|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 23
VINEETO: Hi, Or if one tries to induce a PCE as a deliberate repeat of a serendipitous event, ‘I’ want to remain on the stage in order to posses the experience as ‘my’ own. RESPONDENT No 60: This is true I guess, but what it felt like was not exactly a conscious desire to possess it as my own (though I do see the potential for that happening), but rather a desire to play around with it aesthetically, like a kid with a kaleidoscope. I suppose one can desire to ‘possess’ something for two different motives, either as a way of empowering and glorifying one’s ego, or as a way of entertaining oneself. I think the latter is probably what made this PCE into an ASC. (But I can accept that the self is very cunning indeed). VINEETO: ‘A way of entertaining oneself’ implies that being here is experienced as
needing some more entertainment, … RESPONDENT No 60: No, not exactly ‘needing’ entertainment, rather delighting in possibilities that were not there before. RESPONDENT: Good point, I see entertainment is lightly interpreted in negative connotation; i.e. ‘merely’ entertainment. Perhaps, Vineeto it would have been more accurate to say [‘A way of entertaining oneself’ could imply that being here (incidentally on a particular time <i.e. 6.46 ‘o clock> at a particular location) is experienced as ‘needing’ some more entertainment] Also incidentally that’s just to head off any accusations of speaking in a too fundamental tone. VINEETO: If you reread the thread of my conversation with No 60 then you will see that my comment about ‘needing entertainment’ was made in regards to a comparison between a PCE and an ASC. In a pure consciousness experience there is neither the desire nor the necessity to improve the existing perfection with any kind of entertainment. If making such a clear distinction between a ‘self’-less experience and an altered state is considered ‘fundamental’ by you then as a self-appointed moderator I suggest to read the Welcome Message again because this mailing list is set up –
As you might recall from previous discussions, an altered state of consciousness is not something that is conducive to becoming actually free from the human condition. * VINEETO: … which is an assessment that ‘I’ make because there is no role for ‘me’ to play in the stunning clarity and sensuous delight of being right here in this moment in time. RESPONDENT: As to [because there is no role for ‘me’ to play <snip> in this moment in time.] I notice when I read this ‘me’ that I find myself not able to experience that ‘me’ as self referent, hence I must conclude that the alleged ‘me’ is meant to refer to the hmm… fleshbloodbody Vineeto. VINEETO: Could it really be in all your years of participating on this list that it has escaped your attention that I follow the sensible convention of putting the identity pronoun (‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ and so on) in little quotes when I refer to the identity inside this body so as to avoid confusion? In long form the sentence would read as follows –
RESPONDENT: I wonder did you write this in a PCE? VINEETO: There is no need to be in a PCE to report that ‘I’ as an identity have no role to play in the stunning clarity and sensuous delight of being right here in this moment in time – it is a clear recognition of fact that I gained from numerous PCEs and something I will never be able to ever forget. * VINEETO: The more I paid attention to how I experience this moment of being alive the more I began to learn about how cunning ‘I’ am, how many ways and reasons ‘I’ invent and present in order for ‘me’ to stay in existence. RESPONDENT: Indeed as mentioned cunningly making the inference and hence become the claimer of a particular stream of thinking. VINEETO: Which ‘inference’ and which ‘claimer’ of which ‘particular stream of thinking’? If you want me to make sense of your comment you will need to be more explicit. * VINEETO: Often it would take me days to discover that I had once again fallen for ‘my’ tricks, that I had believed ‘my’ reasoning as to why ‘I’ needed to run the show. RESPONDENT: As to [had once again fallen for ‘my’ tricks] I’d be most interested to hear a more detailed report of these tricks. VINEETO: You will find many descriptions of how I dismantled ‘my’ tricks in Another possibility is to begin to experientially discover the tricks of your own cunning identity by applying the method of actualism because identities are remarkably similar in cunningness when it comes to ‘self’-survival. * VINEETO: The question as to whether an actual freedom from the human condition ‘is actually possible for all people’ can only be answered on an individual basis because to achieve this freedom requires that an individual makes it the most important thing in his or her own life. Thus far I have met or have corresponded with very few people who are interested in doing so. If, however, you want empirical proof that an actual freedom does not require ‘a biological configuration unique to Richard’ then you will have to wait until a second, or third, person becomes actually free from the human condition. Personally, I didn’t want to waste my time waiting for that, I’ll rather be part of the proof. RESPONDENT: Well, it is said that the ‘proof’ is in the pudding to wit… can we have the pudding and eat it too? Incidentally while writing this I see indeed a (albeit not to clear) pink pudding in my minds eye. VINEETO: The proof of the pudding so far is that I live in a virtual freedom of malice and sorrow in complete harmony with my fellow human beings. Another remarkable aspect is that on the path to becoming actually free, you can have virtual freedom (the pudding) and enjoy (eat) it too. The pink could be due to imaginary artificial food-colouring. * VINEETO: By the way, I think this is the very reason that human beings have invented a God by whatever name who then plays the role of someone who not only comprehends everything – is omniscient – but who is also capable of controlling it all – is omnipotent. RESPONDENT: Nevertheless that invention seems to me quite an accomplishment for a primitive brain. In an earlier post I mentioned that I find this ‘invention’ quite puzzling; i.e. someone must have got that notion of the need to explain ‘being’ by projecting an agency as creator/ cause for the first time. VINEETO: The reason why I said that human beings invented a God by whatever name who then plays the role of someone who is omniscient and omnipotent is because this almost universally upheld belief fulfils a fundamental need common to all human beings inflicted with the instinctual survival passions – the need to believe that someone, or something is in control of this vast universe. To be a human being in the grip of one’s instinctual passions is often a frightening if not terrifying experience. RESPONDENT: So… Contrary to what is, as I understand mostly taken for granted, I do not think that the early god-belief (as a creator) is merely based on the superstitious nature of human-animal life. VINEETO: Early humans did not believe in one God, they worshipped many gods – their Gods were ‘spirits’, personifications of nature phenomena. The inhabitants of the Greek/Roman heaven or the old Egyptian Gods are a good example. Most primitive tribes I have heard of have mythical tales of creation, sometimes the marriage of Sun and Moon or the Thunder God mating with the Earth Goddess or the Fertility Goddess giving birth all by herself or some other fairy tale. Out of this conglomerate of spirits emerged a hierarchy in the Heavens and in some cultures one God won the battle and became the only God for a particular area. RESPONDENT: Iow. the primary god-belief may well have been based on awe rather than that it is being based on fear. VINEETO: The word ‘awe’ is generally used to express an overwhelming feeling and when you look at the dictionary definition, there is not much difference between awe and fear.
When you then take a closer look at religious scriptures of various old cultures such as the Old Testament or the Hindu Scriptures, you will find many references of ‘reverential fear’ towards their God backed up by tales of terror and dread if one fails to do so. * RESPONDENT No 60: Absolutely, a psyche was present, and if the presence of psyche makes it an ASC, then that’s what it was. But as I said to No 23, the psychic ‘entity’ seemed less like an ‘entity’ and more like a plastic medium in which events unfold. Not a personal thing at all, but also not a ‘divine’ thing either. VINEETO: Yep, it only goes to show that people who don’t believe in God can have far-out Altered States of Consciousness as easily as a spiritualists can. RESPONDENT: Do you still find it necessary to discriminate spiritualists? VINEETO: My comment was in relation to No 60’s assertion that his experience was ‘pure’ without ‘a ‘divine’ thing’ and because ASCs are generally associated with spiritual experiences. As for finding it ‘necessary to discriminate’ – If you mean discriminate as in –
– then yes, in my conversations with people I certainly discriminate between the various spiritual beliefs they hold, be it animism, geo-theism, pantheism, agnosticism, the different versions of monotheism or the numerous teachings of Eastern Mysticism because it always aids clarity in communication. I found that discriminating my own beliefs in detail helped was essential in the process of uncovering and dismantling my beliefs and superstitions. If you ask if I discriminate against spiritualists – then no. I know that holding prejudices, grudges, biases, umbrages, annoyances, irritations or resentments is part and parcel of the human condition and only when one practices actualism with the aim to become happy and harmless can this crippling condition change. RESPONDENT: Also as there are as many ‘gods’ as there are believers the term God seems to me to have become a too broad generalisation. VINEETO: Generally people know quite well what I mean when I use the term God in a conversation. I can’t see the point of your comment in the context of my conversation with No 60 unless you are implying that I need to narrow my definition of God to suit your particular belief in order for you to understand what I am saying. RESPONDENT: To explain in the end it is experience what counts, be that experience with, or without an experiencer if God by any name is present in that experience I respect it as part of human experience at large. VINEETO: I wonder in what way you see your respect for an experience where ‘God by any name is present’ contributing to any clarity on a mailing list set up ‘to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition’? Personally I have neither respect for nor tolerance of ‘God by any name’ because I know beyond doubt that any experience where ‘God by any name is present’ is by its very nature an experience of delusion. I like people and I don’t want to confirm and strengthen their psittacotic condition by paying respect to it.
RESPONDENT: From your and also Peters general responses I have a fair impression that when you refer to the Big picture of the human condition that in comparison with for instance Richard’s understanding of it, your’s and his are perhaps only different when it comes down to scale. One experimental viewpoint when using a computer program analogy merely has a different ‘zoomfactor’ than another’s. So applied that to the human condition the closer one watches the more detailed the picture becomes observable. VINEETO: Judging by the responses Richard gives on this mailing list to correspondents regarding numerous areas of the human condition, less detail is not the distinguishing factor between his description of the human condition and mine. He writes from outside of the human condition because he is free of it whereas I cannot 100% rely on the accuracy of my understanding because I am not yet totally free of it. But when it comes to describing in detail the process of how to become free from the human condition my description about my experiences can be more detailed and more relevant that Richard’s descriptions because they happened more recently. In that respect descriptions from RESPONDENT: Or to use a space analogy you may have an observer located on Venus Peter has one on Mars and Richard is looking from Pluto at Planet earth. Incidentally when I refer to the human condition I refer as it is now and hence is experienced by me as to be living on that condition as it is now. VINEETO: I understand what you are trying to say but ‘having an observer’ is a dissociated, spiritual worldview and as such the analogy is not applicable to actualism – I never sat on the fence and ‘observed’ the human condition in others as the spiritual teachings would have us do – I learnt what I leant first-hand by the ongoing process of being attentive as to how ‘I’ functioned and operated. Secondly I am deliciously aware that I am living on planet Earth, and far more so than in the days when I practiced dissociation by trying not to be here and when I believed that the more significant part of my life would start after I became fully dissociated from being here or after I had died. It would be more accurate to say that the more I understand the numerous aspects of the human condition as they operate in me as ‘me’ the easier I can recognize them as being universal to all human beings because the human condition – as the name suggests – applies to every human being. And the more I recognize the human condition in me – and each time opt for being less obsessed with ‘my’ ‘self’-preserving feelings – the more the bigger picture, i.e. the interests of my fellow human beings, comes into view and this then allows me to be considerate of others and as a consequence I become more happy and in peace. As for Richard – because he has lived entirely free from the human condition for more than a decade and has far more experience in talking to people than I do, he has the added advantage of more easily and precisely recognizing and more clearly exposing the human condition. As you become more and more observant as to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and you find that are not happy then you can become aware of the human condition in action in you. In this process you may for instance discover that it is part and parcel of the human condition
and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from. That’s why nobody else can weaken or eliminate the human condition for you. The only way this ‘self’-preserving stronghold can be broken is via one’s own intent to become harmless and happy combined with the stubborn determination to do whatever is necessary to reach this goal.
VINEETO: As you become more and more observant as to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and you find that are not happy then you can become aware of the human condition in action in you. In this process you may for instance discover that it is part and parcel of the human condition
and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from. That’s why nobody else can weaken or eliminate the human condition for you. The only way this ‘self’-preserving stronghold can be broken is via one’s own intent to become harmless and happy combined with the stubborn determination to do whatever is necessary to reach this goal. RESPONDENT: I’d say one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition. VINEETO: Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’ – they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions, chiefly those of fear and aggression. A mere intellectual comment on these easily observable aspects of the human condition, notwithstanding that it is off the mark, also defeats the possibility that this experiential description could act as a guide for what you might uncover should you begin to observe your own emotions, passions and beliefs and convictions in action.
VINEETO: You commented on my letter to No 60 – VINEETO to No 60: Practicing the actualism method will only make sense if one decides to
want to become free from the instinctual passions that give rise to malice and sorrow. If one dares to do this one will come to experientially
understand human nature for oneself rather than having to rely on the traditional morally and ethically encumbered views of human nature such as
those proposed by evolutionary psychologists or philosophers of consciousness studies. RESPONDENT: Last time I asked you If you did write this during a PCE you answered that that was not the case. The sincerity in answering is appreciated. Nevertheless… It seems a bit dubious to proclaim oneself to be the proof of the pudding (be it pink artificially coloured or not) while not actually walking the walk. It smells (the above at least) like bullshit… It is a bit like saying when being asked: do you have a bank account with 180.000 dollars on it and you say no I have not I’m actually flat broke but last week/ month/ year I had. VINEETO: I have never made any secret of the fact that I am not actually free. However, to me a virtual freedom from the human condition, living happily and in harmony with my fellow human beings for 99% of the time is ‘walking the walk’ to the maximum extent possible in this moment of time. As someone who has always been interested in peace on earth, to do anything less would be plainly hypocritical. RESPONDENT: You see Vineeto that kind of stuff and also that you still use your Sannyas name VINEETO: I have explained before both to you and another correspondent why I use the name Vineeto –
RESPONDENT: ... and keep on referring to Osho as Mohan or plain Rajneesh however never using his Full name (that he referred to himself during the period that no doubt you got your name Vineeto) which read Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, casts a shadow on what I would call your hmmm... authority in these matters. VINEETO: Rajneesh’s original name was in fact Chandra Mohan. When he began to become famous he added the name Rajneesh (king of the night) and also gave himself the title ‘Archarya’ (teacher) which he later changed to ‘Bhagwan’ (God). ‘Shree’ is also just a title meaning ‘Sir’ or ‘Reverend’. In his final year Rajneesh had a period in which he called himself Maitreya (imagining himself being a vessel for a reincarnating Siddhartha Gautama) and after he dropped this idea he allowed his disciples to call him ‘Osho’ which is merely a reverential title gleaned from Japanese spiritual tradition. When I freed myself from my feelings of loyalty and devotion to Rajneesh I also stopped using the reverential terms that his disciples use. As for my ‘authority in these matters’ – I draw my expertise on matters of spirituality from having freed myself from all spiritual beliefs after being deeply entrenched in the practice of this certain brand of spirituality. One has to be free from a belief in order to understand it in its totality and thus be able to talk about it with authority. * VINEETO: You also made comment on a post I sent to you recently – As you become more and more observant as to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and you find that are not happy then you can become aware of the human condition in action in you. In this process you may for instance discover that it is part and parcel of the human condition
and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving,
comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from. RESPONDENT: As to [to create a diversion so as to avoid certain topics when one’s pet beliefs are at stake] ‘nless you would be willing to answer the question: what is the meaning of the name Vineeto? like i.e. Prem Prabat means (the dawn of love). Iow. to disclose this information I have asked for (albeit only once and quite a while ago) VINEETO: This is what I said when you first asked this question –
To be precise it was not Rajneesh who gave out names at the time I was received the name but one of his disciples, and insider’s rumour had it that he just randomly picked his way through a list of Indian names. So you see, once I began to question my spiritual beliefs and saw through the whole charade of the guru business any ‘special’ meaning of the name disappeared along with my dependency, loyalty and gullibility. RESPONDENT: [Your complete response to me as well the responses you have given to No 60 I will consider to be indeed a diversion of the issue I have brought up [Has it ever occurred to you that Richard perhaps after all has mistaken correlation with causation?] Nevertheless I’ll rephrase [Has it ever occurred to you that you perhaps after all could have mistaken correlation with causation?] If the answer would be yes then this could have serious consequences. VINEETO: The answer is no. And I have, by my own investigations, experientially discovered that the cause of my unhappiness and my antagonism is none other than ‘me’. RESPONDENT: Because that would definitely be a sign that you are willing to admit that you could be wrong in this. VINEETO: It is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong. For me it was a matter of acknowledging that what I was doing before didn’t work in that it I was neither happy nor harmless. By deciding to become an actualist I discovered that what Richard did to become free of malice and sorrow does work – not as a hit and miss, all-or-nothing affair but as an incremental improvement both in the sensuous enjoyment of being here and in being able to live harmoniously with my fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Also it would put under discussion the assumption (as it still is nothing more then that to me) that the occurrence of an ongoing PCE indeed is a result from this amygdala event and not of the fact that you people are strongly affected by a Buddha field that is generated in Byron. VINEETO: What you call a ‘Buddha field’ has no existence outside of the minds and hearts of spiritual disciples. Nowadays Byron Bay ‘Buddha field’ mainly consists of Rajneeshees defending their belief against attacks from other spiritual/religious believers while squabbling amongst themselves for positions on the spiritual ladder, or preying on the gullible for their own material gains– and it’s all on display in the local newspapers. RESPONDENT: Well I have put it very nicely and I will sent it in rich text as well as in plain text and we’ll see how it goes. As far as I’m concerned all the gooses are out now and the pigeons too. PS. I have been considering the option to sent it to your private maladdress, but I have rejected that option as I no longer see the need for that kind of suppositious behaviour. VINEETO: I appreciate that. RESPONDENT: You also may have noticed that I have sent a humaniversity link such as to make clear were I come from and what my current position is. VINEETO: Yes, I noticed.
RESPONDENT to No 60: Over the years that I have been on this list, for quite some time I have always had my reserves to the enormous implications that Richard’s claim has, yet regardless of the verifiability of that he for sure is a vip. i=(intelligent). Being myself not one of the most stupid people in fact some sort of genius, I have always been open to consider the impossible. That’s why I have persistently practiced AF (albeit adjusted the method in my own way). Taking stock of what that has resulted in, I come to a conclusion that probably before I ever came in touch with AF – I already had reached a plateau of relative happy and harmlessness. By and by when I started to write on this list I became a pusher of Actualism, and the method, because I sincerely believed that the sequence might affect other brains and produce a hmm chain reaction, and that PCEs would start to happen as outbreaks. So… before I came in touch with actualism I was a sannyasin and although I have tried to made a 180 degree turn I have never done so apparently for me I set course when I decided to join the sannyasin-club, and became a meditator and that’s basically how I look at the sequence: a high-tech meditation technique (meditation on the fly if you wish) and perhaps for some a lifesaver. There’s no other way for me than meditation not that I even would want to and it is an ongoing process. VINEETO: Although you say that you ‘have persistently practiced AF (albeit adjusted the method in my own way)’ it nevertheless seems to have persistently escaped your attention that Actual Freedom has nothing at all to do with the meditation practices as taught in the East. You only need to compare the actualism method with what Rajneesh describes as meditation to recognize that they are 180 degrees opposite. Here is what Mohan Rajneesh, or Osho as you prefer to call him, says about meditation –
And
And
In contrast, here is a description from Richard of the actualism method, posted only a day before you wrote this post –
In short, your ‘adjustment’ of ‘the method in my own way’ is nothing but a continuation of Rajneesh’s method, it ain’t actualism at all. RESPONDENT: So... I wonder what has happened to Vineeto and Peter, did meditation not work for them? VINEETO: meditation did not work for me because by practicing meditation for many years I became more and more insular, more and more aloof, more and more detached and thus more and more dissociated from what was actually going on. Meditation did not work for me because I never could quite loose track of what I really wanted from life, which is living in peace here on earth, in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are and not, as I found I was as a spiritualist, being aloof, empty-minded, removed and dissociated from being here. The sensate-only experiencing of actuality in a PCE was the final proof that meditation did not, and never could, deliver the goods. RESPONDENT: I remember a long time ago listening to a Bhagwan-tape, he mentioned two path’s to attain fulfilment, the one being Meditation the other a LOVERS-relationship. I guess that is Peter’s and Vineeto’s and likely Richards path though they will probably deny it that’s fine and it is not important anyway. My own alternative for Love is friendship, not too exclusive though. VINEETO: Your guess is so way off track that I wonder if you have read anything at all in these years you have been on this mailing list, let alone dared to take it in. This is what Peter has written in his journal about the process he underwent when he investigated his feelings of love for me (that was in 1997) –
I have given a similarly detailed report about tackling love and leaving it behind in order to allow actual intimacy become apparent (that was also in 1997) –
And here is just one example of what Richard has said about the path of a ‘LOVERS-relationship’ –
Here is another –
It would aid the accuracy of your guesses if you made the effort to become a little bit more informed. Actualists are always upfront in what they are on about if you care to read what we have to say, which only begs the question as to why you waste your time writing to this mailing list when you have already ‘reached a plateau of relative happy and harmlessness’ by practicing meditation and state that ‘there’s no other way for me than meditation’.
RESPONDENT: ... and keep on referring to Osho as Mohan or plain Rajneesh however never using his Full name (that he referred to himself during the period that no doubt you got your name Vineeto) which read Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, casts a shadow on what I would call your hmmm... authority in these matters. VINEETO: Rajneesh’s original name was in fact Chandra Mohan. When he began to become famous he added the name Rajneesh (king of the night) and also gave himself the title ‘Archarya’ (teacher) which he later changed to ‘Bhagwan’ (God). ‘Shree’ is also just a title meaning ‘Sir’ or ‘Reverend’. In his final year Rajneesh had a period in which he called himself Maitreya (imagining himself being a vessel for a reincarnating Siddhartha Gautama) and after he dropped this idea he allowed his disciples to call him ‘Osho’ which is merely a reverential title gleaned from Japanese spiritual tradition. When I freed myself from my feelings of loyalty and devotion to Rajneesh I also stopped using the reverential terms that his disciples use. As for my ‘authority in these matters’ – I draw my expertise on matters of spirituality from having freed myself from all spiritual beliefs after being deeply entrenched in the practice of this certain brand of spirituality. One has to be free from a belief in order to understand it in its totality and thus be able to talk about it with authority. RESPONDENT: Vineeto you have translated Rajneesh as ‘king of the night’ According to the source of information that I have the translation reads ‘full moon’ I’m only mentioning it, because I know that actualists like to be accurate in providing information, so... I wonder if you are willing to make an amendment, should indeed appear that your translation comes from a dubious source and may be considered inaccurate in this matter. VINEETO: The Indian language can be interpreted in many ways because it is often used poetically. Incidentally the full moon is considered the king of the night.
RESPONDENT: Vineeto you have translated Rajneesh as ‘king of the night’ According to the source of information that I have the translation reads ‘full moon’ I’m only mentioning it, because I know that actualists like to be accurate in providing information, so... I wonder if you are willing to make an amendment, should indeed appear that your translation comes from a dubious source and may be considered inaccurate in this matter. VINEETO: The Indian language can be interpreted in many ways because it is often used poetically. Incidentally the full moon is considered the king of the night. RESPONDENT: Ok, the full moon is by some /many considered the king of the night. VINEETO: My sources, which you consider to be apparently ‘dubious’ and ‘inaccurate’, are both Chandra Mohan himself (aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh aka Osho) and various Indian dictionaries. Vis –
And …
The spelling of ‘Neesh’ or ‘Nish’ varies according to the transcription from Indian to Western alphabet, and ‘-a’ is the female ending for the word. Further, some of his disciples addressed him as such –
This is what Indian dictionaries have to say –
RESPONDENT: This poetic aspect as to the meaning/purpose of names (aka labels) to me exactly just that, special poetic aspect of what the poetic meaning of yur hmm ie a sanscrit? name, like Vineeto is/would be/could be, some how has my intrest. It is not to pry into yur private life, yet more as a matter of hey!? what would her name mean, like mine for instance means silence (quite poetic). VINEETO: Ha, nice try, No 23. If you are looking for Indian poetry RESPONDENT: So… I take it that your reference to the meaning of the word Rajneesh has been your own chosen reinterpretation of the primary meaning of the word hence the translation sequence would have been <Rajneesh><value> Literally full moon><value> poetic/symbolic attribution> VINEETO: No, I gave you the literal translation. The ‘poetic/symbolic attribution’ applies to ‘full moon’, maybe linking it to his first name Chandra – vis:
Besides, arguing about the correct translation RESPONDENT: I found it a bit odd that ... the full moon is by some /many considered as a female symbolic/ poetically attribution to her/it/him. I.e. Sting refers to it as ‘sister moon’ On the other hand John Lennon has explicitly used ‘MR. moonlight’ in one of his songs I think it was on the album ‘Beatles for sale’. Nevertheless to me the sun symbolizes a male symbol and the moon is female symbol, and just so I realize that I always found that there was something odd about that song ‘MR. moonlight’, now I understand that Lennon had perhaps an Indian interpretation of the moon. However in my experience the moon is female poetically/ metaphorically/ symbolically speaking. I.e. ‘the man on the moon’ in that context she (the moon) is like balancing male (the man) and female symbolism as perfectly opposite qualities like positive or negative. Now I could imagine through reconstructing the [the man on the moon] sequence into [the woman on the moon] and then attribute a male symbolic value to that planet moon, however somehow I find the [man on the moon]-polarity as the one most making sense, perhaps even it would be more appropriate to say [men on the moon] because, men on the moon is neither a myth nor fantasy but a fact whereas [woman (let alone women) on the moon] yet is still future speculation. VINEETO: Ascribing male or female qualities to inanimate objects such as moons or planets, ships or cars, houses or plants, is known as animism and is the direct result of vivid affective imagination – it has nothing to do with fact.
And …
As such, wondering if the moon was male or female falls in the same category as philosophizing if angels had balls or breasts. RESPONDENT: Ps. As you most often, I have noticed, sign of with cheers, I wonder if you are aware that that could be interpreted as a hmm some kind of toast, if so you would mean it be to be like that then then, what is it that you drink? VINEETO: Cheers is meant as a toast to the magnificence of life and an invitation to cheer about the amazingly wondrous fact of being alive as a flesh-and-blood human being. RESPONDENT: As you also must have noticed, over the years I have tried to contribute to some atmosphere on what I used to call the virtual coffee table, later that became the Hotel of California (No 60/No 63’s tongue in cheek reference to this list) and then later also the Chelsey Hotel (my TICR). As per today the Carlton Square hotel is also available. And last but not least the {PASOC} has been re-labelled as creative (-;|;-)<*>;-)|(-; apperception. VINEETO: Given that ‘PASOC’ is the acronym for ‘pure altered state of consciousness’, a term you coined for No 60’s ‘Interesting Experience’ from December 11, 2003, by his description a state in which both psyche and imagination were fully intact, your phrase ‘creative apperception’ is an oxymoron – an incongruous self-contradictory rhetorical figure of speech. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself, a faculty which only becomes apparent when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul are absent, whereas the creativity you refer to happens when ego and soul are ‘creatively’ stimulated by imagination and affective feelings. It appears that your reinterpretation of the word apperception as an imaginative/ affective faculty originates from the same misunderstanding which lets you believe that actualism is ‘a high-tech meditation technique (meditation on the fly if yu wish)’. The Problem with How, 11.3.2004 Have you ever contemplated as to the fundamentally different meaning of the words ‘spiritual’ and
VINEETO: You wrote in your letter to No 60 – RESPONDENT: As Vineeto lately asked me why I was wasting my time on this list, I have given it some thought. VINEETO: This is what I actually said –
RESPONDENT: It would imply that I have ‘wasted’ over 4 years with reading her posts among others and writing and responding to an x-number of participants. VINEETO: What you ‘imply’ from what you imagined I said is a long shot from what I actually said and therefore whatever evaluations you make of your activities on this list over the past 4 years is entirely up to you. But I like it that you are thinking about why it is that you are subscribed to this list – I found that taking time out and reflecting upon what one is doing with one’s time is one of the most valuable things that one can do in life. RESPONDENT: On the other hand Vineeto I think is not entirely stupid, neither I think that she is merely responding in a challenging manner, but also in her own way may care about you/me persons and does not want you to waste time let alone be put at risk. VINEETO: I did indeed wonder why you keep writing on this non-spiritual list as being interested in actualism and being a supporter of Mohan Rajneesh are ultimately incompatible activities. Most people, apart from those who stay to nag, whinge and whine, simply move on when they realize that actualism is incompatible with their current belief system. RESPONDENT: Let me assure you that the word Crazy in this context is a very serious state of being and the loony bin is not the place you want to go. This ‘being the first free of the human condition’ is something that a brain particularly a brain that has been exposed to mind altering substances could well have some difficulties to process appropriately. VINEETO: Am I understanding you right that you say that you are attracted to actualism but find it presently too risky (too crazy) to take on board? If so, I can understand your concerns very well as I had a short period where I was genuinely afraid of going mad myself. The only thing that helped me to overcome my fear was to have straightforward to-the-point discussions with the two only actualists at the time, Peter and Richard, about the nature of the human condition, about the all-pervasiveness of the instinctual survival passions, about the cunning of my ‘self’ and about the delusion of spiritualism. It then dawned on me that what they were saying made sense – in other words that what they were saying was simple, sensible, straight-forward, matter of fact and down-to-earth. There is nothing intrinsically ‘crazy’ about actualism at all. And yet to the rest of humanity – those who are considered sane – what actualists are saying seems crazy, megalomaniacal, outrageous, heretical, iconoclastic, and even insane. To put it in a nutshell, I realized that those who proposed that the only way to bring an actual end to human malice and sorrow was to become happy and harmless were considered to be insane by those ‘sane’ people who were content to remain malicious and sorrowful. This realization was an intellectual understanding only and I still wavered between either side about the issue of what it is to be sane – to be hundred percent certain I needed an experiential understanding. This determination to get to the bottom of the matter finally resolved the issue of sanity and insanity when my ‘self’ temporarily disappeared and I had a pure consciousness experience. In fact it was my burning desire to know for sure who was right and who was crazy that brought my inquiry to a peak and caused the bubble of ‘me’ to temporarily burst. This particular pure consciousness experience confirmed without doubt that an actual freedom from the human condition (the extinction of both ego and soul) is the only salubrious solution to bringing an end to my malice and my sorrow. As for ‘a brain that has been exposed to mind altering substances could well
have some difficulties to process appropriately’ it may be appropriate to carefully read
VINEETO: As you become more and more observant as to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and you find that are not happy then you can become aware of the human condition in action in you. In this process you may for instance discover that it is part and parcel of the human condition
and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from. That’s why nobody else can weaken or eliminate the human condition for you. The only way this ‘self’-preserving stronghold can be broken is via one’s own intent to become harmless and happy combined with the stubborn determination to do whatever is necessary to reach this goal. RESPONDENT: I’d say one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition. VINEETO: Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’ – they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions, chiefly those of fear and aggression. A mere intellectual comment on these easily observable aspects of the human condition, notwithstanding that it is off the mark, also defeats the possibility that this experiential description could act as a guide for what you might uncover should you begin to observe your own emotions, passions and beliefs and convictions in action. RESPONDENT: Oh, and how is saying [they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions] so different from saying [one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition.]? VINEETO: Because they are two different things entirely. Whilst cognitive dissonance can result when one is in the grip of instinctual passions, cognitive dissonance can easily be overcome by rekindling one’s naïve curiosity to understand, explore and try something new. There is obviously a dare in doing so but daring to do something new is always thrilling. RESPONDENT: I.o.w. why is it that you accredit my statement with being ‘A mere intellectual statement that summarizes’ VINEETO: I called it an ‘intellectual statement that summarizes’ because you said ‘one could summarize …’ and because your summarization was not correct. If you had summarized the behaviour patterns 1-6 because you understood, acknowledged and experienced them as aspects of your own psyche then you would know for yourself that only point 2 describes cognitive dissonance. RESPONDENT: And even flatly ignore the fact that [to automatically block out information that possibly destroys the image one has of oneself or questions the truths one holds] Is a feature of ‘cognitive dissonance’? VINEETO: I did not ignore this fact. I responded to your statement ‘one could summarize 1-6 …’ which indicated that you regarded all the points ‘as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance’. RESPONDENT: I’d say [Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’] can be considered to be a dubious negation. Perhaps you care to re-evaluate the meaning of the phrase [resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance.] Iow. Perhaps you might find that your’s [Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’] has a touch of disqualification to it. VINEETO: Not only did my answer have ‘a touch of disqualification to it’ in that I disqualified your statement ‘one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance’, I clearly stated that your peremptory summary was incorrect based on my own hands-on experience of the human condition in action.
VINEETO: As you become more and more observant as to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and you find that are not happy then you can become aware of the human condition in action in you. In this process you may for instance discover that it is part and parcel of the human condition
and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from. That’s why nobody else can weaken or eliminate the human condition for you. The only way this ‘self’-preserving stronghold can be broken is via one’s own intent to become harmless and happy combined with the stubborn determination to do whatever is necessary to reach this goal. RESPONDENT: I’d say one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition. VINEETO: Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’ – they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions. A mere intellectual statement that summarizes them also defeats the possibility that this experiential description could act as a guide for what you might uncover when you begin to observe your own emotions and beliefs in action. RESPONDENT: Oh, and how is saying [they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions] so different from saying [one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition.]? VINEETO: Because they are two different things entirely. Whilst cognitive dissonance can result when one is in the grip of instinctual passions, cognitive dissonance can easily be overcome by rekindling one’s naïve curiosity to understand, explore and try something new. There is obviously a dare in doing so but daring to do something new is always thrilling. RESPONDENT: No… that is not the experience of cognitive dissonance as I mean to refer to as such, yet I’ll refrase [one could/might summarize (given certain conditions) items acdef as resistance (possibly as a result of cognitive dissonance) can be experienced as part and parcel of the human condition.] ^note item b is a description of that condition hence *not* a result of.^ VINEETO: Yes, ‘one could/might summarize (…) items acdef as resistance’, ‘possibly as a result of cognitive dissonance’ – but this does not mean that this ‘resistance’ is necessarily a result of cognitive dissonance at all. For instance, when one becomes aware of the human condition in action in oneself and reacts by wanting to deny and repress one’s bad emotions, there can be various reasons for doing so, such as particular moral and ethical values or societal taboos, and very often people are quite conscious about their denial or repression of their bad emotions, i.e. often there is no cognitive dissonance operating at all.
VINEETO: You commented on my letter to No 60 – VINEETO to No 60: In my first major pure consciousness experience I clearly understood that ‘me’ in my totality is preventing actuality from becoming apparent and as a consequence I did not spend much time defending the various beliefs, convictions, opinions or outlooks I held – I was more interested in finding out in what way Richard experiences life and in what way actuality is different to the normal day reality that I inevitably again experienced once my PCE ended. Incidentally I am reminded of something I wrote to Mark once about deliberately facilitating the death of ‘me’ –
RESPONDENT: It seems that you are anticipating with excitement on the hmm moment that the fat lady will start to sing. I'm sure when it happens you will give a detailed report of what it is to live in Actual Freedom and how the transition happened. Somehow I find it difficult to not accredit your anticipation on this future event to a somewhat crippled imaginative faculty. VINEETO: Whatever you are reading into this quote, it is pertinent to remember that it was written in 1999, about 13 months after I began to practice actualism. At that time, of course, there was quite some imagination happening about the day when the fat lady sings. Today I simply know that it is inevitable that one day the last of ‘me’ will have to disappear just like much of who ‘I’ used to feel and think ‘I’ was has already disappeared. An inevitability does not need much imagination. As to: [The whole path to actual freedom, the whole process of dismantling the ‘self’ I could call one bargain after the other.] I well could say: [The whole path of (not to) neo-virtualism, the whole process of dismantling the ‘selves’ is one bargain after the other.] thus as to: [What you perceive as the ‘selfish purpose of their own’] that indeed is my perception of actualists and even more so it is indeed the ‘selfish purpose of any neo-virtualist the difference is that a neo-virtualist has neither any need nor reason to deny that: [The game/work of dismantling the ‘selves’ is a ‘selfish purpose of their own.]’ VINEETO: From the many posts you have written on the subject of what you call ‘neo-virtualism’ it is apparent that ‘neo-virtualism’ is just another name for remaining who you are.
RESPONDENT No 73: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘Body’ – <snip> Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks... VINEETO: But then again, maybe not? I practiced Vipassana daily for many years including several retreats led by Goenka-trained Vipassana teachers but I only understood what Vipassana and all of the spiritual practices were really about after I had several pure consciousness experiences. When the ‘self’ is temporarily absent it is very easy to recognize all the silly things one does in order to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic, as I used to call it – to rearrange one’s ‘self’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on and Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve this ‘rearrangement’. Vipassana is not flawed because some teachers are quacks – it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core. RESPONDENT: If I may I ask respectfully, Vineeto as you seem to claim expertise/authority in the Vipassana-field. Have you ever been a leader of a Vipassana-group if so, when did you lead that group? How many times did you lead that group? Where was the location how many people participated? Who were you assistants/co-workers? VINEETO: In my spiritual years I have assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups although I have never lead or wanted to lead a group myself. However, one does not need to lead a Vipassana group in order to have expertise in the field. All it takes is to know and understand the theory and to have practiced it sufficiently so as to understand how it works in practice. The other expertise I have is that I have the insight not only of an ex-spiritualist but, more far significantly, the insight of the self-delusionary nature of all things spiritual that only a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience can provide. In a PCE, when the believer is temporarily absent, one has the unique opportunity to fully understand that all beliefs are ‘self’-generated and as such non-actual. This is how I described it at the time –
VINEETO: I practiced Vipassana daily for many years including several retreats led by Goenka-trained Vipassana teachers but I only understood what Vipassana and all of the spiritual practices were really about after I had several pure consciousness experiences. When the ‘self’ is temporarily absent it is very easy to recognize all the silly things one does in order to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic, as I used to call it – to rearrange one’s ‘self’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on and Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve this ‘rearrangement’. (…) Vipassana is not flawed because some teachers are quacks – it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core. RESPONDENT: If I may I ask respectfully, Vineeto as you seem to claim expertise/authority in the Vipassana-field. Have you ever been a leader of a Vipassana-group if so, when did you lead that group? How many times did you lead that group? Where was the location how many people participated? Who were you assistants/co-workers? VINEETO: In my spiritual years I have assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups although I have never lead or wanted to lead a group myself. RESPONDENT: I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage. VINEETO: No, it was in my spiritual years, well before I had even heard of the possibility of an actual freedom – the discovery of which now makes enlightenment redundant. * VINEETO: However, one does not need to lead a Vipassana group in order to have expertise in the field. RESPONDENT: However me thinks, one who does lead a Vipassana group needs to have that authority though. VINEETO: As I explicitly stated that I never lead or wanted to lead such a group, I wonder what relevance this statement has with the issue at hand? RESPONDENT: Now, that authority being that self-assigned or having been assigned this authority by somebody who has the authority to do, that I think is a matter of relevance, however not in this case, as you have only claimed to be a Vipassana expert. VINEETO: There are two meanings to the word ‘authority’ and the one that causes all the troubles is the one connected with power. (The power of the authority to enforce obedience; the power of the authority to enforce moral or legal judgements; the power of the authority to command or give the final decision; the power of the authority to control; the power of the authority of a governing body; the power of an authoritative holy book; the power of the authority to inspire belief and so on). The second – less used – meaning is: an expert on a particular subject. Apparently, as in your use of the word ‘only’, you consider authority given by someone else to be of greater value than expertise due to someone’s substantial practical experience and insight into the matter. Perhaps I can put it this way – there are those who teach others what hey have leaned form others and there are those who set about finding out whether what they have learnt from others works or not. What I am reporting is my experience in the practice of Vipassana – it is not meant to be a philosophical debunking nor a learned dissertation on the subject. As such my report would be better regarded as a bit of heresy from one who has delved into Eastern religion and is now a whistle blower. RESPONDENT: On the other hand as No 73 has suggested that [Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks...] this would imply if – that has been the case, those quacks (i.e. teaching a new age variant from the Poona-kitchen) indeed lacked the authority to teach Vipassana and thus you may have been as well assisting people who where not qualified (aka unauthorized/certified) to teach Vipassana as well as practicing it in a way that it was not intended to be practiced. Consequently the results will likely not have been satisfactory. So… after all there may be some relevance to that case with respect to the aspect of authorization/certification. It is somewhat as if I hear you say that you have done your theory and have also practiced and more or less have learned how to drive a car, but blaming the car for not going where you want to go. Just to go by that analogy, imagine somebody practicing (Vipassana as taught to instruct by Osho and this was designed to come to arrive at a certain kind of understanding what genuine enlightenment means). Now, as that understanding seems to not have happened for you hence there are three possibilities the technique was wrong the teacher was not adequate. Vipassana was not your thing. It is one thing to bash/demonise a teacher/guru, to do that to an entire category/program is another thing. I.e. suppose the car is i.e. a <whatever brand> then by my dimlogical reasoning when I take in account your [it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core] would you then conclude that the whole <whatever brand> car industry is rotten to the core? VINEETO: I gave the specific information that the Vipassana teachers were Goenka-trained – I knew them quite well because I worked in the same department. As you keep suggesting that this may not be the case, could you tell me if you have any factual information to the contrary before you fabricate more conjectures and draw any further conclusions based upon these conjectures? * VINEETO: All it takes is to know and understand the theory and to have practiced it sufficiently so as to understand how it works in practice. The other expertise I have is that I have the insight not only of an ex-spiritualist but, more far significantly, the insight of the self-delusionary nature of all things spiritual that only a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience can provide. In a PCE, when the believer is temporarily absent, one has the unique opportunity to fully understand that all beliefs are ‘self’-generated and as such non-actual. RESPONDENT: So… Are you implying that this institution also includes the Vipassana teachers as well as their techniques? or is [it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core] Intended to function as a metaphor (perhaps a somewhat hyperbolic expression) in which the part [whole institution of spiritual enlightenment] refers to anything that is not in accordance with the actualist doctrine? So… My question to you is (bear in mind I’m speaking in a metaphoric manner: Do you think that the whole institution of Vipassana stinks? I am asking this because something that is rotten usually spreads a not so pleasant odour. VINEETO: Given that you have been a participant on the Actual Freedom mailing list for nigh on four years now, what part of the sentence ‘it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core’ do you not understand? RESPONDENT: If indeed such is the case then naturally your allegation to the Goenka organization needs to be somewhat more substantiated (others then having been displeased/ dissatisfied as to expected achievement of benefits) in order to prove that indeed the Goenka-institution ‘stinks’ (again still metaphorically speaking). VINEETO: I have no specific allegations against the ‘Goenka organization’ nor any other particular spiritual organization for that matter other than that they have all failed to manifest peace on earth, despite the fact that millions upon millions of devotees have diligently practiced the teachings for thousands upon thousands of years. When I sat down and contemplated the extent of this litany of failure as well as drew upon my own experiences as to the reasons for this failure (whilst temporarily setting aside my own beliefs about the subject) it one day suddenly dawned upon me that the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment is rotten to the core, a description of which I posted in my last post (in the section you snipped). This is what is called having an insight
VINEETO: In my spiritual years I have assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups although I have never lead or wanted to lead a group myself. RESPONDENT: I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage. VINEETO: No, it was in my spiritual years, well before I had even heard of the possibility of an actual freedom – the discovery of which now makes enlightenment redundant. RESPONDENT: So as to: [Have you ever been a leader of a Vipassana-group?] You have in your spiritual years assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups but you have never been a leader of any groups. So... might one say that this assisting leaders in several Vipassana groups was during your pre pre-virtualfree-period as it seems to be reasonable to consider your spiritual years as a period in your life, that preceded your virtualfee stage and that there was thus a period in your life that not so much preceded the stage of virtual-freedom but was more a preparation of becoming virtual free (reaching the state of virtual freedom), nevertheless i find no difference in pre-virtualfree-stage and my spiritual years. Could it perhaps be that you have found my conclusion [I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage] to be somewhat premature and had perhaps you preferred to have it phrased in the form of a question? VINEETO: The years of spiritual search preceded my coming across actualism but there is no causal connection between my having been on a spiritual search and being virtually free from the human condition. On the contrary, being virtually free from the human condition is the result of abandoning all of the spiritual beliefs I had taken on my spiritual years. Becoming free of spiritual belief was only the start because being virtually free of the human condition is also the result of abandoning my beliefs about humanistic psychology and social education that I had acquired in my years at university. Further it is the result of abandoning my social conditioning as a women’s lib promoter and a female member of society, of abandoning my cultural conditioning as a middle-class German, of abandoning my professional conditioning as a social worker in a drug addiction clinic, of abandoning my religious conditioning as a Roman Catholic, and so on. None of the above-described conditioning (which includes my conditioning as a Rajneesh disciple) was ‘a preparation of becoming virtual free’ as you propose – it was all baggage that I had to leave behind. To say that you ‘find no difference in pre-virtualfree-stage and my spiritual years’ only points to your persistence in ignoring the fact that becoming free from the human condition is about abandoning one’s beliefs, as opposed to redefining them, reshuffling them, refurbishing them and relishing them.
VINEETO: The years of spiritual search preceded my coming across actualism but there is no causal connection between my having been on a spiritual search and being virtually free from the human condition. On the contrary, being virtually free from the human condition is the result of abandoning all of the spiritual beliefs I had taken on my spiritual years. Becoming free of spiritual belief was only the start because being virtually free of the human condition is also the result of abandoning my beliefs about humanistic psychology and social education that I had acquired in my years at university. Further it is the result of abandoning my social conditioning as a women’s lib promoter and a female member of society, of abandoning my cultural conditioning as a middle-class German, of abandoning my professional conditioning as a social worker in a drug addiction clinic, of abandoning my religious conditioning as a Roman Catholic, and so on. None of the above-described conditioning (which includes my conditioning as a Rajneesh disciple) was ‘a preparation of becoming virtual free’ as you propose – it was all baggage that I had to leave behind. To say that you ‘find no difference in pre-virtualfree-stage and my spiritual years’ only points to your persistence in ignoring the fact that becoming free from the human condition is about abandoning one’s beliefs, as opposed to redefining them, reshuffling them, refurbishing them and relishing them. RESPONDENT: I have never suggested that either you have re-defined any some or none of your beliefs, nor have I suggested that you have not have re-defined any some or none of your beliefs. In fact I have not even mentioned the word beliefs in that context which you refer to. It seems that you find in my saying that I noticed that the period of your involvement with Goenka training(s) was during your spiritual years and hence must have preceded your Virtual-free stage, that in writing that I have suggested that there was any causal connection between you having been on a spiritual search and becoming virtual free of the human condition. Nevertheless that is not the case, I have merely used the word preceding as in i.e. the letter K precedes the letter L in an ordinary western alphabetic order, thus if one would substitute the letter K for ‘the time/period of Vineeto’s spiritual years’ and the letter L for the time/period of Vineeto’s Virtual free stage (aka the waiting stage for the fat lady to finish her singing). So…it seems that we have a minor misunderstanding here as such it looks as if your conclusion that because of the fact that I ‘find no difference in your pre-virtual free-stage and your spiritual years’ that you seem to think that I do not recognize/acknowledge a Virtual freedom as an entirely new event in human history, …(snip). VINEETO: This is what you originally said, in the bit you snipped –
What I explained to you was that the spiritual path is not ‘a preparation of becoming virtually free’ but that the spiritual path is nothing other than a diversion, a distraction, an avoidance, an aberration, a wandering down a well-trodden path, a self-indulgence and a mindless following of others. Before you dig yourself even deeper into a quagmire of contradiction and denial you have also the option of admitting that your conjecture was only a conjecture that turned out to be entirely non-factual.
RESPONDENT: First of all I like to say that I have decided to drop both of the terms Neo-virtualism as well as neo-actualism. (...) and will neither refer to myself as a neo- actualist nor neo-virtualist but rather a student and practicioner of dimlogicism. VINEETO: For the sake of clarity it is certainly sensible to abandon both terms ‘neo-virtualism as well as neo-actualism’ (whatever they mean) but why you would want to practice ‘dimlogicism’ when you have the opportunity on offer to increase your clarity and intelligence by incrementally becoming free from the human condition has me beat. * VINEETO: What I explained to you was that the spiritual path is not ‘a preparation of becoming virtually free’ but that the spiritual path is nothing other than a diversion, a distraction, an avoidance, an aberration, a wandering down a well-trodden path, a self-indulgence and a mindless following of others. Before you dig yourself even deeper into a quagmire of contradiction and denial you have also the option of admitting that your conjecture was only a conjecture that turned out to be entirely non-factual. RESPONDENT: So… in fact you tell me that I have digged myself into a quagmire of contradiction, that seems least to say to be somewhat presumptuous and thus the question is have I digged myself into a quagmire of contradiction and denial? At this point it seems to be up to me to discover/explore/examine the previous post which gave rise to your warning. So… lets analyse this and find out if... Indeed I have made a conjecture that was only a conjecture that turned out to be entirely non-factual.
If I may interject before you go on with your but. Have you perhaps missed the question mark? Never mind, that can happen to the best, I’ll repeat it for your convenience. Could it perhaps be that you have found my conclusion [I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage] to be somewhat premature and had perhaps you preferred to have it phrased in the form of a question? VINEETO: What I responded to was the statement you made in the paragraph above the one you just quoted, which was a clear statement –
It was this presumption of yours, ‘but was more a preparation of becoming virtual free’, which was neither an option nor had a question mark to it, that I clarified by saying –
The question mark you thought I missed was asked only in the succeeding paragraph and clearly only refers to ‘[I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage]’ and not to the statement above. Vis –
RESPONDENT: Me thinks that I have given you here some fair options to answer the question straight, never mind I’ll have them spelled out; again for your convenience. Option one Yes/ no/ perhaps I found your conclusion [that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage] premature. And Yes/ no/ perhaps I had preferred to have it phrased in the form of a question. VINEETO: If you read again (below) what I have written to you in the two previous post you will see that I did answer your question straight (twice). To wit –
RESPONDENT: As to: [there is no causal connection between my having been on a spiritual search and being virtually free from the human condition.] Well this lack of causal connection may well be so in your case. My conjecture that you were involved with Vipassana trainings in your pre-pre-virtualfree-stage, however was not a speculation that there was any causal connection between your pre-pre-virtualfree-stage and your discovery of a virtual freedom. so… As for the quagmire of contradiction and denial,I fail to see it. VINEETO: Do you really mean to say that your conjecture that ‘there was thus a period in your life that not so much preceded the stage of virtual-freedom but was more a preparation of becoming virtual free’,(16.11.2004) ‘was not a speculation that there was any causal connection between your pre-pre-virtualfree-stage and your discovery of a virtual freedom’? If you cannot see that the word ‘preparation’ expresses a ‘causal connection’ Either way, there is no point in pursuing this matter any further.
RESPONDENT: Or perhaps check in with Vineeto’s and hence become a supporter of condemnation of all Spiritual institutions (that includes also the so-called kind-hearted spiritualists for any info about that check in with No 30). Based on the assumption that all of them are rotten to the core. Iow. charged with corruption. That surely is not a small thing and it has a bit of a taste of rhetorical innuendo least to speak. Now considering that this implies that every spiritualist is corrupt. VINEETO: You have taken my statement, put your personal spin on it and then run with it. This was my original statement –
You then take ‘the whole institution of enlightenment’ to mean ‘every spiritualist’ and bingo, yet another falsehood is fabricated, in this case that ‘every spiritualist’ is ‘charged with corruption’. Before you take your misconception any further in your ‘lets-see-if-we-can-nail-[an
actualist]-or-give him-a beat-up-game’
My personal experience with Godmen, and Mohan Rajneesh in particular, confirms Richard’s statement. Once I saw through and freed myself from my feelings of master-disciple loyalty the sickness of the institution of enlightenment became more and more obvious. Living in Rajneesh’s ashram I have experienced the corruption and deceit of the institution of enlightenment first hand, heard the promises of freedom and equality that never came true, witnessed the narcissism masquerading as Divine Love and diligently tried to live the unliveable teachings. I have seen his girlfriend become driven to desperation and depression, I have known the many women who felt honoured to fellate him while he publicly denied that it happened and pretended to be beyond it all. I have seen the power play amongst his followers in order to curry his favour and seen the richest disciples rise to the top of the favour list first. There is nothing good I can say about the institution of enlightenment – it is sick to the core.
VINEETO to No 60: Some people will no doubt feel, and say, that you will unfairly leave them ‘in the lurch’. As you know actualism is something you can only do for yourself and by yourself, which means that you don’t need the agreement of others in order to becoming a practicing actualist. Indeed some might even stop in their tracks and reconsider when they see tangible results but going by
my experience I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Metathesiophobia As a rule of thumb, what I learnt from practicing actualism is that whenever I became passionate about an issue, a situation, something someone said or did, some piece of information on TV or such like, I knew for certain that one of my dearly-held emotion-backed thoughts was being touched … I guess that could be the root of the expression ‘being touchy’. RESPONDENT: Could one say that the expression ‘dearly-held emotion-backed thoughts’, is more or less synonymous/ analogue with ‘thoughts/id’s that I love to have’? VINEETO: Or passionately love-to-have and passionately love-to-keep having … and if you want to get to the heart of the matter – desperately don’t-want-to-give-up. RESPONDENT: I.o.w. i.e. if I am ‘being touchy’ do I then experience some form and to some degree metathesiophobia? VINEETO: Not necessarily. What it means is that you are feeling ‘touchy’, as in easily moved to anger; apt to take offence on slight cause; irascible, irritable, tetchy, easily ignited. Whether or not you want to become free of those feelings, i.e. whether or not you want to radically change is a different matter. The first step in actualism is to get a moment-to-moment awareness of how you are and what you are feeling up and running. Then you are free to decide whether or not you want to have these feelings in your life and only then will you come across metathesiophobia ... or not.
RESPONDENT: [Irene]: ‘Well-executed lyrics learnt by rote …[endquote]. Assuming that the content is an accurate representation of what is on the website, taking into a account that you (Vineeto) were there at the described event. It seems to be reasonable that you present your own version of that event. to make sure that you confirm indeed that the above is an accurate quote from the Af-website. If indeed this is the case then it can be said that this quote contains some rather serious accusation made by Irene. So… my first question is: Is the mentioned part indeed an accurate quote from the Af-website? VINEETO: RESPONDENT: Well… let me ask it differently, Have you yourself Vineeto actually heard Irene literally saying the following words: [‘Well-executed lyrics learnt by rote’]. VINEETO: No, I received them as a letter to the Actual Freedom Mailing list on Sun 29/11/1998 12:29 AM AEST. RESPONDENT: If you answer that affirmative, then I think that it is reasonable to assume that the entire story on that page in which there is a mentioning of a meeting of persons, not necessarily is a fabrication/lie/ concoction but an exact quote by Irene? VINEETO: Just because Irene wrote those words (literally) on a public mailing list does not mean that her report of the above mentioned event is a truthful/ accurate/ factual account of what actually happened. RESPONDENT: ^note it though needs to be taken into account that even if it were an exact quote the entire story is not necessarily *not* a fabrication/ lie/ concoction ^ I can understand why No 58 made it a point because if – Irene is right then I presume that the three of you Peter, Vineeto, Richard well can be wrong in their general assertion as to what is the human condition. VINEETO: What you choose to presume is entirely your business but as I was present at the actual event, I will keep my own counsel on the matter. As to your presumption of the ‘general assertion as to what is the human condition’ there is no need to take anybody’s word for it – a little ongoing attentiveness and a generous dollop of self-honesty will reveal the human condition to you in all its perversity and obsolete senselessness.
RESPONDENT: Be well Vineeto I suppose you know the drill left/right and so on so lets go 0,1,2 ACTION. VINEETO: This kind of racist comment (referring to something that happened more than 60 years ago) is a good example of how war between nationalistic tribes is kept alive over generations.
VINEETO to No 16: As I already pointed out to No 71 you conveniently omitted my
qualifier in the first part of my post in order to mount your objection – RESPONDENT: Just like as in the case that perhaps you have ‘conveniently’ avoided to respond on my request for clarification. Vis:
thus It seems to be fair to presume, that neither your’s nor Ms I’s indeed a truthful/ accurate/ factual account of what actually happened. So… could you in your own words, describe what actually happened at that mentioned event? (Original Message Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:50 PM Subject: Re: No 23 re: The Human Condition) VINEETO: This was your original question –
I did not answer because there is just no way by me telling you that seven people met on that afternoon and had a lively conversation about an actual freedom from the human condition you can figure out whose account was the ‘truthful/ accurate/ factual’ one. Besides, you have already made clear that you have up your mind –
VINEETO: During my process of actualism there was a time when I watched the biography of many people who made it to being famous enough to have a biography report made about them. I wanted to find out what exactly it is that made people successful in what they wanted to achieve in life, be it a gold medal in an Olympic sport or the winner of the Tour de France, be it a successful business entrepreneur or a famous dancer or painter, be it a well-known architect or a renowned author or inventor or, in the spiritual realm of achievements, become an enlightened master. What all these people had in common was a burning passion to be successful at their chosen field of interest and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach their goal. RESPONDENT: This shows that likely you have not (yet) understood what a spiritual master is. VINEETO: I take it then that you have not read Mohan Rajneesh’s autobiography ‘The Golden Childhood’ or any other autobiography or biography from a genuine enlightened person? They all describe, without exception, that they were pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years with a strict regiment of meditation, fasting, yoga and other spiritual disciplines and then, when after years of arduous practice they exhaustedly relaxed and gave up control enlightenment happened. Face it, No 23, there is no such thing as a free lunch – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord – you’d have to work really, really hard if you wanted to achieve it.
RESPONDENT: (…) To frankly let you know where i come from just hypotheticly speaking, if somebody were to bring forward ‘rock solid evidence’, that reincarnation is a fact and not a thought merely based on wishfull thinking, would you then drop your effort to extirpicate your soul? VINEETO: Ha, you might as well ask me which corner I would choose if the earth was a cube instead of a globe. Reincarnation can never be a fact. Let me explain – since everyone can experience in a PCE that the ‘self’/soul can disappear and since Richard has proven that the ‘self’/soul can become permanently extinct whilst the physical body is still alive, how anyone can construe that this soul survives physical death is simply risible.
RESPONDENT: Regardless though most of us know that the boat is leaking and that the captain lied. VINEETO: If, as you say, the boat is leaking then why aren’t the rats leaving the sinking ship. Not even the mutineers, after plenty of powwow and chest beating, were willing to go sailing on their own boat. And since we are in metaphor-land – the grapes aren’t sour, they just hanging a bit high.
RESPONDENT: (…) To frankly let you know where I come from just hypothetically speaking, if somebody were to bring forward ‘rock solid evidence’, that reincarnation is a fact and not a thought merely based on wishful thinking, would you then drop your effort to extirpate your soul? VINEETO: Ha, you might as well ask me which corner I would choose if the earth was a cube instead of a globe. Reincarnation can never be a fact. Let me explain – since everyone can experience in a PCE that the ‘self’/soul can disappear and since Richard has proven that the ‘self’/soul can become permanently extinct whilst the physical body is still alive, how anyone can construe that this soul survives physical death is simply risible. RESPONDENT: If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit. eh. VINEETO: Na, dazzling with bullshit is definitely your department. Apart from
RESPONDENT: [Can reincarnation be a fact?] VINEETO: No. The soul that is supposed to reincarnate is non-actual. But by all means, do not take my word for it. There is plenty of material on the Actual Freedom website for you to inform yourself. Just type ‘life after death site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard’ and you should get about 365 hits.
VINEETO: During my process of actualism there was a time when I watched the biography of many people who made it to being famous enough to have a biography report made about them. I wanted to find out what exactly it is that made people successful in what they wanted to achieve in life, be it a gold medal in an Olympic sport or the winner of the Tour de France, be it a successful business entrepreneur or a famous dancer or painter, be it a well-known architect or a renowned author or inventor or, in the spiritual realm of achievements, become an enlightened master. What all these people had in common was a burning passion to be successful at their chosen field of interest and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach their goal. RESPONDENT: This shows that likely you have not (yet) understood what a spiritual master is. VINEETO: I take it then that you have not read Mohan Rajneesh’s autobiography ‘The Golden Childhood’ or any other autobiography or biography from a genuine enlightened person? They all describe, without exception that they were pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years with a strict discipline of meditation, fasting, yoga and other spiritual disciplines and then, when after years of arduous practice they exhaustedly relaxed and gave up control enlightenment happened. Face it, there is no such thing as a free lunch – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord – you’ll have to work really, really hard for it. (…) RESPONDENT: [This shows that likely you have not (yet) understood what a spiritual master is.] I hereby state that indeed I have no knowledge of the content of this particular spiritual document (‘Mohan Rajneesh’s autobiography ‘The Golden Childhood’) so in that her assumption was correct. However the other assumptions propelled and amplified by sweeping generalizations [or any other autobiography or biography from a genuine enlightened person?] may or may not be correct as I do not know what a genuine enlightened person is. VINEETO: Dear me, do you actually read what you write?
If you can’t tell a genuine enlightened master from a wannabe, then the understanding of what a spiritual master is is therefore equally unknown to you. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
raajaa – ‘king’, ‘monarch’, ‘sovereign’, master’ http://www.wordanywhere.com/cgi-bin/fetch.pl
nish – ‘night’ http://www.wordanywhere.com/cgi-bin/fetch.pl
Name for the Moon http://www.alkhemy.com/sanskrit/dict/dictall.txt
