Hi,

You wrote in answer to No 28’s query –

RESPONDENT No 28 to No 45: Do you mean ‘anhedonia’?

RESPONDENT: Thanks for answering and sorry for my English.

VINEETO: I do wonder why you say that ‘I should like to have a dialog with Richard, how is this possible?’ Richard has answered two of your posts, including the only one in which you have indirectly mentioned him. Vis:

Respondent: Dear friends, usually you are answering to emails by using dictionary and scientific definitions. Why shall then we must not accept the scientific definition that Richard is suffering from many mental diseases like unhidonia etc? When is convenient to you, you are using scientific definitions then why you are not accept the scientific definitions that Richard is sick?

Richard: I copy-pasted the word ‘unhidonia’ into a search engine and nowhere on the internet did it score a hit ... as you have entitled this e-mail ‘One Question From Greece’ (and have previously said you live on the Greek island of Corfu) it is reasonable to assume that Greek is your native language.

Therefore, if you could provide the ‘scientific definition’ of the word ‘unhidonia’ from the Greek medical texts then maybe the nature of your question will become clear. Richard to No 44 (=45), 13.5.2003

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if you want to continue your conversation with Richard, to actually do so instead of telling No 28 that you want to talk to Richard? As to ‘I should like to have a dialog with Richard, how is this possible?’ I would suggest you could try directing your query directly to him – putting his name on the header of your posts is the customary manner – sit back and see what happens. You may be pleasantly surprised as to how willing he is to answer queries from correspondents who are genuinely interested in actualism.

The topic of what is classified as insane by society in contrast to the sanity of the human condition – the sanity which includes wars and murders and rapes and child abuse, to name but a few, is indeed a rich field for exploration. Richard had already various correspondences on this subject over the years, which I have collected on the The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Personally I was very intrigued when Richard told me about his psychiatric assessment of de-realisation, de-personalisation, alexithymia and anhedonia because I had never in my life met anyone who I experienced as salubrious and cheerful, as friendly and considerate, as intelligent and sensible as Richard, day after day. For me, meeting Richard was meeting the living proof that not only is it possible to become free from the human condition of malice and sorrow but also that an actual freedom is the only possible solution to the sad and sullen sanity of the human condition.

RESPONDENT: Also I am in a state of big disappointment, because I was reading Krishnamurti for 10 years every day. I think now he was wrong. So I am left with a big sadness. After I was in contact with Henry Templeman, who was in his steps (Krishnamurti’s). Another disappointment.

VINEETO: I remember the time after Rajneesh died and left thousands of his loyal followers in the lurch. He had promised the solution to misery and sorrow but his promises were nothing but empty words – his teachings did not work. Along with most of his followers I saw this failure not as the failure of his teachings – let alone the intrinsic failure of all spiritual teachings – but I saw the failure as my failure in that I did not live his teachings properly or the failure was due to ‘the organization’ that was set up to promote his teachings and indoctrinate yet more followers. After his death, I began to have some doubts about the spiritual life-style but did not want to return to the normal world that I had left behind. When I came across actualism it soon became clear that here is a third alternative to the tried and failed solutions of human kind – including all of the revered spiritual teachings – and I began to systematically extricate myself from my spiritual beliefs and from the close-knit world of spiritual believers. When I finally succeeded in leaving this imaginary world of dreams and promises, hopes and lies, arrogance and hypocrisy behind, it was a great relief. In regaining the will I had so eagerly surrendered to others, I found I had the necessary dignity for the first time in my life, sufficient to enable me to begin to stand on my own two feet.

I can only suggest not staying stuck in feeling disappointment but to move on to leaving the rotten corpse of spiritualism behind. Now that you have recognized that it does not deliver you have the opportunity to begin afresh.

RESPONDENT: Also there is a big frustration to read on the actual freedom site with the dictionary in hand because the language of this site is more difficult than the language of Krishnamurti, but this is another subject. You have to speak your own language independently from some foreigners.

VINEETO: English is not my mother tongue and I know from experience that writing in a foreign language is not an easy task but there are marvellous tools available on the computer such as spellchecker, grammar checker and digital dictionaries, which I use quite frequently. To be frustrated about a fact – in this case, that actualism was discovered by an English speaker with a better than average vocabulary – only perpetuates resentment and sorrow and such feelings are impediments to being harmless and happy. Actualism is all about removing the day-to-day emotional – social and instinctual – obstacles that prevent you from being harmless and happy, right now. Not sometime in the future, but right now.

RESPONDENT: I attach a dialogue from Krishnamurti that is a little peculiar and also a book from Henry Templeman.

VINEETO: The attachments seem to have gone missing in the mail.

RESPONDENT: I should appreciate if I could have a dialogue with Richard.

VINEETO: As I said, the easiest way is to respond directly to the posts he has written to you.

4.6.2003

RESPONDENT: I have sent the attachment to your personal email, not through topica, because I don’t know even if the attachments are within the limit of 1024k they can not pass through topica.

VINEETO: Topica has a limit of 100 KB, which is quite sensible, given that they send every post to the 48 people on the mailing list.

RESPONDENT: I should like to ask you how we proceed after asking the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?

VINEETO: Is being happy and harmless the most important thing in your life?

26.6.2003

VINEETO to No 52: I remember, questioning my spiritual beliefs was shocking at first, then thrilling and then incredibly liberating. One day I realized that for God to rule over an infinite and eternal universe he would have to be outside of it, which is a physical impossibility, and with this realization my whole supernatural ‘universe’ came crashing down.

When my belief in a controlling, punishing and rewarding God disappeared and the notion of God’s power to grant ‘me’ an my afterlife, also disappeared, all my worries about my bank account in heaven and all my hopes for a better life somewhere-else vanished. With no ‘Scottie’ to ‘beam me up’ out of here I was free to abandon the waiting game for heaven and focus my attention from wanting to be ‘there’ to being interested in being here, from waiting for ‘then’ to being fascinated with what is happening now. Vineeto to No 52, 21.6.2003

RESPONDENT: Why if god exist must be outside the universe?

VINEETO: God is generally believed to be the One who created the universe. According to this belief God certainly had to exist prior to the universe’s creation and therefore was outside of the yet to be created universe. This deliberation combined with the determined questioning of all of my religious and spiritual beliefs made it obvious that there is no place outside of this infinite and eternal universe for any God to reside.

However, if you prefer to hold to a belief in God or a Divine Power by proposing the theory that God resides inside this physical universe, then that is your business. I found that it makes no sense to discuss the content of other’s beliefs unless they themselves are interested in questioning and investigating their own beliefs in order to become free from the grip of atavistic superstition.

However, one thing in your query leaves me puzzled. You had a long discussion with Richard over several e-mails, doubting the actuality of a tree, namely whether its colour exists independent of a human brain perceiving it, viz –

[Respondent]: That means that the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour. Respondent to Richard, 4.6.2003

You even went as far postulating that each human being is creating his or her own universe, vis –

[Respondent]: Without our brains can not take place creation. We are the universe creating its own self and experiencing its self. Respondent to Richard, 4.6.2003

If you believe that a tree, which one can actually see, touch, hear and smell does not exist independently of human perception, then why according to your logic do you think that a God who can not be seen, heard, touched, smelt or perceived by any human sensory organ should exist as an actuality outside of human imagination?

Further you said to Richard –

[Respondent]: Our perception does not identify the outside world as it really is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. <snip> Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. Respondent to Richard, 4.6.2003

If you regard the universe as being ‘colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent’ unless a human being is ‘creating’ the universe as their own self then by the same logic your God is ‘colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent’ unless a human being is ‘creating’ God as their own self.

Your philosophy that humans create the universe as their own selves is only a hop and a skip away from the solipsistic belief so dominant in Eastern mysticism where people suffer from the institutionalized delusion that they are God. I have had many meetings with people suffering from such calenturous delusion and I have had a few ASCs myself. I know the narcissistic, utterly ‘Self’-centred and nonsensical state as what it is – a voluntarily chosen psychological disorder.

People suffering from a permanent ASC are not only driven to spread their message, to gather followers and to ascend the spiritual hierarchy by creating yet another spiritual movement or quasi-religion but they are also forever cut off from experiencing the splendour and purity of this actual universe. In other words, if you choose to believe you are God you can never be happy and harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

I recommend the Altered States of Consciousness section on the Actual Freedom Trust website, subsection ‘Conversations with God’ for an in-depth examination of ‘being God’.

RESPONDENT: With the benefit of hindsight we now know that a scientific disaster took place when Sir Isaac Newton’s model of the universe was discarded and replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Einstein said on his 70^th birthday: ‘Now you think I am looking at my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But there is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm. I am not sure if I was on the right track after all.’

VINEETO: Einstein was perfectly right to wonder if he was ‘on the right track’ because after nearly a century his theories are still only theories, still remain conceptual in nature and have not been established as facts. He was more of a mystic than an empirical scientist, and his theories were more statements of his religious quest than sound science –

[Albert Einstein]: ‘There are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable; life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only Being.’ Albert Einstein

RESPONDENT: The famous physicist David Bohm who invented the holographic theory of the universe (look also Bell’s theorem) said that what I know is that the 95% of the phenomena are invisible. Quantum mechanics is also speaking about parallel universes. We are still primitive scientifically.

VINEETO: Any theory remains a hypothesis unless it is proved to be an empirically verifiable fact. Should a theory not be proved to be an empirically verifiable fact it passes into the category of being a belief. Many theoretical scientists use mathematical equations to both formulate, and substantiate, their theories which is why a great many of such theories bear no relationship at all to the physical world. Many of these theories are not only metaphysical in nature but they ape the currently fashionable Eastern spiritual beliefs and philosophies – a case of spiritual belief masquerading as meta-physical scientific theory. The idea that ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible’ is the very stuff of imagination and belief, not only non-demonstrable but also nonsensical.

Quantum mechanics not only speaks about ‘parallel universes’, something physically impossible in an eternal and infinite universe, it also suggests a relationship between the observer and the observed, an anthropocentric spiritual concept that is well known in Eastern mysticism. As physics professor Victor Stenger says about quantum theory –

[quote]: The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-super-luminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics, with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. (... ...) The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world’. ‘The Myth of Quantum Consciousness’; Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics); http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/QuantumConsciousness.pdf

For you to propose that ‘we are still primitive scientifically’ whilst championing beliefs and concepts first concocted in times when it was universally believed that the earth was flat, the sky was a world populated by Gods and underground was a hellish realm of fire does strike as a somewhat moot point. Western society is in danger of returning to the dark ages due to the growing influence of Ancient Wisdom that regards a state of ‘not-knowing’ more highly than empirical knowledge.

As to the attachment you sent to me about the ‘scientific proof of God’ by Edwin Hammond

I think the banner at the bottom of the page says it all. http://www.ordination.org/proof.htm –

Edwin Hammond’s God is apparently a God who resides in the sky. As proof of his God’s existence Mr. Hammond relies on various unproven ideas of theoretical scientists, adds a bit of psychological theory and a lot of faith – a combination that stretches the definition of a ‘scientific proof’ beyond sensibility.

28.6.2003

RESPONDENT: Why if god exist must be outside the universe?

VINEETO: God is generally believed to be the One who created the universe. According to this belief God certainly had to exist prior to the universe’s creation and therefore was outside of the yet to be created universe. This deliberation combined with the determined questioning of all of my religious and spiritual beliefs made it obvious that there is no place outside of this infinite and eternal universe for any God to reside.

However, if you prefer to hold to a belief in God or a Divine Power by proposing the theory that God resides inside this physical universe, then that is your business. I found that it makes no sense to discuss the content of other’s beliefs unless they themselves are interested in questioning and investigating their own beliefs in order to become free from the grip of atavistic superstition. <snip>

RESPONDENT: Dear Vineeto thanks for your answering.

VINEETO: Yep. You got it. Both beliefs are intertwined.

Many, many scientists hold to the belief that Someone or Something created the universe and this belief has been the starting point of many a scientific theory. In particular cosmologists have devised a myriad of theories and offered countless mathematical calculations to support their own pet theories as to the supposed beginning of the universe. In the meantime their empirical colleagues, the astronomers, have probed and explored and have yet to prove that the universe is not infinite in space and not eternal in time.

From the early beliefs that the earth was a flat disc with a balloon-like canopy over which sun, moon and stars travelled, empirical observation has lead to the discovery that the earth is round, that the moon circles the earth, that the earth and moon circle the sun, that the earth is but one of nine planets that orbit the sun and that the sun is but one of billions of suns in this galaxy. Less than a hundred years ago it was also thought that the universe was a one-galaxy universe, but we now know by observation that the amount of galaxies we can estimate in the universe increases in direct proportion to the magnification of the measuring instruments used.

And yet, despite the fact that observation has provided no empirical evidence to support the belief that the universe is finite in space (that it has a centre and an edge) and that it is finite in time (that it had a beginning and that it will have an end), these beliefs continue to malinger on, thousands of years after they were first concocted.

There was no Big Bang, nor will there be a Big Crunch. The universe has always been here and will always be here. This actual universe is infinite in space, eternal in time and perpetual in matter and this can be sensately observed and sensually experienced the moment belief, faith, imagination and affective feelings do not interfere with clear perception and common sense.

However, due to the human condition, the perception of the human brain is almost constantly impeded by instinctual survival passions, which is why throughout history the study of the cosmos has been undertaken with a mixture of fear, hope and awe – feelings that are fertile ground for sustaining religious beliefs, superstitious fairytales and imaginative science-fiction. The cosmos is a particularly rich field for imagination and fantasy. Dr. Sten Odenwald describes these feelings towards the cosmos very well –

[quote]: Through our theories we launch mathematical voyages of exploration, and watch the void as it trembles with the quantum possibilities of universes unimaginable. http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/beyondbb.html

Most cosmological theories would be better categorized as cosmythology and here are just a few examples of this cosmythology.

The Big Bang creation theory was evidently formulated by Abbé Georges LeMaître, a central figure in the Vatican’s Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma. In other words, the Big Bang theory was LeMaître’s attempt to turn the religious belief that his God created the world out of nothing – that the universe had a beginning, a creation event – into a scientific theory. Edwin Hubble’s observation of redshift and his conjecture that this is an indication that all of the distant stars are moving away from the earth was a welcome support for the idea that the universe must have had a big bang of a beginning.

The ‘scientific methodology’ of the big bang theory is to take a transparently creationist religious belief, generate mathematical formula to support the religious belief-come-scientific-theory, assess any empirical observations of the cosmos solely in the light of this theory and, when holes appear in the theory, persist with the theory by postulating ever-increasing variations to the original theory.

Due to the fact that almost every person, including theoretical scientists, grows up with the belief in an almighty and omniscient God, the Big Bang theory has been almost universally accepted as being credible despite the fact that it defies common sense in every aspect.

As for your question ‘Where was the point prior the expansion? In what space?’, I typed ‘before the Big Bang’ into my search engine and it came up with a remarkable number of fantastical explanations.

Prof. Steinhardt of Princeton University proposes that a ‘Big Splat’ preceded the Big Bang. He recently published a book in which he introduced the idea that there may be an unseen parallel universe to ours. He invokes the idea of more than one universe embedded within a higher-dimensional space. According to Prof. Steinhardt all of the action of the universe takes place within a five-dimensional space. He says that before the Big Bang occurred the universe consisted of two perfectly flat four-dimensional surfaces. One of these flat four-dimensional sheets is the universe as we know it; the other, a ‘hidden’ parallel universe. He theorizes that random fluctuations in this unseen companion universe caused it to distort and reach out towards our universe. This distorted floater then ‘splatted’ into the space of our universe and the energy resulting from this collision was transformed into the matter and energy of our universe in a Big Bang creation-like event. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm)

Another theory is described by Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City University of New York –

[quote]: In particular, an appealing but starting new picture is emerging in quantum cosmology which may be able to synthesize some of the great mythologies of creation. There are two dominant religious mythologies. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the universe had a definite beginning. This is the Genesis hypothesis, where the universe was hatched from a Cosmic Egg. However, according to the Hindu-Buddhist belief in Nirvana, the universe is timeless; it never had a beginning, nor will it have an end.

Quantum cosmology proposes a beautiful synthesis of these seemingly hostile viewpoints. In the beginning was Nothing. No space, no matter or energy. But according to the quantum principle, even Nothing was unstable. Nothing began to decay; i.e. it began to ‘boil,’ with billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly. Each bubble became an expanding universe. If this is true, then our universe is actually part of a much larger ‘multiverse’ of parallel universes, which is truly timeless, like Nirvana.

As Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has said, ‘An important implication is that there wasn’t a beginning; that there were increasingly large Big Bangs, so that the [multiverse] goes on forever – one doesn’t have to grapple with the question of it before the Bang. The [multiverse] has just been here all along. http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm

As you can see, in order to believe that the universe had a beginning there needs to be the corresponding belief that Someone or Something created the universe.

I am left wondering why theoretical physicists and cosmological mathematicians feel compelled to suppose ever more complicated theories that rely on invisible virtual particles of matter such as quantum spacetime foam, new non-sequential concepts of time such as Planck-time and new imaginary dimensions to three dimensional space. It does not make sense.

Even Darryl Reanney, an authority in microbiology and microchemistry, admits that you have to leave your common sense behind in order to follow the logic of quantum physics –

[quote]: Quantum mechanics is par excellence the field of science where commonsense breaks down completely. In particular, the link between cause and effect blurs. <snip> Quantum mechanics also demolishes another commonsense concept – the idea of ‘nothing’. The quantum view of ‘nothing’ is crucial to our understanding of Genesis, which require us to believe that ‘nothing is where ‘everything’ came from. <snip>

In modern physics, a vacuum is not empty – it contains spacetime. Spacetime is far from featureless. The smallest dimension at which the word ‘structure’ has meaning in contemporary physics is called the Planck length, i.e. about 1/10³⁵ of a metre. At this minute scale, the random fluctuations so characteristic of the quantum world are believed to give spacetime a highly complex ‘topology’ – a foamy texture. The nature of this spacetime foam is bizarre in the extreme. Some scientists believe that spacetime consists of a complex matrix of cross-connecting ‘wormholes’. Others liken the spacetime vacuum to a mish-mash of Planck-sized black holes jammed together. <snip> Perhaps the most starling aspect of the vacuum is that it is filled with an evanescent flux of ghostly particles called virtual particles. <snip>

It is important to remember that the vacuum is the dominant structure in the physical reality – the particle of the so-called ‘real’ world are only minor blips in this ocean of incessant virtual action with its paradoxical background of spacetime foam. Across the breadth of the cosmos, the familiar building blocks of matter are outnumbered by the infinity of come-and-go ghost particles that boil in the vacuum state. Darryl Reanney, The Death of Forever, Longman Australia, 1991, p. 145

It is apparent that this theoretical description of the universe does not make sense as it theorizes about matter and energies that are so minute as to be imperceptible to detection by any known, or any conceivable, instrumentation – i.e. you have to believe, take in good faith, what theoretical science proposes.

The reason why these theories don’t make sense in view of our everyday experience of the physical laws of nature is because those theories are purely mathematical or merely conjectural. A now-classic mathematical invention is that of cosmic Spacetime and its quantum off-spring, spacetime foam.

I will give you an example how quickly commonsense disappears when you combine space and time into a space-time continuum in mathematical calculations –

Take the following situation –

1. I am hungry now.
2. I was also hungry ten minutes ago.
3. You are also hungry now.

If you believe in a space-time continuum then space-time mathematics could well have it that you would need to order three pizzas for three hungry-people. No doubt some could argue that two real pizzas and one virtual pizza would suffice whilst others could argue that any such philosophizing would only cause the delivery to be late, thereby necessitating the need for even more pizzas for even more hungry-people.

The more I delve into the theories of cosmologists, the more gaps and blatant nonsense I find. Once I recognized that the notion of a God is the mere product of my social and instinctual identity, and that He/She/It does not exist outside of my passionate imagination, I also stopped believing in any of theories that propose a meta-physical supra-natural world.

6.7.2003

RESPONDENT: Thank you for answering.

VINEETO: You are welcome.

RESPONDENT: In a self-conscious state there is no time, we become aware that the constant stream of change happens here and now in the present moment. According to the General Theory of Relativity, change happens in 4-dimensional space-time, where time represents the fourth dimension. When the roundness of space-time is increased, the speed of change gets slower and stops at the centre of black holes. Einstein’s understanding of time indicates that with clocks we do not measure time, we only measure duration, speed and the numerical order of irreversible changes of reality that happen here and now in gravitational field. Experiencing change indirectly through the mind creates time. Mind experiences change 1 as past, change 2 as present and change 3 as future. Having direct experience we become aware that all change happens in the present moment, here and now. The whole past has happened in this present moment and so will the whole future.

VINEETO: I notice that you have directly quoted from an article entitled ‘Direct Experience of the Universe’, originally published as ‘Science of Consciousness for Planetary Civilisation’, by Dr. Amrit Sorli of Osho Miasto, Italy, (http://unesco-cairo.org/_disc1/00000006.htm). Dr. Sorli is, by his address, apparently a follower of the dead Indian guru Mr. Rajneesh, and has also published other articles such as ‘Non-dualistic Psychology’, ‘Watching the Mind as an Individual Research Method’, ‘Inner Science’, ‘Dark Energy Associated with Life?’ and ‘Watching the Mind as an Individual Healing Method’, all of which give an insight into his spiritual approach to science. (http://www.musarium.com/commentpages/cmts_matteroflife.html).

One of his articles entitled ‘Prana Has a Measurable Weight’, published on a website called ‘Living on Light’, particularly caught my attention. In this article Dr. Sorli reports that he measured 70grams of Californian worms both when live and 15 minutes after their death and reported an overall weight loss of 93.6 micrograms postulating that this was evidence of Prana energy leaving the living organisms upon death. He has presented his findings to James Randi claiming the one million dollar prize offered to those who can provide scientific proof of the existence of supernatural forces or paranormal events.

James Randi commented that ‘essentially, this is the same claim that has been made many times in the past by spiritualists who have attempted to weigh souls. It appears that to determine the average weight of a worm’s soul, Dr. Sorli only needs to divide 90 micrograms by the number of worms he murdered…’ James Randi goes on to explain why several of Dr. Sorli’s ‘scientific’ conclusions are in fact very unscientific. (http://www.randi.org/jr/011802.html, second half down the page).

Now that Dr. Sorli’s credentials and inclinations are established I will take a look at what he has to say about the nature of physical universe.

RESPONDENT: [Dr. Sorli]: ‘In a self-conscious state there is no time’ <snip> ‘Having direct experience we become aware that all change happens in the present moment, here and now. The whole past has happened in this present moment and so will the whole future.’

VINEETO: Dr. Sorli seems to suggest that time is completely dependent upon human consciousness, and that time can be altered by human consciousness. However it is a sensately observable fact that time passes – be it measured by the progress of sun’s passage across the sky, the daily cycle of night and day, sunrise and sunset, the monthly cycle of the moon’s orbit of the earth and the growth and decline life-cycle of individual human beings. This inexorable passing of time happens regardless of whether a human being is conscious and awake or is unconscious and asleep – or whether he or she has gone ‘somewhere else’ (as in meditating) or if she or he is sensately aware of actually being here in this the only moment of time that can be sensually experienced.

I find it quite amazing that Dr. Sorli proposes that time is a creation of human consciousness – [Dr. Sorli]:  ‘experiencing change indirectly through the mind creates time’ and that [Dr. Sorli]: ‘Mind experiences change 1 as past, change 2 as present and change 3 as future. Having direct experience we become aware that all change happens in the present moment, here and now. The whole past has happened in this present moment and so will the whole future.’ [endquote].

Is this your experience? Does your mind experience past changes or does your mind hold a memory of a change that happened in the past? Does your mind experience a future change or do you anticipate, or imagine, a change that may, or may not, happen in the future. Is it your own experience that the whole past has happened in this present moment and that the whole future will happen in this present moment or, as you sit and watch the hands of the clock moving, do you notice that the time when you got out of bed this morning is not happening now and the time when you will go to bed tonight is not happening now?

RESPONDENT: [Dr. Sorli]: ‘By watching the mind we become aware that scientific experience is also indirect. Our experience is through the rational part of our mind, which has a limited understanding of the universe. ’

VINEETO: Maybe this is a good opportunity to introduce the definition of awareness from The Actual Freedom Trust Library –

awareness – being cognizant or conscious (of); informed. Oxford Dictionary

Peter: In common usage awareness refers to ‘I’ or ‘me’ being aware. The psychological and psychic entity within the body usurps the body’s senses, giving an apparent validity to its existence, and experienced as though ‘I’ see through the eyes, ‘I’ hear with the ears, ‘I’ smell with the nose, ‘I’ touch, ‘I’ think and ‘I’ am aware. ‘I’ experience myself as an alien in the world for ‘I’ am seemingly trapped within the body, feel isolated and disassociated from the world, and often yearn for freedom or release. Thus ‘normal’ awareness is typified by feelings of separation and alienation, fear and suspicion, resentment and aggression. With increasing life experience, disillusionment and disappointment, ‘I’ become cynical, resigned or accepting of ‘my’ lot in life, as any remaining naiveté is replaced with cunning self-interest.

This cunning selfishness is most prevalent in the spiritual practice of developing a higher form of ‘awareness’. This practice creates a disassociated higher entity, commonly known as ‘the watcher’, who then watches what ‘I’ feel, what ‘I’ think, what ‘I’ am aware of. This illusionary awareness of one’s ‘self’, if practiced assiduously can, on rare occasions, lead to a full-blown delusion or ASC whereby this watcher or Higher Self can imagine or ‘realize’ itself to be Divine and Immortal. Even if this Ultimate State is not reached, the practice and pretence of developing a new identity – the higher Self as opposed to the normal self – leads one further away from the possibility of developing a genuine awareness, bare of any ‘self’ whatsoever.

Thus far there have only been two alternatives –

• the common condition where there is an ‘I’ who is trapped inside the mortal flesh and blood body and who is fearfully aware of an outside world, or

• the spiritual delusion whereby there is an ‘I’ who, as ‘awareness’ only, is confirmed by repetitious imagination as completely separate from both the flesh and blood body and the outside world, and who is thus ‘freed’ to dwell in an inner imaginary, eternal, spirit-ual world .

There is now available a third alternative for those who seek a genuine freedom from the Human Condition in its totality – the elimination of both the self and Self. When one’s awareness is freed of the emotional and instinctual bondage created by the psychological and psychic entity, a bare awareness of the actual world-as-it-is becomes extravagantly obvious. This awareness is readily apparent in the pure consciousness experience, or PCE, when ‘I’ temporarily abdicate the role of being ‘the one who is aware’. The physical senses, freed of the limitations and restrictions of a fear-based interpreter, are heightened in the extreme. The brain, similarly freed of restrictions, is able to operate with immense clarity and ‘self’-awareness is replaced by apperception – the brain’s ability to be aware of itself. The Actual Freedom Trust Library

The way Dr. Sorli looks at the world is with spiritual awareness, typified by his statement ‘our experience is through the rational part of our mind, which has a limited understanding of the universe.’ If one so readily dismisses rationality, one also forfeits any chance of common sense operating, which then leaves the mind completely free to imagine all sorts of scenarios and invent all sorts of theories. For someone who has cultivated a spiritual awareness, an entity who is completely separate from both the flesh-and-blood-body and the outside world, is thus given licence to dwell in an inner imaginary, eternal, spirit-ual world and by doing so is given licence to imagine a host of nonsensical scenarios and theories about the nature of the physical universe.

RESPONDENT: [Dr. Sorli]: ‘By presenting universal space as infinite Euclid space, it’s possible that the distance between two material objects in the universe is infinite.’

VINEETO: How can ‘the distance between two material objects in the universe’ be infinite when, in the infinite space of the universe, there will always be objects that are further apart than those two objects. You ask if I find this to be logical and yet the author makes it clear that he believes that scientific experience is indirect, and that his understanding of the universe is limited by the rational part of his mind.

RESPONDENT: [Dr. Sorli]: ‘The term ‘infinite distance’ only functions in mathematics, in cosmology we do not know exactly what it means, because an infinite distance plus 100 miles is still an infinite distance. In the universe, we can only observe finite distances, so we can conclude that the universe is finite. To say that it is infinite makes no sense.’

VINEETO: Dr. Sorli simply states that because infinity does not fit in the finite mathematical equations that cosmologists use to justify their theories the universe must be finite and because human beings have no tools to measure infinity the universe must therefore be finite.

It is apparent that whilst the author declares that ‘our experience is through the rational part of our mind, which has a limited understanding of the universe’ he himself insists upon limiting the size of the universe to a finite dimension in order that the universe accords with the demands of mathematical computations, the whims of cosmology and the limitations of the current measuring instruments. Does this not strike you as a limited awareness of the physical universe, based on a completely anthropocentric view of the universe – in other words, an utterly ‘self’-centred view of the universe?

6.7.2003

RESPONDENT: I should like to add a few words to my prior email. In Greek language we have two words. Symban for universe and cosmos for the planets, earth etc.

VINEETO: The sensate experience of the infinitude of the universe only happens when ‘I’ step out of the way and thus remove the boundaries and limitations of ‘self’-induced narrow-mindedness. When this happens, all ideas, beliefs and theories that propose a creation event, an expansion or contraction and a doomsday ending of the physical universe are seen as what they are – beliefs and theories. Being here now as this flesh and blood body only – without any identity whatsoever – enables the infinitude of the universe to be apparent and this infinitude is wondrous, unparalleled, without an edge, without a centre, having no outside to it, having had no beginning nor will it have an ending.

As long as your contemplations are based on the currently-fashionable scientific theories of an expanding universe – with a Big Bang beginning, replete with all sorts of unseen, unseeable and unmeasurable phenomena and a Diabolical End – then you will remain locked into a ‘self’-centred view and you cut yourself off from experiencing directly and sensately the splendour and magnificence of the peerless and perfect physical universe.

Let me sum up what you have presented as ‘scientific facts’ so far –

[Respondent]:

• ‘if I look at a bird for example, I don’t see the actual bird’ and ‘the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour’ Respondent, For Richard 1.6.2003

• ‘colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds … They do not exist, as such, outside our brain’. Respondent, For Richard 4.6.2003

• ‘what I know is that the 95%of the phenomena are invisible’. Respondent, No 52 re: Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003

• ‘The scientific proof of God’. Respondent, The End of Actual Freedom?, 22.6.2003

These ‘scientific facts’ are all examples of spiritual belief, the belief that proposes that the physical world is merely a by-product of ‘my’ consciousness, the belief that ‘I’ am the creator of all that ‘I’ see.

If you aspire to become free from the emotional and instinctual bondage created by the psychological and psychic entity it is necessary to rigorously and sincerely question the way ‘you’ perceive the world. That means questioning your spiritual awareness and your spiritual beliefs and in that process of questioning it is vital to include the spiritual belief that ‘we must always be in the state of not-knowing’, as you said to No 21 the other day.

The way to discover a belief is to check out whether the theory or belief you hold needs you to actively believe in it in order for it to exist. A fact can stand by itself, whereas a belief always needs faith. To quote from The Actual Freedom Trust Library –

Peter: To believe means ‘fervently wish to be true’. The action of believing is to emotionally imagine, or fervently wish, something to be real that is not actual – actual, as in tangible, corporeal, material, definitive, present, obvious, evident, current, substantial, physical and palpable. A belief is an assumption, a notion, a proposition, an idea that requires faith, trust or hope to sustain in the face of doubt, uncertainty and lack of factual evidence. Whereas a fact is a fact, demonstratively evident to all that it is actual and/or that it works. <snip>

If one is to become actually free of the Human Condition, in its entirety, then it is imperative to find out for oneself the facts, rather than merely perpetuate believing, to sort out what is silly and what is sensible rather than merely accept what others say is right or wrong, good or bad. Then, and only then, can one discover and sensately experience the fact of the delight, ease, magic and perfection of the actual world. The Actual Freedom Trust Library

It does take courage to question the view that the universe is solely a product of one’s own consciousness, particularly as so many others hold to the same view that the universe is a product of their own consciousness.

But hey, the actual universe exists even after ‘I’ as the creator cease to create ‘my’ universe. Not having to be the creator of all that you see and feel is an enormous burden to be freed from and it is an exquisite and delicious freedom to be gained.

15.7.2003

VINEETO: The sensate experience of the infinitude of the universe only happens when ‘I’ step out of the way and thus remove the boundaries and limitations of ‘self’-induced narrow-mindedness. When this happens, all ideas, beliefs and theories that propose a creation event, an expansion or contraction and a doomsday ending of the physical universe are seen as what they are – beliefs and theories. Being here now as this flesh and blood body only – without any identity whatsoever – enables the infinitude of the universe to be apparent and this infinitude is wondrous, unparalleled, without an edge, without a centre, having no outside to it, having had no beginning nor will it have an ending.

As long as your contemplations are based on the currently-fashionable scientific theories of an expanding universe – with a Big Bang beginning, replete with all sorts of unseen, unseeable and unmeasurable phenomena and a Diabolical End – then you will remain locked into a ‘self’-centred view and you cut yourself off from experiencing directly and sensately the splendour and magnificence of the peerless and perfect physical universe.

Let me sum up what you have presented as ‘scientific facts’ so far –

[Respondent]:

• ‘if I look at a bird for example, I don’t see the actual bird’ and ‘the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour’ Respondent, For Richard 1.6.2003

• ‘colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds … They do not exist, as such, outside our brain’. Respondent, For Richard 4.6.2003

• ‘what I know is that the 95%of the phenomena are invisible’. Respondent, No 52 re: Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003

• ‘The scientific proof of God’. Respondent, The End of Actual Freedom?, 22.6.2003

These ‘scientific facts’ are all examples of spiritual belief, the belief that proposes that the physical world is merely a by-product of ‘my’ consciousness, the belief that ‘I’ am the creator of all that ‘I’ see.

If you aspire to become free from the emotional and instinctual bondage created by the psychological and psychic entity it is necessary to rigorously and sincerely question the way ‘you’ perceive the world. That means questioning your spiritual awareness and your spiritual beliefs and in that process of questioning it is vital to include the spiritual belief that ‘we must always be in the state of not-knowing’, as you said to No 21 the other day.

RESPONDENT: I should like to ask you, what do you mean by scientific fact?

VINEETO: Sure.

Scientific – Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of science; based on, regulated by, or engaged in the application of science, … valid according to the objective principles of scientific method. Oxford Dictionary

Fact – A thing known for certain to have occurred or to be true; a datum of experience. What has really happened or is the case; truth; reality: in fact rather than theory, the fact of the matter is; something known to have happened; a truth known by actual experience. Oxford Dictionary

That makes a scientific fact ‘a thing known for certain to have occurred’ ‘according to the objective principles of scientific method’.

RESPONDENT: Is gravity for you a scientific fact? Is a leaf falling because of the gravity, or just for unknown reasons?

VINEETO: Facts are not a matter of personal opinion. A fact is a ‘datum of experience’, human experience. To make a fact a matter of personal agreement or disagreement would be silly.

As far as I know it is universally accepted that a force known as gravity acts on all objects on this planet. Are you proposing evidence to the contrary?

RESPONDENT: Is the earth for you round or flat?

VINEETO: The nature of the earth is a well-known fact for most humans on the planet. If the nature of the earth is in question for you I suggest that you verify the fact for yourself. The photographs taken by orbiting astronauts or by those standing on the moon are sufficient evidence for me.

RESPONDENT: Probably you say it is round, because Richard called Jesus a flat earth godman.

VINEETO: I don’t rely on Richard’s writing to determine if I am living on a disk or a globe, do you?

RESPONDENT: That means that you as Richard and me and others we know now that the earth is round.

VINEETO: It was you who introduced the question if the earth was ‘round or flat’. Given that you hold the concept that ‘the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour’, it might be for you that the earth is not a sphere, the brain is giving the shape.

RESPONDENT: That means you are accepting scientific facts.

VINEETO: As I said, it is silly to have a personal opinion about facts – a fact is ‘a datum of experience’ and manifestly clear. However, a discerning eye and ear is needed in order to ascertain what is fact and what is merely theory, postulation, concept, commonly agreed, belief, assumption, speculation, imagination, myth, wisdom, real or true.

The so-called scientific facts quoted above, which you presented recently to the list, are all examples of theory, postulation, concept, assumption and plain imagination.

RESPONDENT: Is the roundness of the earth proved by AF?

VINEETO: That this planet is spherical is patently clear – evidence can be observed here – http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030714.html

RESPONDENT: Why then you want to prove the infinity of the universe through AF?

VINEETO: I simply stated the fact that the physical universe we flesh and blood bodies actually live in is infinite and eternal. It was you who questioned the infinitude of the physical universe by introducing God into the conversation –

[Respondent]: why if god exist must be outside the universe? Re No 52 Re Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003

by suggesting parallel universes, something which is impossible in an infinite universe –

[Respondent]: ‘Quantum mechanics is also speaking about parallel universes’ Re No 52 Re Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003

and by presenting a spurious postulation as to why the universe can’t be infinite –

[Respondent]: In the universe, we can only observe finite distances, so we can conclude that the universe is finite. To say that it is infinite makes no sense. Cosmology 2, 28.6.2003

I do not ‘want to prove the infinity of the universe’ – it is a fact that is patently clear to anyone who undertakes a down-to-earth contemplation about the physical nature of the universe, i.e. unhampered by spiritual belief and affective feelings.

RESPONDENT: Do you know any scientific proof that the universe is finite or infinite?

VINEETO: It is up to the people who propose that the universe is finite, has an edge to it and has something beyond that edge to come up with empirical proof for their concepts, theories, formulas and speculations. Until that happens the theories that the universe is finite in size will remain theories.

RESPONDENT: You said though that since you had the insight that the universe is infinite, then means that there was not place for god to exist prior the universe for him to create it. How can you be so sure about that?

VINEETO: We have covered this issue before. Here is the relevant piece of conversation –

[Respondent]: Why if god exist must be outside the universe?

[Vineeto]: God is generally believed to be the One who created the universe. According to this belief God certainly had to exist prior to the universe’s creation and therefore was outside of the yet to be created universe. This deliberation combined with the determined questioning of all of my religious and spiritual beliefs made it obvious that there is no place outside of this infinite and eternal universe for any God to reside.

However, if you prefer to hold to a belief in God or a Divine Power by proposing the theory that God resides inside this physical universe, then that is your business. I found that it makes no sense to discuss the content of other’s beliefs unless they themselves are interested in questioning and investigating their own beliefs in order to become free from the grip of atavistic superstition.

However, one thing in your query leaves me puzzled. You had a long discussion with Richard over several e-mails, doubting the actuality of a tree, namely whether its colour exists independent of a human brain perceiving it, viz –

[Respondent]: That means that the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour. For Richard, 4.6.2003

You even went as far postulating that each human being is creating his or her own universe, viz –

[Respondent]: Without our brains can not take place creation. We are the universe creating its own self and experiencing its self. For Richard, 4.6.2003

If you believe that a tree, which one can actually see, touch, hear and smell does not exist independently of human perception, then why according to your logic do you think that a God who can not be seen, heard, touched, smelt or perceived by any human sensory organ should exist as an actuality outside of human imagination?

Further you said to Richard –

[Respondent]: Our perception does not identify the outside world as it really is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. <snip> Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. For Richard, 4.6.2003

If you regard the universe as being ‘colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent’ unless a human being is ‘creating’ the universe as their own self then by the same logic your God is ‘colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent’ unless a human being is ‘creating’ God as their own self. Vineeto to No 45, 26.6.2003

RESPONDENT: If let’s say we did not know yet that earth is round, should you be able to say that in fact is round and prove it through this flesh and blood body? So science has its validity.

VINEETO: Are you disputing the fact that the earth is spherical in shape despite the empirical evidence that this is so or are merely indulging in a philosophical / theoretical argument? An actualist is aware of the difference between empirical science and theoretical science.

Science is defined as – 1a the systematic study of man and his environment based on the deduction and inferences which can be made, and the general laws which can be formulated, from reproductible observations and measurements of events and parameters within the universe; b the knowledge so obtained. 2 systematized knowledge in general. 3a a particular branch of knowledge; b skill, proficiency. Oxford Dictionary

Peter: I do discern two strands of science:

• physical science (which properly contains ‘pure science’ and ‘applied science’)

• metaphysical science (which properly contains ‘science fiction’ and ‘mystical science’)

The scientific studies involved with studying the ‘big’ picture of the universe, the macroscopic – cosmology – as well as the study of the microscopic – quantum physics – both leave the realm of reproducible observations and measurements of events and parameters within the universe. As science studies the cosmos, the measurements very quickly become so huge as to be inconceivable, non-sensical (beyond what we can perceive with our senses) and immeasurable – both in distance and time. Similarly, when science studies the sub-atomic, the measurements very quickly become so minute as to be inconceivable, non-sensical (beyond what we can perceive with our senses) and immeasurable.

Science has great difficulty with both infinite and zero – both figures make any mathematical equation instantly and irrevocably unworkable. Given the lack of any measurable factual data to work with, both the macroscopic and microscopic sciences have developed into theoretical sciences – a field of study where reproducible observations and measurements of events and parameters play no part and where theories, speculation, imagination and fantasy abound. Unfettered by any physical considerations or restraints these sciences thus become metaphysical sciences and, as such, have conveniently co-opted many theories from the mystical world.

Thus we have the ‘parallel universes theory’ (‘other-worlds’), creation and doomsday events (God by any other name), particles that only exist when one is looking at them (an illusionary world), the universal Theory of Everything (the Truth), etc., etc. The cute thing is that theoretical scientists quote the ancient mystics as validation of their theories, and the modern mystics quote the theoretical scientists as validation for their fantasies – an infinite regression of insanity.

Mr. Einstein was among the first to gain Guru status in the ‘modern’ world of meta-physical science, a position he was uncomfortable at first with, but as the numbers of believers swelled and popular acclaim spread, he quickly settled into the role with great aplomb. As an aside, it is curious that, some 80 years on, Einstein’s famous Theory of Relativity still remains a theory and has yet to become the Law of Relativity. Basking in the glory of its very own mega-star Guru, science was then able to well and truly break free from the shackles of measurable observation, reasonable assumption and practical common sense, and the re-born metaphysical sciences have enjoyed a unprecedented level of popular acceptance, kudos – and funding – ever since.

It behoves an actualist in discerning what is belief and what is fact to make the distinction between physical science and metaphysical science. The mentioning of the word theory is always a good clue, for theory is to metaphysical science what belief is to mysticism – something they fervently wished to be true. Both the Guru-mystic and the Guru-scientist have vested interests in fostering and maintaining their beliefs – their fame, their position and livelihoods, and a very personal investment in a ‘somewhere-else’ other than here and a ‘sometime-else’ other than now. The Actual Freedom Trust Library, Science

When one makes the distinction between applied empirical science and theoretical mystical science then it becomes clear that the earth being round is proven by the first category of science whereas the ‘scientific facts’ introduced by you as quoted above belong to the second category of science … in other words they are beliefs.

RESPONDENT: You also said

[Vineeto]: ‘These ‘scientific facts’ are all examples of spiritual belief, the belief that proposes that the physical world is merely a by-product of ‘my’ consciousness, the belief that ‘I’ am the creator of all that ‘I’ see. [endquote].

VINEETO: As far as I can ascertain, you have not used the word ‘co-creator’ before, what you have said is –

[Respondent]: ‘We are the universe creating its own self and experiencing its self.’ For Richard, 4.6.2003

If you prefer to live your life thinking that you are the ‘co-creator’ of all you see and consider this to be an unchangeable unquestionable axiom, then that is your personal choice. Personally I found that it makes no sense to discuss the content of others’ beliefs unless they themselves are interested in questioning and investigating their own beliefs in order to become free from the grip of ancient superstition.

RESPONDENT: I am really puzzled why I can not convey it.

VINEETO: You are conveying your views very clearly. What you fail to understand is that you are trying to convince actualists that there ‘really truly is something else’ other than the actuality that human beings sensately experience. In short, you are busy flogging your beliefs to those who are upfront that beliefs are the bane of humankind.

RESPONDENT: Lets begin again. What I see out there, is a soup of energy.

VINEETO: If I may interject. What one sees with one’s eyes is not ‘a soup of energy’, but forms, colours and movement of physical objects. To call the specific qualities of the matter of the physical universe ‘a soup of energy’ is an affective interpretation. This is readily evidenced by the fact that the ‘energy’ experienced varies according to a person’s particular belief system – some feel Jesus, some feel Love, some feel Existence, some feel Mother, some feel Consciousness, some feel Intelligence, some feel the Devil, and so on.

RESPONDENT: Now I perceive whatever through my senses. This thing to be perceived needs my senses. Without my senses it exists but in one unknown way (mode existence) not the way I perceive it.

VINEETO: If I may interject again. If you are talking about a ‘soup of energy’ then this energy does not need your physical senses in order for you to perceive it. Many people feel this ‘energy’ sitting in a quiet place with their eyes closed – in fact it is well known that the best way to feel this ‘energy’ is to deliberately practice sensory and sensual deprivation.

If you are talking about a ‘whatever’ it is best to take a specific down-to-earth ‘thing’ as an example. Take for instance this symbol (#) – it maintains its qualities, its colour, form and size, no matter who reads it on his or her computer screen. Anybody on this mailing list will see the same symbol, just as they will read any letter of the alphabet in the same order I typed them. Your eyes, your brain on stalks, only recognize the already-existing qualities of the particular symbol (#) or the mutually agreed meanings of a particular string of letters. If your brain gave each symbol or letter its own particular unique-to-you quality it would be impossible for a conversation like this to happen.

RESPONDENT: This thing is sending light (photons) we are speaking for the sight now, but the same is applied in all senses to my retina. This products certain electromagnetic effects and through the optical nerve etc products certain activities in a small area of the brain about 1cm2, which is in the dark in the skull. If I see something green then the light wave sent from the green object has a certain wave length, but until it hits the brain part is colourless. If another light length hits the brain then the brain products a different colour. May be a dog will see another colour for the same object because is different interpreted from his brain. That’s all.

VINEETO: You had a lengthy conversation with Richard on this topic. Continual repetition of your belief in an ‘unknown way (mode existence)’ of actual physical objects will not turn this belief into a fact.

RESPONDENT: We will never know what is out there, lets call it underlying reality.

VINEETO: The identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body superimposes an affective ‘underlying reality’ over the actual universe. This ‘underlying reality’ created by the identity inhabiting the flesh and blood can be observed, questioned and investigated and the identity thus weakened – this is the process of actualism.

To defend the ‘underlying reality’ as unchangeable is to resign to being trapped within the human condition of malice and sorrow for the rest of one’s life.

RESPONDENT: Is like the TV unless we have the receiver nothing can take place. The TV signals that exist now in my room are silent and colourless. Lets say the TV receiver is the brain.

VINEETO: This is a good example.

[quote]: A television’s audiovisual signal begins with the conversion of an image and accompanying sound into an electronic code by a television camera. The resulting electronic signals are usually recorded on tape, and for transmission, or broadcasting, they are impressed on high-frequency radio waves that act as carriers. After transmission by a broadcasting antenna, the carrier waves are picked up by a receiving antenna, which carries them to the television receiver. Encyclopaedia Britannica

The high-frequency radio waves acting as carriers for the transmitted images and sounds exist independently of the TV screen that displays image and sound. Both the transmitter and the high-frequency waves exist as an actuality and the signals and images are being simultaneously converted into identical images on many, many TVs regardless of whether your own TV is switched on and is converting the signal into an image. This fact is contrary to your philosophy of ‘unless we have the receiver nothing can take place’ – a completely ‘self’ centred viewpoint.

‘Lets say the TV receiver is the brain’ – even without your brain ‘creating’, the universe is continuously taking place.

RESPONDENT: So I arrived in the logical (at least for me) that the perception is a syntheton (composed) phenomenon.

VINEETO: You have mentioned in an earlier post that you have read J. Krishnamurti for 10 years.

I wonder what logic came first – J. Krishnamurti’s teaching that ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’ or the logical-for-you conclusion ‘that perception is a syntheton (composed) phenomenon’.

RESPONDENT: That what I was trying to say to Richard not where is due the green colour in the chlorophyll etc. So the universe without our brains has really no meaning. There is no interaction in it.

VINEETO: Yes, I can see that this is a logical conclusion due to J. Krishnamurti’s teachings. However, it is a subjective, anthropocentric and utterly ‘self’-centred perception of the universe. To make oneself so important that ‘the universe without our brains has really no meaning’ is to dismiss the splendour and magnificence that is already always here, was already always here before homo sapiens first trod the planet and will be so long after homo sapiens cease to exist as a species.

RESPONDENT: Forget about consciousness there is no need for consciousness in what I am saying.

VINEETO: Given that consciousness is the state of the body being conscious, you need to be conscious in order to have this conversation. Rather than ‘forget about consciousness’, it has been vital for me as an actualist to investigate consciousness as it is used in philosophical and spiritual circles –

4 The totality of the thoughts, feelings, impressions, etc., of a person or group; such a body of thoughts etc. relating to a particular sphere; a collective awareness or sense. Oxford Dictionary

What I discovered is that it is people’s precious consciousness, as in the ‘totality of the thoughts, feelings, impressions, etc., of a person or group’ which prevents human beings from living in peace and harmony.

RESPONDENT: P.S In your other email you named Osho. I consider him the biggest fraud of the past century with his Mercedes,

VINEETO: By the way, Mohan Rajneesh didn’t drive Mercedes, but Rolls Royces.

I mentioned Mohan Rajneesh because Dr. Amrit Sorli, the man you quoted in order to demonstrate the non-infinity of the universe, is apparently a follower of Mr. Rajneesh – he lives in a Rajneesh centre and certainly sprouts ‘Sannyas wisdom’ in his various articles.

If you consider Mr. Rajneesh ‘the biggest fraud of the past century’ I am left wondering why you posted an article by one of his disciples as evidence to prove your point?

RESPONDENT: … and any other guru the same.

VINEETO: Does ‘any other guru’ also include J. Krishnamurti? I am only asking because you stated that ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’ – a basic teaching of J. Krishnamurti.

It is undeniable that J. Krishnamurti was a guru – he talked for 52 years in order to convey his teachings and some 15 years after his death some of his followers are still trying to listen, understand or even live his teachings.

When I began to dismantle my spiritual beliefs I began to understand that it is the revered state of Enlightenment itself that is fundamentally flawed and that it needs to be debunked for the massive delusion it is.

25.7.2003

VINEETO: As for your questions on the issue of the universe being infinite and eternal, it is quite clear that you are approaching the topic intellectually and philosophically while I am talking from common sense and experiential understanding.

For example you wrote to No 38 the other day –

[Respondent]: Infinite is just a symbol. Intellectually brings confusion. For No 38, 23.7.2003

How do you know with certainty that infinity is ‘just a symbol’ and not an actuality?

Of course thinking intellectually about infinity ‘brings confusion’, particularly so for someone trained in mathematics. There are many things in this universe that defy mere intellectual comprehension because they are magical in their actuality. Take the simple fact that a giant tree grows out of a tiny seed or that the whole blueprint for a human being is contained in the DNA of tiny fertilised cell.

*

VINEETO: I won’t give a detailed response to your objections in your latest post because I can’t say things any clearer than I already said it before. As such I will limit my reply to one of your statements that I found particularly striking –

RESPONDENT: Lets begin again. What I see out there, is a soup of energy.

VINEETO: If I may interject. What one sees with one’s eyes is not ‘a soup of energy’, but forms, colours and movement of physical objects. To call the specific qualities of the matter of the physical universe ‘a soup of energy’ is an affective interpretation. This is readily evidenced by the fact that the ‘energy’ experienced varies according to a person’s particular belief system – some feel Jesus, some feel Love, some feel Existence, some feel Mother, some feel Consciousness, some feel Intelligence, some feel the Devil, and so on.

RESPONDENT: Sorry, what exist out there is a soup of energy, until I see it. Until it reaches my brain.

VINEETO: How can we have a sensible discussion about the nature of the universe when you presume to already ‘know’ what exists ‘out there’ before you even see it, before it even reaches your senses? If you are talking about the energy produced by, or associated with, the matter of the universe then this energy exists as an actuality independent of whether it is detected by the sensory receptors of the human brain.

If you are talking about unknowable energies that cannot be detected by the human brain or by any physical measuring device then you are talking of some form of meta-physical energy. The existence of meta-physical energies or supernatural forces are the very stuff of belief and fervent imagination and I have learnt from experience that when belief and imagination are the arbiter of a discussion, common sense is nowhere to be found.

You have made it clear in writing to this mailing list that your interest does not lay in questioning your own beliefs or in changing your present situation in order to become more happy and more harmless. Instead you seem to find entertainment in presenting the spiritual and philosophical theories of others (such as http://www.humantruth.org/holog19.htm) as proof of your own beliefs, whereas all this does is provide proof that spiritual belief is endemic within the human condition.

Of course, human beings have argued the case for their spiritual beliefs for thousands of years, sometimes with horrific results, but being a pragmatist I thought it be useful to examine in what way your views of the world are shaping your life in a practical, everyday way and how my understanding of the world is reflecting on the way I live my life. I translate insights into action – if that is not possible an insight is not worth its name.

For the sake of clarity and brevity I have taken only very few of the statements you made to possibly capture the gist of what you consider to be true, since repeating all of what you said would take too much space.

[Respondent]: Without our brains can not take place creation. We are the universe creating its own self and experiencing its self. For Richard, 4.6.2003

[Respondent]: Our perception does not identify the outside world as it really is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. <snip> Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. For Richard, 4.6.2003

[Respondent]: Sorry, what exist out there is a soup of energy, until I see it. Until it reaches my brain. Cosmythology 2, 19.7.2003

[Respondent]: We will never know what is out there, lets call it underlying reality. Cosmythology 2, 7.7.2003

[Respondent]: The perceiver and the perceived are one thing. Cosmythology 2, 7.7.2003

This is how I describe what is actual –

[Vineeto]: The actual that is evidenced by a pure consciousness experience is what is left when the ‘believer’, the ‘feeler’ and the ‘thinker’ – all of the ‘self’ – is in abeyance, when all ‘my’ input has ceased. Then a tree is simply a tree, a coffee cup is a coffee cup and street noise is simply street noise without any emotional or spiritual relevance to the eyes seeing and the ears hearing. There is no malice and sorrow, no love and condemnation, no affective or philosophical meaning in anything actual. This is the actual world, which only becomes apparent in its utter magic and ever-fresh exuberance when the ‘self’ is either temporarily absent or permanently extinct. Vineeto, List D, No 2, 27.8.2000

[Vineeto]: Down-to-earth practical common sense, of course, has nothing to do with rational theorizing, useless philosophizing, cerebral masturbation and conceptual imagination. For me, the crucial test always is – how can I put my understanding into practice, how can I actualize my realization, how can I act on the ‘striking thought’. In my spiritual days, striking thoughts would come and go and I revelled in the feeling of ‘knowing’ but never even considered to put the insights into action. Those insights, even when they were sensible realizations, disappeared without a trace after a few hours or days and didn’t have any impact on solving my problems. Now, knowing about the down-to-earth third alternative, I not only enjoy the stunning clarity that the human brain is capable of, I also apply it to my behaviour – and what excellence, what a thrill! Vineeto to No 8, 17.6.2000

And this is how I experience life after I applied the actualism method for a couple of years –

[Vineeto]: In the face of fear, desperation and aggression the idea of a spiritual ‘somewhere else’ has been such an alluring promise that some people have even managed to reinterpret Actual Freedom as a promised land ‘somewhere else’. Making the practical method of actualism into a spiritual belief is merely another attempt to avoid being here as a flesh and blood body only. For me it was essential to investigate and eliminate all of my reasons for wanting to go ‘somewhere else’ – my aggression, my dread, my dissatisfaction, my desperation and my dependency on others – in order that I can enjoy being here in this moment of being alive. The daily ‘practice’ of enjoying being here over a considerable period of time – Virtual Freedom – weakens, and eventually eliminates ‘me’ and with it the insidious tug of wanting to go ‘somewhere else’ that has given rise to all the different spiritual beliefs and practices on the planet.

What a fascinating time to be alive! Vineeto to Alan, 11.1.2001

[Vineeto]: ‘Life’s persistent questions’ have now turned into ‘what’s the weather like?, any specific appointments today?, what’s for dinner?, did I pay the rent? is there any new mail?’, and such like. Life has become so easy and simple with no soul to take care of and no afterlife’s rewards and penalties to worry about. When I think back, I realize that most of my adult life I was busy pampering and worrying about my soul – did my ‘wounded sensitive self’ receive enough attention, respect and healing and what was the right path to the right afterlife?

To be free from the belief in an Almighty God, Christian or otherwise, has rendered all soul-catchers impotent and all soul-searching and soul-saving unnecessary and has freed me to increasingly do what life is about – to enjoy each moment of being alive. Vineeto to Gary, 31.7.2001

[Vineeto]: Being here as what I am leaves me as this physical body and its senses, free to delight in this perfect infinite universe as a sensate human being. It is a glorious morning on this, the south-side, of the planet. The leaves are slightly moving in the breeze and glitter and shine in the early winter morning sun and fine silvery trails of spider web are dangling in mid air. Rainbow lorikeets perform precarious aerobics on the grevillea flowers to extract sweet nectar and the due is still dazzling on the grass blades. It is marvellous to be alive. Vineeto to Gary, 3.7.2003

When I met Richard and learnt about his discovery the choice was clear for me – I was drawn to what works, what actually makes me more happy and more harmonious with people.

What you choose to do with your life is entirely your business but it really escapes me why you put in such effort to convince me that I should change from practicing actualism in order to live by your philosophy – what would I have to gain?

Given that you keep re-presenting your stated position regardless of what I say, I don’t see any point in continuing to reply to your objections to actualism. By your own description of your life, your philosophies show no evidence of being effective in diminishing fear and malice, sorrow and resignation, let alone in producing a method to become entirely free from the instinctual passions that constitute the Human Condition.

But then, you have made it perfectly clear that you do not find it wise to change anyway.

31.7.2003

RESPONDENT: Thank you for answering. When I met the AF site, and I read enough in its sites, I said to my self, that I don’t like to begin, by believing what other people are saying. I wanted to try and find out if what they say is actual. They may be wrong or they may be right.

VINEETO: If you want to benefit at all from what The Actual Freedom Trust website is offering, then the first question to ask yourself is if you are vitally interested in becoming free from the human condition of malice and sorrow. Unless you are utterly fed up with your life as it is now, there is no point in even investigating the third alternative to being normal or being spiritual. Without such an overarching desire one inevitably will keep trying to prove that the materialistic and spiritual beliefs that uphold the human condition are right and object to actualism as being wrong.

RESPONDENT: The first thing that attracted my attention, was the statement of the infinity of the universe. As sometime passed through you brain some questions, like if the universe is infinite, then there is no place for god, in the same way passed through my mind certain questions, like: The universe, either is created, or exist since ever. There is no other alternative.

VINEETO: If your interest does not lay in becoming happy and harmless, you will remain a defender of the status quo, in this case the belief that someone or something created the universe. Actualism is only of use for those intrepid pioneers who passionately want to become free from the Human Condition in toto.

RESPONDENT: I might gave the impression that I am a person full of believes, but on the contrary I don’t want to begin with believes.

VINEETO: Living within the Human Condition you are bound to be full of beliefs, everyone is. Like everyone else, you have imbibed beliefs with mother’s milk. The vital question for someone coming across actualism is – do you want to examine the beliefs you have taken on board in the course of your life. Your insistence that you ‘don’t want to begin with’ beliefs only prevents a sincere investigation.

RESPONDENT: So I said to my self, if the equation E=mc squared, is right, then the universe must be finite, because the above equation can be transformed to: c=square root of E/m. Now the c (speed of light) is a constant and very accurately measured. And the transformation of energy to mass is established. That means that that the square root of energy/mass and thus, E/m is a finite number, which means that the universe must be finite, because its mass and energy are finite.

VINEETO: In making the statement that ‘energy/mass is a finite number which means the universe must be finite’ you are ignoring the fact that in an infinite and eternal universe both the energy and the mass of the universe are also infinite.

RESPONDENT: Then I had to reject the 2^nd law of thermodynamics (law) not theory, who says that in any working system, as the energy becomes less the entropy (disorder) tends to become bigger. And the universe is not in a state of entropy. Logically if it is always existing, means existing for infinite time, supposed to be in a state of entropy. And so we are contradicting a physical and scientific law.

VINEETO: In an infinite universe energy does not ‘become less’, therefore it appears that the 2^nd law of thermodynamics works to describe local events and does not apply to the universe as a whole.

Editorial note: I was informed that it is more accurate to say that the 2^nd law of thermodynamics works to describe a closed system – which means that it cannot apply to the universe as a whole given that an infinite system is, per definition, not a closed (as in finite) system.

RESPONDENT: Then I thought more naive questions, like if the universe is existing from ever, then is existing for an infinite time. And how we arrived to the present moment, in the case that we had to pass from infinite present moments?

VINEETO: I presume you were born from a father and mother like the rest of us humans? If so, it is obvious how you ‘arrived to the present moment’ and that you have thus far only existed for a finite time and that you will only exist for a finite time.

RESPONDENT: To give one explanation to that I had to reject time all together and say that the present moment of (let’s call it minus infinite) is the same present moment of now and any now. So exist only the present moment and everything will always be a present moment, so time is loosing its meaning altogether.

VINEETO: The fact that the universe has no beginning and no end does not ‘reject time all together’. Here is a quote from Richard that explains the difference between eternal and timeless –

Richard: Now there is a distinct difference between the word ‘eternal’ and the word ‘timeless’. The word ‘timeless’ is very explicit ... no time (just like ‘selfless’ means no self) as in not subject to time, not affected by the passage of time, out of time, without reference to time and independent of the passage of time. The word ‘eternal’ means all time, as in that which will always exist, that which has always existed, that which is without a beginning or an end in time, that which is everlasting, permanent, enduring, persistent, recurring, incessant, indestructible, imperishable, constant, continuous, continual, unbroken and thus interminable and valid for all time. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 5, 8.1.1999b

You may also want to revisit Richard’s recent post to No 37 called ‘Cosmological Clarification’, 16.7.2003 and the URL mentioned in that post.

RESPONDENT: From the other hand we have the phenomenon of expansion of universe, and recently they found that this expansion is also accelerated. That means the space between two galaxies let’s say in a billion of light years will be doubled. How can one infinite thing become doubled?

VINEETO: ‘The phenomenon of expansion of universe’ is a theory that is solely based on a particular interpretation of positive redshift values and this interpretation has remained sacrosanct because it appears to prove a beginning and as such a creation of the universe. There are many, many refutations of the ‘Big Bang’ theory as well as alternative explanations to the ‘Red Shift’ theory available both in print and on the internet – you have simply chosen to selectively present only those theories that agree with your already existing belief about a finite universe and a creator.

In other words, you would need to be interested in questioning your pre-existing beliefs in order to be able to even consider that the universe might in fact be infinite and eternal. So far all you have done is present your pre-existing beliefs in order to prove that you are right and actualists are wrong.

RESPONDENT: Then I thought that may be there are other dimensions and here as we see the space, might be like someone living in 2D and sees the shadow of a man tries to understand how a man looks. After I thought that the universe might be something like a 2D earth (to give one absurd example) who is limited but without boundaries. That means if a rocket goes up (does not exist up and down) but we need language to speak, will come back from the other side.

VINEETO: Human imagination of what the universe ‘may be’ is inexhaustible. Imagining what the universe ‘may be’ only produces yet more science fiction.

RESPONDENT: And finally I can not understand how sensorially somebody can understand the nature of finite or infinite universe. I thought that may AF uses the word infinity not literally but metaphorically. May be it uses it to show that we are not in a spot in particular, but then what difference makes if the universe is finite or infinite?

VINEETO: The human elaboration of the instinctual animal ‘self’ into a sophisticated and cunning psychological and psychic identity makes it almost impossible to conceive or consider how this flesh and blood body would experience the universe without this parasitical identity … unless one remembers a pure consciousness experience. In such a ‘self’-less pure experience the usual ‘self’-centred restrictions on one’s normal perception and understanding are temporarily out of order. Only in a ‘self’-less state can the universe be perceived as it is – infinite and eternal.

As long as ‘I’ am governing this body’s sensual perception, my ‘self’-dominated and ‘self’-oriented perception will always inflict its own limits on what I perceive and as such will impose its ‘self’-centred nature onto the physical universe. Similarly, the thinking process is contaminated by ‘self’-dominated and ‘self’-oriented thoughts and feelings – the identity is running the show all the time – and therefore a clear understanding of the actual world is impossible whilst ‘I’ insist on ruling the roost.

That’s why I said that in order to understand the nature of the universe, the first unavoidable step is to rigorously question one’s own beliefs and feelings in order to incrementally diminish the dominating role of one’s ‘self’-centred thoughts and feelings so as to slowly enable a more clear-eyed perception to come about – there is no other way.

RESPONDENT: Not many people of the list are interested on the subject, so if you think that the subject does not need to be discussed don’t be bothered please.

VINEETO: I had great fun talking about the infinite nature of the universe as it always gives me an incentive to experience the infinity I am writing about.

However, a theoretical, i.e. non-experiential, discussion about infinitude can never produce satisfactory results because unless you question and investigate your pre-existing beliefs first, you are actively preventing the possibility of an intellectual understanding that the physical universe is infinite and eternal, which is the prerequisite for an experiential understanding of the infinitude of the actual world.

4.10.2003

VINEETO to No 23: I got tired of waiting, and fighting, for someone else to change the world according to my morals and my ideals – I decided to bring about actual peace by changing myself. Vineeto to No 23, 1.10.2003

RESPONDENT: May I notice that you still want to change the world, but in another way, by changing your self. And the worst is that you want the change to take place accordingly to your moral and ideals.

VINEETO: You might want to think this through again. What you are suggesting here is that everyone should stay as they are … and the worst thing that anyone can do is to want to become more happy and more harmless.

If you really want to implement this zero-change conservatism of yours, you will have to do a gigantic control job. And why you intend to start this impossible task by trying to stop me from becoming more happy and harmless is beyond comprehension.

RESPONDENT: Your morality and ideals are super-imposed to you by the environment you grow up, the society was we’re living in, you are a product of society. Actually a by-product. Is possible to the by-product to change the product who’s is a by-product? Can the apple change the apple tree?

VINEETO: And yet what is offer in actualism is a way for an individual to become free of the human condition – not a way of changing the human condition. Why do you keep mounting objections to something that was plainly never said?

RESPONDENT: Did you ever question your self that whatever you are trying to do, you do it for more happiness? So is one egocentrical process.

VINEETO: Yes it would be egocentric if I wanted to become happy without becoming harmless at the same time.

RESPONDENT: You met Richard, you have discussed with him, you became impressed and you said here we are we find the absolute happiness way. And since then you are trying to copy what he made.

VINEETO: Yes. Richard was able to free himself from all of the beliefs instilled by society as well as free himself from the genetically inherited instinctual passions. Thus he has proven that anybody can do it should they be so inclined.

If you want to not copy Richard and remain a ‘by-product’ of a mad and sorry society, then that is your free choice.

RESPONDENT: Now you say and Richard says that you are in a virtual freedom, not AF, but virtual, which means 99%. Is in life’s problems such a thing like 99%? Can you say that a woman is 99% pregnant?

VINEETO: Virtual freedom means that as an approximate figure I am happy and harmless 99% of the time. ‘Self’-immolation will make me 100% free from malice and sorrow then I will be able to enjoy all the waking hours of the day for 365 days of the year in utter blitheness and benignity.

RESPONDENT: You have a goal and you are struggling or not trying to arrive to your goal. Is life located somewhere so that you can arrive to it as you say I am going to Sydney? You hope to get there in the future, but you know that future psychologically does not exist. There is chronological future, like tomorrow I will go for fishing. But this is a thing completely different. You might die till tomorrow.

VINEETO: Ah, one of the typical spiritual tricks to convince people that change is not possible in order to lull them into being content as they are. One could say that spiritualism is the most reactionary, zero-change conservatism conviction there is because not only do spiritualists not want to change themselves, they also want to prevent other people from changing themselves.

Herein lies the difference between a so-called spiritual freedom and an actual freedom. In spiritualism one stays as one is – malicious and sorrowful but imagines oneself to be a true, a Higher Self, while in actualism I instigate actual change – in attitude, in outlook, in attentiveness, in behaviour and finally irrevocably in the brain-stem.

But first of course you will have to consider that the belief that change is impossible, a belief, which is ‘super-imposed to you by the environment you grow up’ and ‘a product of society’ is not factual.

RESPONDENT: How you know that whatever Richard is saying is truth?

VINEETO: Not truth, but fact. I have spent enough time reading Richard’s writings in order to be able to determine that he is consistent in what he says, I have met the man and seen that he walks the talk, that his integrity is 100%. I have never discovered a smidgen of fear or aggression, nor nurture or desire in him – I can say with confidence that what he says is factual.

But this is not the main reason of course – I also know by my own experience that what he says is factual – which completely negates any need whatsoever on my part to either doubt him or believe him.

RESPONDENT: Not that he is lying, but how can you ever know what is felt or happening to somebody’s else inside world? You just believed him and that means your motive is out of belief, although you are condemning beliefs. Do you see the contradiction here?

VINEETO: If you don’t think that Richard ‘is lying’, then why do you question if what he is ‘saying is truth’?

As for your assumption that I ‘just believed him’ – I didn’t. I established a prima facie case in order to see if what he says makes sense, then I applied the method of actualism to investigate my own beliefs. A pure consciousness experience confirmed experientially that what he is saying is indeed correct and factual. I didn’t judge what Richard was saying as either lies or the truth, I set about finding out for myself by my own experience whether or not what he was saying was factual or merely a belief, a philosophy, a concept and so on – something you still have to do if you ever want to be sure.

Also, I am not ‘condemning beliefs’. I no longer rely on beliefs – what others told me to be the truth and ‘super-imposed to you by the environment you grow up’. If you choose to keep your beliefs that is entirely your business but don’t expect me to agree with them.

RESPONDENT: After all can you teach me swimming in the moment you don’t know how to swim yourself? Can you teach me maths in the moment you don know maths yourself? Do you see the hypocrisy here, I mean it the good way.

VINEETO: As it is your assumption that I ‘just believed him’ and that I therefore don’t know the actual world for myself, the ‘hypocrisy’ you see is only in your imagination. A pure consciousness experience makes the world as it actually is transparently obvious. As for me teaching actualism – I simply report my successes as to how to become happy and harmless. As you have never shown any interest in wanting to become free from malice and sorrow, whatever I report to you will not be of any relevance to you and therefore will be of neither benefit nor harm.

RESPONDENT: Think for your self why in the first place did you decide to involve with so called enlightened things? Was you disappointed? Was you afraid, hurt? Or you done it for more pleasure?

VINEETO: I was not content with the options society had on offer – being a good Christian girl, marry, have children, become rich and powerful – the whole catastrophe. Then I tried what spiritual society had on offer – being a good (insert Guru’s name here) girl, be a loyal follower, become a faithful message-spreader, become rich and powerful – the whole catastrophe. Great experiences – I wouldn’t have become an actualist had I not thoroughly checked out the alternatives and found them wanting.

RESPONDENT: Be honest with your self.

VINEETO: I am always honest with myself.

RESPONDENT: Because the one who wants to be enlightened is not different from a businessman that wants to arrive to the top, or someone that wants to become prime minister. The human being does not waste time and effort if has nothing to win.

VINEETO: If you can see that much, why then do you keep revering the teachings of a famous twentieth century Guru?

RESPONDENT: If a friend of yours does not give you any more enjoyment, you leave him. Everything is motivated by the I the ego even in subtle ways.

VINEETO: No, not everything ‘is motivated by the I the ego’. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, step out of the way there is an innate drive for betterment that swings into view, a drive that is innate to the largesse, the beneficence and magnanimity of this physical universe.

But first, of course, one has to acknowledge that the belief that ‘everything is motivated by the I’ is ‘super-imposed to you by the environment you grow up’, in this case a belief that comes from the spiritual teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti.

RESPONDENT: You say I am unsatisfied now, but I will be satisfied tomorrow, give me time.

VINEETO: Yes, I am not going to stop until I am 100% happy and harmless despite the fact that life in virtual freedom is bloody excellent. Why do you want me to stop short of the best just because you are satisfied living within the human condition?

RESPONDENT: Is hope which (hope) is the best way to chat ourselves. I am poor, but someday I will be rich. I am stupid, but I will become clever. This is the way society works and don’t forget that you and me are society, society is not an empty word.

VINEETO: The actualism method has nothing to do with hope. Have a look at what is written about hope in the The Actual Freedom Trust Library –

Peter: ‘Above the door of the Actual Freedom Trust offices (if there ever is such a thing) will be a sign that reads ‘Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here’.

Actualism is a simple method to develop and increase attentiveness and attentiveness to one’s beliefs and emotions which enables one to bring one’s beliefs to the light of awareness, make sensible choices and diminish the influence of the instinctual passions. It has nothing to do with belief, faith, trust or hope. You could compare it with wanting to go to Athens – you get into your car and you drive in the direction of Athens – you know that you only need to keep driving in order to arrive at your goal. The only hope you might develop is that you won’t run out of gas before the next station.

RESPONDENT: Do you consider yourself responsible for the Iraq war?

VINEETO: No.

RESPONDENT: Or you say what have I to do with all this business?

VINEETO: As I quoted to No 23 (the bit that you snipped) –

Not only is no one else responsible for my happiness, or for my feelings of anger, but also I am unable to change anyone else’s lot in life by either supporting their anger or being empathetic with their sorrow. The most caring and practical thing I can do for my fellow human beings is to show by living example that it is possible to be both happy and harmless. Vineeto to Gary, 6.4.2002

RESPONDENT: They (who made the war) were greedy and you are greedy he (Hussein) wanted to control people and you want to control people through another way.

VINEETO: So now you are lumping me in with a ruthless dictator who held power over his fellow countrymen by the threat and use of intimidation, violence, rape, torture and murder. During the time of corresponding with various people about becoming happy and harmless is has become apparent that when people begin to compare an actualist with a dictator like Hitler or Saddam Hussein, they rapidly run out of sensible things to say. As you have already compared Richard to Adolf Hitler, you have now twice given the indication that you have reached this very point.

RESPONDENT: You enjoy admiration.

VINEETO: Has it escaped your attention that there have been far more objectors, busters and flamers on the actualism mailing list than those who are interested in becoming happy and harmless? If I wanted to be admired I would not write about such an unpopular topic as becoming happy and harmless.

RESPONDENT: So many correspondents are writing to you waiting your wisdom and you feel a leader.

VINEETO: Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but I have as many people writing to me wanting to tear strips of me as I have wanting to discuss how to be happy and harmless – if not more. As for feeling like a leader, I got rid of all the affections involved with leadership – the lust for power over others – as and when they came up. Nowadays I simply acknowledge that as one of the pioneers in the business of becoming free of malice and sorrow, I have an obvious expertise that I am well pleased to be able to share with any others who are interested.

RESPONDENT: You are fulfilling your ego through them, even subconsciously.

VINEETO: What gives you the idea that you know what is going on inside of me better than I do?

RESPONDENT: And if somebody is against your ideas and ideals you are disappointed even if you don’t show it.

VINEETO: Another unsubstantiated accusation. How do you know that I am ‘disappointed’ if I ‘don’t show it’? If it cannot be seen, it can only be your imagination.

RESPONDENT: And subtly you become aggressive, you know why?

VINEETO: Just because you perceive something I write as aggressive does not mean that I am aggressive. Has it occurred to you that what you perceive as my aggression might have to do with the fact that I don’t agree with your ‘ideas and ideals’ that were ‘super-imposed to you by the environment you grow up’? The reason I say that is because before I became an actualist, I had exactly the same feelings about others whenever I felt that what they were saying was challenging my precious beliefs or was casting aspersions on my beloved Guru.

RESPONDENT: Because you become afraid. You have invested too many years and efforts in that you are that, so if somebody is trying to shake it you are afraid, you defend it is you.

VINEETO: Your reservoir in imaginative psychology is truly astounding. And all of this because of something I said to No 23 –

[Vineeto]: I got tired of waiting, and fighting, for someone else to change the world according to my morals and my ideals – I decided to bring about actual peace by changing myself. Vineeto to No 23, 1.10.2003

RESPONDENT: Have a nice time.

VINEETO: Ah, so after you told me that I am ‘greedy’ like those ‘who made the war’, that ‘I want to control people’ like Saddam Hussein, that I am merely ‘fulfilling’ my ‘ego’, and that I am ‘disappointed’, ‘aggressive’, ‘afraid’ and defensive, you are now wishing me ‘a nice time’!

Your people skills are clearly in need of brushing up because this is not how to wish someone a good time. No wonder you have come to the conclusion that –

[Respondent]: ‘Actualism says that we do not need fear in today’s society. I can see that this era we are living needs fear more than ever.’ For everyone, 10.7.2003

Actualism Homepage

Vineeto’s Writings and Correspondence

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.