VINEETO: Hi,

RESPONDENT: I am emailing you again to please you to not answer me. I know what you will tell me. You will brake down my email sentence by sentence and than here we are again.

V: Here in actual freedom does not... You said that… You better look in the following link... I have nothing to defend... Fear? There is no fear here to... You did not understood... I never said that... Oxford dictionary...

VINEETO: I can understand that you object to answers I have provided to your questions but your attempt to gag me by telling me not to respond to your allegations about me simply won’t wash. I have come across this situation several times before when writing about actualism – when people don’t like the content of what I am saying they start to accuse me of all sorts of things. This tactic does nothing to substantiate their statements, beliefs and opinions. It only signals that they have run out of sensible things to say.

RESPONDENT: How can somebody fight with a female energy especially when is passionate about something? I give up.

VINEETO: It appears that this is one of the typical strategies of any identity – psychologizing or criticizing the messenger instead of considering the content of the message. This strategy is used by men and women equally and is usually a sign that no further sensible discussion can be had about the topic at hand because the main issue is winning the argument and not in having a fruitful discussion in order to find out the facts. If the whole issue of having a discussion with me is to win a fight then facts are clearly not your concern.

As for ‘female energy’ – I am obviously a female but, as I have described the process in ‘A Bit of Vineeto’ and in various correspondences, I have freed myself from my female identity. I have left the female camp behind and with it the weaponry often used by women, SNAGs and new-age therapists, namely emotional manipulation, psychologizing, undermining, speculative accusations, etc. Here is something I wrote about becoming free from being a woman –

[Vineeto]: The way I came to live in peace and harmony with a man was that I became free from being a woman.

First there is the social aspect of being a woman, the female role with its beliefs, sentiments and behaviour we have been trained to adopt since early childhood. It consists of all the shoulds and should nots, the right codes of conduct, the collective accepted behaviour of being a woman and the social taboos that are deemed unquestionable. You can clearly see what is social programming because it varies from culture to culture, depends upon religion and spiritual beliefs, is subject to generational and fashion swings and is imposed and maintained by peer pressure.

Then there is the instinctual aspect of being a woman, centred upon instinctual mating and procreation of the species. The program of sexual instinctual passion drove me to search for a man and get pregnant – and then the consequent need to secure the protection of the potential father kicked in. Curiously I found that my decision not to have any children and to be sterilised did not change this underlying instinctual urge at all – I still thought and felt myself to be a woman first and a human being second. Vineeto to No 17, 30.11.2002

RESPONDENT: From now on I will communicate only with Richard.

VINEETO: Richard is certainly the best correspondent you can choose if you want to understand what Actual Freedom is all about, whereas my expertise lies more in the field of the doing of actualism. The only question is – are you at all interested in either?

RESPONDENT: And just to create a little bit lighter atmosphere, one advice to Peter. Why you don’t send her here to the Greek islands for a couple of months, so when she comes back you will be free from the human condition and from her as well?

Laugh. Just a joke as defined in oxford dictionary. I embrace you both.

VINEETO: It is good that you said it was a joke ‘as defined in oxford dictionary’ because you have left out the funny part.

You apparently have not read Peter’s Journal otherwise you would know what Peter would say to your proposition –

Peter: I now enjoy an actual intimacy, a direct experience and knowledge of another human being with whom I have shared this amazing, tangible unravelling of myths, beliefs and instincts. Here is a woman with whom I not only bared my dark side – I eliminated it, together with the ‘good’ side as well. Not the emotions and feelings merely paraded out in some sort of superficial ‘sharing’ but an honest and thorough investigation to root out the source of all that stood in the way of our living together in peace, harmony and equity Deep sea diving, if you like. Boots and all, no holds barred, the full monty, all the way. Together we systematically removed all that was in the road between us – the whole lot!

And the rewards are extraordinary – I have complete freedom to be ‘me as I am’, and for Vineeto it is likewise. No expectations, no bonds, no wanting to change the other – why should we? She is perfect; she has made herself that way by ‘cleaning herself up’. And what a delight to meet equal intelligence, equal common sense and an equally sexual being! We experience equity as two human beings and delight in the physical differences, as those differences allow us to enjoy delicious, lusty sex! The hours and hours of talking, discussing and dissecting the Human Condition; the ‘What it is to be a man or a woman’; the ‘What’s going on for me’; the ‘Oh! That’s how you see it?’ – the fascination of discovery! It is astounding to actually meet another human being, naked of pretence and defence. It leaves temporary fickleness of love for dead! A lot of magic happens on this wide and wondrous path to freedom! Peter’s Journal, Living Together

I will refrain from quoting Peter from his next chapter (Sex) so as to not give you a hard time.

RESPONDENT: I am sending you a photo of mine so to make the virtual reality of the computer a little more actual. Be happy.

VINEETO: Thank you and I am already happy, because I am harmless as well.

RESPONDENT: PS: <snip>And even if reincarnation was truth then we should be more motivated to be free from malice and sorrow, because somebody with the oblivion might become cynical and say I don’t care for anyone, I am going to die, so I will enjoy my life by harming another one.

VINEETO: Those who overlook the second half of the phrase ‘happy and harmless’ often confuse actualism with hedonism and thus completely miss the point. You might be advised to check the topic of hedonism in The Actual Freedom Trust library – you will find that hedonism is diametrically opposite to an actual freedom from the human condition.

When you say ‘somebody might become cynical and say … I will enjoy my life by harming another one’ – haven’t you noticed that people are already cynical and are already harming each other despite the fact that almost everyone believes in an afterlife in some form or another, be it recycled back on earth or rejuvenated somewhere else? Facing the fact that physical death means extinction is an essential precursor to devoting one’s life to becoming happy and harmless – and I do mean essential.

The materialist’s motto is ‘life is a bitch and then you die’ while spiritual and religious people’s motto is ‘life’s a bitch but if you are a good enough person on earth you will be rewarded in heaven after death’. I always felt cheated by the Christian proposition that I should suffer life on earth for seventy-odd years in order to reap some spurious afterlife reward – a proposition solely based on hearsay, make-believe and nonsensical fairy-tales. When I came across Eastern mysticism and was told that you could experience paradise on earth by becoming enlightened, I gladly dropped my Christian belief in an after-death-reward in exchange for the promise of a here-on-earth reward. However, the longer I pursued enlightenment, the more unlikely it became that this narcissistic pursuit could ever be the solution to all of my problems, let alone to all of the ills of humankind, because it eventually became apparent that even the Enlightened Ones admitted that one’s real and true liberation will only be obtained after death in Parinirvana.

When I met Richard and began to practice actualism, my belief in a controlling, punishing and rewarding God began to crack and finally disappeared and with it 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’ became redundant. With no ‘Scottie’ to ‘beam me up’ out of here, I was free to abandon the waiting game for heaven and life after-death 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.

In short, as long as you are occupied with paying your soul-insurance for a happy afterlife, you will have neither the motivation nor the necessary intent to do something drastic about your life here-on-earth as this flesh-and-blood body.

18.10.2003

RESPONDENT No 56: Delirium n : a state of excitement and mental confusion often accompanied by hallucinations. Hallucination n : illusory perception; a common symptom of severe mental disorder. Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

VINEETO to No 56: Ah… actualism is not about silly academic word games, it is a hands-on enterprise. I’m playing for keeps, the real McCoy. Beware, the wide and wondrous path is a one-way street, ‘I’ am instigating my own disappearance for the benefit of this body and that body and everybody. No wonder, you perceive this as ‘delirium’ and ‘hallucination’. From the perspective of those within the human condition the door to an actual freedom has a warning sign on it which says ‘insanity, do not enter here’.

But once I had seen through and through, over and over, the madness of what is called sanity, this warning no longer holds sway. Funny, today I perceive the instinctual battle between human beings as ‘delirium’ and the search for a spiritual Higher Self as a particularly mesmerising ‘hallucination … a common symptom of severe mental disorder’.

RESPONDENT: The way you put things, means that Richard was under a severe mental disorder for 11 years …

VINEETO: Not only Richard, but Jiddu Krishnamurti, Mohan Rajneesh and all the other enlightened beings as well. The difference between Richard and all the other people who have suffered from the delusion of enlightenment was that Richard was suspicious of the narcissistic feelings that accompanied the delusion, so much so that he continued to question and investigate the very state of enlightenment itself. If you read Richard’s story you will see that he had inadvertently fallen into the delusion of enlightenment on his search for the perfection experienced in pure consciousness experiences and because of this the delusion of self-realization did not sit well with him.

RESPONDENT: … plus the years he was in the process of becoming enlightened.

VINEETO: In ‘the years he was in the process of becoming enlightened’ he was immersed and enmeshed in the madness that is the human condition just like you and me and every other human being on the planet. Just because you don’t perceive the wars and ethnic cleansings and murders and suicides and depression and domestic violence and child abuse as being madness doesn’t mean that it isn’t madness. It is a madness that countries need armies to deter other countries from invading, that communities need an armed police force to maintain law and order amongst its citizens and that many people need medication to help them cope with their anger and depression and in some cases prevent them from committing suicide.

RESPONDENT: Are you sure that this mental disorder can be reversed?

VINEETO: Not ‘reversed’ but ended. Given that Richard managed to free himself from the hallucination of enlightenment, there is no doubt that any enlightened one could do the same provided they are ready to pay the price – their precious immortal ‘Me’.

29.4.2004

VINEETO to No 66: Additionally Richard coined the term ‘pure consciousness experience (PCE)’ in order to specifically describe the ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience in contrast to other altered states of consciousness where the ‘self’ is not only still present but has become rampant.

RESPONDENT: I wonder, if one experience of any kind, call in pure consciousness experience or whatever, has any meaning without the experiencer.

VINEETO: If you had followed the provided link and looked up the meaning of the word pure consciousness experience you would have found the following –

Richard: A PCE is when one’s sense of identity temporarily vacates the throne and apperception occurs. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself … it is a pure awareness. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception is when the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is not and an unmediated awareness occurs. [emphasis added] The Actual Freedom Trust Library, PCE

In other words, in a pure consciousness experience there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ present, i.e. there is no affective experiencer present to create his or her own personal self-centred reality, let alone be captivated by the delusion of experiencing an atavistic greater reality of some sort. And this sensate-only unfettered experience of actuality is truly wondrous for the very meaning of life is to be had in the actual intimacy with people, things and events that such an experience engenders.

1.5.2004

RESPONDENT: Hi everybody, to me the question HAIETMOBA? Has no meaning whatsoever. <snip>

VINEETO: If you have no interest in finding out how you are experiencing this moment of being alive, then of course this question has no meaning to you.

5.5.2004

RESPONDENT: Simply because actual freedom states that they want to be happy and harmless, I asked was mother Teresa, that as far as I know was not one actualist, harmful?

VINEETO: You might want to check it out for yourself – http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

7.5.2004

RESPONDENT: Hi everybody, to me the question HAIETMOBA? Has no meaning whatsoever. <snip>

VINEETO: If you have no interest in finding out how you are experiencing this moment of being alive, then of course this question has no meaning to you.

RESPONDENT: This HAIETMOBA is nothing new, is just a new name of passive awareness. A new name just to give the impression that something new is discovered. That’s all.

VINEETO: Asking oneself sincerely, each moment again ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ with the intent to become free of malice and sorrow is anything but passive. First of all you deliberately and actively take the decision to make being happy and harmless the most important thing in your life. This decision is integral to the method of actualism – in other words if you don’t want to become unconditionally happy and unconditionally harmless then you ain’t practicing actualism.

This is the method of actualism broken down in small steps –

1. You actively inquire as to how you are experiencing this moment, looking for an honest answer.

2. If you discover that are you are either not happy or not harmless at this moment you then actively inquire as to why this is so until you find what event triggered you to cease being happy and harmless this time around.

3. Then you do whatever is necessary in order to get back to being happy and harmless by allowing yourself to recognize the silliness of having such an incident (no matter what) take away your enjoyment of this only moment of being alive or to cause you to feel acrimonious towards a fellow human being.

4. If you find that the same trigger-events keep preventing you from being happy and harmless, you then actively inquire into the specific reason for your own current feeling of misery and/or acrimony, which is more often than not a particular moral or ethical conviction you hold to as being good or right, a firmly held borrowed wisdom or spiritual belief you hold to be a truth, an emotional reaction to something that went against ‘your’ idea as to how things should be, or some other aspect of your social conditioning. If the reaction is much more of a deep-down gut reaction, then you inquire what particular instinctual passions you were experiencing at that moment or you are experiencing in this moment?

5. When you find which particular aspect of your social conditioning has caused you to stop being happy and harmless you do whatever is necessary in order to erase, change, eliminate, eradicate this aspect of ‘you’ in order to not have it again interfere with your being happy and harmless.

This is how one begins to become free from one’s social conditioning, one’s morals and ethics in order to be able to experience and be able to observe the bare instinctual passions but this alone will increase the enjoyment and appreciation of being alive immensely. Becoming free from one’s social conditioning is the necessary preliminary step before one begins to explore the animal instinctual survival passions.

However, as long as you are firmly convinced, despite reading the posts from the Actual Freedom mailing list for almost 2 years, that ‘HAIETMOBA is nothing new’ then nothing I have said so far and nothing I will say in future will be of use to you.

*

PS. Should you consider taking on actualism you will need to take into account Richard’s comment when you first came to this list.

7.5.2004

VINEETO: You wrote commenting on my reply to No 66 –

RESPONDENT No 66: UGK also states that any ‘freedom’ is an illusion because something is always conditioning us – this seems obvious also. These are some questions I have. Thanks

VINEETO to No 66: U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement that ‘any ‘freedom’ is an illusion’ is a statement based on his own illusionary freedom and merely goes to show that he has yet to find a non-illusionary actual freedom – a freedom from one’s social conditioning as well as one’s genetically-encoded instinctual passions. Vineeto to No 66, 4.5.2004

RESPONDENT: You see No 66, the easiness of Vineeto’s answer? She immediately answered through the program that is installed in her brain. She never met the man, she never spoke with him, exchanging ideas etc.

VINEETO: I did meet U.G. Krishnamurti at the end of my spiritual search years and I reported this meeting on the Actual Freedom mailing list –

Whilst you may not have read that I had met him, there was no way you could know that I hadn’t, short of asking me, i.e. your easy and immediate rejoinder was in fact false.

*

VINEETO to No 66: U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement that ‘any ‘freedom’ is an illusion’ is a statement based on his own illusionary freedom and merely goes to show that he has yet to find a non-illusionary actual freedom – a freedom from one’s social conditioning as well as one’s genetically-encoded instinctual passions.

RESPONDENT: She does not discus the statement. The statement is ‘A priori’ wrong. It in not in the line of actual freedom. <…> At least U.G is authentic, speaks out of his experience and not out of believing, because if I had never taste sugar and I am saying that is a nice thing, means I believed somebody else.

VINEETO: Tell me, what is ‘‘a priori’ wrong’ about saying that U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement that ‘any ‘freedom’ is an illusion’ is a statement based on his own illusionary freedom? You yourself say U.G. Krishnamurti ‘speaks out of his experience’ and he himself called ‘any freedom ... an illusion’.

I simply pointed out that contrary to U.G. Krishnamurti’s belief that ‘any ‘freedom’ is an illusion’ that a way has now been found to an actual freedom from the human condition, something that surpasses any illusionary freedom of any kind of altered states of consciousness for the simple reason that this freedom is actual.

What many people don’t seem to like about an actual freedom is that in order to get onto the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom one has to actively roll up one’s sleeves and irrevocably change oneself and for many that is too much of a shift from their present comfortable belief that ‘I only need to stop desiring freedom and then I will at least not have to be bothered doing anything at all about my unhappiness, let alone my acrimony’.

9.5.2004

RESPONDENT: this HAIETMOBA is nothing new, is just a new name of passive awareness. A new name just to give the impression that something new is discovered. That’s all.

VINEETO: (explanation of the actualism method snipped)

RESPONDENT: Please look we are not fitting and we are not stubborns. When I say that haie ... is not new for me I mean it. <snip>

You can not eradicate the self piece by piece, because in every piece you eradicate ten new come on. You have to end or rathe must be ended altogether, how by thought to understand the havoc that creates in the areas that it is not necessary and end. You the thinker can not end thought, because the thinker is a by-product of thought. Without thought there is no thinker. Only with insight then, no effort in the world will do it unless we begin the genetic engineering and begin to alter the brain stems etc with unknown results. Don’t think that there are not free people in the world. Don’t think that these free are in illusion because they are not actualists. Re: How am I experiencing …, 8.5.2004

No is it possible that you are conditioned from the actual freedom method? You depend from it no? So in the moment you depend from it necessarily you are attached to it. You defend it. Is you. All this mechanism is very well known. Although you might be deconditioning your self here and there, in the same moment you are conditioning your self through that method. Re: Actualism, 7.5.2004

Vineeto have you ever thought that you might, be in a state of self suggestion, or self brain wash? You must know how the placebo way works. Re: Inevitability, 8.5.2004

Hi Vineeto, what kind of happiness are you trying to achieve? For Vineeto, 8.5.2004

VINEETO: Given that the only points you have made in these four consecutive posts is to express that you are convinced that actualism is nonsense, not for you, does not work, is not unique, is ‘self suggestion’ or ‘self brain wash’, that only the thinker is the problem and ‘me’ at the core of my being is irrelevant, and that your method of no change is the right approach to the human condition, I can only repeat what I already said to you more than ten months ago –

[Vineeto]: 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. Vineeto to Respondent, 25.7.2003

I have nothing further to add.

15.5.2004

VINEETO: The reason I had re-posted my previous response was to make clear that I am not writing on this list to theorize or philosophize but to talk about the practical hands-on life experiences of how to become more happy and more harmless. As such I enjoyed your story about how you managed to free yourself from agoraphobia.

You have since commented on something I wrote to No 67 –

There is a vital difference between the ‘passive awareness’ of Eastern mysticism and the actualism method and that is being guided by pure intent to become happy and harmless, born of the PCE, in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are.

RESPONDENT: Why you keep repeating this, in the world as it is with people as they are? (…)

VINEETO: I am saying this because when I was normal I was busy blaming other people for making me unhappy and either riling against the world or trying to change the world and when I became spiritual I was trying to escape from the world. As an actualist I have the intent to become harmless and happy in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are. That means that if I get upset, angry, sad, irritated, melancholic, anxious, worried, etc. about some thing or some event or some person or some group of people then I have something to look at, in me.

Unless one understands this and fully takes this on board one can never be happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are.

RESPONDENT: And something else, when you ask how am I experiencing ... inevitably that will drive you to why?

VINEETO: Yes, when I find that I am not feeling excellent I will ask why that is so, what is preventing me from feeling excellent. Or to put it another way – when I ask myself how am I experiencing this moment of being alive and I find that I am not feeling happy or that I am not being harmless, I ask myself why not? Or to put it another way – if I become aware that I am not enjoying this moment of being alive, I ask myself why not?

RESPONDENT: And the analysis is inevitable.

VINEETO: Finding out what prevents me from feeling excellent is not an analytical/psychological process but an experiential inquiry similar to the one you applied in order to free yourself from agoraphobia – I feel the feelings that prevent me from feeling excellent, I label those feelings, I find out which aspects of my identity are linked with these feelings, such as habits, beliefs, viewpoints, morals, values, phobias, etc., and then I do whatever is necessary to get back to feeling excellent again.

RESPONDENT: If you feel ok will you make the question? I mean when so feel so called happy, shall toy also make the question of Haietmoba?

VINEETO: The question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is a silent question that runs in the background – once it is up and running it is not something one can turn on or off, nor would one want to.

RESPONDENT: Or you making only then in discomfort?

VINEETO: When ‘in discomfort’, as you say, I then know that I have something to look at and something to do in order to get back to feeling excellent again. When I am feeling excellent, I then relish the experience of being here in the world as-it-is with people as-they are.

RESPONDENT: Because even when you feel happy is still the self feeling happy.

VINEETO: Of course. But it beats the ‘self’ feeling miserable or being angry or feeling pious or being sarcastic hands down.

RESPONDENT: So you are interesting of eliminating that part of the self that feels unhappy, but it is ok with the self that feels happy.

VINEETO: The ‘self’ thrives and flourishes whenever ‘I’ am sorrowful and malicious or pious and righteous and weakens and starves whenever I am happy and harmless. As such, as long as ‘I’ am a ‘self’, i.e. as long as my identity is still in tact, the best ‘I’ can do to weaken the ‘self’ is to disempower the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire by feeling happy and being harmless as much as possible.

This is how Richard has explained it –

Richard: Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’).

In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 4, 19.2.1999

RESPONDENT: So how do you expect to eliminate the self in the moment the biggest piece of it, the one who wants to be happy, will always be there reinforcing its self?

VINEETO: This body is naturally and effortlessly happy – it is ‘me’, the social-instinctual identity inside this flesh-and-blood body, that is the spanner in the works. This is evidenced in a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience where one is able to experience the perfection of this actual physical universe because there is neither an ‘I’ as an ego nor ‘me’ as a soul present to spoil the already always existing peace and purity. ‘The biggest piece’ of the ‘self’ is not ‘the one who wants to be happy’ but is ‘me’ who is continually objecting to being happy and unable to live in harmony with one’s fellow human beings.

RESPONDENT: This part of the self is the one who is the desire, and when you said that, there is a difference between passive observation (awareness) and AF and this difference is the pure intent, this pure intent is the maximum of desire, and this is the most difficult part of the self (THE DESIRE) to deal with.

VINEETO: Eastern mysticism has us believe that it is desire – to be precise, the desire to be born in the first place – that is responsible for sorrow.

What Richard discovered is that it is ‘me’ – the feeling ‘being’ who arises from the instinctual passions – who inevitably feels forever separated from the splendour, succulence and perfection of actuality and that one can become actually free from this instinctual feeling ‘being’ in toto. What ‘I’ can do to become free from this instinctual ‘self’ is to commit unequivocally to become free from both malice and sorrow – this is what is called pure intent.

This pure intent to free this flesh-and-blood body from the genetically encoded instinctual passions is something entirely different to wanting to be free from the (supposed) desire of the unborn soul to be (re-)born into flesh – 180 degrees opposite in fact. (Editorial note: Pure intent is, of course, a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe. See Library on Pure Intent)

1.7.2004

RESPONDENT No 66: I have just finished reading about ¾ of the UGK page with all his books for free. Now, there are some clearly crack-pot things about this man. 1) after ‘awakening’ to his ‘naturalness’ he became hermaphroditic! 2) his eyes no longer blink. One can check this out by viewing his videos. (I have paid close enough attention to this – I will later) 3) he is sometimes unable to recognize objects, like a chair (I’m not sure what example he gave). 4) he is a very irascible/angry old man – just watch the videos. And the list could go on, but I think that’s enough. Now, all that being said, his statement that the very search for happiness causes unhappiness seems very sensible.

VINEETO to No 66: Apparently those crack-pot things haven’t deterred you from accepting U.G. Krishnamurti’s authority and from thinking that his statement ‘that the very search for happiness causes unhappiness seems very sensible’. I say this because when I began to question my spiritual beliefs I discovered that I had accepted the authority of certain people because they were well-known and famous within the spiritual tradition despite the fact that I knew from observation that their lives weren’t worth emulating.

RESPONDENT No 66: What the? Why do you think I accept his authority.