|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 29
VINEETO: Hi, Welcome to the Actual Freedom mailing list. I was so intrigued by your post that I thought I respond. RESPONDENT: Richard, I’ve read about a third of your selected correspondence page with interest. I have several questions, but what struck me first is, why is there a need for any ‘ism’ (as in ‘actualism’)? Systems are, after all, destroyers of freedom. I don’t mean that in a practical way, of course, that would be silly. But what difference is there say, between any of the modern ‘ism’s’ and traditional religions? How could ‘actualism’ possibly be any different from those? Why try to systematize life, why try to reduce it to a few ‘essential’ principles? I agree that life is to be lived right here and right now. Once we define *how* it should be lived though we’ve gone and destroyed life’s spontaneity – we’re living somewhere else, for an ideal, something to be strived for, something that distracts us from the love that is right here and right now. Why not just talk about the eternal moment without this awkward distraction of yet another useless ‘ism’ in the world? VINEETO: I am reminded of an interchange that happened about two weeks ago on this list –
No 29, you certainly have redefined the word actualism to mean something you are already familiar with – ‘the love that is right here and right now’ and ‘the eternal moment without this awkward distraction of yet another useless ‘ism’ in the world’. The longer I have conversations about actualism on this mailing list, the more I find the term ‘actualism’ useful specifically for the ‘ism’ part – it deflects those who seek an individual spiritual freedom and troll through the writings looking for useful terms and phrases to clip-on to their collection of spiritual medalets. The syllable ‘ism’ in actualism is the first challenge to those who sincerely want to explore their own beliefs rather than being fixated upon their awkward antagonism against ‘isms’. Actualism, despite its ‘ism’ at the end, is utterly useless as a clip-on to any spiritual belief. Actualism is simply an easy way of saying that ‘I am applying the method of ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ in order to investigate and eliminate all my spiritual beliefs and lay bare all my instinctual passions so as to become completely happy and harmless, 24 hrs a day, every day.’ As a hint – if you want to discover more of the gist of what actualism and Actual Freedom are about, you might find out what the word ‘non-spiritual’ means instead of focussing on the ‘ism’ of actualism.
RESPONDENT: I agree that life is to be lived right here and right now. Once we define how it should be lived though we’ve gone and destroyed life’s spontaneity – we’re living somewhere else, for an ideal, something to be strived for, something that distracts us from the love that is right here and right now. Why not just talk about the eternal moment without this awkward distraction of yet another useless ‘ism’ in the world? VINEETO: I am reminded of an interchanged that happened about two weeks ago on this list – <snip quote> No 29, you certainly have redefined the word actualism to mean something you are already familiar with – ‘the love that is right here and right now’ and ‘the eternal moment without this awkward distraction of yet another useless ‘ism’ in the world’. The longer I have conversations about actualism on this mailing list, the more I find the term ‘actualism’ useful specifically for the ‘ism’ part – it deflects those who seek an individual spiritual freedom and troll through the writings looking for useful terms and phrases to clip-on to their collection of spiritual medalets. The syllable ‘ism’ in actualism is the first challenge to those who sincerely want to explore their own beliefs rather than being fixated upon their awkward antagonism against ‘isms’. RESPONDENT: Thanks for your response. I’m a bit confused though, as you seem to have emphasized the spiritual. I can’t imagine you’ve taken me to be ‘spiritual’ as I don’t believe I’ve made any indications of that one way or another. If you’re merely trying to inform, then thanks, and yes, I believe I’m fairly clear on what ‘actualism’s’ position is on such matters. VINEETO: I have taken you to be ‘spiritual’ as every human being believes in something or other spiritual until they begin to be very, very attentive to each and every arising emotion and each arising imagination and begin to investigate every inkling of their soul – the core of one’s feeling Being. Maybe your confusion about being spiritual is due to a rather partial understanding of the word spiritual. Spiritual, according to the Oxford Dictionary spiritual means among other things –
You have made very clear indications that you believe in something outside of, and something other than, this flesh-and-blood body only when you said –
Love is a spiritual feeling and ‘the love that is right here and right now’ is a spiritual fairy-tale that serves only to ignore and deny the essential ‘self’-centred nature of all human relating. If you believe that anything can distract the ‘eternal moment’ then you must be talking about the spiritual imagination of an eternal moment beyond time and beyond space because once you step out of the real world and out of the spiritual world there is nothing of ‘you’ left to distract your experience of the eternal moment, this very moment, here, now, the only moment one can experience. RESPONDENT: I do agree that I am antagonistic to ‘ism’s’ as a way of life; the reasons for that being stated clearly enough in my previous post. I don’t believe, however, that I’m ‘fixated’ on this antagonism, as you seem to suggest. VINEETO: I do have trouble to understand this subtle difference of being ‘antagonistic’ and being ‘fixated on this antagonism’. Do you ‘believe’ that you can drop your antagonism under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances? * VINEETO: Actualism, despite its ‘ism’ at the end, is utterly useless as a clip-on to any spiritual belief. Actualism is simply an easy way of saying that ‘I am applying the method of ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ in order to investigate and eliminate all my spiritual beliefs and laying bare all my instinctual passions so as to become completely happy and harmless, 24 hrs a day, every day.’ As a hint – if you want to discover more of the gist of what actualism and Actual Freedom are about, you might find out what the word ‘non-spiritual’ means instead of focussing on the ‘ism’ of actualism. RESPONDENT: Finally, I haven’t redefined (or defined for that matter) the word ‘actualism’ with anything at all. You’ll pardon me for being blunt, but you merely cut and paste my words into this imaginary redefinition. VINEETO: You can be as blunt as you like. You have said you are ‘antagonistic to ‘isms’’ which means you came to this list antagonistic to actualism – and antagonism is a pretty blunt attitude. You said in your first post –
VINEETO: You have certainly redefined actualism as it is neither trying ‘to systematize life’ nor reducing ‘it to a few essential principles’. Actualism is the method of investigating and eliminating all my spiritual beliefs, emotions and feelings, and laying bare all my instinctual passions so as to become completely happy and harmless, 24 hrs a day, every day.
VINEETO: Thank you for your expressive reply. Despite your point ‘I’m finally fed up with these groups/lists’ I couldn’t resist to reply to a few points you raised in your letter – RESPONDENT: I noticed that you cc’d this to me, so I was wondering if you knew I had un-subscribed to the list. VINEETO: Yes, Richard mentioned that you had un-subscribed but I thought I would reply as you had posted some questions to the list. RESPONDENT: Firstly, you have my respect as a fellow human with an utterly unique viewpoint, and I hope you respect my absolute free will to become as much as I respect yours. We may differ in some ways- there are probably areas of ‘inequality’ in this game of the mind we’re playing- but I think we both know ‘what really counts’. At least I assume that. Yes, I know that’s very foolish. VINEETO: I don’t know ‘what really counts’ for you. What counts for me is that I become utterly and completely free of malice and sorrow, both in thought and action and that I become free from any beliefs, emotions or instinctual passions because they interfere with me being happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: You see, in the past six months I’ve belonged to several different online groups. The first was a consciousness ng. The problem there was that the materialists had no understanding (in my view, surely not in theirs) and no tolerance for in the so-called religious (actually metaphysical) concepts I was writing about at the time, but on the other hand, the ‘spiritual’ people were only seemed interested in the occult; ghosts, séances, that sort of thing. They understood metaphysics even less than the materialists. It finally became frustrating for me, but I did meet one very interesting individual and we still correspond privately even now. The next group I belonged to was a small group of people who had shared some kind of ‘experience’ with ‘ultimate reality’ (or what have you – I’m sure you know all the concepts of god, Eastern and Western), and we were to see what might ‘evolve’ out of it. Well as you can imagine, not much of anything did, and hardly anybody wrote anything. It was a bit disappointing to discover that the core group members seemed strongly influenced by Maharaj. So there you go – they believe that life is a complete creation and hallucination of the mind, the body doesn’t exist. There is no death. The world is a creation of our mind. Etc. They believe in that just as strongly as you believe in your actualism creed, no offence. VINEETO: May I interject here – I do not believe in actualism – I use the method of actualism to investigate all spiritual and religious beliefs in order to arrive at facts and I know that it works. In order to investigate my beliefs I also had to look at the underlying emotional investment that I had in my beliefs and into my instinctual passions of belonging, fear, aggression and desire. I am now in a position where I know that I do not believe in anything, neither in god nor in the devil, neither in the good nor the bad, neither in the false nor the right. By removing my beliefs and their emotional components, the splendour of the actual physical world becomes self-evident and obvious. RESPONDENT: For myself, I’m in the middle, the universe is ‘plastic’ in my view – no observation or thought can ever describe actual reality (whatever that might be), much less ‘be’ reality. If language is a sub-set of reality, which it surely is, how can it describe, other than through metaphor, that which it encompasses it? (It can’t and it is precisely at this metaphorical level that all the bickering begins: Richard with his ‘eternal cosmos’, me with the ‘eternal moment’, you with your ‘happy and harmless’ actualist slogan, me with that dirty l-o-v-e word... impurities from a cosmic perspective indeed!) With all these words, observation, postulates, there’s always something lacking, always so much more that can’t be put into words. VINEETO: Is your statement that ‘the universe is ‘plastic’ in my view – no observation or thought can ever describe actual reality (whatever that might be), much less ‘be’ reality’ a belief or a feeling? I found that English language, with its 650,000 words or more, can very well describe the actuality I directly perceive with my senses. However, the moment one aspires to describe mystical belief and metaphysical reality, emotional experience and imaginative reality, all description becomes fuzzy and nebulous as everyone’s fervent fantasy perceives a different meta-physical universe. If you look a bit under the hood ‘that which it (reality) encompasses’ is god by any name – a metaphysical energy or force or knowledge or Intelligence that should give meaning as to why we are here. However, as you consider ‘happy and harmless’ a mere ‘actualist slogan’ , I take it that becoming happy and harmless is not on top, or not at all, on your laundry list? RESPONDENT: That’s why actualism, like any other system, turns out to be just another dualism proscribing its own methodology. It never really satisfies, does it? It divides, in fact, through words – love is a dirty word, an impurity, spiritualism is an abomination, etc., all your doing is creating more contradiction, intolerance. Words are nothing but symbols, and when we believe in the symbols rather than in the objects they represent, we kill the spirit (use your own acceptable word here – no, I don’t mean our base savage/nurture instincts) and rape the mind of its freedom to think. VINEETO: First, words are not symbols to me, they describe precisely what I sensately experience and reflectively understand. Second, actualism, despite your first impression, is not ‘just another dualism’, it is a method to eliminate the debilitating ancient imagination-fuelled beliefs of dualism, be they inner and outer, physical and meta-physical, good spirits and bad spirits, Gods and devils, earthly life and life after death, heaven and hell, love and hate, etc. Actualism is a process whereby one can incrementally remove all impediments that prevent me from experiencing the actual physical world in its utter perfection and purity. It is the ‘self’, the human ego and soul, underpinned by the animal instinctual passions, that cause us to see ghosts and goblins, God and devil, good and evil, love and beauty, friends and enemies – distorting the already-always existing physical perfection by imposing our human beliefs, emotions and values on what would otherwise be pure and direct sensate experiencing of the astounding abundant coruscating infinite and eternal physical universe. RESPONDENT: I’m starting to ramble and digress, but please bear with me – I promise I do have a point here, which I’ll try to make soon. Finally, before actualism, I picked up a Krishnamurti book, read through that with interest (a bit too ascetic for me though, some of it), and I tried out the Kinfonet forums. Some of the folks there were earnest, but the bulk of the postings were schizophrenic and childish, rather like some of the people who were posting on the actualfreedom list a few weeks ago (didn’t notice them this time – are they being edited out? If so, good!). VINEETO: No, nobody has been edited out, the list is still open to all. Most of the objectors simply can’t keep up their unilateral performance and get bored when they realize that those who they attack don’t become annoyed or feel insulted. RESPONDENT: It was there that I found links to Richard’s selected correspondence page. I found much of Richard’s writings, many of his points, to be quite refreshing and pertinent to our times. At the same time, a few passages struck me as hostile, so I was curious about that, and wondered whether he would clear this up for me. He didn’t, of course, so, so much for that. What should I expect though, writing from the bottom of the hierarchy and all? VINEETO: As you mentioned the word ‘hierarchy’ you might find it useful to
read one more page of Richard’s correspondence on
Could it be that ‘he didn’t, of course, so, so much for that’ has something to do with the fact that you had a pre-set view when you came to the list and did not want to question that view? Also, you un-subscribed from further discussions after only two replies. RESPONDENT: So to finally get to my point. I think I’m finally fed up with these groups/lists, and I’m as much to blame as anyone else. We are not discussing anything on these lists, we’re debating, locking horns, beating chests. I’m telling you what’s what, and you’re telling me no you’re wrong, you’re a fool and don’t know this and that, and furthermore blah blah. We’re not out to enrich each other, we’re out to prevail. We want our point of view to triumph. To put it crudely, I say actualism sucks because it’s merely a system blah blah, and you say no, your view sucks for putting down actualism because you obviously know nothing about it and you’re a lousy spiritualist to boot as evidenced by the word love that you used, and that’s anathema around here. So I have you pegged for something and you me for something else. We’re obviously not going to convince each other of a damn thing, so why do we keep debating if not just to show how clever we are? For the thrill or enjoyment of the sport? Everywhere I go on these lists it’s all males, and every man is convinced that he is right, and expends all this energy proving it, often by trying to show their opponent’s ‘faulty intellect’ or stupidity. Me included. Personally, I began this search in order to try to learn something of value and try to reach out to people. Instead it was like a chess game from the very beginning, and the ‘deeper’ the topic, the more subtle the resistance. All I see is Ego Ego Ego in all these places. But I suppose that makes sense in retrospect. VINEETO: Have I understood you right in that you are saying that because of this male attitude of yours you are handicapped to ‘learn something of value’, to discuss anything in a sensible way because you only see ‘Ego Ego Ego in all these places’? I do agree that ego, the male ego as much as the female ego, can be a great hindrance to sincere inquiry. However, I have found that it is possible to observe, examine and inquire into both my obstinate ego and my passionate soul so that they won’t interfere with my intelligence such that I can make sense of what it is to be a human being. The ‘self’ – both ego and soul – can be transformed in such a way that it agrees to and facilitates its own demise because ultimately that is the most satisfying thing to do in one’s life. It’s the only game to play in town, as we say around here. There is no need to have an ego-fight or a soul-fight, defending one’s precious beliefs and convictions. I found it much more rewarding to question my every belief and conviction and investigate into the facts of the situation, because facts don’t need the confirmation or belief of anyone, including me – they are self-evident. RESPONDENT: I for one am going to give my stupid ego a break from all this senseless head bashing and petty word games. I don’t know why I’m writing to you. You seem pretty ardent to me. It’s hard for me to tell the real difference between your ‘actualism’ and all the other ‘cults’ out there but hey, what do I know? Not much I can assure you! But I do know that I’m my own person, there is no this way or that way that I buy into. I’m not a Taoist, a rationalist, I don’t ‘believe’ in Zen, but I understand its position. I’m not a Christian, but I don’t think Jesus didn’t have anything useful to say, I am not an existentialist, nor a materialist, but... and on and on. I know of all these things and more but I do not accept any of them as the truth in and of themselves. For me they are all of a great tapestry of humanity’s beliefs and dreams. I do not LABEL myself as any thisist or thatist. You may try to peg me, but I’ll never peg myself. Neither do I like to think I am I the cause of war, but writing on these lists, and writing to you as I am now, I surely am. So thanks for writing and have a wonderful life- each and every moment of it. You certainly deserve it. VINEETO: I can assure you, for what it’s worth, that I am not at all into ‘senseless head bashing and petty word games’. I am telling my story how I came to succeed in becoming happy and harmless and how I succeeded to live with a man in utter peace and harmony 24hrs a day, every day. It only took me two years of earnest ‘self’-inquiry, whereas my 17 years of spiritual devotion had not brought me any closer to being peaceful or happy. I had many non-affective pure consciousness experiences that confirmed that life without interference of the ‘self’ is indeed possible and utterly delicious and this is what I made my only goal in life. It makes no difference if you call actualism a system, a cult or just another dualism because I know by my very own experience what it can deliver – a life without malice and sorrow, bondage and fear and peace on earth for everyone who wants to make the effort. I have enjoyed talking to you. Should you ever want to join the list again for further
inquiry, you are very welcome to do so at any time. Due to Listbot terminating its excellent service the list has moved to
‘Topica’ now I wish you well. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
