|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 37
VINEETO: Hi No 37, I have enjoyed you latest posts to the list and I particularly liked your precise list of questions regarding the infinity of the universe. It was the urgent quest to know that served to bring me definitive answers about the universe and what it is to be a human being and, going by your posts in the last two days, you certainly have discovered some definite answers. I am reminded of the time when my questioning was particularly pressing. I had been with Peter for a couple of months and in that time it became obvious that if I wanted to live with him in peace and harmony, I had to change, not only superficially but radically. I experienced that we could easily agree on facts – for instance the sensuous facts that sex is fun or which restaurant in town had the best coffee and lunch. We also had no problems agreeing on obvious empirical facts that could easily be verified. But as soon as it came to beliefs, opinions and feelings we often arrived at a loggerhead situation. In particular I discovered that my beliefs in Eastern religion were increasingly impossible to reconcile with facts that emerged from reading Richard’s accounts of his discoveries, from mutual discussions I was having with Peter and from my own inquiries, yet my belonging to the Sannyas community made this investigation rather scary. For a few weeks we avoided talking ‘about the war’ but soon that was not good enough for me – living in harmony with Peter was at the very top of my laundry list and I was unwilling to settle for the normal relationship, where what passed for harmony was only sustained by constantly monitoring a ceasefire and constantly avoiding each other’s no-fly zones. For that very reason I needed to find out the facts and I had to dig deeper into the ideas, beliefs and truth that I had taken on board and that I felt so touchy and defensive about. To merely change one belief for another was not an option. The need to find out as a certainty became so pressing that I began to ask more and
more specific and sometimes very disturbing questions, so much so that one day I was distracted while driving and had a minor car
accident. The following evening a crack in my beliefs became readily apparent, which resulted in my first major PCE. The rest is
history described in Now to your letter – RESPONDENT: The AF usage of the word ‘belief’ is deficient. Here’s first part of what is in the AF online dictionary on Belief...
It seems that AF definition of belief is only part of the meaning of the word belief. Yes, belief is often emotion-backed thought – it’s also often based upon insufficient evidence – but that doesn’t mean it’s always the case. Sometimes the word belief is synonymous with ‘educated guess’ where one doesn’t pretend certainty. In my job, I do phone technical support and I know as a matter of experience that educated guesses are indispensable in the troubleshooting process – one makes hypotheses until everything clicks in and the solution is found – one doesn’t know the educated guesses are true – but must make those guesses to proceed to getting a solution. There seems to be a similar confusion over the word ‘opinion.’ Mostly an opinion is used on this list as synonymous with belief – why would you think something is true without sufficient evidence? I suppose it depends on what you think is ‘sufficient.’ But there are also common usages of the words ‘opinion’ and ‘belief’ that do not imply ‘fervently wishing to be true’ or an ‘emotion-backed thought.’ VINEETO: The reason Peter took the time and made the effort to write a glossary of terms for the actualism website was to explain how particular words are used in the actualism writings –‘a glossary of words and meanings as used in the Actualism writings and correspondence’ as it says on the Library homepage. Given that Actual Freedom introduces the third alternative to either being normal or becoming spiritual, it makes sense to be as precise as possible in one’s vocabulary in order to convey the discoveries made in using the actualism method as clearly as possible so as to make the difference clear between an emotional-spiritual and an actual experience. RESPONDENT: Take for example the following passage from Vineeto’s writing... (from Vineeto’s correspondence on ‘Imagination’)
Now, Vineeto was incorrect about the philosopher’s cave. It wasn’t Mr. Kant’s cave – rather, it was Plato/Socrates’ cave from The Republic. Now, she said she ‘thinks’ it was Kant’s cave – meaning there was uncertainty – so it seems she was making an educated guess that turned out to be wrong. So, my question is – was the idea that the cave was Kant’s a belief since it was discovered to be incorrect? Does the fact of the thought being wrong make it ‘emotionally backed?’ Again, it seems like Vineeto was merely giving an opinion or belief in the ‘educated guess’ sense and not the ‘emotion backed’ sense. Also, I could come up with all kinds of scenarios where I have ‘sufficient’ evidence to think something is true and factual, where it turns out later to be incorrect – but those aren’t necessarily emotion-backed thoughts. VINEETO: Exactly. I remember writing the story and wondering what word best to use for not being sure as to who was its author. I chose to use the word ‘think’ instead of ‘believe’ because I knew for sure that I had no emotional investment as to who the author was. RESPONDENT: So it seems that either there must be beliefs that are not emotion-backed thoughts – or the things we think can turn out to be incorrect that are not emotion backed thoughts need a new name – like ‘educated guesses.’ But they already had a name – the rest of the world knows them as beliefs. VINEETO: For me as an actualist it is vital to make the distinction between an emotion-backed thought and an ‘educated guess’ and as such I use different words for distinctly different meanings. Because I want to investigate all of my emotion-backed thoughts, i.e. beliefs, I need to make sure I don’t confuse them with mere ‘educated guesses’. In other words, I reserve the meaning of the word belief to mean what it means in the actualism writings – both for the sake of my own clarity and for clarity in communicating with others. RESPONDENT: Finally, for anyone who thinks it’s just me that’s confused and not the usages of ‘belief’ and ‘opinion’ on the AF list – here’s a quote from Richard... (from Richard’s Selected Correspondence on What is Actual Freedom)
So Richard allows the usage of the word ‘opinion’ to mean ‘make estimations, find it reasonable to presume and so on’ – why not make the same allowance for ‘belief?’ I find myself using the word ‘believe’ in that context quite frequently – where I am making an educated guess. It’s synonymous (sometimes) with ‘I think so’ or ‘to the best of my knowledge’ or ‘yes, according to the best available evidence, I believe it to be the case.’ This is very common usage, folks – but I find that the word ‘believe’ and likewise ‘opinion’ has turned into a hot button word on this list – lest you be reproached and sent back to square one. Maybe just maybe it doesn’t always mean ‘emotion backed thought.’ VINEETO: I wonder what clarity would be achieved by the word ‘belief’ to mean something other than it is meant to mean in the actualism writings? Or, to say it in your own words from a few months ago –
I take it that when you said ‘rooted in belief’ you did not mean ‘rooted in educated guess’. As such you understood that the activity of investigating one’s beliefs is the activity of investigating one’s emotion-backed thoughts, heartfelt passions, cherished opinions, esteemed worldviews and precious theories and not one’s ‘educated guesses’. The specific use of words and their associated meanings in the actualism writings is designed to aid this hands-on investigation, not to confuse or obscure it by vague or ambiguous jargon as is the wont in the revered spiritual teachings. It is as simple as that.
VINEETO: I have enjoyed you latest posts to the list and I particularly liked your precise list of questions regarding the infinity of the universe. It was the urgent quest to know that served to bring me definitive answers about the universe and what it is to be a human being and, going by your posts in the last two days, you certainly have discovered some definite answers. RESPONDENT: I’ve had a bit of time off from work recently and have sort of hunkered down – ‘all one gets by waiting is more waiting’ is certainly true – and I’ve accumulated enough evidence at this point – so I’m taking the second reluctant foot that is still on the other side of the fence and jumping in with both finally. VINEETO: Ah, wonderfully put – ‘the second reluctant foot’. Although the period of establishing a prima facie case is crucial in order to be able to understand what actualism is about, I found that I only started having success with the actualism method after I had jumped in with both feet, … or, to extend your metaphor, you cannot walk forwards if you have one foot on each side of a barbed wire fence. * RESPONDENT: The AF usage of the word ‘belief’ is deficient. <snip> It seems that AF definition of belief is only part of the meaning of the word belief. Yes, belief is often emotion-backed thought – it’s also often based upon insufficient evidence – but that doesn’t mean it’s always the case. Sometimes the word belief is synonymous with ‘educated guess’ where one doesn’t pretend certainty. In my job, I do phone technical support and I know as a matter of experience that educated guesses are indispensable in the troubleshooting process – one makes hypotheses until everything clicks in and the solution is found – one doesn’t know the educated guesses are true – but must make those guesses to proceed to getting a solution. <snip> VINEETO: The reason Peter took the time and made the effort to write a glossary of terms for the actualism website was to explain how particular words are used in the actualism writings –‘a glossary of words and meanings as used in the Actualism writings and correspondence’ as it says on the Library homepage. Given that Actual Freedom introduces the third alternative to either being normal or becoming spiritual, it makes sense to be as precise as possible in one’s vocabulary in order to convey the discoveries made in using the actualism method as clearly as possible so as to make the difference clear between an emotional-spiritual and an actual experience. RESPONDENT: It’s funny now that you point that out – I almost never scroll down to the actual ‘glossary’ on that page – but usually select one of the ‘topics’ above – so I wasn’t aware of the statement ‘a glossary of words and meanings as used in the Actualism writings and correspondence.’ I certainly have no objection to refining word usage in the interest of clarity, and with that provision – it seems that the definition of ‘belief’ is sufficient. What I had been noticing lately is a tendency to pounce on any beliefs or opinions whatsoever – possibly even in the ‘educated guess’ form. VINEETO: Ah, in the light of ‘a tendency to pounce on any beliefs or opinions whatsoever’ I understand your query that ‘the word ‘belief’ is deficient’. However, I think that as long as you stick to pouncing on your own ‘educated guesses’ there is no way you can astray because you will find out soon enough if your ‘educated guesses’ qualify as being beliefs and as such need further examination. It is the passionate intent to get to the bottom of all of your beliefs that is crucial for uncovering all the borrowed knowledge and all of the ideas, principles and convictions that you, like everyone else, have inadvertently taken on board. RESPONDENT: Here’s an example... This is from Gary to No 49 ‘No 49 re: choices (pt.2)’ (April 18, 2003)
Now this is an interesting statement because Gary is basically telling No 49 that opinions are synonymous with beliefs and both are emotion backed thoughts – and he adds at the end of this particular sentence ‘in my opinion’. This may have just been a slip-up on Gary’s part – no big deal I suppose, yet the confusion is a result of the word opinion being used in a more confined way that it’s normal usage. And it’s that extended, normal usage that slips out at the end of that sentence. Maybe a better word would have been ‘judgement’, or ‘estimation’. I suppose that’s for Gary to decide. VINEETO: Funny you should think that it ‘may have been a slip-up on Gary’s part’ – I thought it was a good pun, particularly because right after saying the above he quoted the Merriam-Webster dictionary with the various meanings for the word ‘opinion’. I know from experience that most of my former opinions were feeling-backed and as such fell into the same category as beliefs. Forming an emotion-backed opinion to everything I encountered has been a tenacious habit arising from ‘my’ compulsive need to always categorize everything as being either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but it is also firmly rooted in the instinctual need to ‘fall into line with one group or another’. Only lately have I been able to read a report or watch a documentary on TV, or hear someone tell a story or propose a theory without automatically forming an emotion-backed opinion one way or the other. I am discovering the carefree ease that comes with not needing to have an opinion on everything that is going on or everything that other human beings do. * RESPONDENT: So Richard allows the usage of the word ‘opinion’ to mean ‘make estimations, find it reasonable to presume and so on’ – why not make the same allowance for ‘belief?’ I find myself using the word ‘believe’ in that context quite frequently – where I am making an educated guess. It’s synonymous (sometimes) with ‘I think so’ or ‘to the best of my knowledge’ or ‘yes, according to the best available evidence, I believe it to be the case.’ This is very common usage, folks – but I find that the word ‘believe’ and likewise ‘opinion’ has turned into a hot button word on this list – lest you be reproached and sent back to square one. Maybe just maybe it doesn’t always mean ‘emotion backed thought.’ VINEETO: I wonder what clarity would be achieved by the word ‘belief’ to mean something other than it is meant to mean in the actualism writings? Or, to say it in your own words from a few months ago –
I take it that when you said ‘rooted in belief’ you did not mean ‘rooted in educated guess’. As such you understood that the activity of investigating one’s beliefs is the activity of investigating one’s emotion-backed thoughts, heartfelt passions, cherished opinions, esteemed worldviews and precious theories and not one’s ‘educated guesses’. The specific use of words and their associated meanings in the actualism writings is designed to aid this hands-on investigation, not to confuse or obscure it by vague or ambiguous jargon as is the wont in the revered spiritual teachings. It is as simple as that. RESPONDENT: You are correct that I understood that believing (in the actualist sense) is emotion-backed. I suppose that there is more than one way to do things in the interest of clarity – one could always use a qualifier in front of the word ‘belief’ – like ‘emotion backed beliefs’ or ‘passionately held beliefs’ etc – as to distinguish from estimations and guesses. I suppose that where much of this is coming from not wanting to butcher ordinary language too much. If I find myself saying for example, ‘I believe her middle name is, uh, Joanne’ – I don’t want to be concerned about modifying it to say ‘I think her middle name is...’ or ‘My best guess is that...’ or whatever. VINEETO: Personally I found it very useful to adjust my language to aid my ongoing inquiry into beliefs. For me, it seemed easiest to reserve the word belief for the fervent emotion-backed activity of my thoughts and use different words for simply being uncertain about a fact. But then, I guess, each actualist decides what works best for themselves, by themselves. RESPONDENT: This probably also comes from bumping up against this issue in my ordinary speech – for example, does saying ‘I hope you have a nice day’ necessarily mean I’m ‘hoping?’ I could just as easily change to wording to ‘Have a nice day.’ So, I sometimes use the word ‘hope’ without the emotion of hope behind it. VINEETO: Well, after I had inquired into the bigger issues of my beliefs I became increasingly attentive to my way of thinking and use of language in order to not inadvertently overlook something. I discovered that when someone said to me ‘I hope you have a nice day’ they were implying that I might not have a nice day because having a nice day is generally considered to be a matter of luck or a matter of avoiding misfortune. As an actualist I no longer rely on hoping that I will have a nice day – I can be sure of it, because I have been busy ridding myself of my feelings of sorrow and malice such that I now always have an excellent day. As for other people – I can sincerely say to someone ‘have a nice day’ as a kind of encouragement but I know by experience that hoping for it is a no-brainer. I know the human condition and I know that normal people, and spiritual people, regularly stuff up the possibility of having a lovely day by feeling upset, frustrated, annoyed, bored, melancholic, sad, angry or even furious. RESPONDENT: Sometimes it seems that actualism cuts into one’s ordinary speech a bit too much. Or at least it has the potential to do so, if you let it – and it can be disorienting. ‘I Looove ice cream!! Uh, I mean ice cream tastes great!’ My solution for this dilemma is to look for the emotion – not the words, but to remember that words can be, but aren’t necessarily, indicators of an emotion or particular mental state. VINEETO: To practice actualism is certainly ‘disorienting’ – it is bound to. After all, the psyche that you are inquiring into is the result of millions of years of human conditioning and billions of years of instinctual programming – if that is not upsetting the applecart I wonder what is. I remember I had days, even weeks, of being on an emotional roller-coaster because I wanted to question everything, often including things that made sense. Slowly I began to understand that how I am experiencing this moment of being alive is what is vitally important, as this is the only moment I can experience being alive. As such what I need to experientially investigate is whatever feeling is preventing me from being happy now. RESPONDENT: So anyway, I suppose a sensible way of keeping our words clear is to keep them within well defined limitations for the purpose of clearly communicating about Actual Freedom – along with the clearly stated provision that this is the purpose for doing so. VINEETO: Of course. Clear communication is the very purpose of using words … unless one is has a vested interest in muddying the waters, that is.
VINEETO: I’m slowly getting round to answer all the posts that are queuing up. RESPONDENT: I’d like to clarify a point you made to No 38 recently.
I’m very curious about this whole line of reasoning and where it comes from. A couple points that are unclear to me...
VINEETO: Animals on farms are domesticated animals – they are ‘provided with shelter, food and security’ and ‘become domesticated such that the survival instincts are not as pre-eminent’. For this reason domesticated/farm animals have less need to exhibit their instinctual survival behaviour. RESPONDENT: Then I wonder why many animal lovers and caretakers have a single minded goal to return their precious animals to the wild where they belong and can be ‘happy.’ VINEETO: Could it be that the animal lovers and caretakers are also exhibiting their own instinctual behaviour? These animal lovers, being domesticated animals themselves, are usually provided with food by other people, which in turn means they have no need to eat ‘their precious animals’, so their instinct to nurture has a free reign, which means they desire ‘to return their precious animals’ to the wild in order that other animals have the opportunity to eat them. No wonder you wonder, as it makes no sense to me. RESPONDENT: Eagles can’t fly in captivity like they do in the wild. Cheetahs can’t run like normal. Whales can’t swim like they do in the wild. So it seems there is a good reason why many animals may be better off in the wild rather than in captivity or being domesticated. VINEETO: Are you speaking personally here or generalizing about what you think other animals might prefer? RESPONDENT: Also, as domestication is often accompanied by laziness and immobility and lack of challenge that animals can thrive on, are we to assume that having one’s needs taken care of, thus turning off instinctual passions to some degree is necessarily healthier or more enjoyable? VINEETO: Speaking personally, I much rather live with domesticated humans in a policed and regulated society than with an undomesticated, undisciplined and marauding mob. Civilization may be a thin veneer but it is better than the anarchy of the wild. RESPONDENT: People can at least attest to the fact that activity and a challenge is much more enjoyable than sitting around and getting bored. VINEETO: Speaking personally, once I started to enjoy being here, the feeling of boredom fell by the wayside. It is utterly delicious sitting around doing nothing as it is doing an activity or nutting out a challenge. And nowadays I leave physical challenges to the hormonally-impaired. RESPONDENT: It is an interesting assumption that domesticated animals are happier or better off than those in the wild – but is it true? VINEETO: Yet I didn’t say that – the only statements I made were –
It is you who are making ‘an interesting assumption’ and are busy questioning whether it is true – not me. RESPONDENT:
VINEETO: Tigers are not a representative example of animals in the wild. They are exceptional in that they are at the top of the food chain in many places and therefore need to be less constantly vigilant than the general population of animals that not only need to hunt but are hunted as well. Most people who make romantic videos of playing and romping big cats and other ‘cute
and lovable’ animals passionately believe in a Garden of Eden-type ‘natural paradise’ which is supposed to have existed
before humans roamed the earth and these people have a vested interest in presenting animals as being innocent and happy – a
natural state that was supposedly corrupted by the very presence of human beings. Nature documentaries, while appearing to be
visual evidence of the leisurely and playful life of wild animals, is nevertheless information tainted by the beliefs and feelings
of the people who researched, filmed, edited, produced and annotated it. (see RESPONDENT: Also, I don’t know about you, but I interpret their hunting activity as probably quite enjoyable – much like people enjoy the hunt as well. VINEETO: People who are nowadays hunting animals for sport do it for pleasure and entertainment, not for survival – they enjoy the temporary unrestrained expression of the instinctual passions to hunt and kill. Animals in the wild need to hunt and kill in order to survive and most animals fear becoming a meal for some other predator. Speaking personally again, I like it that we humans have risen to the top of the food chain – that I don’t have to worry about being eaten by a tiger outside the supermarket or having to shoot a crocodile out of the garden. RESPONDENT: Oh, and to not be concerned about guilt when killing another animal – that sounds pretty good to me too. VINEETO: Everyone is instilled with a social conscience and it is an age-old dream to free oneself from the shackles of this societal conscience by returning to one’s natural state, the so-called innocence of the wild and uncultured, to a state before one’s feeling of guilt ever existed. The idea that animals are both happy and innocent because they don’t know or feel guilt is based upon the belief that if it weren’t for guilt one would be happy and carefree. If ‘that sounds pretty good’ to you I suggest you read RESPONDENT: Of course, they are driven by their instinctual passions which does put a damper on things – but I wonder why you don’t see a tiger’s life – just as one example, as at least somewhat enjoyable? VINEETO: If you want to contemplate how animals feel in the wild it is useful to pick an example that characterizes the broader range of animals – a tiger has no competitor to fear but his own kind in many places and is therefore not representative. For a general picture of how animals possibly experience life you could compare their life to that of the Stone Age humans whose life was an ongoing battle of grim survival. In days of old, with the dangers and unreliability of hunting, enough was always only temporary; hence the constant drive for more and the constant fear of too little. It was necessary to compete and fight with other animals and humans for scarce food, shelter and territory and it was also necessary to physically protect the women and helpless offspring. Indeed, survival was a grim business – an instinctual obsession. When you have experienced in yourself the full force of bare instinctual fear or instinctual aggression you will know that there is nothing enjoyable at all about being overcome by instinctual passion. RESPONDENT:
VINEETO: It would appear that you are arguing the case in support of the human condition again because within the human condition malice and sorrow are often synonymous with enjoyment. There are many, many people who find it enjoyable to watch violent movies or brutal boxing matches, who delight in ridiculing and denigrating their peers, who take glee from plotting revenge and who find relaxation in playing video games where one murders as many opponents as possible. There are others who find it highly enjoyable to jump out of an aeroplane for thrills. Their enjoyment is derived from feeding and yielding to their instinctual passions. This is not the enjoyment of life I am talking about as an actualist. Enjoying this moment of being alive directly pertains to my freedom from being driven by my social-instinctual programming. No other animal can make such a choice – it needs an awareness of being instinctually driven to be able to choose not to be driven. RESPONDENT: I should say that I certainly am not defending the view that animals are ‘innocent.’ They can be vicious and cruel – but they are also tender and docile and playful. I also cannot claim to be able to ‘get into their heads’ enough to definitively say that they are ‘happy.’ But being that ‘happy’ has many possible definitions, it would be hard to be definitive when thinking about ‘animal happiness.’ About all I can say is that it is obvious to me that animals experience a good deal of enjoyment as well as the struggle for survival and the suffering involved. They obviously have a good deal of vitality and in many a capacity for much playfulness. Also, it should be noted that even as each species is different and has its own set of challenges, for the most part – each animal is somewhat different and has something of a personality of its own – as any animal owner can attest to. VINEETO: I am reminded of your recent correspondence with Richard only four month ago in which you presented the following question
And you now want to conduct an inquiry into the ‘worthwhile, valuable, and at least somewhat happy’ life of animals. Why? RESPONDENT: As a final observation, we recently made our two cats outdoor cats. I was a bit concerned at first that this might put them in danger from other cats, traffic they could run into, etc. yet they have survived quite well and are always ready to enjoy being held and rubbed – responding with quite satisfied purrs. One of them is more fearful in general than the other – so I’m not sure whether she is enjoying herself more or less outdoors, but the other cat is quite adventurous and is thriving outdoors – on the hunt or taking a relaxing siesta. We still provide their food and water – so they don’t have to ‘worry’ about that, but they still stalk and kill birds – apparently for the ‘fun of it.’ Now, they are certainly not in the wild, but there are plenty of threats out there (other cats and dogs that roam the neighbourhood) so it is certainly a simulation of the wild – probably as much as a farm would be. Anyway, I would be hard pressed to say that cat is ‘not enjoying life.’ Back to you... VINEETO: Last week you wrote to No 53 a succinct description of the human condition –
Yes, ‘human beings are already in their natural state’, as are all other animals. By my own experience as a human I know that this ‘natural state’ is not enjoyable – otherwise I wouldn’t be in the business of practicing actualism in order to leave the natural state permanently behind.
RESPONDENT: I’d like to point out something regarding the ‘birthright’ issue that is part of your current discussion. In your current discussion:
Vineeto, I’m not sure if you are distinguishing between the feeling of happiness and an actual freedom – since on the homepage of the Actual Freedom website, it is stated –
I don’t know for sure who wrote those words, but it appears that ‘birthright’ is being used interchangeably with ‘destiny.’ Here’s an exchange with Richard about the subject of AF being a birthright.
Since it has been unequivocally stated that one’s birthright is an actual freedom, I’m wondering whether you, Vineeto, are disagreeing with that statement – or whether you are merely saying that ‘happiness’ – as in the feeling of happiness is not a ‘birthright?’ Or possibly you are saying that happiness is not a birth-‘right’ in a legal sense? VINEETO: Yes, one’s birthright, in the sense of one’s destiny, is to be free from the human condition, but one’s birthright, in the sense of one’s fate – genetic fate – is to be malicious and sorrowful. In order to avoid the trap of pedanticism, Richard has also put it this way –
And yes, I do distinguish ‘between the feeling of happiness and an actual freedom’. The reason I responded to No 38 the way I did was because he said ‘animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life’ … ‘is being happy our birthright’…? No 38 appeared to link the way he thinks animals experience life with ‘our birthright’ to be happy. But this is not the birthright Richard is talking about – the birthright ‘to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal and infinite universe actually is’. No 38 used the word ‘birthright’ directly after stating his idea that ‘animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life’ which points to the word ‘birthright’ being used as meaning one’s natural, as in genetically-endowed, heritage rather than one’s destiny. This is why I went on to explain that our heritage is the animal survival passions, whereas our destiny, ‘the next step in human evolution’ is to become free from this animal heritage. Maybe this is the opportunity to have a closer look at the widespread belief that ‘animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life’. Animals do not have a conscience, i.e. they are not instilled with certain morals and ethics that impel one to reject, control and suppress the savage instinctual passions and encourage one to embrace and aggrandize the tender instinctual passions. Animals, with the exception of those trained by humans such as dogs or horses, blindly follow their instinctual drive whenever it occurs – they express both their tender and their savage urges without any inhibitions whatsoever. This ‘natural freedom’ of instinctual action, unmitigated by the constraints of a social conscience, has been hailed as a desirable freedom for humans throughout the centuries. In the West it has given rise to the religious and quasi-religious movements of ‘going back to your roots’ and living ‘naturally’ – be it living in the bush, eating ‘pure foods’, being self-sufficient, using traditional medicines and shamanic cures, and so on. All of these pursuits have one thing in common – they assume that the solution to mankind’s problem lies in returning to one’s original animal nature … to the time of an imaginary golden age, a time before ‘the original sin’, a time before humans were laden with guilt, a time when humans were ‘happy and innocent’ like animals. The Eastern religious view of the world is the concept that all humans are born ‘innocent’ and have only been corrupted by ‘evil thoughts’ since birth. It is further believed that it is possible for a chosen few to regain this mythical ‘natural’ innocence and to become ‘Who You Really Are’, hence the search to find one’s ‘original face’ or Divine Self. In order to achieve this state one is advised to give full reign to one’s ‘good’ instinctual passions while ignoring and denying the ‘bad’ or evil thoughts. If you believe this it is only a small step to revering all animals as pure and innocent because they haven’t been corrupted by ‘evil thoughts’. Actualism quite obviously is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. An actual freedom is a freedom from the instinctual animal passions themselves. RESPONDENT: According to actualism, being happy and harmless is precisely the method to achieving one’s birthright – not in the sense of being inborn, or some legal ‘right’, but as one’s destiny. VINEETO: Exactly, ‘not in the sense of being inborn, or some legal ‘right’, but as one’s destiny.’
RESPONDENT: Just wanted to follow up my last post by saying that I’ve been doing some thinking about where I’m going wrong with actualism – and the result was my last email to No 38. VINEETO: I am pleased to see that my responses to your posts called ‘Animals’ and ‘Birthright’ have become redundant because you have already worked it out for yourself. RESPONDENT: Needless to say, that has put many things in a different light – and I now see where you are coming from when you say that animals (farm/wild) don’t ‘enjoy life.’ You are using the phrase ‘enjoy life’ as an actualist would – and I’m using the words as a person in the ‘real’ world would do – two entirely different standards – so I see that we are both correct, but mean two different things by the words ‘enjoy life.’ We are both correct by definition and there is no need, I think, for any disagreement on the matter. VINEETO: Now that you recognized that we are talking about two different worlds, you can make a clear choice for yourself. If you ‘enjoy life’ as an instinctually-driven being then you are correct, if you are dissatisfied with your life-as-it-is then you might want to consider what it is you are objecting to … and why. RESPONDENT: And here are the results of my current inquiry: 1) Being ‘open’ to what Richard is saying is to remain ‘open’ to believing he is wrong as well. I used to think I was maintaining a ‘healthy skepticism,’ but I see now that in this case, there is nothing ‘healthy’ about skepticism. In fact, this sort of skepticism works against peace-on-earth – or at least postpones it forever and a day. VINEETO: I thought about scepticism when your post came in and I realised that a sceptic always doubts – in principle.
This definition makes is clear that in order to discover what is actual, i.e. that is indubitably so, you have to abandon both being a believer and being a sceptic. RESPONDENT: 2) Becoming an actualist has nothing to do with talking the talk or believing a set of ideas, but first taking Richard’s words at face value, committing oneself to ‘peace-on-earth,’ and precipitating or remembering a PCE so one no longer needs belief or doubt. VINEETO: Yes, a PCE is the touchstone by which to determine the difference between the actual world and the normal experience of ‘self’. In a PCE not only do you understand experientially what is described on The Actual Freedom Trust web pages, but you will also gain a confidence beyond doubt that you are not chasing a chimera – that the actual world of fairy-tale-like wonder does indeed exist. RESPONDENT: 3) So, applying the word ‘actualist’ to oneself means that one is committed to experientially investigate Richard’s claims and to peace-on-earth. Nothing short of that commitment will produce the goods. VINEETO: The word ‘actualist’ describes a person who is pursuing the third alternative to spiritualism and materialism. I found that the commitment to be an actualist has two components. The first one is to have experienced and acknowledged beyond doubt that both the real world – materialism – and the ‘otherworld’ – spiritualism – have failed to make me happy and harmless. The second is the ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience where the actual world becomes stunningly apparent – one knows that it is already here and has always been here and that it is only ‘me’ who prevents this flesh-and-blood body from experiencing it. The commitment to do whatever is needed to be able to live a PCE for 24h a day, seven days a week will then get you over the many and varied humps that can appear on the way – fears and doubts, the lure of ‘self’-aggrandizement, the attempts of others to cut you down to size or pull you back into the fold and the endless variety of convincing ‘tricks’ that ‘I’ come up with in order to ensure ‘my’ survival. RESPONDENT: 4) By this definition, I am now, finally, a committed actualist. VINEETO: Good on ya. The commitment to actualism is essential whenever doubts re-appear – which they inevitably do in the early stages of practicing actualism. They inevitably fade and the confidence returns that becoming happy and harmless is indeed the best thing to do with my life. It is such a delicious thing to do with one’s life – to full-heartedly commit to becoming happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: P.S. LOL – how could I have been so silly not to see this long ago? It is actually sooo simple. VINEETO: Yes, it is ‘sooo simple’ – once you got it – and yet impossible to comprehend as long as one holds on to one’s old ways. The real world and the actual world are two distinctly different worlds.
VINEETO: You wrote regards my letter to No 62 – RESPONDENT: Here is an excellent example of the meaning of words getting lost in the superficial similarity of words.
*‘It’ being the ‘human condition.’ VINEETO: Yes. RESPONDENT: ** In this context, ‘it’ is the ‘human condition.’ VINEETO: No 62 not only believes that one cannot become free from the human
condition but, as her website explains, she claims that she is ‘Self Realized’, as in ‘I was love, I was enlightenment, I
was freedom, I was understanding, the very ‘thing’ itself. I was ‘IT’ Her teaching is summarized in ‘there is only Consciousness, you do not really even
exist. Never did! This is the reason why I said ‘here is an alternative to the ‘You Are It’ freedom peddled by spiritualists’ because this is the spiritual freedom she is advertising whenever she writes on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: *** Spiritualist belief such as ‘Atman = Brahman’ eg – tat tvam asi – You ARE IT. I don’t know whether Vineeto’s loss of No 62’s meaning of ‘you ARE it!’ was intentional, or just an oversight. No 62 is obviously referring to ‘you are the human condition!’ [which is why she says ‘you can’t be free of it’] and Vineeto equated that statement with the spiritualist belief of ‘I am THAT’ or ‘You Are It.’ Two completely different meanings. It hardly looks like an oversight – if so it’s quite a blunder. I do have to wonder whether Vineeto is intentionally creating a straw man by twisting another’s words – as I have noticed on occasion in dialogue with me, the only other alternative I can see is that Vineeto has given up thinking for herself. VINEETO: I fail to see how you have come to your either/or assessment (either I am being deliberately deceptive or I am haplessly thoughtless). I am curious as to how you came to your assessment? Is your assessment based on the manner in which I chose to respond to the jibe, the style of my reply or the content of my reply?
VINEETO: You wrote regards my letter to No 62 – RESPONDENT: Here is an excellent example of the meaning of words getting lost in the superficial similarity of words.
*‘It’ being the ‘human condition.’ VINEETO: Yes. RESPONDENT: ** In this context, ‘it’ is the ‘human condition.’ VINEETO: No 62 not only believes that one cannot become free from the human
condition but, as her website explains, she claims that she is ‘Self Realized’, as in ‘I was love, I was enlightenment, I
was freedom, I was understanding, the very ‘thing’ itself. I was ‘IT’! Her teaching is summarized in ‘there is only Consciousness, you do not really even
exist. Never did! RESPONDENT: I have no disagreement with this – this is all correct. * VINEETO: This is the reason why I said ‘here is an alternative to the ‘You Are It’ freedom peddled by spiritualists’ because this is the spiritual freedom she is advertising whenever she writes on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Except for the fact that when she typed the words ‘you ARE it’ she meant ‘you are the human condition.’ VINEETO: No 62 used the word ‘it’ in ‘you ARE it!’ in a different meaning to me saying ‘I am not yet totally free of it’? No 62 has since mailed a post to the list in which she explained her meaning of ‘it’ –
I had assumed in my first response to her – which was confirmed by her explanation above – that she didn’t use ‘it’ as meaning the human condition but as meaning ‘I was enlightenment, I was freedom, I was understanding, the very ‘thing’ itself. I was ‘IT!’ and this is how I responded. RESPONDENT: When you typed or copied the words ‘you ARE it’ – you were talking about the spiritual belief ‘Atman = Brahman’ or your soul=God. Two completely different things. VINEETO: But before we get bogged down in arguing about what No 62 really meant, why don’t you ask her for clarification? RESPONDENT: It would have been a good idea to indicate what you meant when you used the words, ‘you are it’ – as ‘it’ already had the meaning of the ‘human condition’ in your exchange with No 62. Would it not be more appropriate to say this to No 62? After all, it was she who changed the meaning of the word ‘it’ when she proclaimed [No 62]: ‘Bullshit! You can’t be free of it, because you ARE it!’
VINEETO: I enjoyed your report of your experience with actualism you wrote to No 38. One part of it I could particularly relate to – RESPONDENT to No 38: Yes, in the sense that my ‘search’ for truth has ended – and that is quite a relief. Also, my ‘relationships’ and dealings with people are virtually free of emotional entanglement, so they are much, much smoother. No, in the sense that actualism and the recognition of the human condition has brought some unanticipated downsides that I am still working through. Briefly, the downside I am referring to could be summarized like this: ‘I’ resent being here, and ‘I’ know it. So, I cannot definitively say that I am happier overall. VINEETO: If I understand you correctly, I can relate to your observation that ‘‘I’ resent being here, and ‘I’ know it’. When I discovered actualism and came to understand that the instinctual passions are the root cause of all human malice and sorrow I started to deliberately break my ingrained habits of dis-identifying and dissociating from my feelings and emotions – habits which had been part of my previous spiritual practice. I also began to watch television and read the newspapers to see what was going on in the world and to take notice of how I was in relation to other people. It wasn’t easy at the start because what I found was often not very pretty. When I took off my rose-colored glasses of dis-identification and dissociation I was at first overwhelmed with sorrow about the way people are with each other and, more importantly, I was shocked and appalled at the dark emotions I found within myself despite all my diligent spiritual practice and all my good intentions. In short, I discovered that I was as bad and as mad as everyone else, to paraphrase Peter’s description. One of the first of my previously-hidden feelings I became aware of was ‘my’ resentment of being here and the constant effort required to be ‘me’ and yet I was determined and committed to not let these negative emotions slip away into the background again, but I wanted to actively investigate these feelings, look for the reasons for my resentment, consider and apply any practical changes if possible and where necessary, break my habit of carelessly lapsing back into these feelings – in short do whatever was needed to break the back of this insidious spoiler of my enjoyment of this moment. I found that the commitment to enjoy this perpetual moment of being alive was already half the battle and stubborn determination to not let fear, confusion or doubt stop me, the other half. The practical and efficient tool – the actualism method – allowed me to not only become aware of my dark emotions but to examine them and incrementally disempower them, or, to put it differently, a tool that enabled me to become increasingly more happy and more harmless the more I uncovered the beliefs, morals, ethics, feelings and passions that prevented me from being happy and harmless. This tool, combined with Richard’s report of successfully applying it, meant that I increasingly dared to stop turning away from the dark side of the human condition, and to explore the darker recesses of my psyche in order that I could investigate the instinctual passions and then do whatever was necessary and appropriate in order to disempower them. RESPONDENT: The fact that my ‘search’ has ended and dealings with people have improved is clearly attributable to actualism. The unanticipated downsides have had to do with the fact that for most of the last two years, I have practiced actualism incorrectly. I have mostly looked at the human condition and my experience by trying to think through them and understand them. Unfortunately, though that approach gave me an intellectual understanding of the human condition, it has not allowed me to eradicate it in myself. I’ve only recently been able to discern the difference experientially, which has to do with examining emotions with attentiveness rather than attempting to analyze them intellectually. There is a big difference that can only be discerned experientially, and from what I can see, the trick is to remain with attentiveness rather than intellectualizing. Also, an important note – I’ve have long understood (intellectually) that there is a difference, but one has to understand this experientially. There have been a lot of misunderstandings about the phrase ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive.’ I’ve tried to focus on ‘what’ I am experiencing – a sort of passive awareness, ‘what’ I am sensing – passive awareness – ‘what’ I am feeling – passive awareness – and other variations on the ‘what’ theme. It is only with the recent distinction between ‘what’ and ‘how’ that I see the question is specifically designed to be a simple test of the quality of experience in whatever form. ‘How’ is the important part in that it puts attention on the quality of experience – the emotions and feelings underlying thoughts so that one understands them experientially with attentiveness, not intellectually. VINEETO: Ah, how simply you said it! ‘How’, not ‘what’ is indeed the clue to the difference between attentiveness with pure intent and the passive awareness of Eastern tradition. It had never occurred to me that it is this word that signifies the vital difference, but now that you said it is perfectly obvious – ‘how’ inquires into the quality of the experience and then the sincere intent to improve the quality of this moment to be both more happy and more harmless indicates what needs to be done. Whereas ‘what’ simply takes stock of the content of one’s experience and by doing so one can either focus on sensate experiencing, thereby avoiding undesirable affective experiencing – trying to become an un-feeling ‘self’ – or one can focus on desirable affective experiencing, thereby regarding what one sensately experiences as being secondary or even illusionary – trying to become a non-thinking, dissociated ‘self’. Good to chat.
RESPONDENT No 32: My question is simple: is it possible to live with two partners (instead of one) and commit himself/herself to live happy and harmlessly with them and then experience an actual intimacy with both? VINEETO: As one of the pioneers in this business, I personally set myself a simple down-to-earth challenge – being able to live with at least one other person in utter peace and harmony. If you aspire to the challenge of making that two persons at once, then why not, as No 37 said. On the face of it you are setting yourself a more difficult challenge, but for an actualist the end outcome is what is important – the ultimate ending of malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: It might also be mentioned that as an actualist, one is already committing themselves to living in peace and harmony with every other person on the planet, regardless of where they live. It certainly may add a some extra challenges when one attempts to increase the number of partners, yet once one has gotten the ‘knack’ of what it takes to be peaceful, then it is not at all inconceivable that one can live in peace an harmony with more than one partner. A more challenging question to ask: Even though one has committed themselves to living in peace and harmony, how will things go between the additional partners if they haven’t committed themselves to living in peace and harmony? There’s the rub. VINEETO: When you say ‘there’s the rub’ I am reminded of a post from a correspondent on this mailing list a few years ago. He described well what it means to be confronted with the – quite predictable – problems of relationships within the human condition –
As for ‘once one has gotten the ‘knack’ of what it takes to be peaceful, then it is not at all inconceivable that one can live in peace an harmony with more than one partner’ – Richard describes in his journal that this is not only conceivable but eminently liveable as well –
VINEETO: I liked your post on agnosticism as you state the three options of believing quite clearly. RESPONDENT to No 60: I think the actualist approach to agnosticism is often misunderstood quite simply because there are normally only 3 positions on for example, God. 1) The Faithful stance – believes in God. 2) The Atheist or ‘Disbeliever’ stance – believes that there is no God. 3) Agnostic – doesn’t know what to ‘believe.’ You can take these 3 positions on virtually any issue – For, Against, and ‘I don’t know’ – but you might notice that they all involved belief – the 3rd is wondering about what to ‘believe.’ There is another kind of ‘agnostic’ – one who is not ‘open to believing’ – yet remains open to discovering the fact of the matter. That is where I am and where the only place I think that is sensible – since if one doesn’t know something – why believe either way – and why wonder about what to believe – just get rid of believing altogether. I also think that the reason why so many people get tripped up at this point is because they think that regular agnosticism is the only intelligent response to not knowing – then when they tout their precious agnosticism, they are befuddled to learn that they are not supported in that view by actualists. As I stated above, there are 2 ways to ‘not know’ – the most common way is to ‘not know what to believe,’ whereas another way is to ‘not know’ the facts. VINEETO: To further clarify what you so aptly called ‘their precious agnosticism’ I would like to add the Oxford Dictionary definition of an agnostic –
As such an agnostic not only doesn’t know what to believe but many who consider themselves agnostics passionately defend their stance that ‘one can never know’ or even that the answers to the mysteries of life can not be known. Thus maintaining an agnostic viewpoint is used as an excuse to shield the ‘Unknowable’ from being explored. I have seen many discussions by both Buddhists and the followers of Jiddu Krishnamurti in which they passionately defended the Unknowable as sacred threshold that should not be questioned, let alone be actively explored. To me an agnostic is someone, as you say, who does ‘not know what to believe’ but who also, as per his doctrine, does not want to find out the facts … and I am definitely not an agnostic.
RESPONDENT No 66: Vineeto, I’m somewhat surprised it was you, because I would not think you could still ask ‘isn’t it selfish to leave the real world’ as I thought you’d be ‘certain’ that it’s not. Life is full of surprises. :) RESPONDENT: It is certainly not possible to know all of another person’s intentions, but in this context it may be important to remember that when people are on video, they aren’t always asking for themselves – but often for the sake of the audience. Especially since the video wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the intended audience. VINEETO: Although I had an initial period of stage fright when first considering giving up some of my anonymity, fact is that during my video-taped conversation with Richard a potential audience was the least thing on my mind. In fact, the video-taping provided the opportunity to have a focussed uninterrupted hour-long conversation with Richard about my favourite topic – how to actually become free from the human condition – and I benefited immensely not only from the conversation itself but also from replaying it over and over in order to extract as much information from it as possible. Becoming virtually free from one’s social identity has the wonderful side effect in that I am nowadays scarcely concerned about what other people think about me. The hypocrisy of play-acting as an identity for an audience, any audience, let alone attempting to ‘know’ the intention and motivation of others in order to say or do something for their sake, is precisely the reason why I endeavoured to become free from my social identity in the first place. To put it succinctly – I was exploring the topic of being selfish/unselfish because at this point in the conversation it came up as an objection to my becoming actually free. The other pertinent point to note is because I personally benefited from the conversation I am confident that this video is worth publishing, as what was of benefit to me can also be of use to others who are interested in the same topic and who pursue the same goal in life as I do.
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 No 23: 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’d have to work really, really hard if you wanted to achieve it. RESPONDENT: Here are 3 cases for consideration that seem to me like ‘genuine enlightenment’ without the typical meditation and preparation that goes along with seeking it. Suzanne Segal – http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/segal.html John Wren-Lewis – http://www.spiritualteachers.org/john_wren_lewis.htm Meher Baba – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba VINEETO: Let me start by saying that I fully agree with Richard that it would have been more accurate to use the word ‘and/or’ rather than ‘and’ in the second paragraph above – ‘with a strict discipline of meditation, fasting, yoga *and/or* other spiritual disciplines’. Apart from that I am actually fascinated if there is indeed an exception to my generalization that one has to put effort into becoming enlightened even though many report *after* their enlightenment that it was dead easy and one shouldn’t try so hard. As for your three examples, Suzanne Segal was one of the people on my mind when I wrote the above paragraph as I specifically bought her biographical book in order to find out what caused her to become enlightened while waiting for/ stepping on a bus. Here is what she says she wanted to achieve very early on in life from – she had a strong interest in the feeling of vastness –
She did have a burning passion to be successful at her chosen field of interest and she also had an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach her goal – she attended TM meditation courses, went on to become a meditation teacher where, to use her own words, she did ‘many hours of meditation […], exposing ourselves to the large doses of what was clearly a powerful practice’ (p 16), she entrusted herself ‘to the ocean of transcendental meditation, letting my concerns float in its waters, lulled by the promise that I would wash up on the shores’ … (p 19), and then she says this –
And this is how she described the ‘siddhi course’ –
After several years of being intimately involved she left the TM organization and in the ensuing busy life in the marketplace was able to enjoy her passion of meditating only once in a while. If my memory serves me right it was about 10 years after she left TM that the enlightenment incident on the bus stop occurred. * VINEETO: As for John Wren-Lewis – he was not a complete novice to religion and spirituality before his near death experience incident. He had developed strong interest in problems of relationship between science and religion, leading to frequent broadcasts and to over 300 articles in leading periodicals, as well as contributions to numerous books and he also developed a strong interest in psychology and religion, leading to publication of the now famous essay in Psychoanalysis Observed and to appointment as Advisor to the Association of Psychotherapists in the United Kingdom. In 1971 left industry to become Visiting Professor in Religious Studies at the University of California and thereafter at New College, Sarasota, Florida. His book, ‘What Shall We Tell the Children?’ is widely used as study of the basis of religious education in a scientifically oriented culture (excerpted from http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/lane_live/lotus_feet.html). Additionally he is married to, and very likely influenced by, Ann Faraday who is a self-realized person in her own right. Nevertheless, his near death experience after eating a poisoned lolly on a bus in Thailand did not make him enlightened as for instance Dan Sutera tries to make him out to be (http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/arConversation.htm). John Wren-Lewis himself describes the experience of ‘the Void’ as fluctuating in a Spiritual Magazine published in 1991 –
His NDE was rather the cataclysmic event that sparked an intense interest in enlightenment just as similar near death experiences have either initiated or intensified the search for enlightenment for other people. Ramana Maharshi and Mohan Rajneesh are examples that spring to mind. * VINEETO: I had to do some research on Merwan Sheriar Irani known as Meher Baba as, although I knew of him, I knew virtually nothing about his life before enlightenment. Here are some excerpts from a 20-volume biography (http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp?pageBase=text.jsp&nextPage=home) about his very early interests and aspirations in life –
Additionally, his father had been a dervish (a religious man who has taken vows of poverty and austerity, Oxford Dictionary) and was convinced of his son’s spiritual nature. (p160) In his youth, Merwan was in the habit of gazing at the stars and moon – sometimes for hours late into the night. (p160) Merwan had always been drawn to solitary places and derived such profound peace from these hours … (p171) Merwan and Ramnath [a devout Buddhist friend] became loyal companions and would go off to a secluded spot to meditate on God together. The two boys particularly liked going to the burning ghats, the Hindu crematory grounds, where they would sit repeating different names of God. The two boys usually went to meditate at night and sometimes stayed as late as ten o’clock at the ghats – exchanging their views on God, religion and spirituality. (p186) ‘One day in 1912, while Merwan was sitting outside his house, suddenly his inner sight opened. He saw the divine effulgence of God most clearly and immediately lost all bodily consciousness. Although his eyelids remained open, he was merged in divine bliss. (…) After that experience of the Noor state (the light of God) Merwan increasingly felt some great urge within – some powerful feeling that he was different from other men. This feeling of being different persisted, though he had no consciousness of his spiritual identity.’ (p195) Here is how the biography describes the famous ‘kiss’ –
So what the Wikipedia link you gave describes as Hazrat Babajan, ‘whose kiss unveiled him spiritually to his state of God-consciousness or God-realization’ was apparently an event that needs to be seen in the context of his religious upbringing, and at least seven on-going years of a passion for meditation, inner peace and the realization of ‘Eternity’. I have heard it said before that enlightened masters are seemingly able to transfer enlightenment to some of their disciples – in fact that is one of the reasons why disciples flock around spiritual masters – but what always seems to be required on the disciple’s part is a passion for enlightenment/ Divinity, an unwavering devotion and an unquestioning surrender to the master. Over to you.
VINEETO to No 23: 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 No 23: This shows that likely you have not (yet) understood what a spiritual master is. VINEETO to No 23: 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, 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: Here are 3 cases for consideration that seem to me like ‘genuine enlightenment’ without the typical meditation and preparation that goes along with seeking it. Suzanne Segal – http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/segal.html John Wren-Lewis – http://www.spiritualteachers.org/john_wren_lewis.htm Meher Baba – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba VINEETO: (…) As for John Wren-Lewis – (…) his near death experience after eating a poisoned lolly on a bus in Thailand did not make him enlightened as for instance Dan Sutera tries to make him out to be (http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/arConversation.htm). John Wren-Lewis himself describes the experience of ‘the Void’ as fluctuating in a Spiritual Magazine published in 1991 –
His NDE was rather the cataclysmic event that sparked an intense interest in enlightenment just as similar near death experiences have either initiated or intensified the search for enlightenment for other people. Ramana Maharshi and Mohan Rajneesh are examples that spring to mind. RESPONDENT: What I do know of John Wren-Lewis is although he had an interest in science and religion, etc – he has often characterized his ‘enlightenment’ as being quite opposite in nature to his former dismissals of such. For example, from http://www.geocities.com/jiji_muge/dazzdark.html –
VINEETO: Yes, I came across this quote in my research on him. It goes to show that being skeptical is not the same thing as having investigated and abandoned one’s beliefs, doesn’t it? RESPONDENT: If one admits that the experience of John Wren-Lewis was a ‘genuine enlightenment’, … VINEETO: Why would you say ‘if one admits…’ when John Wren-Lewis himself admits that he still slips ‘back into that old clouded state frequently’? Do you have a different definition of enlightenment than that of a *permanent* altered state of consciousness, a *permanent* transcendence of the ego? RESPONDENT: … then it does certainly seem to be an exception. Of course, the wavering quality, its here now, gone now quality might lead some to disqualify it as genuine. VINEETO: I would certainly disqualify his experience as genuine enlightenment,
but I have come across a lot of people, particularly of the Advaita/Non-Dualistic persuasion who have a vested interest in
watering down genuine enlightenment into varying states of ‘self’-realization whereas all genuinely enlightened beings point
to a single edifying moment of awakening (with a variety of descriptions) (for 3 examples see * VINEETO: I had to do some research on Merwan Sheriar Irani known as Meher Baba as, although I knew of him, I knew virtually nothing about his life before enlightenment. Here are some excerpts from a 20-volume biography (http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp?pageBase=text.jsp&nextPage=home) about his very early interests and aspirations in life –
(…) RESPONDENT: Finally, Meher Baba. He certainly qualifies for one involved in and exposed to ‘spiritual disciplines’, so he definitely was primed by the culture, religious outlook, and his upbringing for what he experienced as a result of Babajan’s infamous kiss. From what I’ve read – I don’t see that he was involved in intense meditation such as someone like Suzanne Segal or those intentionally pursuing enlightenment. VINEETO: It was certainly more uncommon for a Westerner such as Suzanne Segal to be involved in spiritual discipline than for an Indian such as Meher Baba and therefore when an Indian boy practices meditation it may seem less significant. However, the 20-volume biography on Meher Baba is so detailed that it becomes obvious that he had a more than an average interest in the Transcendental – he had burning passion to ‘realize Eternity’ and to merge with the Divine and this passion expressed itself in long hours of meditation in various forms from an early age. Of course it is also part of popular legend that enlightened beings are no ordinary people, that they are chosen by (a) god, that they are special from birth, that they have an evolved soul earned through numerous virtuous past lives and that in their last life everything just falls into their lap. I know those myths well from tales of Mohan Rajneesh, tales that are deliberately promulgated in order to keep the mystery, the mystique and the superiority of enlightened beings alive. RESPONDENT: So, unless I see that he was involved in such arduous efforts over many years, it still seems to me as if he would be an exception in the case in which only the word ‘and’ is used in your statement above. Now that you have modified your statement to read ‘and/or,’ it appears that he may not be an exception under that understanding. I read quite a bit of his 20 volume official biography some years ago, but as my memory is often faulty – I don’t recall how much he was actually involved in spiritual disciplines himself – though he definitely showed ‘spiritual aptitude’ and a fascination with Divine states of mind. VINEETO: Well, to me he was no exception according to my modified ‘and/or’ statement in that he actively pursued spirituality and indulged in spiritual practices from a very early childhood and his enlightenment did not just happen on its own accord. Here are some more examples from the above-mentioned biography –
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
