VINEETO: Hello,

Welcome to the Actual Freedom Mailing List. It is always fascinating to hear from someone new who is sincerely interested in finding out about actual freedom. You might have already noticed that actual freedom is utterly non-spiritual and radically different from and diametrically opposite to the vast and varied teachings of Ancient Wisdom.

RESPONDENT: I’d like to introduce myself (or flesh and blood body) first. I was raised in a Christian home – lost my religious faith in college – began studying philosophy thereafter – became awestruck by Meher Baba, but also very confused and uncomfortable with many of his inconsistencies. I have fearfully studied and read voraciously in order to find the freedom that I have only recently begun to explore with this notion of actual freedom. What I read here has a ‘gravitational pull’ that I find I cannot resist. Meeting Bernadette Roberts (author of ‘The ‘experience’ of No-Self’) last February, then learning and absorbing what I could of U.G. Krishnamurti and Suzanne Segal left me ripe to assimilate what I am reading here.

VINEETO: I am familiar with the teachings of all the three persons you mentioned and I am therefore wondering what you meant by ‘left me ripe to assimilate what I am reading here’. Do you mean that you have been disillusioned by their spiritual teachings and are therefore ripe for something completely non-spiritual?

RESPONDENT: I have begun to apply the method of ‘how am I experiencing being alive now?’ and am getting some results. I’m beginning to see what a pain ‘love’ and ‘beauty’ can be – even though that’s what many of us spend our lives pursuing.

I’ve had to confront the fear of being a social outcast and winding up alone – even losing one’s own ‘sanity.’ Anyway, it does seem that when one has gone down the spiritual path for awhile, enough is enough – which can become momentum 180 degrees the opposite direction.

VINEETO: To be upfront I have to say that by pursuing actual freedom one does indeed abandon one’s sanity – the sanity that consists of human morals and ethics, the sanity that perceives a universe ruled by an Almighty God or a Higher Intelligence in one form or another and the sanity that maintains that you can’t change human nature and therefore sets in concrete the instinctual animal passions that every human being is endowed with.

Questioning each of my worldly and other-worldly beliefs, all of my morals and ethics that I had imbibed since birth often left a bewildering sense of disorientation as I successively left the sanity of the real world and the delusion of the spiritual world behind. However, in the process of becoming more and more free from my beliefs and automatic affective reactions, the emerging sensuousness, intelligence and common sense always confirmed that I am moving towards a salubriousness that far exceeds any real-world sanity or otherworldly bliss.

RESPONDENT: On to a couple questions at hand that I’ve been looking into.

One of the fears I’ve had to confront is that of losing my lifetime ‘love’ of music. Confronting that fear has shown me how foolish it is to hold something like that so dear to my heart which could be lost with physical disability. I read some of Richard’s comments scattered through the website about music – mostly which seemed to suggest that enjoyment of music is affective – a passion.

Then I began to question just what I thought ‘music’ is... There is music designed to pull at the heartstrings – music to rally soldiers to war – music which is intended as sorrowful – music intended to be happy music that is educational and fun – and music which doesn’t seem to have any purpose at all. Not that I can catalogue all the different types, but I soon realized that the word ‘music’ doesn’t really have anything in particular that it describes – rather a loose association of actualities. Now, it seems to me that most any actuality can be ‘experienced’ on 2 levels – what Richard calls ‘sensate,’ then also the ‘mental/emotional.’ So, remembering that the idea behind moving toward virtual or actual freedom is minimizing emotional highs and lows, what would music be like on a purely sensate level? I remember Richard remarking that he is not interested in ‘beautiful music’ or even artistic ‘beauty.’ Does that then eliminate any interest in ‘music’ or ‘art’ all together? It would seem to me that just as there is a level on which we can delight in what is ‘pleasing to the eye’ without involving beauty – that we can also delight in what is ‘pleasing to the ear’ – as in various musical forms – without involving the beautiful and the sorrowful. What can any of you say about this?

VINEETO: I found human-made music to be almost always affective. Given that human beings are emotional beings, they play music to express themselves and their feelings – be it rebellion, anger, love, sexuality, bliss, fear, sorrow, worry, beauty, awe or hope. As such, hearing and playing music can be an excellent tool to study and investigate whatever emotions are being triggered in you. As you become more and more aware of your emotional-instinctual reactions and free yourself from the affective impact music usually has, you will experience an increasing clarity, intensity and delight in your sensual perception.

RESPONDENT: Now – on to ‘relationships’. I think I can ask this one pretty simply.

If one is slowly whittling away at love, compassion, nurture, desire – then is there still room for rearing children and ‘sticking with’ your marriage partner come what may? Is the actuality of benevolence enough to keep people together as long as it’s a sensible thing to do? Or is there still some cultural factor that makes it ‘sensible’ to ‘care’ for spouse and child? In other words, where does the ‘continuity’ required to care for a child come from in actual (or virtual) freedom (where ‘continuity’ doesn’t exist)?

It’s easy to think that caring for your child is only based on the nurturing instinct. Does the ability to raise a child necessarily disappear along with the nurturing instinct – or is the benevolence of virtual or actual freedom enough to maintain ‘parenthood’? Does the fact of raising a child necessarily indicate the continuing presence of ‘nurture’?

VINEETO: It is a common fear that if one abolished one’s spiritual beliefs, morals and ethics one would become a dangerous sociopath and if one removed all of one’s emotions – good and bad – one would become a careless zombie. However, when you apply the method of actualism with the sincere intent to become free from malice and sorrow, then you successively remove what prevents you from being what you are – a flesh and blood body. And just as there is neither malice nor sorrow in a tree, in an ocean and in the air we breathe, there is also no malice and sorrow in a flesh and blood body when social-instinctual identity is deleted.

I have never raised any children but I can confirm that, in the process of practicing actualism, care and consideration for other people, together with a general benevolence and common sense have incrementally emerged as my ‘self’-centredness, egoism and the affective-neurotic relationships that I used to have with people, animals or things have diminished. It is far easier to make sensible decisions when you are not run by social conditioning and driven by instinctual passions.

RESPONDENT: Also, the question arises as how to respond to others exhibiting extreme emotions. My 3 year old son instinctually cries out for me to hold him tight or rock him and give him his blankee when he’s hurting and insecure. Which is more appropriate – giving him the comfort he so desperately wants/needs – or dismiss his request for empathy as unhealthy for him – or finding some way to comfort him without allowing him to indulge himself? I suppose another way of asking this is that I find myself ‘feeling empathy’ and then feeling the horror of not being ‘empathetic’ toward my child (the opposite) – Is there is a happy and harmless medium there somewhere – which I’m still trying to find?

VINEETO: The intent of an actualist is to become free from malice and sorrow because the only person you can help and change is you. Apart from finding out how ‘you’ tick there are no rules in actualism as to how to behave or not to behave – every situation is yet another opportunity for you to discover how you are socially and instinctually programmed. The more I discovered about ‘me’, the more I was able to make sensible choices based on facts instead of beliefs and feelings. The more I investigated and became free from my own good and bad feelings and emotions, the less effect other people’s emotions had on me. Now I am able to respond with care and common sense to whatever situation arises.

When you practice actualism it is also important to remember that this is not about stopping feeling, for that is impossible while still being a ‘self’. I’ll include a quote from Richard’s correspondence where he explains the method short and concise –

Richard: Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings.’

It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel well, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, appreciation, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness – then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. If it does not ... then one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being here now for as much as is possible.

It is a win/win situation. Richard, List B, No 19e, 26.12.2000

RESPONDENT: Lastly, I’d like to learn more about what is meant by ‘not suppressing or expressing’ strong emotions. Normally, the example given is anger. We commonly make a division between the feeling of anger and taking it out on someone – so that seems an obvious example. But what about emotions like empathy or compassion or feeling beauty? Take playing the guitar for example. The feeling of beautiful music while playing is the very same as it’s expression. I don’t feel the beauty without actually playing the musical instrument. So it’s difficult to divorce feeling and expression in a context like that – so that it seems like not expressing in that context is none other than repression – which would mean NOT to allow oneself to pickup the guitar or be ‘tempted’ by beauty. Or do you mean by ‘expressing emotion’ – ‘to take it out on somebody or something’? Also, with empathy – are we to hold ourselves back from expressing empathy because we don’t yet know the dividing line between ‘feeling empathy’ and ‘being benevolent’? That to me, seems to verge on repression. I suppose I’d like to see a little more carefully detailed explanation of what exactly is meant by ‘not suppressing or expressing’ emotion – since it seems to me that some emotions only arise when expressed – or are in danger of being repressed if not expressed in some way.

I look forward to hearing of your explorations and how they might help along the way. Happiness and Harmlessness to all

VINEETO: Personally, I found that by continuously running the question of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ with sincere intent I was unable to repress any emotion for long – by focussing my awareness on what went on inside my head and heart, all my beliefs and feelings came to the surface, one after the other. However, I first had to inquire into my spiritual, moral and ethical values that had taught me to consider some emotions as ‘good’ and worth expressing and some emotions as ‘bad’ and requiring repression. Only by examining and becoming free of the social-spiritual straightjacket of automatically classifying feelings as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ was I able to clearly experience and scientifically investigate each emotion as it arose.

As I had set my aim to become free from malice and sorrow, the first obvious thing to do was to stop expressing my malice and to stop imposing my sorrow on others. As for expressing the ‘good’ emotions like love, compassion, empathy, hope and trust – in a sincere inquiry you will soon find out that when expressing ‘good’ emotions one is as much driven by one’s instinctual passions as when expressing ‘bad’ emotions.

We have been taught that the alternative to expressing emotions is to repress them – however, there is now a third alternative. Whenever an emotion occurred, I usually stopped in my tracks, took notice, labelled the emotion, found out when the emotion started, what triggered it and whether any beliefs, moral and ethical values were the cause of triggering the feeling. In the first year of actualism I spent a lot of time on the couch thinking and contemplating about one or another belief or emotion, I talked with Peter about the issue, wrote about my discoveries and attempted to more and more understand the human condition in action. Often I found ‘good’ emotions like desire, hope, trust, attachment, loyalty, compassion and love also triggered off the ‘bad’ emotions and this discovery of the inter-connectedness and interdependence of good and bad then spurred me on to continue questioning the ‘good’ and ‘right’ values I had unquestioningly swallowed.

As for the ‘the dividing line between ‘feeling empathy’ and ‘being benevolent’’ – empathy makes you suffer with the other person, which can clearly be experienced as an emotion. You then either wallow with the other in their suffering or you have an emotional investment in attempting to alleviate the other’s emotional suffering in order to relieve your own co-suffering, i.e. com-passion. Then you subsequently become eager to impose your solution to their problem.

The benevolence that an actualist experiences it not a feeling at all but happens on its own accord when one’s ‘self’-centredness ceases to dominate one’s every thought and feeling. Benevolence arises out of the experience and understanding that we are all fellow human beings doing this business of being alive on this perfect lush and verdant planet earth.

12.1.2002

VINEETO: Today, when I read the discussion you are having with Richard about U.G. Krishnamurti, I remembered that some four years ago I had the opportunity to meet the man while he was in Australia. I’ll describe the meeting because it might serve to throw some light on the issue of both the nature and the worth of his teachings.

I met him with a group of six other people and four out of the five hours consisted of a conversation about costs of airplane tickets, Swiss chocolate, someone’s adventures with his motorbike, jokes about disagreements between one of the participants and his girlfriend and the like. U.G. Krishnamurti was clearly disinterested in talking about spiritual matters and unyielding to the fact that everyone had come to see him in order to ask him questions. After about 4 hours, while I was wondering what the heck I was doing there, he conceded that questions might now be asked.

I remember almost nothing of the content of the conversation, except something that struck me as odd (maybe that’s why I still remember it). He said that when a nearby train passes it is to him as if it would pass right through him. It reminded me that a friend reported that U.G. Krishnamurti said to her in one of the meetings with people in Gstad, Switzerland, ‘when you laugh, I laugh, when you cry I cry’. Also, when his late partner Valentine fell and hurt her foot he said to have felt the physical pain that she felt. He explained this process here –

[U.G. Krishnamurti]: Feelings are not thoughts, not emotions; you feel for somebody. If somebody hurts himself there, that hurt is felt here – not as a pain, but there is a feeling, you see – you automatically say ‘Ah!’ This actually happened to me when I was staying in a coffee plantation: a mother started beating a child, a little child, you know. She was mad, hopping mad, and she hit the child so hard, the child almost turned blue. And somebody asked me ‘Why did you not interfere and stop her?’ I was standing there – I was so puzzled, you see. ‘Who should I take pity on, the mother or the child?’ – that was my answer – ‘Who is responsible?’ Both were in a ridiculous situation: the mother could not control her anger, and the child was so helpless and innocent. This went on – it was moving from one to the other – and then I found all those things (marks) on my back. So I was also part of that. (I am not saying this just to claim something.) That is possible because consciousness cannot be divided. Anything that is happening there is affecting you – this is affection, you understand? There is no question of your sitting in judgement on anybody; the situation happens to be that, so you are affected by that. You are affected by everything that is happening there. U.G. Krishnamurti, The Mystique of Enlightenment, Compiled from conversations in India and Switzerland, 1973 to 1976

From my pure consciousness experiences I know that when one lives in the actual world there is no psychological or psychic identity present within this flesh and blood body who can feel ‘affected by everything that is happening there’. Empathy requires a feeling being or psychic entity to feel empathic with others. In a pure consciousness experience I am intimate with the people I meet but I do not feel their feelings, be they pleasant or unpleasant, because in a PCE the feeling being, together with the entire affective faculty, is temporarily in abeyance.

I also remember thinking about the meeting with U.G. Krishnamurti afterwards and he did not appear to me as a man who enjoyed life, i.e. someone who had the desirable state of mind, or no-mind or not-no-mind, that I would want to live myself. Personally, he did not strike me as someone whose life was worth emulating – and he says so himself. His casual remarks about his daily life in the meeting gave the impression of someone waiting for his fate to run its course until he physically dies. I sat ‘in the presence’ of several spiritual masters in my 17 years of spiritual search and had felt bliss, inner peace and love but with U.G. Krishnamurti I only felt bewilderment. I was more disorientated and confused by the meeting and had certainly not found the answer I was looking for – what is the best possible way one can experience life?

But meeting U.G. Krishnamurti certainly increased the doubt I had that I would find a satisfying solution at the end of a spiritual path. He says that enlightenment is a myth but the state of consciousness that he had reached he first describes it as a calamity and second that he doesn’t know how it happened anyway. He surely left the feeling of a bit of a gap but there was nothing offered either in his presence or in his words to fill that gap.

I have found the quote where he fully described the experience of this ‘calamity’ that happened to him –

[U.G. Krishnamurti]: I didn’t feel that I was a new-born baby – no question of enlightenment at all – but the things that had astonished me that week, the changes in taste, seeing and so on, had become permanent fixtures. I call all these events the ‘calamity’. I call it the ‘calamity’ because from the point of view of one who thinks this is something fantastic, blissful, full of beatitude, love, ecstasy and all that kind of a thing, this is physical torture – this is a calamity from that point of view. Not a calamity to me, but a calamity to those who have an image that something marvellous is going to happen. It’s something like: you imagine New York, you dream about it, you want to be there. When you are actually there, nothing of it is there; it is a godforsaken place, and even the devils have probably forsaken that place. It’s not the thing that you had sought after and wanted so much, but totally different. What is there, you really don’t know – you have no way of knowing anything about that – there is no image here. In that sense I can never tell myself or anybody ‘I’m an enlightened man, a liberated man, a free man; I’m going to liberate mankind.’ Free from what? How can I liberate somebody else. There’s no question of liberating anybody. For that, I must have an image that I am a free man, you understand? U.G. Krishnamurti, The Mystique of Enlightenment, Compiled from conversations in India and Switzerland, 1973 to 1976

I agree with him that nobody can liberate anybody but I have experienced glimpses of freedom from the Human Condition in pure consciousness experiences and it is certainly not a ‘godforsaken place’ nor is it ‘physical torture’ . Therefore wherever he has reached is not the actual world. My personal theory is that he somehow got stuck on the way shortly before discovering that there is a cornucopia of delights to be experienced when one is fully free from one’s identity and one’s ‘being’.

In actualism I have found a method that facilitates my becoming more and more free from the human condition, which is so successful that I am sometimes thrilled to bits as well as steeped in the sensuous delight of being alive.

13.1.2002

VINEETO: I also remember thinking about the meeting with U.G. Krishnamurti afterwards and he did not appear to me as a man who enjoyed life, i.e. someone who had the desirable state of mind, or no-mind or not-no-mind, that I would want to live myself. Personally, he did not strike me as someone whose life was worth emulating – and he says so himself. His casual remarks about his daily life in the meeting gave the impression of someone waiting for his fate to run its course until he physically dies. I sat ‘in the presence’ of several spiritual masters in my 17 years of spiritual search and had felt bliss, inner peace and love but with U.G. Krishnamurti I only felt bewilderment. I was more disorientated and confused by the meeting and had certainly not found the answer I was looking for – what is the best possible way one can experience life? <snip>

I have found the quote where he fully described the experience of this ‘calamity’ that happened to him – <snipped>

I agree with him that nobody can liberate anybody but I have experienced glimpses of freedom from the Human Condition in pure consciousness experiences and it is certainly not a ‘godforsaken place’ nor is it ‘physical torture’. Therefore wherever he has reached is not the actual world. My personal theory is that he somehow got stuck on the way shortly before discovering that there is a cornucopia of delights to be experienced when one is fully free from one’s identity and one’s ‘being’. In actualism I have found a method that facilitates my becoming more and more free from the human condition, which is so successful that I am sometimes thrilled to bits as well as steeped in the sensuous delight of being alive.

RESPONDENT: Thanks for your insights regarding UG. I am in agreement with you that UG does not seem to me like someone to emulate. I am unable to understand his ‘predicament.’ Yet fascinated at the same time. I plan on steering my current investigations more toward the method of actualism. I want to know the sensuous delight of being alive in this moment. I am most pleased to have found a method ‘that delivers the goods.’

VINEETO: Yes, U.G. Krishnamurti fascinated me for a while until I wondered what possible use his ‘mystery’ could have for my own life. Even if I was able to understand his ‘predicament’ , it was clearly not worth living it. But there is something of this ‘predicament’ that is useful to investigate. You said in your post to Richard –

[Respondent]: I don’t think UG can be easily assumed to be ‘spiritual.’ [endquote].

No, it cannot be ‘easily assumed’ and my emphasis is on ‘easily’. For me, it has been of vital importance to understand, and I mean experientially understand, the complexity of the word ‘spiritual’ – for in life actual and spiritual exclude each other, just as sensate and spiritual exclude each other as an experience.

When I first came across actualism I had a great reluctance to question my spiritual pursuit. At first, I did not quite understand how being spiritual could be considered a hindrance to being an actualist. I thought it over for days and weeks and it was a real nut to crack. Not only was being spiritual my main identity but I also had to wash my brain from 17 years of Rajneesh conditioning. Learning to think sensibly was like learning to walk after years of being bed-ridden because I had been focused on no-mind-feeling states rather than practical thought.

However, as more and more common sense began to prevail and living in the ‘outer’ – as opposed to my spiritual ‘inner’ – world started becoming more sensible and delightful, I also came to understand that the meaning of the word ‘spiritual’ included much more than I had assumed. I had used the specifically customized definition of the word from Rajneesh’s teachings – spiritual as opposed to religious, Godliness as opposed to a monotheistic God, Essence or Energy as opposed to a white bearded God sitting on a throne. I eagerly believed him when he said that living a spiritual life was far superior to pursuing a professional carrier or motherhood in the normal world.

I remember one day I suddenly said to Peter – ‘now I understand what you mean by spiritual!’ At that moment I could for the first time see that being spiritual means being ‘inside my head’, focused on my ideas, my ideals, my imagination and my feelings, chasing a chimera of an elusive inner state, not interested in what is going on right here, right now. In fact, being spiritual is the very pinnacle of being ‘self’-centred. This first break-through in understanding what I am doing when I am being spiritual was to open the door for a pure consciousness experience that followed soon after. (full description in A Bit of Vineeto)

In short, contemplating upon the discussion about U.G. Krishnamurti’s outlook on life may help you understand the variety of spiritual connotations that exist. However, if you are interested in actualism you will find yourself vitally interested in discovering your own spiritual-ness and all it entails, for becoming aware of one’s spirituality and its wide-ranging implications is the very key to removing what prevents you from directly experiencing ‘the sensuous delight of being alive’.

18.1.2002

RESPONDENT: Quite simply... What is meant by ‘not suppressing or expressing’ emotion?

I understand that the method of actualism does not encourage to stop feeling – but to use its method of inquiring into how one is experiencing this moment. By not suppressing or expressing emotion – are you talking about ‘strong’ emotions? Are you talking of the extremes only? Love and trust and sorrow and malice?

VINEETO: No, in my first post to you I was talking about becoming aware of all of one’s feelings and emotions as they occur. Of course the strong emotions are usually noticed first and as such these are best to start with. If you set your sights on becoming happy and harmless then emotions such as anger, jealousy and resentment are good things to watch out for and observe as they are happening. Once you get the hang of it and begin to explore how you are experiencing this moment of being alive on a regular basis, you will become aware of your more subtle emotions like annoyance, irritation, dismissal, cynicism, touchiness, melancholy, gloominess, listlessness, boredom, disinterest, guilt, shame, withdrawal, sullenness, etc.

RESPONDENT: There is a spectrum of ‘expressing emotion’. You can look at my face and body language and determine how I am feeling. So it is impossible for me to not express emotion. Also, it seems much better for me if I am feeling stressed or upset – to exercise or do whatever I need to do to work the stress out of my body.

VINEETO: Yes, at the beginning of applying the method of actualism feeling an emotion and expressing it is pretty much happening at the same time. LeDoux has empirically measured the feeling response to sensorial input by the instinctual part of the brain, the amygdala, as only 12 milliseconds. However, with sincere intent and a little practice you become more and more aware of your emotions right when they are happening and then, rather than expressing or suppressing the emotion, as we have been taught to do, you can observe it, be attentive to it, trace it to its source and completely understand it.

I simply began to consider the journey into my psyche a scientific investigation and as such every emotion I experience has become a vital source of information. My attitude became more and more – wow, that’s fascinating, I wonder why I feel this – rather than the seesaw of ‘damn, another bad emotion again’ or ‘whoopee, another good emotion’. Every emotion occurring is valuable material to find out more about my identity, how ‘I’ tick, what social program I have been taught to follow and what instinctual program drives me to think, feel and act – and then I get to enjoy the process of both discovery and success as I irrevocably change towards being more happy and more harmless.

As for ‘feeling stressed’ – in the beginning of my investigation my emotions sometimes ran high and, because I was determined not to express or suppress them but to be attentive to them, I sometimes felt like a tiger in a cage. What helped best in those situations was to go for a long walk, through the forest or along the beach. The first half hour I was often busy relieving the physical tension that accompanied the emotion but afterwards I was able to think about what was happening and began to make sense of it. When I got home after an hour or two, I was then able to communicate what I had experienced and what sense I had made of it and often I explored the emotional event yet a little deeper in a further discussion with Peter.

The key to success for me was my intent. I was determined not to let any emotion slip by unnoticed and not to stop the investigation until I had traced the particular feeling to its source, which was either a belief, a moral-ethical value or a bare instinctual passion.

RESPONDENT: Or even if I am upset with someone – to be clear with them that I am getting upset – not that I have to ‘take it out on them’, but it seems better to communicate or express feeling rather than suppressing it.

VINEETO: Speaking personally, I soon discovered that my wanting to express to someone that they were making me upset was simply a way of blaming the other for my feeling upset – a convenient way of avoiding investigating my own feelings and discovering why other people’s acts or words upset me. In other words, I came to realize that if I didn’t stop the cycle of blaming others then I would never experience peace on earth.

Every emotion I have is ‘my’ identity expressing itself because ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’. In order to eliminate ‘me’, all of the activities of this identity, i.e. beliefs, emotions and passions, are gradually brought to the light of awareness. Therefore whatever emotion is triggered, it is always ‘me’ in action and my interest lies in finding out about and incrementally eliminating the malicious and sorrowful ‘me’. As such, I have taken full responsibility for all of my feelings in that I accepted the challenge to eliminate the cause of my feelings in me.

For example if I felt insulted because someone was calling me an idiot or blaming me for something, my normal reaction had been to either grumpily swallow it or to tell the other off, depending on who was the stronger one in the situation. In actualism I investigated why I felt insulted in the first place and examined the reasons that lay behind this feeling. Personally I found that pride, self-image and righteousness were the most apparent reasons for such an emotional reaction. Once I discovered the root of the emotion I was then able to decide that I would much rather live without those examples of my identity and the feeling of insult also disappeared. The advantage of this approach is that nowadays nobody can insult me anymore.

RESPONDENT: So – just how does this ‘third alternative’ deal with ‘low levels’ of emotion. Where do I draw the line between what is advantageous for me to express and what is not? Just what is meant by ‘not expressing’ emotion anyway?

VINEETO: You don’t have to draw a line – not expressing one’s emotions means not expressing. The longer you practice the method of actualism the better you become in not expressing or suppressing the emotion when it comes up. I found that even slight expressions of my emotions, say irritation or displeasure, would cause uncontrollable ripples and repercussions in my interactions with people and, because my aim is to be harmless, I don’t want to create ripples.

If I express to another person that they are upsetting me, then I am blaming them for causing my anger and a careful observation of expressing my upset will reveal that it can never be expressed harmlessly. Similarly, if one expresses one’s sorrow to another, a careful observation will reveal that this does nothing but maintain and perpetuate sorrow in the world.

I also found it immensely freeing when I realized that my emotions are solely my problem to deal with and, when I am sure that there is no malice in what I say or do, other people’s emotions are their problem. This understanding makes all interactions with people incredibly easy, particularly when living together with someone else. You get to live in peace and harmony with the other without having to even try and change the other person in the slightest way.

20.1.2002

VINEETO: You don’t have to draw a line – not expressing one’s emotions means not expressing. The longer you practice the method of actualism the better you become in not expressing or suppressing the emotion when it comes up. I found that even slight expressions of my emotions, say irritation or displeasure, would cause uncontrollable ripples and repercussions in my interactions with people and, because my aim is to be harmless, I don’t want to create ripples.

If I express to another person that they are upsetting me, then I am blaming them for causing my anger and a careful observation of expressing my upset will reveal that it can never be expressed harmlessly. Similarly, if one expresses one’s sorrow to another, a careful observation will reveal that this does nothing but maintain and perpetuate sorrow in the world.

I also found it immensely freeing when I realized that my emotions are solely my problem to deal with and, when I am sure that there is no malice in what I say or do, other people’s emotions are their problem. This understanding makes all interactions with people incredibly easy, particularly when living together with someone else. You get to live in peace and harmony with the other without having to even try and change the other person in the slightest way.

RESPONDENT: I have only a few minutes to respond right now. I do find your comments helpful, yet I’m not hearing my concerns addressed regarding the pervasiveness of our expression of emotion. For example, your walks on the beach I’m sure were quite helpful. But that’s an expression of emotion .

VINEETO: No, that’s taking time out by myself in order to sort out my emotions and investigate them.

RESPONDENT: What I’m trying to point out is that ‘expression’ can be anything from ‘taking out anger on someone’ to a frown, to the way I dress, and the food I eat, or what I do to ‘clear my head’. If we are to stop ‘all expression’ of emotion immediately upon venturing down the AF road, it would seem somewhat of a nightmare. I’m not prepared to completely ‘lock myself’ up.

VINEETO: If you translate the method of actualism as having to ‘lock myself up’, then you erroneously understand it as replacing one moral rule with another. Actualism is not about proposing a new set of morals, ethics and values – in actualism you set out on your own volition to remove all of the programming that generates malice and sorrow. ‘You’ are at root a passionate feeling being and everything ‘you’ do is expression of a belief, an emotion or an instinctual passion in one way or another. Therefore following the current fashion of overtly expressing my emotions is strengthening ‘me’ whereas questioning and investigating my emotions is pulling the rug out from under ‘my’ feet. That’s why the method of investigating one’s feelings by neither expressing nor suppressing the emotion is so effective in diminishing ‘me’.

I think when you have the single-pointed intent to become happy and harmless, then the answer to the question about expressing emotions will be very simple. For me, the intent to become harmless meant that I did not want to express any of my mean and malicious ‘self’ to anyone because I wanted to stop causing ripples, pressurizing others, creating guilt, or manipulating others in any way – in short, I decided not to pass on my malice. In exactly the same way and for the same reason, I decided not to pass on my sorrow in any way, be it by sharing my hurts and disappointments, airing my moods or commiserating with others about life being a bitch.

Similarly, actualism is not about repressing your emotions, as in ‘locking yourself up’. The aim of actualism is not to become an emotionless zombie but to eliminate the insidious good and the invidious bad emotions and aim for the felicitous/ innocuous feelings. Richard’s article ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ describes precisely and succinctly how you can rid yourself from malice and sorrow.

RESPONDENT: I’m trying to point out that it’s not entirely clear to me just what an ‘expression’ of emotion is. It seems to me that you have circumscribed only a part of ‘expression’ of emotion. It seems you are really talking about ...

1. not taking emotion out on others
2. taking ‘responsibility’ for the origin of emotion in ourselves
3. investigating the source of emotion
4. cleaning ourselves up

VINEETO: Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The longer I applied the method the easier it became to sit with the emotion that occurred, ponder it over, trace it to its source and, upon complete understanding, step out of it completely.

RESPONDENT: It seems more authentic for me to communicate with others what I am upset about if I am getting upset. This is not to put a demand upon them or tell them that their behaviour must change. It is to openly communicate where my buttons are – not an attempt to blame others for my feelings – while I continue to investigate and clean myself up.

VINEETO: I found that ‘me’ being ‘authentic’ was just as ‘self’-serving as being hypocritical. Being authentic is the new-age version of letting everyone around have a piece of one’s feelings. If you look at today’s authenticity-gurus such as Oprah Winfrey then you can see that the core of their teaching is how to be authentically ‘me’. That’s what people have always done down through the ages – the only difference now is that it has the modern stamp of approval by calling it loving your ‘true self’ – a shoddy mixture of Eastern spiritualism and pop psychology.

What is the real purpose of being authentic? What is the underlying reason for wanting to air my feelings? Why do I want someone else to know where my ‘buttons’ are? Why do I want others to be sensitive towards ‘me’?

Rather than being authentic towards others, I found it invaluable and imperative to be honest with myself, because without honesty and integrity I would have never found out ‘my’ tricks and cunning. ‘Me’ being honest and authentic with others invariably means that I am sharing my sad and grotty ‘self’ with others, which only serves to justify, maintain and perpetuate ‘me’.

The decision to clean oneself up is a unilateral decision – it involves no one else but me. As long as I expect respect, comfort, support, understanding or agreement from others in order to start the journey, I will be waiting forever. Actualism is a do it yourself and do it by yourself method. It is an immense freedom to realize that you are not beholden to anyone else to begin the actualism practice but that you can become free at your own pace and do so in complete autonomy and anonymity.

RESPONDENT: It is not a solution to hold back all communication of emotion. So here’s a difference between expressing emotion in the sense of communicating it and acknowledging it – which is entirely different from bottling it up, then venting on someone.

VINEETO: It is entirely up to you what you consider ‘a solution’ – if your solution means you are happy and harmless, then fine. I am simply sharing my experience with the actualism method of investigating my feelings and reporting what has worked for me to make me virtually free from malice and sorrow. In my experience ‘communication of emotion’ has always been an expression of my ‘self’ in action, whereas I am solely interested in questioning and reducing my ‘self’ to the point of ‘self’-extinction.

As for the ‘difference between expressing emotion in the sense of communicating it and acknowledging it’ – you will be able to decide for yourself provided pure intent guides you uncovering your social and instinctual program in order to become free from it. You will then become the most sincere judge of what you are communicating – whether you are sharing your emotion in order to manipulate, blame, pay back, compete, voice sorrow, battle loneliness or avoid looking at what’s going on – or whether you are communicating with a fellow human being about your scientific investigations, sharing the pure joy and happiness about what you have discovered about yourself.

RESPONDENT: So I’m asking that you look more closely at just what you mean by ‘expressing emotion’.

VINEETO: Personally, I have stopped expressing my emotions to others completely simply because I cannot find any good reason to do so. Besides, practicing actualism for several years has left me almost bare of any emotion to express except for the sheer delight of, and continuous wonder about, being alive, right here and right now.

24.1.2002

RESPONDENT: It seems more authentic for me to communicate with others what I am upset about if I am getting upset. This is not to put a demand upon them or tell them that their behaviour must change. It is to openly communicate where my buttons are – not an attempt to blame others for my feelings – while I continue to investigate and clean myself up.

VINEETO: I found that ‘me ’ being ‘authentic’ was just as ‘self’-serving as being hypocritical. Being authentic is the new-age version of letting everyone around have a piece of one’s feelings. If you look at today’s authenticity-gurus such as Oprah Winfrey then you can see that the core of their teaching is how to be authentically ‘me’. That’s what people have always done down through the ages – the only difference now is that it has the modern stamp of approval by calling it loving your ‘true self’ – a shoddy mixture of Eastern spiritualism and pop psychology.

What is the real purpose of being authentic? What is the underlying reason for wanting to air my feelings? Why do I want someone else to know where my ‘buttons’ are? Why do I want others to be sensitive towards ‘me’? Rather than being authentic towards others, I found it invaluable and imperative to be honest with myself, because without honesty and integrity I would have never found out ‘my’ tricks and cunning. ‘Me’ being honest and authentic with others invariably means that I am sharing my sad and grotty ‘self’ with others, which only serves to justify, maintain and perpetuate ‘me’.

The decision to clean oneself up is a unilateral decision – it involves no one else but me. As long as I expect respect, comfort, support, understanding or agreement from others in order to start the journey, I will be waiting forever. Actualism is a do it yourself and do it by yourself method. It is an immense freedom to realize that you are not beholden to anyone else to begin the actualism practice but that you can become free at your own pace and do so in complete autonomy and anonymity.

RESPONDENT: What you say about the attempt to be ‘authentic’ rings mostly true. But what are we trying to do with the method of AF if not be more authentic to what is actual? Not ‘authentic’ in the sense of ‘feeling and expressing our emotions’ more accurately, but being authentic as in being actually present and truthful.

VINEETO: I think it is important not to confuse the issue here. You first used the word ‘authentic’ as it is commonly used nowadays meaning communicating your feelings as in ‘more authentic for me to communicate with others what I am upset about’. Now you have used the very same word to describe something completely different, a practice that only muddies the waters of communication and understanding. If we stick with your original use of the word then your statement ‘but being authentic as in being actually present’ is impossible because feelings are never actual – they may be felt as real but they are not actual as in palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material.

Actually present then means physically present, giving your full attention to the person or situation – you can never do that when you are emotional because then you are busy being emotional.

This may seem to you like nitpicking about the meaning of words but I have found it an immense help both in thinking things out for myself and in communication with others to be precise in labelling my thoughts and feelings and make a clear distinction between the two.

The word ‘truthful’ is similarly laden with either spiritual or emotional content – you may have noticed that the truth is different for everyone, it is ‘my truth’ against ‘your truth’ and this generally translates as ‘my feeling’ against ‘your feeling’ and ‘my belief’ against ‘your belief’. Therefore, as an actualist, I am not interested in truth but in facts because a fact is obvious for everyone, it is verifiable, objective actuality. A fact is patently true, manifestly clear. A fact is what is ascertained sensately and thus demonstrably factual.

RESPONDENT: The issue I have with ‘expressing being upset’ can be better stated than what I have done so far. I am mostly referring to the fact that I have a 3-year-old son. Most of the time I experience our relationship as frictionless. But he’s only 3, of course, so he has to learn things like when not to colour on the walls, when not scream and yell, and yes, when to ‘respect’ other people. I don’t mean the version of ‘respect’ that instils fear – just a benign consciousness of what is harmful or what might ‘upset’ others. It seems to me that with or without a self, kids need to be given behavioural boundaries. Take a simple case of ‘it’s time to go, and I’d like you to put on your shoes.’ Well, that mostly goes pretty easily, counting to 5 normally works best if I’m not getting the desired results. But, there are instances where one must communicate to your child that one doesn’t like the particular behaviour they are involved in. It’s not an option to let the child stay at home by themselves if they don’t get their shoes on – then go on my merry way. I am in a real sense also responsible for this small human being learning to function in our society. So, I have to have someway to communicate that I don’t like the fact that they are not doing what is required – or that they are being harmful, or whatever. I do think that this sort of evaluation can be done without malice. The best comparison I can come up with is why we need a legal system. We have ‘codes of conduct.’ Now they don’t have to be enforced with malice.

VINEETO: Yes, rules are necessary for humans living together and they can be passed on without any emotional messages whatsoever. You know the rules because you have been around a few years longer, whereas your son is a newcomer, so to speak, so he needs to learn what the rules are.

RESPONDENT: I don’t want to launch a discussion of the merits of the particular legal system we do or don’t have, just to point out we do evaluate behaviour and much of what we call ‘harmful’ behaviour has consequences.

VINEETO: In practical terms, it is not about what ‘we call ‘harmful’ behaviour’ – it is a fact that some behaviour is harmful, either to others or to oneself.

RESPONDENT: Your question of why I want to communicate to someone that I am upset is well taken – I plan to investigate that further. It seems that I could drop the word ‘upset’ and the emotional overtones that it carries, and limit myself to evaluative words like ‘like’ and ‘dislike.’ I don’t have to tell my son that his behaviour is making me ‘upset.’ I can tell him rather, that he is doing something I don’t particularly like and in some cases there may be consequences for that behaviour. I think this can be done completely without malice. It seems to be congruent with what is said on the Actual Freedom Trust website about seeing things as ‘smart’ or ‘silly,’ rather that ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’

VINEETO: Silly and sensible are factual distinctions that can be discerned by anyone applying one’s intelligence, whereas ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ are personal values.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that the alternative to this would be allow my son to ‘walk all over me,’ in the sense that if I give him no behavioural guidelines, then he will not function very well with others – and I am allowing him to destroy my happiness (cause I still feel – even though I’m not expressing). I can investigate my feelings all I want, but not telling him not to play with matches in the house and allowing him to burn the house down is going to leave me pretty depressed (while I still am a self, anyway) while I’m staring at the ashes! Not smart!

BTW, I don’t interpret the method of AF as ‘locking up’ the emotions.

Good, I’m glad that we got that out of the way.

RESPONDENT: My point is that it isn’t entirely clear when one is ‘expressing’ an emotion. I’m hoping to work towards clarification on what that means.

It’s hard to know exactly when one has an ‘emotion’ in hand. Words like love, empathy, sorrow, malice after all are just words that refer to a whole spectrum of feeling. There are times when particular emotions stand out and are very clear to see – but how do I really know absolutely (before I’ve completely investigated them) the difference between empathy and benevolence, love and intimacy, malice and an intelligent delineation of behavioural boundaries? The more I investigate, the better I get at seeing these differences. So, it seems to me that the method of AF is about gradually minimizing expression of emotion – not expressing in the cases where an emotion is very clear to see, but we should realize that emotions continue to be expressed in subtle ways. I don’t think I’m using this as an excuse to continue expressing emotion – only a recognition that it’s impossible for me NOT to express emotion subtly. So, we can nip the obvious emotions in the bud, investigate them and they begin to decrease in strength. But guarding oneself against expressing emotion subtly is what I mean by ‘locking up.’

VINEETO: I think it might help to remember that you do not turn the method actualism into a new set of rules that have to be followed. You can consider it rather like a screw-driver to take yourself apart. You apply the method because you can see that it makes sense – I presume – and because you have the sincere intent to become harmless and happy. In actualism you are your own arbiter of how you proceed, considering of course that the ‘self’ by its very nature is as tricky as all get-out.

RESPONDENT: For example, I may feel angry towards someone. I notice the anger and stop myself from expressing anger towards that person. I don’t stop the feeling – I examine it intensely. But, I’m still here interacting with this person I am angry with. (I cannot always get away from the situation easily – actual life isn’t that kind in allowing us to leave a situation that easily.) So, I’ve stopped my expression of anger toward this person, but suddenly I’m a bit more withdrawn. I’m feeling angry and not taking it out on them, but I’m not feeling happy with them anymore, so I’m expressing emotion subtly – not by taking out my anger on them, but by feeling more withdrawn.

Gradually, no doubt, even the subtle expression of emotion will disappear. But it seems to me that this is more the goal than the way of getting there. I don’t think that one can start the method of AF and simply turn off ALL expression of emotion immediately. I find it impossible to stop all expression of emotion – that is what I mean by ‘locking up.’ One must start small and tackle the ‘clear cut’ emotions first – allowing that they may be expressed, but more subtly. That is not to say that we let them rest there unexamined. Eventually, we can begin to investigate the more subtle expressions of emotion which will gradually disappear – leaving one happy and harmless. I’m also not saying we shouldn’t investigate the more subtle expressions of emotion – just that they are much more difficult to both distinguish and to ‘stop expressing’.

VINEETO: Yes, I started with the ‘clear-cut’ emotions and then became more and more attentive to the subtler expressions of ‘me’. Anger is an obvious place to start and by becoming attentive to any feelings of anger as they arise you are also becoming attentive to being harmless. Once you apply the method of asking yourself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ you then go one step at a time and become aware of one feeling at a time as it arises. This way you never get more than you can handle at a time. It seems quite daunting at first – given that actualism is brand-new territory – but if you do it for a while you will notice that the results are quite remarkable and that your interactions with people will indeed become increasingly harmless.

24.1.2002

RESPONDENT: I have only a few minutes to respond right now. I do find your comments helpful, yet I’m not hearing my concerns addressed regarding the pervasiveness of our expression of emotion. For example, your walks on the beach I’m sure were quite helpful. But that’s an expression of emotion .

VINEETO: No, that’s taking time out by myself in order to sort out my emotions and investigate them.

RESPONDENT: In light of the fact that you say that taking a walk on the beach or the forest for you to clear your head or investigate your emotions is not an ‘expression of emotion,’ I’d like to ask a clarifying question. I don’t want to debate whether taking a walk is really an ‘emotional expression’ or not – I don’t really care either way – I just want to understand what you mean. The type of ‘expression’ we’ve been talking mostly about has to do with ‘expressing’ towards someone else. I also think about ‘expressing’ emotion as just the bodily expression of that emotion – not even taking into account the other. I can feel angry at someone – then go hit some pillows to get out the anger. I can feel depressed – then go exercise or lift weights to get out the built up stress to the body. Alone in a car – a nice yell or two can relieve a stress headache. And crying can (at least temporarily) relieve the stress of a deeply felt sorrow. Admittedly, none of these can cure one from sorrow and malice without accompanying it with an investigation of what is being felt. I’m curious, which of these (if any) are ‘expressions of emotion’ in the AF sense? What else did you find helpful (other than what you’ve already told me) and which did you steer away from?

These are just a few examples how people might deal with emotions while not ‘expressing’ them towards someone...

• taking a walk to sort out emotions (you’ve already said this is not an expression of emotion)
• exercising or lifting weights (or whatever) to relieve the stress of the body and to investigate why one is feeling stressed
• yelling alone (at no one in particular) while driving to relieve a stressful headache
• hitting pillows and processing the feeling
• crying if one really feels strongly that its ‘needed’ and looking into what is being felt and why
• taking a walk and voicing out one’s anger to yourself and looking closely, until you feel better This is probably enough.

This is partly what I mean when I ask – ‘where do I draw the line between what is ‘expressing’ and what is ‘not expressing’’? I view all of the above activities as an expression of emotion in some sense – but if ‘expression’ is taken as ‘expressing towards another,’ then I’ll be glad to say these are not examples of ‘expressing emotion.’ Bottom line, is there anything in this ‘not expressing’ emotion business that allows an emotion to be absolutely and completely felt and expressed through the body – yet not towards another?

VINEETO: I use the term ‘expressing emotion’ for every word or action that consciously expresses your present emotion. The current New Age fashion is to feel free to express your emotions by sharing them with others, be they malicious feelings or sorrowful feelings. Another fashionable way of expressing emotions is to do so privately but either way is indulging in malice or wallowing in sorrow.

In my twenties and later in my spiritual years I did a lot of therapy groups where expressing emotions was hailed as the solution to a happier life, but I always found the emotional high of the group would wear off after a few days and dealing with my emotions had not become easier at all. The proof that expressing emotions didn’t work to solve my problems was the fact that I, like most others, kept coming back time and time again to do more groups. I found the belief that an expressed emotion will disappear only temporarily true – eventually I had to admit that doing therapy groups was certainly not a remedy, but rather a waste of time, money and energy. The fact that expressing emotions does not bring permanent relief has also been confirmed by empirical studies on therapy patients – and yet despite this evidence the belief still lingers on, particularly in spiritual circles where belief, faith and feelings are always given greater credence than fact and common sense.

When I took up actualism, I first and foremost became wary of expressing my emotions towards others because my primary aim was to become happy and harmless, which obviously meant not passing on my malice or my sorrow to others. It was a tough habit to break at first because by becoming aware of my feelings, I came to see and understand that most of what passes for communication between human beings is sharing of malicious and sorrowful feelings. I also found in the course of investigating my feelings that any kind of deliberately expressing of my emotions was not helpful to my investigations. Expressing emotions only enhanced the present emotions, left me unable to be attentive to experiencing the emotion while it was happening, and left me exhausted and confused.

The best way for me to find out what was going on emotionally was to sit with the feeling, experience and be aware of the surge of chemicals rushing through my head and my body and systematically ask myself questions that would lead me to discover the underlying causes for my feelings. For the method of actualism to work it is vital to experience the feeling so that you can find out what triggered it and what part of your identity is linked to your feeling. Ultimately, to unthinkingly continue on with one’s past habits of either repressing or expressing the feeling stands in the way of a fruitful straightforward investigation.

It is not an easy task and it does take conscious determination to shift one’s attitude from the automatic programming of blaming people, things and events for one’s own feelings – even if one is not expressing them – towards wanting to discover in each and every instance what part of my social or instinctual programming is making me feel angry or feel sad in the first place. It also takes effort to concentrate on becoming aware of one’s feelings in the first place because men in particular are socially conditioned to brush their feelings aside. As Richard says, the method of actualism is an excellent tool and ‘a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, Mark, 27.6.1998

24.1.2002