|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 21
VINEETO to No 86: For Richard it is patently obvious that there is no
‘Being’ surviving physical death because Richard’s ‘Being’ is extinguished … before physical death. As he lives this
experience of being a flesh-and-blood-body-sans-identity day and night he knows without a doubt that there is no resemblance of
any ‘Being’ whatsoever found in his physical body. Whereas for you it seems impossible to even consider this as a possibility Your circulatory correspondence on this topic seems to demonstrate that you cannot ‘move
on’ until you genuinely consider, and take on board, the fact that *all* of one’s ‘being’ is indeed
extinguished at physical death. Only then is it possible to ‘move on’ to contemplating the possibility that one’s
‘being’ can self-immolate *before* physical death. RESPONDENT: If you look at the wording of what Richard is saying through each of these sequential points, ‘In order for that which had previously been considered as unattainable before death <snip>’ Who previously considered it unattainable? VINEETO: Before I discovered actualism I had been on the spiritual path for almost 20 years and was exposed, often on a daily basis to a wide gamut of Eastern spiritual teachings. The teachings always emphasized that although enlightenment was highly desirable achievement, it was never to be the end of all suffering, which would only happen ‘when one quits the body’. Nowhere, ever, did I come across a statement that peace on earth is possible *as this flesh-and blood body in this lifetime*. When I listened to or read the teachings of the gurus and masters, they all lavishly quoted other earlier sources and spiritual traditions in order to exemplify and enhance what they themselves were teaching and at no time, ever, did I hear anyone reporting of, or leaning on, a teaching, let alone a method, which promised a peace that was total, untainted, undisturbed by ‘karma’ or by the restrictions of being ‘in the body’ as opposed to the promised ‘peace that passeth understanding’ when one’s Being became a liberated-from-the-body spirit after physical death. RESPONDENT: It is no fact to say that everyone considered it unattainable. VINEETO: In order to be able to question the fact ‘that everyone considered it unattainable’ you will need to provide at least one example of someone, anyone, who genuinely considered a total freedom from malice and sorrow attainable before death. Do you not find it telling that the many people who have come to this list claiming that what other teachers or other teachings are saying to be the same as what is on offer on the Actual freedom website have all failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of such teachers and such teachings – not a single one? To imagine something is one thing, to prove it to be a fact is quite another. RESPONDENT: Richard is not everyone, … VINEETO: Exactly. Richard being ‘not everyone’ wasn’t deterred by the fact that both Western and Eastern religious teaching considered total freedom from malice and sorrow unattainable before death – against all odds he pursued it nevertheless, and finally succeeded. RESPONDENT: … he does not know the mind of anyone except himself. All he can say factually is that he previously considered it unattainable. So given that he previously considered it unattainable, how does this relate to No 86’s question: – ‘How does that reveal that nobody had been there before?’ The short answer (which I am providing) is, it does not. VINEETO: To say that only Richard previously considered peace on earth unattainable suggests that your knowledge of Eastern religious teachings is not very comprehensive. Again, you only need to provide one example of somebody reporting being free from the human condition in toto in order to refute Richard’s statement. Let me put it this way – why can we assume with confidence that Thomas Alva Edison was indeed the first to invent the light bulb – and not some New Guinea Highlander tribesman 10,000 years before him? Isn’t it because there is neither any written nor any physical evidence of anyone using electrical light bulbs before Thomas Alva Edison invented them? Why can we assume with confidence that Yuri Gagarin was indeed the first man in space and not some Egyptian pharaoh 5000 years before him? Isn’t it because there is neither any written report of how our blue planet looks like from outer space before Yuri Gagarin came back from his trip and reported what he saw nor is there any physical evidence whatsoever of the necessary technology required for such a spaceflight ever having been available before on any continent in any culture? As for Richard – did you ever wonder whether anyone could become free from the human condition in toto, let alone some imaginary person thousands of years ago, before you came to this mailing list? Or more to the point, have you ever considered the possibility that one can actually change human nature before you read it on the Actual Freedom Trust website? RESPONDENT: For me, as a practicing actualist, … VINEETO: When I came across actualism and had to sort out for myself if Richard was indeed the first to be totally free from the human condition, I did not waste my time with theoretical or logical argumentation – I figured that after 20 fruitless years on the spiritual path I did not have the luxury to waste even more time. Instead I asked myself some pragmatic down-to-earth questions –
At this point it was clear that I needed experiential proof because no other proof would be able to silence my doubt permanently. My relentless questioning of my then beliefs and convictions eventually resulted in a rip of the fabric of my beliefs and the PCE that ensued tore apart, for a substantial period of time, the all-encompassing web of ‘my’ beliefs and revealed the pure and pristine actuality that has always been here … and then there was no doubt whatsoever that the actuality I experienced was not of ‘my’ making but was always here, experienceable whenever ‘I’ was absent. In other words, the world I experienced in a PCE was indeed actual, factual and objective. When this PCE occurred I was so stunned, so utterly flabbergasted by the novelty and freshness of the experience, that I never ever again had any doubts that an actual freedom is indeed entirely new to human experience and has nothing at all to do with spiritual enlightenment. When all is said and done you can proffer intellectual/ philosophical arguments pro or against until the cows come home – in the end, as a practicing actualist, it is only experiential evidence that will give you certainty and confidence to proceed. RESPONDENT: [For me, as a practicing actualist,] I have to wonder if Richard is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? VINEETO: I remember in the early days of actualism I had many feelings of doubt, not so much that Richard was wrong but doubts if I myself would be able to become free from my social conditioning, let alone from the human condition. After endlessly circling around the same issue for days with feelings ranging from doubt to fear to depression back to doubt to fear to depression I finally had enough of it and saw that indulging in and being hobbled by those feelings didn’t lead me anywhere. As a practicing actualist I eventually understood that doubt is a feeling, *my* feeling, and that as long as I allow myself to be ruled by my feelings, clear thinking hasn’t got a chance to get in edgeways and when thinking is muddied by feelings any sensible evaluation is impossible. RESPONDENT: The end result is that it discourages faith in any cosmology whilst on the path to an actual freedom. VINEETO: Just as well. Faith can only ever be a hindrance on the path to an actual freedom. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
