|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 43
VINEETO: Hi No 43, RESPONDENT: Responding to what you wrote:
VINEETO: You have misrepresented what I said by snipping what I said and inserting your own words. What I said was –
I did not ‘contemplate’ the purity and perfection of this infinite and eternal physical universe – I experienced it directly in many PCEs. Also I did not ‘feel that’ settling for second best is impossible. Any passionate and illusionary feeling state is inevitably second best in comparison to the direct experience of the purity and perfection of this infinite and eternal physical universe. RESPONDENT: It’s really all, this perception of the world?… Why are we attached to the best, to brilliance itself, to consciousness itself? Is this attachment to freedom, to felicity, or to the remembering of them? Maybe even the key of personalism, is to keep ourselves attached to an idea of ourselves. When the idea is left in the experimenting, any idea that will comes from this experience will dissolves immediately again in this experiencing. Why keeping an idea or another too much time, too much hardly? The idea that reality is magnificent or no, without second or no? Because I see where you point out with your words, I’m obligated to say you, don’t keep this words too much, use these words to dive in the experiencing, and the words dissolves in it as salt I the sea. No 43, 16.7.2002 VINEETO: I too have followed the spiritual path and have dived ‘in the experiencing’ and I have found that the resulting passionate and illusionary feeling states are inevitably second best in comparison to the direct experience of the purity and perfection of this infinite and eternal physical universe. You also wrote –
RESPONDENT: Why not normal life can be lived as it is, we need this alternance maybe, then there is no duality, no jumping, no searching and so, no better o wrong, no awakened people and dreaming people, all is a continuity, the problem, if there is, is maybe that normal life occupies all space. Will actual life occupies to its turn all space? For what, for who this maximum? We’re all dancing in this normal-actual undulation, our life, the beauty of our travelling is this debate, this challenge. What’s life without challenge, in an statual state, be this humanism or actualism? In the case no real problem is about human life, and about of the personal roads of everyone, then there is no one to salve, planet, humanity is designed as a scenario of this debate, not as expression of a single part of the debate. Only we have expressivity, ineludibly, the more human people are, the more they rather expresses their humanity, the more actual people are, the more they rather expresses their actualism, and in this multitude of expressions, we individually have the chance of doing our own road, our own orientation, play, search, devotion. When one adheres a pole, this adherence itself is also a possibility in the road, in the living as something no stated, no concluded. We express this adherence, to no matter what, experiences, erudition, actualism, emotionalism, instinctivism, and for everyone, all the rest of the others expressions, are part of his own road. A balanced state between the divers poles, or an stick state in a particular pole, these are also two other polar possibilities, not better one from another. Just we’re passing through. This point of view more accepting, and another that don’t accept this acceptation, are also just phases. But observing this I re-question me? Humanism, actualism, the different transitions and adherences, the different acceptations and choices… They are not merely interpretations of what simply happens? Maybe the personal road arrives to here in a point. It’s a curious and paradoxical point, because at the very moment you question and realise honestly how thought construct our road, our life, this faith in thought itself begins to weak, to tremble, and an experience of life without thought lighten up, broke space. This is not merely another pole in the road, but having no road at all, it’s not a different thing, but the thing without any over-interpretation. This thing now takes the command, and none stick interpretation about this command can no more occur. Living in this, there is no good or bad, better or wrong, only the experience and the operation of the experience itself, and the experience of that this non interpreted experiencing is the goal, the origin, the orderer. No 43, 17.7.2002 VINEETO: You also wrote –
VINEETO: Your reiteration of the spiritual solution – ‘just we’re passing through’ – is not only well known but also well known to have failed to bring the slightest semblance of peace to this planet. If you choose to resign yourself to dissociating from the world-as-it-is and people-as-they-are and ‘having no road at all’, that is entirely your business. Given that this is a non-spiritual mailing list, I am not interested in discussing in detail your rehash of ancient-old spiritual wisdom when something far better is now available. Actualism demonstrably works to evince genuine peace and happiness and harmlessness on this earth in this lifetime. Given that you also said in your first post to this list that – Respondent, 13.7.2002 I can only say that by your own admission you are barking up the wrong tree on this list.
VINEETO: You wrote in response to my letter – RESPONDENT: <snip> In all the whole panorama, at the end, I’m discussing, exploring with myself, my beliefs, my reactions, my thoughts and emotions. In your terms, I’m dismantling myself, this is for me the real challenge, and ineludible assignment. Said this, I just want to note some things about your recent letter. I would focus in one aspect of your answer, a very detail, but for me a trail. Referring to my words you said:
Maybe you have the reason, but the way you express that you are in the right path, and specifically the use of the word ‘…rehash…’, I find it offensive. And I know, it’s not just my subjective fear, surely also, but not only, objectively it could be noted a subtle aggressiveness in the use of this word of a quasi-slang, you use a word in a derogatory, ironical, way. Rehash is a word unnecessarily ironical for my maybe ignorant and chaotic phrases, you could have use simply words as mixture, re-construction, re-imitation, and so. The strength of your expressiveness would have been the same, but without this shade of cruelty. I accept all your explanations, and comments, even if they seem hard to assume or contrast, but I can’t tolerate for too much time unnecessary and derogatory words. It is not that a consider me too much as for tolerating derogation about me, it’s for a more disappointing cause, I’m simply too much weak, this body can deal only with very low levels of aggressiveness, so in a point the body has to escape or to deteriorate. Understand, it’s not that I’m so special, I have always fight with my weakness, and thought I have to become stronger, this society ask only for strong people, I’m just like this, from when a was a child I don’t supported slang ironic or definitively cruel words. And I’ve always castigated me for my kind speaking. I’ve tried just a little to use more slang, intimidating words, a more hard and convulsive way of expressing me, I have in a certain manner admired this way of speaking, proper of outskirts, or of non educated people. In some therapies this direct, emotional, convulsive way of speaking is a goal, but simply I had handle this convulsive expressiveness very rarely, awkwardly, simply I can’t maintain it. Now I’m abandoning the supposition that one has to be aggressive, and that kindness is something light, weak. Certainly the aggressiveness I perceive in your letter is little, but for me is enough, and objective. VINEETO: I can say for what it’s worth that there was no ‘aggressiveness’ from my side in my post to you. I looked up the word ‘rehash’ in the dictionary and I could find no ‘derogatory’ meaning in the word at all. The word ‘rehash’ simply means …
Spiritual wisdom of any kind is by its very nature ancient and therefore any of its variations are rehash, a reiteration and a repeat of what many other people have touted to be the ‘Truth’. In fact, spiritualism is venerated in the main precisely because it has been rehashed for centuries, taught and practiced for hundreds of years by thousands of people. Any appliance or scientific theory used for such a length of time with so little results would have been discarded as useless, but for some weird reason people measure the value of spiritual ideas by different standards – the older and less intelligible the better, the less effective the more attractive. RESPONDENT: You as also again use the word ‘barking’ when you said me:
Yes, I know it’s a traditional expression, but traditional expression are in occasions cruel, harming. In particular, in all the context of our correspondence, saying that I’m barking is exaggerated obviously, and merely projective from your part. We’re just beginning a conversation, we are perfect strangers in the cool and mechanical internet world, and you from the very beginning, without a minimum of confidence, describe me as barking, it’s a little too much hard and unnecessary. <snip> VINEETO: I apologize for the misunderstanding. I had only ever intended the metaphorical meaning of the English expression ‘barking up the wrong tree’, and not the literal meaning of the word ‘barking’. It is far from me to say that you were barking. So I am happy to rephrase my original statement – Respondent, 13.7.2002 I can only say that by your own admission that you To make my reason for saying this more clear – actualism is about becoming free from the human condition of malice and sorrow, i.e. becoming happy and harmless, whereas you were stating that you are not interested in ‘reading about human felicity and well-being’. You were also saying that – Respondent, 17.7.2002 If you choose to accept normal life as it is then that is your business but again this indicates that you are on the wrong mailing list because what is being discussed on this list is a way of become free of the malice and sorrow of normal as well as spiritual life. RESPONDENT: [...] Maybe if you were not so convinced of having the reason, the appropriated orientation in this question of human life and happiness, maybe then we could discuss together, examine together. If not, I could feel you only speaking to yourself, to reassuring you more and more. It’s not maybe this another facet of the self we have to explore and dismantle? The self of my intellectual reasons, of my intellectual systems. VINEETO: Why should I not be convinced of having found the solution to human happiness and harmlessness when each pure consciousness experience confirms the fact that genuine peace-on-earth is possible right here right now? Why should I not report that there is now a method to become free from malice and sorrow when I experience every day that the method has been and is being successful? My position is really very simple –
RESPONDENT: A cultist person is very aggressive in presenting its principles, is unmovable, he creates in you a kind of emotional and intellectual intimidation, because he has the only and absolute truth of things. A cultist don’t let you any space for dissidence, for disagreement, for new propositions, complementary visions and so. A cultist pretends that if I don’t agree with him this is my fault, I’m so closed, so angry, so no matter what. A cultist menaces that if you loose the opportunity, the exceptional opportunity of receiving and completely surrendering to what his doctrine says, then you will be in the worse of the misery, he says, it’s apt to you if you are so stupid. So arrogant of going away. I’ve clearly detected all this elements and more in you, totally parallel to other cults I’ve carefully study, for instance Jehovah Witnesses. But your cult is more subtle, less external, as the illuminist cults. Maybe the subtle is the cult, the less apparently recognisable is, the more dangerous is. VINEETO: If you are so sure, and I’m so sure as you say I am, no conversation is possible between us. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
