some of the AF people recanted -- sorry, love that word even if it is a bit inflammatory. I worked with Trent a while back on jhanas, and always wondered where he got to when he disappeared. Now I know a bit more.

And lastly, to the "onion" comment, I found it interesting that Daniel felt he had been "done" before he entered this new realm of doneness. I figured that he, of all people, would have realized it was a lifelong path and that, probably, there will be new discoveries until you die.

-- tomo
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14948 by Ona Kiser

Tom Otvos wrote: ...

And lastly, to the "onion" comment, I found it interesting that Daniel felt he had been "done" before he entered this new realm of doneness. I figured that he, of all people, would have realized it was a lifelong path and that, probably, there will be new discoveries until you die.


In my brief and who-knows-where-things-will-go experience, that "doneness" feeling is a recurring phase - a sense of fairly long-lasting and massive relief and release and clarity that happens after larger shifts and even can occur in a briefer, more limited way after smaller insights. And it's not "wrong" really - when big blindnesses fall away it reorients your priorities and view and seems rather radical. Maybe it occurs some limited number of times, maybe not. Ask me in 30 years!
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14949 by Derek
Great article, Daniel!
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14956 by Tom Otvos

Ona Kiser wrote: Maybe it occurs some limited number of times, maybe not. Ask me in 30 years!


And I think that is one of the most exciting things about this time we are in right now, because there is deliberate and conscious exploration of this stuff in a way that I think is unprecedented. Sure, people have been doing this for many centuries, but now it is so much in the open, and documented that maybe, finally, we might know. In the meantime, it is clear that the relatively short period of PD is *way* too short a time span to make any conclusions beyond "this, too, will change".

-- tomo
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14957 by Jake St. Onge
I enjoyed the article. I think it's always interesting to get the inside scoop on someone's process. What particularly strikes me about this topic, is the way that Daniel swung from being certain of something (limited emotional range model) and then found balance through experimentation. And that one lasting take away was the importance of working with feelings and understanding feelings.

This was definitely missing from the macho world of Prag Dharma in my impression. The really funny or ironic thing is the way so many young pragmatic dharma practitioners flocked to a version of actualism that was about eradicating feelings, which is an understandable interpretation of a lot of the IMO awful rhetoric of Richard, but was nevertheless a total misunderstanding of the methods of actualism which explicitly revolve around, in part, feeling all your feelings completely. I think it's neat that Daniel found something useful for himself out of applying those methods, even if he (in my opinion wisely) rejected the goal and view of actualism, which are just too dualistic for me personally.

I would love to see Kenneth's take on his own process, as he was clearly inspired by this schism to follow up some different directions and challenge some of his existing dogmas (even if he seemed intent on creating some new ones as fairly and quickly as possible).

ETA: I wonder how much of the misunderstanding of the methods of actualism (interpreting them in terms of suppressing emotions) in the prag dharma scene-- as much by the many who were attracted to it as by those repulsed by it-- came from some of the dualisms inherent in Theravada doctrine, which after all formed the background of that scene in large part?
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Jake St. Onge.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14960 by Chris Marti
Thank you for all the reactions and comments, folks. I have only a few, myself:

1. My own trajectory reveals to me that simple tends to explain more than complicated. This applies to models, maps, and even practices.
2. Any developmental process is just that - process. Process is by nature impermanent. States are by nature impermanent. Beliefs are impermanent.

So what is so frigging beautiful to me about Daniel Ingram's essay and the tendency of the formerly avowed Actualists to renounce their previous claims is just how downright human it all is. This practice is meant to help us discover the true nature of our humanity, not to hide it, or hide from it.

Schisms - yes, there have been a few but deep down my rejection of Actualism that spawned this board, along with Jackson Wilshire's, and the notion that spiritual progress was somehow synonymous with dropping emotional states was just this - that exploring what it means to be human even at the deepest levels means really and truly exploring what it means to be human. To do that honestly one must admit their humanity. We are all chaotic bundles of beauty and bullshit.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14972 by Florian Weps

Ona Kiser wrote: And can the men of few words who said "well that's interesting" expand a bit by saying what they thought was most interesting about the post?


The many words... the words were interesting.

Seriously, I found it interesting because I'm nosy and curious when it comes to spiritual biographies. I'm also patient, and I lurk a lot, so I get to satisfy that itch by simply following the posts of people I like, and sometimes by asking questions directly.

So that article filled in a couple of details I hadn't known, and put it all in a nice narrative.

Cheers,
Florian
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14975 by Chris Marti
Oh, one more comment:

Never, ever underestimate the ability for even the smartest, most "accomplished" human beings to fool themselves into thinking...

- they are "done"
- their way is the best way
- their way is the only true way

Daniel Ingram said this openly at the post-BG2013 Pragmatic Dharma meeting, and I give him credit for that and for this essay where in he pretty much puts to bed the arahat/done-ness meme. So in a way this essay represents a potential maturing of the PD thought process surrounding awakening and the path. Endless cycles, endless lessons, endless humanity, all the way down.
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Chris Marti.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14978 by Ona Kiser

Chris Marti wrote: ... So in a way this essay represents a potential maturing of the PD thought process surrounding awakening and the path. ...


It seems that that "maturing" is perhaps more individual than systemic? That each beginner must go through the steps of "Woo, found a model that says I can wake up and it will be amazing. Don't tell me anything else, because you are wrong. Oh, this isn't quite what I planned for. Okay, let me try some other models."

Or, one doesn't really have ears to hear various teachings until one does, and then what was previously rejected or ignored suddenly starts to make sense. I see the same in people with other practice traditions, not just pragmatic dharma. Thoughts?
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14979 by Chris Marti
It seems to be a theme among the PD hardcore devotees. I will squeeze the (former?) Actualists into this group since most of them I know of spun out of the PD crowd - and according to the essay quite a few of them are recanting. Plus, Ingram is quite clearly a "leader" in the space. So I suspect it is a trend, and for me a very welcome one.
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Chris Marti.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14980 by Chris Marti
Also, I did use the word "potential" so I remain open to the PD movement not changing.

:P
More
12 years 3 weeks ago #14981 by Kate Gowen

Chris Marti wrote: Oh, one more comment:

Never, ever underestimate the ability for even the smartest, most "accomplished" human beings to fool themselves into thinking...

- they are "done"
- their way is the best way
- their way is the only true way

Daniel Ingram said this openly at the post-BG2013 Pragmatic Dharma meeting, and I give him credit for that and for this essay where in he pretty much puts to bed the arahat/done-ness meme. So in a way this essay represents a potential maturing of the PD thought process surrounding awakening and the path. Endless cycles, endless lessons, endless humanity, all the way down.


Could another way of saying this be "Dogmatic '-ism' is a BIG warning sign"? Whether we're talking about mainstream -isms like various religions or scientism, or boutique -isms like PD or AF. Settling on a permanent belief
system creates more problems than it solves, seems to me.

The human tendency seems to be to attempt to out-shout doubt, instead of trying to listen to what it has to say-- hence dogmatic defense of belief.
More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #14982 by Ona Kiser

Chris Marti wrote: Also, I did use the word "potential" so I remain open to the PD movement not changing.

:P


It may very well be! There does seem, however, to be the tendency to discover something in ourselves and then start noticing it everywhere and imagine it's the evolution of humanity in a new direction, where actually everyone has to flounder their way through the same steps. We generally enter practices wanting certainty, safety, fixed rules, etc. We become more comfortable with openness, change, uncertainty as we develop in our practices...

But who knows!

The other concern/issue/challenge is the teaching of these newer perspectives. Are people entering pragmatic dharma getting this new view, or the older ones? Through what resources? etc. Besides, if you arrive at "not so stuck on models", there's less motivation to write books outlining exactly how everything works and so on.

(ETA: Just for example, until this article by Dan I was pretty unclear on how he viewed things in the past few years; I don't know what Kenneth's "model" is since back in the "stage 7,8,9" days; even my own former teacher Alan has been going through all sorts of evolving views, which I catch brief glimpses of on occasion and are often a bit of surprise; etc.)
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Ona Kiser.
Powered by Kunena Forum