|
Post by Claudiu on May 22, 2013 17:11:12 GMT
For me, a large part of it seems to be just knowing where to look. It's hard to give a step-by-step process. Forcefully trying to make myself enjoy my experience never worked for me. Nor did looking around and trying to extract enjoyment out of the senses. For me it's like, if I'm already in a good mood, then I can look around and ask whether anything I am experiencing actually exists. The answer, if I am honest, is not an immediate "yes". The goal then is to get to the point where, from the ongoing experience, you can say "yes! this does exist!" So having that in mind I look for that place where things exist and I get closer & closer to it.
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 22, 2013 17:38:23 GMT
For me, a large part of it seems to be just knowing where to look. It's hard to give a step-by-step process. Forcefully trying to make myself enjoy my experience never worked for me. Nor did looking around and trying to extract enjoyment out of the senses. For me it's like, if I'm already in a good mood, then I can look around and ask whether anything I am experiencing actually exists. The answer, if I am honest, is not an immediate "yes". The goal then is to get to the point where, from the ongoing experience, you can say "yes! this does exist!" So having that in mind I look for that place where things exist and I get closer & closer to it. hmm, I don´t get the "wether something exists" but then I´m not sure I´ve had a full blown pce yet... what works for me is rather a "what is it actually like what I´m currently experiencing?" the answer is obviously not an intellectual one ("it´s a spoon, dummy!") but reflection about the sensual experience itself ("what is its form/colour/smell/taste/depth/shadow/...")... alternatively a contemplative, wondering "why does this exist at all?" overrides the affective memory of the experience and opens your eyes to the actual world
|
|
|
Post by Claudiu on May 22, 2013 17:49:09 GMT
hmm, I don´t get the "wether something exists" but then I´m not sure I´ve had a full blown pce yet... what works for me is rather a "what is it actually like what I´m currently experiencing?" the answer is obviously not an intellectual one ("it´s a spoon, dummy!") but reflection about the sensual experience itself ("what is its form/colour/smell/taste/depth/shadow/...")... alternatively a contemplative, wondering "why does this exist at all?" overrides the affective memory of the experience and opens your eyes to the actual world Ah that sounds pretty similar. I think just a different way of phrasing the same approach. Pretty great stuff isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2013 5:55:55 GMT
For me, a large part of it seems to be just knowing where to look. It's hard to give a step-by-step process. Forcefully trying to make myself enjoy my experience never worked for me. Nor did looking around and trying to extract enjoyment out of the senses. For me it's like, if I'm already in a good mood, then I can look around and ask whether anything I am experiencing actually exists. The answer, if I am honest, is not an immediate "yes". The goal then is to get to the point where, from the ongoing experience, you can say "yes! this does exist!" So having that in mind I look for that place where things exist and I get closer & closer to it. I'm starting to understand this now. The whole being in a good mood, is very much central to even comprehending what you are saying. I haven't had a PCE yet, but I think i understand the general direction. Andrew
|
|
|
Post by mumuwu on May 23, 2013 11:29:01 GMT
Yesterday I started playing around with something Tarin mentions in the Hurricane Ranch AF podcast(http://integrateddaniel.info/podcasts-and-videos/). Basically you notice how sound is resonating in your ear. It's almost like instead of listening for sounds "out there" you notice they are happening right inside your ear canal.
This is really pleasant and leads in the right direction. It also seems a bit easier than "seeing from the front of the eyeball" that Peter mentions (he got it from Richard), although it's really easy to do the eyeball thing once the hearing thing is happening.
Fun stuff.
|
|
|
Post by felipe on May 23, 2013 16:19:46 GMT
Hey, Andrew,
Have you tried to tune into all these things after having an orgasm? I've seen that those are excellent times as you are relaxed, focused and full of happiness from all the chemicals in your body. Actually, my first PCE was after having sex and it was marvelous, and I've cultivated some EE's after being in similar situations. Just have the orgasm and try to stick with the sensations that it triggers, enjoy them, and be the sensuousness.
Hope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by actualdinosaur on May 24, 2013 5:39:02 GMT
I barely see anyone talking about the method presented commonly on the AFT website ('How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?'). I initially struggled with understanding and employing this method, but now that I understand it I almost feel stupid at not having understood it in the first place as it is so simple. A particular correspondence from the website that I found helpful is:
"RESPONDENT: The fact that my ‘search’ has ended and dealings with people have improved is clearly attributable to actualism. The unanticipated downsides have had to do with the fact that for most of the last two years, I have practiced actualism incorrectly. I have mostly looked at the human condition and my experience by trying to think through them and understand them. Unfortunately, though that approach gave me an intellectual understanding of the human condition, it has not allowed me to eradicate it in myself. I’ve only recently been able to discern the difference experientially, which has to do with examining emotions with attentiveness rather than attempting to analyze them intellectually. There is a big difference that can only be discerned experientially, and from what I can see, the trick is to remain with attentiveness rather than intellectualizing. Also, an important note – I’ve have long understood (intellectually) that there is a difference, but one has to understand this experientially. There have been a lot of misunderstandings about the phrase ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive.’ I’ve tried to focus on ‘what’ I am experiencing – a sort of passive awareness, ‘what’ I am sensing – passive awareness – ‘what’ I am feeling – passive awareness – and other variations on the ‘what’ theme. It is only with the recent distinction between ‘what’ and ‘how’ that I see the question is specifically designed to be a simple test of the quality of experience in whatever form. ‘How’ is the important part in that it puts attention on the quality of experience – the emotions and feelings underlying thoughts so that one understands them experientially with attentiveness, not intellectually. VINEETO: Ah, how simply you said it! ‘How’, not ‘what’ is indeed the clue to the difference between attentiveness with pure intent and the passive awareness of Eastern tradition. It had never occurred to me that it is this word that signifies the vital difference, but now that you said it is perfectly obvious – ‘how’ inquires into the quality of the experience and then the sincere intent to improve the quality of this moment to be both more happy and more harmless indicates what needs to be done. Whereas ‘what’ simply takes stock of the content of one’s experience and by doing so one can either focus on sensate experiencing, thereby avoiding undesirable affective experiencing – trying to become an un-feeling ‘self’ – or one can focus on desirable affective experiencing, thereby regarding what one sensately experiences as being secondary or even illusionary – trying to become a non-thinking, dissociated ‘self’."
The way I understand it is that the method simply has to do with the quality of one's experience as the above correspondence states. The method is stated so precise on the website that I don't think I could have wrote it better myself. I've found it unbeneficial to aim directly for a PCE. You first have to have a goal of becoming happy and harmless. Then you have to start from where you are with 'How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?'. If you aren't feeling good you investigate, etc. Now what I found helpful in incrementally going towards the direction of a PCE is exposing the particular identity that is involved in the problems.
For example, today I got angry and upset at something my mother said. After cooling down a bit, I thought about why that was and found many beliefs that I held that were causing certain feelings to arise. Eventually I found that it all had to do with the identity of being a 'son'. What is expected of a son and what is not expected of a son and all that. Upon exposure of this identity, all the feelings that occurred from simply thinking about all the things that happend today disappeared. I saw the culprit and it was part of the social identity. I'm aware that the social identity is not the entirety of identity but in this case this was what was causing the problem. I also noted that I did not have to 'be' this identity and that there was another alternative (this flesh and blood body). That was when I felt great joy and relief, there was actually something here. Now that I know who 'I' am, I know when 'I' am not there either (and this noticing, this attentiveness is one of the mind's natural functions).
I've found that contemplating about the actual world when you are feeling good may get you into a PCE. I try to get a experiential answer with questions like the ones that Claudiu mentioned (Is there something actually here? Is life inherently enjoyable?). I experience what I think is pure intent or overarching benevolence and benignity of the universe. I remember thinking that "this is a world of facts" and "this world factually exists" when I was experiencing it. I found myself smiling and I slowly allowed myself to notice this benevolence and for a few moments there was a stillness of such magnitude that words cannot do it justice, it has to be experienced for oneself. So as far as PCEs go I think you have to do a lot of investigating in the beginning and keep the 'How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?' running (this is attentiveness) before the PCEs become easier to experience. I've never found the noticing the senses and revelling in the senses type of advice helpful. But that is my experience, maybe others are already very happy go lucky so doing that might get you a PCE. Well, looks like I've just basically repeated what was on the AFT website lol but mostly sticking to understanding that is what has helped me. I would not even be posting if I did not experience some form of concrete success.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2013 6:48:19 GMT
Awesome post Mr Dinosaur. cheers.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2013 7:57:01 GMT
So essentially; good mood, good attitude, optimistic outlook, then take a look around at what is already here.
|
|
|
Post by actualdinosaur on May 26, 2013 3:09:31 GMT
Something else from the AFT website to consider. I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation one would concur that it is true (or maybe not idk). Most people living the everyday 'reality' live in a partially dissociated way. That is, people claim that they 'have' feelings as opposed to 'being' them. What Richard is essentially saying is that one can choose how one feels each moment again. This is what makes the method simple.
Here's the relevant correspondence:
"RESPONDENT: That being the case, all that would be necessary is to stay aware, stay alert to what is felt, and if one catches oneself feeling something less than <good, excellent, perfect> one could just elect to feel <good, excellent, perfect> again. Gosh. No wonder you say this method is so simple, and you wonder what all the fuss is about. RICHARD: Aye, it is so very simple that some find its radicality hard to understand"
"RESPONDENT: I do not experience it as possible to choose how I am feeling at any given moment. RICHARD: If it be not you who is doing that choosing then who is? For instance: who was it who chose to ‘feel continually wretched and frustrated and miserable’ [endquote] whilst trying to hoist themself into the air by their shoelaces if it was not you? And who, for another instance, preferred to ‘gradually yet persistently add feelings of frustration and bewilderment’ [endquote], at the fact that the method you have been applying was not working, if not you? Or, for yet another instance, who is it that decides, on occasion, to deal with the vicissitudes of life by ‘throwing a tantrum’ [endquote] if it be not you?"
"RESPONDENT: Nay. Feelings happen involuntarily ... RICHARD: You may have missed the following yesterday as it was in a post to another: • [Respondent]: ‘The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not.(...) • [Richard]: ‘... the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates). Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment bordering on an embodiment. (...) It all depends upon whether one is going to continue to be a victim of one’s moods or a victor – or, in the jargon, whether one is going to take charge of one’s life, in this regard, or not – and, yes, that too is a choice. Your felicity and innocuity, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone’.
RESPONDENT: ... incidentally, Richard, how can they be ‘an hereditary occurrence’ and be of my choosing at the same time? RICHARD: You do comprehend that you are your feelings/ your feelings are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) do you not? Vis.: • [Respondent]: ‘It has taken me a hell of a long time to understand the difference between *having* feelings and *being* those feelings. Because I have not clearly understood this, I’ve never quite got the hang of paying attention to feelings without praise or blame, and without notions of innocence and culpability, right and wrong, etc getting in the way. This makes things very interesting. The moment I regard my ‘self’ as ‘having’ a feeling, I’m split down the middle and there’s a secondary reaction on the part of the social identity (an urge to "do something" about the feeling, which in turn evokes more feelings, and so on). Conversely, if I recognise that I *am* the feeling, it most often dissolves into thin air – and usually pretty quickly too. This is great. It’s especially helpful with regard to anger and frustration which have been two of my biggest hurdles to date. Previously, when I caught myself being angry, annoyed or frustrated, identifying and paying attention to this feeling would NOT cause it to disappear. On the contrary, the feeling and the awareness of myself as ‘having’ it would sometimes become like a microphone and amplifier locked into a screaming feedback loop. I’m really pleased that this is no longer happening. It seems almost too easy’. [emphasis in original]. (Thursday 28/10/2004 6:55 PM AEST). And again there is a reference to how ‘almost too easy’ actualism is."
LINK: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf60g.htm
Correct it me if I'm wrong, but it looks like it is as simple as identifying with 'my' feelings as 'me' and one would be able to "choose" how to feel each moment again. When I did contemplated this I finally understood what it meant to be actually free. I understood that 'I' simply would not 'be' and there was a few moments of deep fear regarding that. I'll report back if I am finding much more success by identifying with 'my' feelings (takes a bit of getting used to I think). It seems all that one needs then is the pure intent to be fully happy and harmless, 'be' my feelings, and realize that now is the only moment of being alive and the rest should follow. Anyway that correspondence should be interesting nonetheless if no one has read it.
Edit: Idk why the text came in a weird format and the last paragraph is in blue color. ah well
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 26, 2013 3:17:32 GMT
Keep them coming mate, these are gold.
|
|
|
Post by Claudiu on May 26, 2013 3:30:42 GMT
nice quote, actualdinosaur, I hadn't seen that one before! It seems I guessed correctly, a few years ago on the DhO when someone asked me why I couldn't choose how I felt each moment, and I said I thought it had something to do with not realizing 'i' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'. needless to say that thought didn't lead to said realization. but now it seems to make more sense. i think the trick is that meditating got me into the habit of trying to intuit meanings out of words. i would read words and then try to have something happen as a result. so e.g. i'd read "i" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me" and then try to become the feeling, or something like that. whereas now, there's no intuitive movement of that sort, it's just a realization that what i am already feeling - without it changing whatsoever - is in fact 'me'! and that then leads to the change that goes in the direction of actuality. great stuff
|
|
|
Post by felipe on May 26, 2013 8:58:37 GMT
actualdinosaur said Just remember that pure intent is not the same as 'you' nor comes from 'you', as 'you' are rotten and pure intent is... well... pure.See addendum 7... actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htmThanks for the post, I enjoyed the quotes
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 26, 2013 14:09:27 GMT
Yes, I have been missing the simplicity of that postulate (I am my feelings) as well. Really spent some time looking at that today in context of how I speak internally too -I am definately disassociated within 'myself' regarding *thinking* as 'me', and then my feelings, as MY feelings (belonging to the thinking ME) -rather than the totality of 'me'.
And it makes logical sense too; if one wasn't feeling despondent (for example), one would not be thinking the thoughts one is, so it follows without the feeling there are no thoughts related to that feeling. And as 'i' sense myself to be those very thoughts; hey presto! 'i' would cease to 'exist'. Of course 'i' don't exist to start with as can be seen with an honest look 'inside' -there are only feelings and thoughts, there is no central I at all!
If only seeing that would of ended it, I would have been 'done' 2 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by actualdinosaur on May 26, 2013 17:56:00 GMT
Oh I must have typed the pure in front of the intent by accident...It was supposed to just read "intent to be happy and harmless" (come what may). All of that should get one to experience the actual pure intent. Thanks for pointing it out Felipe.
|
|