November 16 2017

CLAUDIU: Hope all is well! I’d like to ask you and Richard a last question which I only posted after Dona and Alan had left. And also to give a great thanks for participating and answering all our questions on slack. The chat transformed for the better once it started happening. Just another reason for me to “do it” as well – so I can be an actually free person contributing directly on the chat.

VINEETO: Hi Claudiu,

That is very good to hear and great that it inspired you to become actually free sooner rather than later.

CLAUDIU: So the question is: I’ve been looking at ‘how’ to self immolate, in terms of ‘how’ to give permission to have the controls be let go of. I discovered a reluctance to allow the controls to be let go of. I saw the reluctance as a wanting others to approve of what I was doing! A need for permission from the others. I am not giving permission to have the controls be let go of because I’m putting my freedom in others’ hands.

VINEETO: The “I” who would be doing the letting go *is* the controller (Remember the simile of ‘you’ and a pizza? You can slice the pizza into pieces but ‘you’ can never remove the last piece because that is still ‘you’.)

“I”, the controller, can give ‘my’self (the controller) permission to have it happen – the “it” refers to being out from under control to have one’s life live itself similar to Richard’s experience to have the painting paint itself.

What that means is that the controller goes in abeyance.

CLAUDIU: Also is it correct that it is ‘me’ I give permission to? As in it’s an allowing myself to have the controls be let go of ... since ‘i’ am the only thing standing in the way anyway?

VINEETO: Yes, that is well said – “allowing myself to have the controls be let go of”.

CLAUDIU: Finally I’m curious, the feeling of requiring permission from others... considering that ‘i’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’ does that feeling also mean that ultimately ‘i’ only need permission from ‘myself’ – since the “others” that ‘i’ feel ‘i’ need permission from are ‘me’ also? I find this strange to say though because they are factually speaking flesh and blood bodies separate from this one... they are not ‘me’ in actuality.

VINEETO: A clarification to your reasoning – they are not factually speaking flesh and blood bodies, they are identities using their flesh and blood tongues and vocal cords to say what the identities instruct them to say.

Those other identities will never give you permission to leave the fold, and deep down you know that.

The feeling of requiring permission from others for your actions is backed up by strong atavistic feelings that leaving the fold is deadly dangerous and this feeling is reinforced by the fact that in the past being an outcast has meant that the person couldn’t survive on their own. Even so this is no longer the case the feeling is still based on ancient human history.

So, whilst your reasoning might help you to understand it in theory that ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’ in the psychic/affective sense, it is important to understand this experientially and eventually come to the conclusion, with supreme confidence, that it is utterly safe to abandon humanity, defying all of humanity’s wisdom, even if not a single person gives you permission to do so or agrees with you.

Your PCEs and the golden clew inform you of the utter safety of living here in the actual world.

CLAUDIU: Also a note of interest, lately I’ve been experiencing the golden clew as an experience that the world actually is indeed a magical fairy-tale like playground, where all everyone is doing is basically moving through the world and having fun. I much prefer that over the real world!

VINEETO: And this is truly wonderful.

Cheers Vineeto

March 30, 2024

Milito’s question: I agree with you about pure intent being actually existing and forgive me if I’m not following you but this started with my curiousity surrounding the event where one second Richard could sense Vineeto existentially then the next he couldn’t. That is why the question was posed, what is it he was sensing one instant, then no longer able to sense the next?

Could it be that the abdication of the guardian was the elimination of the last vestiges of any perceivable ‘presence’ in Vineeto? If so, then the question arises: Richard cannot feel vibes. So what is the non-affective content of presence? I dunno I thought it might be the sum total of all the social mores and psittacisms

VINEETO: Here is the text of mine Milito is referring to –

Two corrections to Milito’s perception -

It was not that "one second Richard could sense Vineeto existentially then the next he couldn’t". It was that "Richard reported that in the days before ["I had lost my centre of (spacial) reference"] he was able to existentially sense me as being close, very close, right in front of his eyes, so to speak, but that after this event he has been no longer able to sense me existentially".

So the ceasing of Richard’s existential sensing of me is directly related to me having "lost my centre of (spacial) reference", i.e. I was no longer a boundary-creating centre of consciousness who could be sensed existentially. 

The second correction to Milito’s question is that this ceasing of existential sensing is *not* related to me having abdicated the guardian as I clearly stated in that email what it related to. "The abdication of the guardian" was *not* "the elimination of the last vestiges of any perceivable ‘presence’ in Vineeto". In fact, after that event of the guardian abdicating I existentially looked around, so to speak, expecting Richard to be where I was (existentially) but he was nowhere to be found. I was on my own. Hence it was clear that I had further to go to reach a full actual freedom.

I am pleased Milito’s question has crystallized this aspect of existential sensing because it has become clear that, when on certain occasions a fully free person is sensing another existentially – be they feeling beings approaching the actual world or newly free persons with a social identity, or even without a social identity as I had been in the few days after the abdication of my guardian – this sensing is always related to the *boundary-creating centre of consciousness* which that person still maintains. Once I had lost this there was nothing available for Richard to existentially sense.

I read through the exchanges you quoted and find that they don’t directly relate to Milito’s question. It would only confuse the issue.

Cheers Vineeto

April 04, 2024

VINEETO: Hi Claudiu,

PS: For clarification purposes I would like to address the rumour Milito apparently started from a verbal report (I never wrote about this on the website) which either the reporting person or Milito himself misconstrued and now has been further developed by Kuba –

Before this rumour gets even more legs and spreads any further like ‘Chinese Whispers’, here is what actually happened – and I remember recounting the event on the meeting with you, Henry, Alan, Jon and No. 45 (List D) in Café 29 –

One day whilst driving to a work appointment in Byron Bay on the main 2-lane highway I noticed I was followed by a blinking police car. Because I considered the space at the side of the road too narrow for such a busy road as it was I slowed down to perhaps 30 km/h and drove on to a nearby public car park and stopped there. The police officer commanded me to stay in the car, reached through the open window and took my car keys (as if I was going to escape!). He then proceeded to scold and berate me with great passion because I had not stopped immediately along the busy road. I explained that I had found it unsafe to stop there and then, but he was not satisfied with my explanation and started again with the same berating. When he arrived at the third repeat of his monologue with no sign of abating passion I realized I had to do something if I ever wanted to get to my work appointment. There was no thought of what to do next when suddenly I felt an uprising of a sob from the gut area and so I allowed it to continue, resulting in the eventual calming down of the police officer's mood as I had obviously demonstrated the remorse he was looking for. He then proceeded more calmly to write me a ticket and I could finally go on my way.

In hindsight I was amazed and pleased about this event as it was a practical demonstration that despite being devoid of feelings and thus possibly handicapped when dealing with feeling beings, I still have the wherewithal and the options available, if the situation requires it, to communicate a true facsimile of a feeling should it be necessary.

*

The other point I want to address is this comment –

Now, Kuba could have easily looked up the correct wording and the context for himself on the website to see if it indeed still was ‘weird’ to him and to verify for himself if that quote justifies not paying due diligence in regards to the claims of anyone declaring themselves to be actually free.

Here is the sequence which shows that nowhere Richard is ‘suggesting that what he [the respondent] is doing, in Australia is called ‘being a bit of a wanker’’.

April 05, 2024 (3.12pm EST)

VINEETO: Hi Claudiu,

[...]

The link for the postscript of my last email can be found on the website here.

CLAUDIU: To make the post-script even better – I looked it up at the time and I thought he was referring to this exchange rather than the one you referred to in your postscript: 

KONRAD: There is only confusion about a belief in the existence of such an identity. This is why I see that you are the one who is confused, not me.

RICHARD: Perhaps a few quotes from these long-time spiritual seekers might enable you to see – by seeing how others are playing with themselves – just what you yourself are doing here. Vis.:

[...]

Does all this help somewhat, Konrad, to throw some light upon the subject? In Australia, this kind of behaviour is called ‘being a wanker’.

VINEETO: It could be either this or the one I presented or a different one altogether which Kuba was referring to but Richard prefers the one I presented in the previous email because in this correspondence he explained that ‘I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label’, which is less explicit in the excerpt of his correspondence with Konrad.

Kuba can always present the quote which he is referring to and in the context it was written, so it can be discussed rationally and intelligently. But presenting a sentence out of context and make it fit his list of 'weird' utterances in order to bring into question the purity of a full actual freedom so that he can justify his faith in a very questionable claim is rather counterproductive to himself and others.