|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 107
VINEETO: The idea that one should be ‘cool’ about things, stifle one’s desires and strive to be mentally and emotionally removed from life in all circumstances is something that spiritual teachers have been preaching since Buddha’s time – in fact, it is the basic premise of Buddhism that desire is the sole cause of human suffering and that ‘in order to stop disappointment and suffering one must stop desiring’. RESPONDENT: Some Buddhists might answer that ignorance is the root cause of human suffering. VINEETO: Yes and what they mean by ‘ignorance’ is ignorance of Buddha’s teachings and ignorance of your true ‘Self’, the realization of which is promised to be the result of following Buddha’s teachings. RESPONDENT: PS: I recently read and was inspired by your Journal. Thank you. VINEETO: You are welcome.
VINEETO: The idea that one should be ‘cool’ about things, stifle one’s desires and strive to be mentally and emotionally removed from life in all circumstances is something that spiritual teachers have been preaching since Buddha’s time – in fact, it is the basic premise of Buddhism that desire is the sole cause of human suffering and that ‘in order to stop disappointment and suffering one must stop desiring’. RESPONDENT: Some Buddhists might answer that ignorance is the root cause of human suffering. VINEETO: Yes and what they mean by ‘ignorance’ is ignorance of Buddha’s teachings and ignorance of your true ‘Self’, the realization of which is promised to be the result of following Buddha’s teachings. RESPONDENT: Yes, some Buddhists might mean that, but others might mean the ignorance of one’s (human) condition and though there are many traditions and various teachings within Buddhism, one core teaching is anatta (no-self), which I understand as ‘no ego/soul’. That said, I am more interested in learning and discussing AF with responsive persons sharing their personal insights and understanding, then explaining Buddhism (for which I am not an appropriate person). VINEETO: If that is so, why then do you report what some Buddhists ‘might answer’ or what other Buddhists ‘might mean’? What’s the point of throwing some unspecified people’s beliefs into the conversation if you are neither standing behind these beliefs yourself nor have any interest in a sincere and fruitful discussion about them? RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can respond to some of the questions I’ve posed to Richard. From my post to Richard, August 8th: This first question may be merely stylistic: You use the term ‘blind nature’ repeatedly, but isn’t ‘blind nature’ the (unadorned) functioning of the universe? What does the adjective ‘blind’ add? VINEETO: A very similar question has been recently asked by another
correspondent and answered by Richard at the following link – RESPONDENT: You write that ‘there is nothing other than this actual, physical universe’. If that is the case, and I’m not arguing otherwise, then what does the word ‘physical’ mean? The actual universe is the world we experience. We do not know its ultimate nature. VINEETO: Please exclude me from your ‘we do not know’. A pure consciousness experience easily reveals the universe’s ‘ultimate nature’ because when the ‘self’ in toto is absent, then the purity, splendour and perfection of this material physical universe is readily apparent as its ultimate nature. For a more precise understanding of what actualists mean when they talk about this
actual physical universe I recommend RESPONDENT: ... and Finally, you write of changing the brain’s programming. Use the nervous system to change the nervous system? How could I know such an event occurred? VINEETO: The human brain is not only capable of being aware of its functioning,
it is also capable of being aware of being aware, aka apperception. In this regard you might find the answers to RESPONDENT: ... and from my post to Richard on August 11th: You describe Actual Freedom as ‘a third alternative viewpoint to materialism and spiritualism’. I understand how Actual Freedom is not spiritualism, but how is it not materialism? VINEETO: Ha, most people have difficulty understanding how actualism is not the
same as spiritualism. The short reply to your question is that actualism is the direct experiencing that matter is not merely
passive, the experience of which is entirely absent and in fact unknown to materialism, hence the dichotomy of
materialism/spiritualism. You will find more detailed explanations RESPONDENT: On review, there does seem to be a few questions. If you’re willing to answer, perhaps one topic per post might be best. VINEETO: So far they fitted all very well into one post.
VINEETO: The idea that one should be ‘cool’ about things, stifle one’s desires and strive to be mentally and emotionally removed from life in all circumstances is something that spiritual teachers have been preaching since Buddha’s time – in fact, it is the basic premise of Buddhism that desire is the sole cause of human suffering and that ‘in order to stop disappointment and suffering one must stop desiring’. RESPONDENT: Some Buddhists might answer that ignorance is the root cause of human suffering. VINEETO: Yes and what they mean by ‘ignorance’ is ignorance of Buddha’s teachings and ignorance of your true ‘Self’, the realization of which is promised to be the result of following Buddha’s teachings. RESPONDENT: Yes, some Buddhists might mean that, but others might mean the ignorance of one’s (human) condition and though there are many traditions and various teachings within Buddhism, one core teaching is anatta (no-self), which I understand as ‘no ego/soul’. That said, I am more interested in learning and discussing AF with responsive persons sharing their personal insights and understanding, then explaining Buddhism (for which I am not an appropriate person). VINEETO: If that is so, why then do you report what some Buddhists ‘might answer’ or what other Buddhists ‘might mean’? What’s the point of throwing some unspecified people’s beliefs into the conversation if you are neither standing behind these beliefs yourself nor have any interest in a sincere and fruitful discussion about them? RESPONDENT: As I stated, Buddhism has many traditions and various teachings, so that there Buddhists who hold different points of view and that is why I reported that some Buddhists would answer one way and other Buddhists another way. I am not a Buddhist scholar and do not belong to any Buddhist organization (or any other religious organization). I ‘stand behind’ my own beliefs, but acknowledge that I have been influenced by Buddhist texts. The ‘point’ was to open a dialogue, not about Buddhism (I did not come to this list to learn or argue about Buddhism.), but about AF. In this I succeeded. VINEETO: Are you saying you were throwing some unspecified people’s beliefs into the conversation in order to ‘open a dialogue, not about Buddhism but about AF’? if so then is this not a rather roundabout way of going about? * RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can respond to some of the questions I’ve posed to Richard. From my post to Richard, August 8th: This first question may be merely stylistic: You use the term ‘blind nature’ repeatedly, but isn’t ‘blind nature’ the (unadorned) functioning of the universe? What does the adjective ‘blind’ add? VINEETO: A very similar question has been recently asked by another
correspondent and answered by Richard at the following link – RESPONDENT: Richard writes, ‘There is no line or divide (be it thin, arbitrary, artificial, or otherwise) between blind nature’s very essential survival package and the universe,’ so I understand this as answering my initial question in the affirmative. Please correct me, if you think I have misunderstood. VINEETO: No, because there is more, much more, to the ‘(unadorned) functioning of the universe’ than blind nature’s rough and ready survival package. * RESPONDENT: You write that ‘there is nothing other than this actual, physical universe’. If that is the case, and I’m not arguing otherwise, then what does the word ‘physical’ mean? The actual universe is the world we experience. We do not know its ultimate nature. VINEETO: Please exclude me from your ‘we do not know’. A pure consciousness experience easily reveals the universe’s ‘ultimate nature’ because when the ‘self’ in toto is absent, then the purity, splendour and perfection of this material physical universe is readily apparent as its ultimate nature. For a more precise understanding of what actualists mean when they talk about this
actual physical universe I recommend RESPONDENT: Richard writes, ‘We are made of the same stuff as the universe’. I agree, but that doesn’t address what the ‘stuff’ is. VINEETO: Elements and compounds. RESPONDENT: You also use the terms ‘material’ and ‘physical’, but what do those terms mean to you? VINEETO: In the context of this universe –
* RESPONDENT: ... and Finally, you write of changing the brain’s programming. Use the nervous system to change the nervous system? How could I know such an event occurred? VINEETO: The human brain is not only capable of being aware of its functioning,
it is also capable of being aware of being aware, aka apperception. In this regard you might find the answers to RESPONDENT: I went to the referenced site, but the issues discussed were regarding the ‘I’ and ‘me’ (ego, self and identity) and not about how one would know that one’s nervous system has actually changed. Can you explain? VINEETO: The way one knows that one’s nervous system has actually changed is by apperception – the ability of the brain of being aware of its own awareness. * RESPONDENT: ... and from my post to Richard on August 11th: You describe Actual Freedom as ‘a third alternative viewpoint to materialism and spiritualism’. I understand how Actual Freedom is not spiritualism, but how is it not materialism? VINEETO: Ha, most people have difficulty understanding how actualism is not the
same as spiritualism. The short reply to your question is that actualism is the direct experiencing that matter is not merely
passive, the experience of which is entirely absent and in fact unknown to materialism, hence the dichotomy of
materialism/spiritualism. You will find more detailed explanations RESPONDENT: Richard writes, ‘and, unlike a materialist, [actualism] does not believe that nature and/or life is a random, futile event in an empty, aimless, universe,’ but the definition of ‘materialism’ offered by Richard (freedom.com.au/richard/abditorium/actualismmaterialismspiritualism.htm#1) is, ‘the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications and that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies: materialist (noun): an adherent of materialism: materialistic (adjective): pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism.’ The definition does not explicitly state or imply that ‘nature and/or life is a random, futile event in an empty, aimless, universe.’ So how is actualism different from materialism? VINEETO: Actualism is the direct experiencing that matter is not merely passive, the experience of which is entirely absent and in fact unknown to materialism. RESPONDENT: And, related to that, Richard writes, ‘the direct experience that matter is not merely passive’. What does it mean that ‘matter is not merely passive’? In what way(s), is matter not passive? VINEETO: You’ll find it explicitly answered under the
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can respond to some of the questions I’ve posed to Richard. From my post to Richard, August 8th: This first question may be merely stylistic: You use the term ‘blind nature’ repeatedly, but isn’t ‘blind nature’ the (unadorned) functioning of the universe? What does the adjective ‘blind’ add? VINEETO: A very similar question has been recently asked by another
correspondent and answered by Richard at the following link – RESPONDENT: Richard writes, ‘There is no line or divide (be it thin, arbitrary, artificial, or otherwise) between blind nature’s very essential survival package and the universe,’ so I understand this as answering my initial question in the affirmative. Please correct me, if you think I have misunderstood. VINEETO: No, because there is more, much more, to the ‘(unadorned) functioning of the universe’ than blind nature’s rough and ready survival package. RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more, much more’ that is the functioning of the universe and not ‘blind nature’? But how do you define ‘matter’ and what is the ultimate nature of matter? Or is ‘matter’ simply the name you give to the ‘stuff’ of the universe? (I suspect that others give different names to the ‘stuff’.) And how is ‘matter’ other than what you experience? A materialist would argue that all there is, is the direct experience of matter. So, I see no difference. VINEETO: There would be no point in giving you any more answers for your philosophical questions as you regard anything I say as a belief only anyway –
There would also be no point in stating that my information is derived from direct experience obtained in PCEs as you have already dismissed any validity of direct experience in another recent post –
If you are still wondering about the difference between materialism and actualism you may reflect on why you are coming to this an actual freedom mailing list for answers if ‘the direct experience of matter’ in materialism had delivered the answers to the riddle of the meaning of life. But then, maybe you only came to discuss philosophy, not the possibility to actually change yourself.
RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more, much more’ that is the functioning of the universe and not ‘blind nature’? But how do you define ‘matter’ and what is the ultimate nature of matter? Or is ‘matter’ simply the name you give to the ‘stuff’ of the universe? (I suspect that others give different names to the ‘stuff’.) And how is ‘matter’ other than what you experience? A materialist would argue that all there is, is the direct experience of matter. So, I see no difference. VINEETO: There would be no point in giving you any more answers for your philosophical questions as you regard anything I say as a belief only anyway –
RESPONDENT: No, that is not the case. You can and have written about your personal experiences and your understanding based on those experiences. VINEETO: Oh, and in what way do you determine, with the assertiveness you expressed twice and the third time as a loaded question, that the above insights are not my ‘understanding based on those experiences’? RESPONDENT: But when you state that you still have a ‘self’ and write, as you have below, about what one experiences without a ‘self’, then that is a belief and is not based on your direct experience. VINEETO: Did I not write about my experience without a ‘self’ in the ‘Bit of Vineeto’ that you recently quoted and commented on? How does my report about what I learnt from those ‘self’-less experiences suddenly turn into a belief ‘not based on your direct experience’ and what makes you so sure that you know what and what not is based on my direct experience? * VINEETO: There would also be no point in stating that my information is derived from direct experience obtained in PCEs as you have already dismissed any validity of direct experience in another recent post –
RESPONDENT: No, I did not deny information derived from direct experience. VINEETO: I said that you dismissed, not denied, any validity of direct experience. And you did dismiss the validity of Richard’s experience by assuming that ‘he has admitted that he doesn’t know if his experience is typical for AF’ which is an absurd misrepresentation of Richard’s report of his ongoing experience. RESPONDENT: My point to No 60 was that he was reporting on another’s experience, not his direct experience. VINEETO: How do you expect to ‘learn about AF’ – the acronym for an actual freedom from the human condition – as you assert below, if not by discussing and contemplating what the only person actually free has to report? * VINEETO: If you are still wondering about the difference between materialism and actualism you may reflect on why you are coming to this an actual freedom mailing list for answers if ‘the direct experience of matter’ in materialism had delivered the answers to the riddle of the meaning of life. But then, maybe you only came to discuss philosophy, not the possibility to actually change yourself. RESPONDENT: I have stated my purpose in an earlier post: to learn about AF. VINEETO: Philosophically or practically?
RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more, much more’ that is the functioning of the universe and not ‘blind nature’? But how do you define ‘matter’ and what is the ultimate nature of matter? Or is ‘matter’ simply the name you give to the ‘stuff’ of the universe? (I suspect that others give different names to the ‘stuff’.) And how is ‘matter’ other than what you experience? A materialist would argue that all there is, is the direct experience of matter. So, I see no difference. VINEETO: There would be no point in giving you any more answers for your philosophical questions as you regard anything I say as a belief only anyway –
RESPONDENT: No, that is not the case. You can and have written about your personal experiences and your understanding based on those experiences. VINEETO: Oh, and in what way do you determine, with the assertiveness you expressed twice and the third time as a loaded question, that the above insights are not my ‘understanding based on those experiences’? RESPONDENT: I based my statements on your statements that you have a self and are not enlightened. If I am mistaken, you have the opportunity to correct me. VINEETO: The fact that a PCE is a only temporary, not a permanent ‘self’-less experience doesn’t invalidate the insights one gains from being temporarily ‘self’-less, or does it. If you can see that, can you also see that the insights gathered from a ‘self’-less experience are not beliefs? * RESPONDENT: But when you state that you still have a ‘self’ and write, as you have below, about what one experiences without a ‘self’, then that is a belief and is not based on your direct experience. VINEETO: Did I not write about my experience without a ‘self’ in the ‘Bit of Vineeto’ that you recently quoted and commented on? How does my report about what I learnt from those ‘self’-less experiences suddenly turn into a belief ‘not based on your direct experience’ and what makes you so sure that you know what and what not is based on my direct experience? RESPONDENT: Does your self come and go? VINEETO: Yes. RESPONDENT: Do you kill your self and it returns, as if reincarnated? VINEETO: Does this description of a PCE read as if the ‘self’ had been killed and reincarnated or is it rather something you made up for the sake of an argument?
Of course when the PCE subsides, the ‘self’ returns. What remains, however is the memory of the experience and of the insights gained from the experience. RESPONDENT: But you are correct that I do not and cannot know what you experience except as you report it and as I understand your report. VINEETO: Ok, so your two categorical statements that ‘your statement is a belief you hold’ are more likely two questions then and your third comment which is a loaded question is instead meant to be a genuine one? * VINEETO: There would also be no point in stating that my information is derived from direct experience obtained in PCEs as you have already dismissed any validity of direct experience in another recent post –
RESPONDENT: No, I did not deny information derived from direct experience. VINEETO: I said that you *dismissed*, not denied, any validity of direct experience. And you did dismiss the validity of Richard’s experience by assuming that ‘he has admitted that he doesn’t know if his experience is typical for AF’ which is an absurd misrepresentation of Richard’s report of his experience. RESPONDENT: Yes, you wrote ‘dismissed’ and I wrote ‘deny’. No, I did not dismiss Richard’s experiences; they are his experiences. I noted that Richard’s experiences may not be typical. VINEETO: To me your statement rather reads it as if it was a fact for you – ‘he has admitted that…’. RESPONDENT: He admitted that he did not know if his experiences with sleep and dreams were typical of AF. I believe that is true for all Richard’s experiences, but he may disagree. VINEETO: So from Richard’s statement that his experiences with sleep and dreams are possibly idiosyncratic (which is still to be determined when a second person becomes actually free) you automatically assumed that the quality of how Richard experiences life 24hrs a day is just that – merely idiosyncratic to the specific body of Richard and has nothing to do with the fact that his ‘self’ in toto has become extinct? RESPONDENT: Does Richard assert that his experiences in AF are the rule for all other persons for all time in AF? VINEETO: If you read anything from Richard’s writing on the Actual Freedom Trust website you can easily determine that for yourself. * RESPONDENT: My point to No 60 was that he was reporting on another’s experience, not his direct experience. VINEETO: How do you expect to learn about AF – the acronym for an actual freedom from the human condition – as you assert below, if not by discussing and contemplating what the only person actually free has to report? RESPONDENT: I have no expectation of ‘how’, … VINEETO: Of course you do – you just informed No 60 ‘how’ you do not want to discuss Richard’s experience with No 60. RESPONDENT: … and of course we can discuss our respective understandings of Richard’s reports, … VINEETO: You are dodging the question. I don’t need to discuss my understanding of Richard’s reports as I have already understood what he has to say and am putting it into practice in my daily life. The question is how *you* want to learn anything about an actual freedom from the human condition when you disregard anything Richard has to report merely because someone other than Richard informs you about Richard’s report about an actual freedom. RESPONDENT: … but I would rather discuss with you your experiences and understandings regarding your experiences. VINEETO: So far you have done nothing but invalidate my understandings regarding my experiences as mere beliefs. * VINEETO: If you are still wondering about the difference between materialism and actualism you may reflect on why you are coming to this an actual freedom mailing list for answers if ‘the direct experience of matter’ in materialism had delivered the answers to the riddle of the meaning of life. But then, maybe you only came to discuss philosophy, not the possibility to actually change yourself. RESPONDENT: I have stated my purpose in an earlier post: to learn about AF. VINEETO: Philosophically or practically? RESPONDENT: Personally. VINEETO: To explain what I mean by philosophically –
Philosophically there could be the conclusion that materialism and Buddhism are equivalent and/or interchangeable. And this is what I mean by practically –
Again: Do you want to learn about an actual freedom philosophically or practically?
RESPONDENT: But when you state that you still have a ‘self’ and write, as you have below, about what one experiences without a ‘self’, then that is a belief and is not based on your direct experience. VINEETO: Did I not write about my experience without a ‘self’ in the ‘Bit of Vineeto’ that you recently quoted and commented on? How does my report about what I learnt from those ‘self’-less experiences suddenly turn into a belief ‘not based on your direct experience’ and what makes you so sure that you know what and what not is based on my direct experience? RESPONDENT: Does your self come and go? VINEETO: Yes. RESPONDENT: Why did your self return? And if your self comes and goes, how do you know that Richard’s self won’t return? VINEETO: Don’t you know the difference between a temporary abeyance of the ‘self’ and a permanent extinction of the ‘self’? * VINEETO: So from Richard’s statement that his experiences with sleep and dreams are possibly idiosyncratic (which is still to be determined when a second person becomes actually free) you automatically assumed that the quality of how Richard experiences life 24hrs a day is just that – merely idiosyncratic to the specific body of Richard and has nothing to do with the fact that his ‘self’ in toto has become extinct? RESPONDENT: OK, is it possible, just as Richard admitted that he did not know if his experiences in sleep and dreams were typical of AF and did not assert that his personal experiences in sleep and dreams are the rule in AF, that other of Richard’s experiences in AF are personal and not ‘the rule’? VINEETO: A PCE, which everybody to whom Richard has spoken at length has been able to remember having had in their lives, easily confirms that the actual world as described by Richard exists as a fact and is neither ‘personal’ nor idiosyncratic. RESPONDENT: Is it possible that Richard has mistaken Richardism for Actualism? VINEETO: There is no such thing as ‘Richardism’. * RESPONDENT: Does Richard assert that his experiences in AF are the rule for all other persons for all time in AF? VINEETO: If you read anything from Richard’s writing on the Actual Freedom Trust website you can easily determine that for yourself. RESPONDENT: I have (and continue to) read sections of the Actual Freedom Trust website, but it is huge; so, if you know the answer, perhaps you will share it. VINEETO: A PCE, which everybody to whom Richard has spoken at length has been able to remember having had in their lives, easily confirms that the actual world as described by Richard exists as a fact and is neither ‘personal’ nor idiosyncratic. * RESPONDENT: My point to No 60 was that he was reporting on another’s experience, not his direct experience. VINEETO: How do you expect to learn about AF – the acronym for an actual freedom from the human condition – as you assert below, if not by discussing and contemplating what the only person actually free has to report? RESPONDENT: I have no expectation of ‘how’, … VINEETO: Of course you do – you just informed No 60 ‘how’ you do not want to discuss Richard’s experience with No 60. RESPONDENT: … and of course we can discuss our respective understandings of Richard’s reports … VINEETO: You are dodging the question. I don’t need to discuss my understanding of Richard’s reports as I have already understood what he has to say and am putting it into practice in my daily life. The question is how *you* want to learn anything about an actual freedom from the human condition when you disregard anything Richard has to report merely because someone other than Richard informs you about Richard’s report about an actual freedom. RESPONDENT: …, but I would rather discuss with you your experiences and understandings regarding your experiences. VINEETO: So far you have done nothing but invalidate my understandings regarding my experiences as mere beliefs. RESPONDENT: If you wish I can stop asking you questions and sharing my understandings or you can ignore them. VINEETO: Nowhere did I say that you should stop asking questions. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to me to answer your questions when all you do with my understandings regarding my experiences is invalidate them as mere beliefs. Vis –
Can you raise the bar a bit?
RESPONDENT: You wrote, ‘When there is no ‘self’, there are no beliefs, only actuality.’ I think that was well said, but I would simplify it, When there are no beliefs, there is only actuality.’ VINEETO: Why would you say that? Is this your experience?
RESPONDENT: Does your self come and go? VINEETO: Yes. RESPONDENT: Why did your self return? And if your self comes and goes, how do you know that Richard’s self won’t return? VINEETO: Don’t you know the difference between a temporary abeyance of the ‘self’ and a permanent extinction of the ‘self’? RESPONDENT: You did not answer either of my questions. VINEETO: Apparently you don’t know the difference between a temporary abeyance of the ‘self’ and a permanent extinction of the ‘self’ otherwise that would have answered your question. My ‘self’ returns after a PCE because the ‘self’s’ abeyance is by nature temporary and in order to become free from ‘self’ ‘I’ have a job to. Your second question is answered in my latest post to No 100. * RESPONDENT: If you wish I can stop asking you questions and sharing my understandings or you can ignore them. VINEETO: Nowhere did I say that you should stop asking questions. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to me to answer your questions when all you do with it is invalidating my understandings regarding my experiences as mere beliefs. Vis – [snipped examples] Can you raise the bar a bit? RESPONDENT: First, I was wrong, at least in so far as the first instance (When there is no ‘self’, there are no beliefs, only actuality.) where I assert you are stating a belief. As I have subsequently come to understand, you have periods on ‘no self’, so your statement is based on your experiences during such periods. I stand corrected. VINEETO: Ok. It would save a lot of to and fro if you could take the time, muster the interest and try to remember a pure consciousness experience yourself – then you don’t have to take anybody’s word for it, then you will know experientially what it is like when the ‘self’ is temporarily gone. After all, actualism is experiential, not philosophical. RESPONDENT: The second statement (It is ‘ultimate’ as in ‘that’s it, full stop, no ‘self’-centred comment’ – in other words no ‘self’ interferes with ‘my’ judgements, beliefs, opinions, interpretations, imagination and emotions about what it is that these eyes, ears, this skin, nose, mouth perceive.) may also be based on your ‘no self’ periods, but upon examination the statement seems odd to me for this reason: I understand you as stating that when you are in a period of ‘no self’, there is no ‘self’ that ‘interferes with ‘my’ judgements, beliefs, opinions, interpretations, imagination and emotions about what it is that these eyes, ears, this skin, nose, mouth perceive’, implying that ‘judgements, beliefs, opinions, interpretations, imagination and emotions’ continue during that ‘no self’ period. VINEETO: Yes, Peter pointed out this error in description to me when my post came into our mailbox. It should read –
RESPONDENT: The third statement (When the change happens one knows – even enlightened people know the exact moment when they have become irrevocably deluded whilst self-realized people talk about it being an ongoing process and many even say that there is no such thing as enlightenment.) still seems to me to be a belief, unless, as I asked, you are enlightened; otherwise you are relying on reports. There’s nothing wrong with that, we all do it, but it is not direct experience. VINEETO: Quite a number of the posts written on this mailing list in the last two weeks had a statement of mine as their central topic – ‘I got news for you – I am not enlightened and only enlightened being are without ego’ – so either your question is a set-up or you don’t read anything written to this mailing list. When I said, ‘even enlightened people know’, of course I rely on reports of genuine enlightened people. However, your classification that relying on other’s reports is always a belief is bogus as one can very well establish facts from other people’s reports. For instance, do you have to believe the astronauts when they report that the moon is not made from green cheese or are you able to compare their reports, the images they bring back and the correlating scientific data about the substances they brought back with them in order to establish it as a fact that the moon is not made of green cheese? This whole postulate that only one’s personal experiences are (f)actual while everything else is supposedly a belief is not only puerile, it is also the very postulate that stands at the beginning of the slippery slope to solipsism. RESPONDENT: All that said, I hope I have not questioned your experience, but that we were engaged in examining and sharing our respective understandings of our experiences. I apologize and will cease ‘invalidating your understandings’. Be well. VINEETO: I have no interest in ‘examining our respective understandings of our experiences’ as that is a job each person has to do on their own. With the method of actualism I have not only investigated all that I used to hold as true, sacred, good, bad and so on, I also, and specially so, investigated my affective experiences as and when they happened in order to diminish and disempower the ‘self’ as much as possible. For this process the only personal experience useful as a source for reliable information is the PCE. To say it again for emphasis (the paragraph that stood at the beginning of so much furore in the last few weeks) –
RESPONDENT: You wrote, ‘When there is no ‘self’, there are no beliefs, only actuality.’ I think that was well said, but I would simplify it, ‘When there are no beliefs, there is only actuality.’ VINEETO: Why would you say that? Is this your experience? RESPONDENT: It is an expression of my understanding of my experiences. VINEETO: As you have recently equated the actual world with the buddhistic essential nature (aka the original state) and further said that ‘the world, the ‘actual’ world, is perfect and pure and because it’s perfect and pure I call it ‘divine and sacred’’ (Re: Familiar?, 30.8.2006) I do wonder if you and I are talking about the same actuality. You also said that – In this way, ‘PCE’ is always available, in fact occurring now, and is experienced when we cease believing in concepts and/or free our attention from them. (Re: Not ASC or PCE, 26.8.2006) It appears that you take the words actualists use, put your own spin on it and feed them back as your own understanding. It would be best, for clarity of communication, if you could give a detailed description of how you experience ‘actuality’ as used in your statement ‘When there are no beliefs, there is only actuality’.
RESPONDENT: You wrote, ‘When there is no ‘self’, there are no beliefs, only actuality.’ I think that was well said, but I would simplify it, ‘When there are no beliefs, there is only actuality.’ It is an expression of my understanding of my experiences. VINEETO: As you have recently equated the actual world with the buddhistic essential nature (aka the original state) and further said that ‘the world, the ‘actual’ world, is perfect and pure and because it’s perfect and pure I call it ‘divine and sacred’’ (Re: Familiar?, 30.8.2006) I do wonder if you and I are talking about the same actuality. You also said that – In this way, ‘PCE’ is always available, in fact occurring now, and is experienced when we cease believing in concepts and/or free our attention from them. It appears that you take the words actualists use, put your own spin on it and feed them back as your own understanding. It would be best, for clarity of communication if you could give a detailed description of how you experience ‘actuality’ as used in your statement ‘When there are no beliefs, there is only actuality’. RESPONDENT: If you agree that the ‘actual’ world is perfect and pure, then perhaps you will allow me to call it ‘divine and sacred’ where I mean no more than ‘perfect and pure’. If you do not agree that the ‘actual’ world is perfect and pure, then that is a different issue. Regarding the ‘actual’ world, there is only one. Regarding the availability of ‘PCE’, if you agree that the ‘actual’ body/brain is present and the ‘actual’ world is present, then it follows that ‘PCE’ (the experience of the body/brain of the ‘actual’ world) is available. Further, the body/brain which is present can only experience the ‘actual’ world and a body/brain that is awake is experiencing the ‘actual’ world. Of course I can only use words as I understand them and in the interest of communication I use Actualist terms as I understand their intended use; I am not ‘playing’ with words or with you. VINEETO: You might as well call a washing machine a temple and a loaf of bread God’s lollipop but it makes a nonsense out of any sensible conversation. I have better things to do than guessing my way through the ill-informed way you ‘use Actualist terms as [you] understand their intended use’ – if you cannot grasp the first three words on the Actual Freedom website – A New, Non-Spiritual, Down-to-Earth Freedom – then any conversation about actualism is nothing but a farce. And a farcical discussion is the last thing I want. PS.: The statement ‘when there is no ‘self’, there are no beliefs, only actuality’ cannot be replaced by your ‘when there are no beliefs, there is only actuality’ because there is much more to ‘self’ than beliefs, much, much more. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
