|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 59
RESPONDENT: You’ve made incorrect assumptions of what I’m on about. Essentially, you have been attacking a straw man. Let’s see how wrong you are... VINEETO: As for ‘incorrect assumptions’ – I took it that you were prepared to stand by the quote you volunteered as evidence in support of your stance, because nowhere did you distance yourself from it. In fact the statements you made about your having ‘a duty to doubt’ indicated that you agreed with the quote you provided. If you are now distancing yourself from the quote that is another matter entirely. RESPONDENT: I’m interested in Actualism. I’m just objecting to a couple of assertions that seem very unlikely. You seem to be telling me that I must swallow all claims about Actualism before Actualism will work for me. This sounds dogmatic to me. VINEETO: What I am saying is that unless you begin to question your firm conviction that actualism is just another spiritual teaching and Richard is just another spiritual teacher, you will have zilch understanding of actualism. As you said below you consider actualism as ‘one approach amongst many’, i.e. many spiritual approaches, therefore whatever you consider ‘will work’ for you will be spiritually based and will have nothing to do with actualism. If stating the fact that actualism is utterly non-spiritual and that an actual freedom is a freedom from the exalted states of the venerated spiritual teachers sounds ‘dogmatic’ to you, so be it. RESPONDENT: I guess your misunderstandings are actually calculated rhetorical gestures. I realise that correcting your distortions of what I say is pretty pointless. VINEETO: Let me see if I understand your line of logic. You volunteered a quote from Zen-teacher Robert Linssen in support of your stance that an actual freedom is not new, then when I point out the differences between what he is saying and what actualism is saying, you distance yourself from the very words you posted in support of your stance. Then you dismiss the vital differences as mere semantics and proceed to tell me that *my* ‘misunderstandings are actually calculated rhetorical gestures’? It seems that the distorting is all of your own doing. * RESPONDENT: I’d like to ask you this question directly – must I dispose of all doubt for Actualism to work for me? VINEETO: Of course – only 100% commitment to becoming happy and harmless will do the trick. Doubt will only serve to sabotage any well-meaning efforts you may have in this regard. RESPONDENT: Thankyou. You have revealed the full character of your approach. VINEETO: Ah, didn’t you know that in order to achieve success in any matter of life one needs to commit oneself 100% to the task? * RESPONDENT: No, I’m not. I simply don’t know what the pace of evolution (or more precisely, change) should be. I am suggesting that given the length of time it has taken for minds to evolve it should not be surprising that a freedom from the human condition has not become widespread yet. VINEETO: If you look at the above dialogue you can see that it was you who introduced ‘the pace of evolution’ in order to justify that the spiritual methods have not yet failed to bring peace to this verdant planet. RESPONDENT: So how long do you think it will take Actualism to bring about peace on earth? VINEETO: Peace on earth is always already here as is apparent in a pure consciousness experience and it is available to anyone who is sufficiently motivated to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow – the 100% commitment to becoming happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: Does overuse of the word ‘verdant’ turn your tongue green? VINEETO: No. Don’t you experience this planet as verdant, abundant, magical, paradisiacal? And if not, don’t you consider it an aim worth any effort to experience it this way – 24/7? * RESPONDENT: No, I’m not. I simply don’t know what the pace of evolution (or more precisely, change) should be. I am suggesting that given the length of time it has taken for minds to evolve it should not be surprising that a freedom from the human condition has not become widespread yet. VINEETO: If you look at the above dialogue you can see that it was you who introduced ‘the pace of evolution’ in order to justify that the spiritual methods have not yet failed to bring peace to this verdant planet. The question relevant to this conversation is how much longer do *you* want to wait before you consider questioning the effectiveness of *your* spiritual methods in bringing about peace-on-earth for you? RESPONDENT: Hey hey, right away! My methods are half-arsed but I’m having fun. VINEETO: I was simply bringing the discussion back to focus – from your theoretical musing ‘what the pace of evolution should be’ to pointing out the practical possibility of bringing about change, right here, right now, in the only person you can change. I say this because that’s what I did at the start of actualism – I wondered whether I was ready and willing to make the necessary changes such that I would become free of malice and free of sorrow. If found that unless I asked myself this question and unless I got an affirmative answer then my interest in bringing about peace on earth was nothing more than an armchair philosophy and not a practical possibility for me. * RESPONDENT: The writings on the Actualism website suggest that this is a failing of all systems and approaches prior to that of Actualism. Given the underwhelming interest in Actualism so far, should I conclude that it has failed? Of course not. It’s one approach amongst many. Given the hurdles in the way of attaining freedom from the human condition it could take hundreds or thousands of years for benefits to emerge in a majority of humanity. VINEETO: Can you see how your firm conviction that actualism is ‘one approach amongst many’ obstructs any further understanding of what actualism is about and how it leads you into ever increasing circles of questions of ever decreasing relevance to the nub of what is actually on offer on in actualism? As a temporary experiment, a working hypothesis only, you could apply naiveté and gay abandon in lieu of your preconception of ‘reasonable doubt’ and see how the writings on the Actual Freedom Trust website make sense if you simply take the words at face value. RESPONDENT: The last time I applied gay abandon I was seriously misunderstood by my narrow minded friends. VINEETO: Well, naiveté is indeed considered utter foolishness in a world where cynicists and misanthropists rule the roost. RESPONDENT: Vineeto, I hate to break this to you: It’s been a big preconception for you and I know you have been nurturing your prejudice with great care but ... get over it! I have said this before – I HAVE been finding value on the website in an experiential way no less! You have no basis on which to judge the results I’m getting. I’m freer than I ever have been in my life. VINEETO: Thus far there is anecdotal evidence that people have benefited from reading the words on the actualism web-site – even a little bit of common sense is of benefit and even a little bit of abandonment of the self-righteousness, the mythologies, superstitions and misinformation that come from spiritualism is of benefit in making one a little bit more down-to-earth and a little bit happier. And some have even reported being able to be a bit less hostile towards their fellow human beings and a bit less aggrieved at having to be here. But if you take the time to write to me, I will tell you that there is far more to be had from actualism than just skimming the surface and seeing it as yet another spiritual teaching. You will get from me my experience that it is more than worthwhile digging in deeper – it is not ‘a big preconception’, I am passing on information of what is possible. What you do with it or how you see it is entirely up to you. * RESPONDENT: You and I know that there is NO way to verify that Richard was the sole discoverer. VINEETO: You can leave me out of ‘you and I know’ because I do know, experientially. Once I had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) I knew that everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong and that nobody teaches, or has ever taught, how to live a PCE 24/7. RESPONDENT: And you saw a glowing Richard at the end of a tunnel of light indicating that he was there first? Many people have described PCE’s. They just use different terminology to you actualists. VINEETO: As there is neither a ‘tunnel of light’ nor a ‘glowing’ figure in any of the PCEs described anywhere in the literature of human consciousness studies you are way out of your territory when you think that ‘they just use different terminology to you actualists’. The experience people describe when they ‘use different terminology’ is a different experience, an altered state of consciousness not a PCE. It is common practice to use different words for different things, such as the description of a green sports car in contrast to, let’s say, a brown bull. You seem to be bending over backwards in order to maintain your theory that actualism is ‘one approach amongst many’. * RESPONDENT: You are asking me to accept this as an article of faith. From what you have said so far, it sounds to me that I will not benefit from Actualism until I take this article of faith onboard completely. VINEETO: You must be joking. In the time you have been on this list it has been
said numerous times that actualism is not a matter of faith. Just look up the selected correspondence for the words You seem to think that the opposite of doubt is faith whereas doubt and faith are merely two sides of the same coin. Rather than remaining trapped within the flip-flop of doubt and faith I relied on naiveté, common sense, sensibility, intelligence and the confidence gained from knowing the facts of the matter. RESPONDENT: No – you must be joking. I’ve said it numerous times – actualism is not a matter of faith because it’s verifiable. It’s Richard’s claim to be the first that requires faith. It cannot be absolutely verified. VINEETO: It’s the other way round – you came to this list challenging Richard’s claim to be the first to be free from the human condition and you said that he is not unique in that many other people have already become free from the human condition. Then, when it was explained to you that being free from the human condition is not the same as being free of the ego, aka Enlightenment, you then proceeded to claim that actualism was the same as spiritualism which presumably leads to your claim that ‘actualism (aka spiritualism in a different terminology) is not a matter of faith because it’s verifiable.’ Given that you refuse to question your firm belief –
– it comes to no surprise that you fail to understand the uniqueness of an actual freedom from malice and sorrow compared to the spiritual feeling of freedom from one’s previous conditioning. The ‘matter of faith’ is all of your own making because it is you who insists that there is no difference between an actual freedom and many other approaches other than ‘terminology’. * RESPONDENT: Why can’t I benefit from Actualism without a fundamental faith in Richard the First? Consider this – I HAVE already benefited from Actualism without swallowing the party line! Imagine that! I’d appreciate your comment on this point please. VINEETO: Seeing that you consider a statement of fact – that Richard has discovered a way to become free of the human condition in toto – to be the ‘the party line’, whilst busily ignoring every answer I have provided so far on this topic, not to mention Richard’s numerous posts on the same topic, clearly shows that you have an either/or emotional approach to actualism – either maintaining a duty to doubt with its accompanying impulse to denigrate, or envisage a necessity to trust with its accompanying requirement to have blind faith. RESPONDENT: I’ve realised now that your failure to understand what I’m saying is a wilful rhetorical flourish designed to detract from a serious weakness in your arguments. Nobody can absolutely say that it’s a fact that Richard has discovered a way to become free of the human condition in toto. He may be lying or deluded. We cannot verify Richard’s experience because we cannot completely share his subjective experience. All he can offer is a description and that is a far cry from his actual subjective experience. VINEETO: Your reasoning is based on the assumption that ‘we cannot completely share his subjective experience’ whereas the experience in a pure consciousness experience is universal, sensate and objective – not personal, affective and subjective as it is in an ASC. When ‘I’ temporarily leave the stage in a PCE, the actual world i.e. the world of objects, people and events, becomes sensuously apparent for the first time, ‘my’ blinkers are off, the bubble of ‘self’-centredness bursts, the fog and distortions caused by ‘my’ instinctual entity disappear and the actual universe, which has been here all along, becomes stunningly apparent. In a PCE all the words of Richard’s description suddenly make sense because in a PCE, I experience exactly the same actual, objective world in which Richard lives for 24 hours a day 365 days a year. In other words, there is only one actual world and it is the same for everyone who discovers it in a PCE. A ‘subjective experience’ is what one experiences in any altered state of consciousness – a feeling experience of freedom from ‘I’ as ego only. Because of its affective nature such an experience is always subjective. As long as the ‘self’ or the ‘Self’ struts the stage, one cannot experience what Richard experiences 24/7 – the ‘self’ is forever locked out from the actual world. RESPONDENT: If I became actually free all I could say with any certainty is that my identity in toto was deleted. VINEETO: As to you the only differences between spiritual awakening and being actually free are of ‘different terminology’ your sentence is a mere assembly of adapted terminology. * RESPONDENT: Indeed, his defensive stance added to my suspicion. VINEETO: Have you ever heard of the word ‘automorphism’ RESPONDENT: From www.dictionary.com ‘The conception which any one frames of another’s mind is more or less after the pattern of his own mind, is automorphic.’ So I’m defending myself from knowledge of Richard’s uniqueness? How then am I to be illuminated? Shall I rub bullshit in my eyes? Will the scales on my eyes fall off on the Road to Byron Bay? VINEETO: No. Automorphism suggests that when you engage in a conversation in an adversarial, suspicious, aggressive and sarcastic frame of mind then you automatically conceive the other to have the same attitude. The ability to recognize that the other is entirely sincere only eventuates when you yourself cease being adversarial. Then you can really begin to benefit from what actualism has to offer. RESPONDENT: I believe you are entirely sincere. VINEETO: Of course I’m being sincere – I know what it is like to come across actualism after wearily treading the spiritual path for years – I’ve run all the objections myself, I’ve had all the doubts and fears, I too struggled to come to grips with the fact that Richard has discovered something that is brand new in human history, something that dismissed all spiritual beliefs, including those that I cherished. But I didn’t remain stuck in merely questioning Richard, I proceeded to question my hang-ups with authority, my loyalty to my spiritual teacher, my cherished spiritual beliefs, the morals and ethics I had taken on board from others. Eventually I came to understand that Richard was entirely sincere and then I was able to confirm in a PCE that he had indeed discovered for the first time in human history the solution to ending humanity’s misery and mayhem. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t make everything you say right. Outrageous and unverifiable claims deserve an adversarial approach. VINEETO: One of the questions I asked myself was – what if Richard is genuine? What if what he says is right and ‘I’ am wrong? It’s just a suggestion mind you – I remember that having to acknowledge that ‘I’ had got it wrong was a considerable blow to my pride and as such these questions are not questions that everyone will be sincerely interested in asking. RESPONDENT: At any rate, I don’t have an adversarial stance with a lot of what’s on the website. VINEETO: Yes, you said that. You only object to an actual freedom being new, i.e. diametrically opposite to the Ancient Wisdom of Byron Katie and higher forms of Zen – whatever that means. You have made it clear that you see no essential difference between actualism and spiritualism so it is little wonder that you don’t have an adversarial stance towards what you make of what is written on the web-site – it makes it clear that you are not adverse to spiritualism. You are only adverse to the notion that actualism is something that supersedes spiritualism. RESPONDENT: Thanks for answering my posts at length but I do not require any further replies. VINEETO: Does this mean you consider your inquiry closed because you made up your mind? RESPONDENT: No doubt you will reply for the benefit of your audience which is fine but I am done on this list. VINEETO: I see, you already assume that you won’t benefit from my reply. RESPONDENT: Keep it actual! VINEETO: I do, but you have kept it spiritual so far. RESPONDENT: No doubt you will reply for the benefit of your audience which is fine but I am done on this list. VINEETO: I see, you already assume that you won’t benefit from my reply. RESPONDENT: Given that you have already admirably stated the Actualist position and that repetition is a waste of your time and mine, yes. VINEETO: Of course, if your sole intention is to spread doubt and controversy, then you would consider reading any reply to your allegations ‘a waste of your time’. For me, responding to your questions and claims was certainly not a waste of my time. You apparently did not understand my explanations as to the vital difference between actualism and spiritualism from my previous posts, so I attempted to make it more clear in my last post, for your benefit and the benefit of anybody else who is interested in reading these correspondences. VINEETO: Seeing that you are not yet ‘done on this list’ and have not yet moved on to ‘more fruitful avenues’ but stayed to post more allegations about actualists, I thought I would make a comment on your last post to No 58 – RESPONDENT to No 58: I guess you realise this already – the Actualists are approaching you as if they are dealing with an ‘alien parasite’. You’ve witnessed their fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine. They don’t tolerate dissent or doubt and barely acknowledge your positive statements. They are applying their methods on you in quite a mechanical way – not that I think you’re in any danger of falling for their pea and shell tricks. They have to expend this kind of energy in debate because it’s what they do to keep their own ‘entity’ at bay. It’s a reflection of the internal pressures they are applying on themselves. I think all they have succeeded in doing is to downsize their ‘entity’ and teach it to survive by camouflaging itself... as an Actualist! How cunning is that? Survival is it’s game after all. If you treat yourself as a cunning alien parasite then that’s what you’ll get. It’s why I think the actualist method is ultimately futile because the entity will adapt by ‘shape shifting’ just enough to let the ‘host’ feel ‘actually free’. Consciousness is the tip of a very large unconscious iceberg – who really knows what kind of resources the entity has to draw on in its quest to survive? VINEETO: I begin to understand now why you have been unable to follow my explanations, and those of other actualists, about the nature of actualism – in all probability you were too busy looking at the faults of actualists instead of investigating what feelings you have that prevent you from wanting to understand something new to human history. Here’s a suggestion – not long ago you had said that you find Byron Katie’s four self-investigative questions an excellent means of disengaging from one’s beliefs –
Your above allegations against actualists are an excellent opportunity to apply Byron Katie’s method in order to find out about your feelings against actualism, which persistently prevent you from understanding what is really on offer here. Let me quote Byron Katie’s website for clarification as to how she intended her method to be used –
If you find her method to be excellent then I can only presume that if you ‘look inside rather than outside’ as far as your allegations are concerned you might find inside a ‘fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine’, a non-tolerance to ‘dissident or doubt , an application of your ‘methods … in quite a mechanical way’. You might even find that you ‘have to expend this kind of energy in debate … to keep [your] own ‘entity’ at bay’ and that you are cunningly ‘camouflaging’ your ‘entity’ because you are convinced that ‘the entity will adapt by ‘shape shifting’ just enough to let the ‘host’ feel ‘actually free’’. Applying the technique called ‘turnaround’ you may even discover that your ‘consciousness is the tip of a very large unconscious iceberg’ and maybe learn more about ‘what kind of resources the entity has to draw on in its quest to survive’. Disengagement is certainly not what actualism is about, but hey, if you find it to be the way to go then it would seem wise to practice the method you do endorse instead of hanging round on a mailing list whose method you consider ‘ultimately futile’ for you. VINEETO: Seeing that you are not yet ‘done on this list’ and have not yet moved on to ‘more fruitful avenues’ but stayed to post more allegations about actualists, I thought I would make a comment on your last post to No 58 – RESPONDENT: Yeah, I’m a contrary guy at times. Thankfully, reading this list and investigating more fruitful avenues is not a binary either/or opposition for me. Besides, I wanted to issue a ‘big up’ to my mate No 58. VINEETO: I noticed that the ‘big up’ to your ‘mate’ consisted of little other than adversarial statements about other members of this mailing list. When I became aware of the implications of exclusive friendship and loyalty I realized that as long as I nourished those ideals I would not be able to be harmless and I would not be able to live with people in peace and harmony. Exclusive friendship and loyalty are anathema to peace and harmlessness because those feelings always demand that one takes sides and supports one’s friends, family, tribe or nation in their animosity, regardless of the facts of the situation. * RESPONDENT to No 58: I guess you realise this already – the Actualists are approaching you as if they are dealing with an ‘alien parasite’. You’ve witnessed their fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine. They don’t tolerate dissent or doubt and barely acknowledge your positive statements. They are applying their methods on you in quite a mechanical way – not that I think you’re in any danger of falling for their pea and shell tricks. They have to expend this kind of energy in debate because it’s what they do to keep their own ‘entity’ at bay. It’s a reflection of the internal pressures they are applying on themselves. I think all they have succeeded in doing is to downsize their ‘entity’ and teach it to survive by camouflaging itself... as an Actualist! How cunning is that? Survival is it’s game after all. If you treat yourself as a cunning alien parasite then that’s what you’ll get. It’s why I think the actualist method is ultimately futile because the entity will adapt by ‘shape shifting’ just enough to let the ‘host’ feel ‘actually free’. Consciousness is the tip of a very large unconscious iceberg – who really knows what kind of resources the entity has to draw on in its quest to survive? VINEETO: Your above allegations against actualists are an excellent opportunity to apply Byron Katie’s method in order to find out about your feelings against actualism, which persistently prevent you from understanding what is really on offer here. Let me quote Byron Katie’s website for clarification as to how she intended her method to be used –
If you find her method to be excellent then I can only presume that if you ‘look inside rather than outside’ as far as your allegations are concerned you might find inside a ‘fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine’, a non-tolerance to ‘dissident or doubt’, an application of your ‘methods … in quite a mechanical way’. <snip> RESPONDENT: Excellent opportunity, indeed. Of course I’m sure you already realise that since I am reasonably intelligent and perceptive this has already occurred to me. I have indeed made such investigations for myself. However, I do realise that you are making a point for your readers. VINEETO: No, the point I was making was in response to your outburst of unsubstantiated allegations. You had said that you endorsed Byron Katie’s teachings to ‘look inside rather than outside’ and I assumed, apparently wrongly, that if you applied her teachings with sincerity you would no longer have the need to make emotionally-charged unsubstantiated allegations against your fellow mailing list members. RESPONDENT: What your readers need to know (in case they did not realise this from your post) is that the Work as outlined by Byron Katie (www.thework.org) is a tool for self investigation. It’s common for beginners to think that the Work is something you use to simply make your beliefs, thoughts and feelings wrong. It’s also common to see people use the Work as a rhetorical tool to ‘turn around’ the argument and attempt to discredit their opponent with a barely concealed suggestion of hypocrisy. It’s a favourite sport of some to play the ‘mirror game’ which degenerates to ‘I know you are but what am I?’ This is not what the Work is about. The Work does not invalidate concepts – it simply allows you to examine the effect they have on you. VINEETO: According to your explanation the investigation of one’s concepts is merely for the purpose of ‘self’-knowledge, to see ‘the effect’ your concepts have on you and not for the purpose of seeing their harmful effect on others. As such my suggestion to apply Byron Katie’s method to ‘look inside rather than outside’ was misinformed in that her teaching doesn’t include the intent to become harmless and happy and as such her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Despite the ‘spiritual’ scare tag placed on Byron Katie by the Actualists, she doesn’t tell you where your investigations should take you, she doesn’t tell you that you will end up being enlightened or ‘spiritual’. The agenda you blend with the Work is your business. VINEETO: The other day an acquaintance told me that she was learning life-skills from Byron Katie and quoted an example of her newly acquired wisdom – ‘There are my things, there are your things and there are God’s things and one should always keep them apart.’ And you try to tell me that Byron Katie is not spiritual. Until you prove to me that God is physical matter I will continue to call Him/Her/It a non-physical spirit and any teaching that mentions God a teaching ‘pertaining to a spirit’, i.e. a spiritual teaching. RESPONDENT: I chose to use the Work without knowing where it would take me. VINEETO: And yet you have just made it clear that you already know where ‘the Work’ is not going to take you –
Personally I never placed any such conditions on my self-investigations otherwise I would never have questioned, let alone become free of my vainglorious spiritual beliefs. RESPONDENT: I started using the Work some time after using the actualist method and found that it works in very well with ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ VINEETO: Of course, you can use the sentence ‘how am I experiencing myself being alive’ for any purpose of your own choosing but in actualism this sentence is used with the sole intent of becoming harmless and happy – otherwise it is not actualism. RESPONDENT: Will this bring an actual freedom? VINEETO: Of course not. Byron Katie’s intent of ‘self’-knowledge is equivalent to ‘God’-knowledge and an actual freedom is freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow … and spiritual beliefs are a major component of human malice and sorrow. Not only do spiritual beliefs feed off human malice and sorrow and by doing so actively perpetuate human malice and sorrow, spiritual beliefs only exist and only continue to exist because human beings insist on remaining passionate and imaginative beings. Which is why only the ending of being a ‘being’ will bring an actual freedom from the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: Who really knows? I certainly have my doubts. VINEETO: I wonder why you wonder. From what you have written thus far on this mailing list you come across as an avid supporter of spiritualism and an equally avid dissenter to the possibility, let alone desirability, of human beings becoming free of malice and sorrow. If you are wondering about an actual freedom from malice and sorrow then it doesn’t manifest in what you write. All I can say is that it’s fun and I am feeling freer than I ever have. VINEETO: ‘Freer’ from malice and sorrow? RESPONDENT: So far my investigations have not led me to invalidate my misgivings about the anti-guru guru Richard’s self proclaimed status of being the one and only human being to have ever achieved an actual freedom from the human condition. VINEETO: Given that you make no distinction between a spiritual freedom and an actual freedom your ‘misgivings’ are based on voluntary ignorance and as such irrelevant. You could just as well have ‘misgivings’ that Rome has no Eiffel Tower because you insist to ignore the many road signs that say that Rome is not Paris. You are driving by the wrong map. RESPONDENT: Yeah, I’m a contrary guy at times. Thankfully, reading this list and investigating more fruitful avenues is not a binary either/or opposition for me. Besides, I wanted to issue a ‘big up’ to my mate No 58. VINEETO: I noticed that the ‘big up’ to your ‘mate’ consisted of little other than adversarial statements about other members of this mailing list. When I became aware of the implications of exclusive friendship and loyalty I realized that as long as I nourished those ideals I would not be able to be harmless and I would not be able to live with people in peace and harmony. Exclusive friendship and loyalty are anathema to peace and harmlessness because those feelings always demand that one takes sides and supports one’s friends, family, tribe or nation in their animosity, regardless of the facts of the situation. RESPONDENT: My statements are only adversarial to those who feel threatened. Feeling provoked? That’s your problem. Perhaps you need to investigate the issue for yourself. VINEETO: Contrary to your conjecture, I used the word ‘adversarial’ not
because I was ‘feeling provoked’ or ‘threatened’ but because it is an accurate description of your
statements – adversarial as in ‘opposed to’, ‘in opposition of’ actualism and actualists. At first you found Richard’s
statement that actualism is non-spiritual and unique to human history as being ‘off-putting’ and despotic In other words, you want actual freedom to be just another version of spiritualism à la Robert Linssen, Byron Katie and John Wren Lewis and you make no secret about being adversarial to Richard and others for stating the fact that actualism isn’t spiritualism. * VINEETO: If you find her [Byron Katie’s] method to be excellent then I can only presume that if you ‘look inside rather than outside’ as far as your allegations are concerned you might find inside a ‘fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine’, a non-tolerance to ‘dissident or doubt’, an application of your ‘methods … in quite a mechanical way’. <snip> RESPONDENT: Excellent opportunity, indeed. Of course I’m sure you already realise that since I am reasonably intelligent and perceptive this has already occurred to me. I have indeed made such investigations for myself. However, I do realise that you are making a point for your readers. VINEETO: No, the point I was making was in response to your outburst of unsubstantiated allegations. You had said that you endorsed Byron Katie’s teachings to ‘look inside rather than outside’ and I assumed, apparently wrongly, that if you applied her teachings with sincerity you would no longer have the need to make emotionally-charged unsubstantiated allegations against your fellow mailing list members. RESPONDENT: Well Vineeto this is where the wonderful variety of human experience defeats you again. Amazingly, not everyone investigates the same way or arrives at the same conclusions you do. Does it gall you to realise that even sincere seekers arrive at conclusions that differ from your mono take on life? There’s a whole ecology of ideas out there. Many paradoxes abound. I’m not of the school that says investigation must emasculate a vigorous response to the world around me, hence my vigorous response to actualists and their ‘entity hunting’ debating style. VINEETO: Since I started talking to and writing to people about actualism I have experienced that others have a different agenda to their search than I do. Contrary to your allegation this doesn’t ‘gall’ me at all because it is your life you are living but I am certainly amazed how few people are sincerely interested in doing something about their own feelings of malice and sorrow while ever proclaiming that it is the fault of others that there is no peace amongst human beings. And I certainly wonder why you even write on this mailing list – except perhaps for the gratification of being adversarial – as you made it yet again clear that learning how to become less antagonistic towards others is not on your agenda –
But then again, being a woman I never had the problem of feeling emasculated when I began to get rid of my malice. I certainly felt insecure, threatened, powerless and scared at times when I began to take apart the various aspects of my social identity that caused me to feel aggressive towards and resentful about others but because living in harmony with people was more important I stubbornly proceeded despite my initial apprehensions. * RESPONDENT: What your readers need to know (in case they did not realise this from your post) is that the Work as outlined by Byron Katie (www.thework.org) is a tool for self investigation. It’s common for beginners to think that the Work is something you use to simply make your beliefs, thoughts and feelings wrong. It’s also common to see people use the Work as a rhetorical tool to ‘turn around’ the argument and attempt to discredit their opponent with a barely concealed suggestion of hypocrisy. It’s a favourite sport of some to play the ‘mirror game’ which degenerates to ‘I know you are but what am I?’ This is not what the Work is about. The Work does not invalidate concepts – it simply allows you to examine the effect they have on you. VINEETO: According to your explanation the investigation of one’s concepts is merely for the purpose of ‘self’-knowledge, to see ‘the effect’ your concepts have on you and not for the purpose of seeing their harmful effect on others. As such my suggestion to apply Byron Katie’s method to ‘look inside rather than outside’ was misinformed in that her teaching doesn’t include the intent to become harmless and happy and as such her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Yes, you would say that. You have an interesting discursive logic that pulls conclusions from your own agenda. You lock down what I say and let your imagination runaway. VINEETO: No, this is neither logic nor imagination but common sense based on my own extensive experience with the traditional practice of ‘self’-knowledge’ and ‘self’-investigation, both from years of doing new-age therapy groups and spiritual techniques. I know that investigating one’s ‘inside’ for the purpose of acquiring of ‘self’-knowledge is purely ‘self’-serving, i.e. it is done for the purpose of becoming more ‘self’-assured, more ‘self’-confident, more powerful and more holy than others. Whereas when I investigate my beliefs, feelings and emotions with the intent of being less antagonistic towards others and toward myself, I inevitably diminished my identity because the identity thrives on maintaining ‘a vigorous response to the world’ at large. RESPONDENT: My self investigation has at times revealed things that have benefited my family and friends. I’m a kinder, less angry person these days as a result. VINEETO: You will find many people who agree with your goal to be kinder towards you and those you consider your kin – a goal which tends to exclude those who are not. Actualism is not about playing favourites as to whom you want to treat kindly and whom you do not. Whenever I have a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience I only see fellow human beings, not friends and strangers, family and outsiders. Nowadays I experience myself as a human being amongst other fellow human beings, not belonging to any kith or kin. RESPONDENT: Coming from my direct experience, I cannot agree with your ridiculous conclusion that ‘her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth’. How the hell would you know anyway, given your lack of direct experience with the Work? VINEETO: As I said, I have ample experience with the practice of acquiring ‘self’-knowledge’ from years of spiritual therapy which included methods like Byron Katie’s ‘look inside rather than outside’. I also have the contrasting experience of a PCE when one is not being a ‘self’ and I have my experience of years of living in virtual freedom from malice and sorrow. By this comparison I know that any self investigation without the explicit aim of becoming harmless and happy is inevitably ‘self’-empowering and ‘self’-aggrandizing although I would not have understood, let alone admitted to it, in my spiritual years. Maybe it is easier to understand when I say that in spiritual practice one’s ego-self might receive some bashing but one’s soul-self will always emerge closer to God or to the ‘divine nature’ and thus grander than ever. RESPONDENT: I can already hear your predictable reply. Go ahead and assert your self-perceived monopoly on the truth... VINEETO: When you imagine what I am going to say and then ridicule your own assumption you have very little chance of hearing what I am actually saying let alone learn something new. In this case you would be better off shifting this conversation to your shaving mirror – it would save me having to make predictable replies, you could make them up yourself. Incidentally there is no such thing as a ‘self-perceived monopoly on the truth’ because truth is always subjective – everyone has his or her personal truth or Truth – whereas when I write I draw on my experience and present factual evidence and common sense. * RESPONDENT: Despite the ‘spiritual’ scare tag placed on Byron Katie by the Actualists, she doesn’t tell you where your investigations should take you, she doesn’t tell you that you will end up being enlightened or ‘spiritual’. The agenda you blend with the Work is your business. VINEETO: The other day an acquaintance told me that she was learning life-skills from Byron Katie and quoted an example of her newly acquired wisdom – ‘There are my things, there are your things and there are God’s things and one should always keep them apart.’ And you try to tell me that Byron Katie is not spiritual. Until you prove to me that God is physical matter I will continue to call Him/Her/It a non-physical spirit and any teaching that mentions God a teaching ‘pertaining to a spirit’, i.e. a spiritual teaching. RESPONDENT: I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual. VINEETO: If you ‘don’t give a toss’ then why do you make the comment that actualists are placing a ‘spiritual’ scare tag’ on Byron Katie? Either her teachings are spiritual or they are not. Which is it? RESPONDENT: Are you deliberately misunderstanding again? Or are you dyslexic? VINEETO: No I ma nto dsylexic. Why do you ask? RESPONDENT: Where have I tried to assert that Byron Katie is not spiritual? VINEETO: Here –
And here again –
I know you have acknowledged that ‘I’m a contrary guy at times’ but it would seem that your ‘vigorous response to actualists’ is based solely on maintaining a ‘vigorous response’, regardless of the facts of the matter. Perhaps somewhere in your next ‘vigorous response’ to me you could make it patently clear as to whether you are arguing that Byron Katie is spiritual or that she is not spiritual otherwise I am left with the impression that you are writing to me solely for the sake of disagreeing with me. RESPONDENT: The Work is definitely not spiritual – it’s a method for self investigation. VINEETO: Has it ever occurred to you that the method is only as good as the goal one wants to achieve with using the method? And you made it clear what you use Byron Katie’s method for –
In my spiritual years I thought that self-investigation was for the purpose of becoming more humble – the aim being to enhance my good emotions and sublimate and transcend my bad emotions. I believed that this work would diminish my ego so as to bring me closer to the Divine, and I strongly believed that if I could succeed in surrendering to the Divine I would solve the problems that my ego caused. Only when I met Richard and learnt about an actual freedom from the human condition did I realize that I had been following the fashion of concentrating on only one aspect of the problem, my ego, yet completely ignoring the major aspect of the problem, my soul. By only investigating the unwanted parts of my self I had empowered the cherished parts of my self – and thus only aggravated the problem of being a ‘soul-self’, an instinctually driven identity. In short, if the aim is not ‘self’-immolation it is inevitably ‘self’-aggrandizement and ‘Self’-empowerment. RESPONDENT: The whole God concept is so loaded up with preconceptions. VINEETO: Yes, ‘the whole God concept’ is pure fantasy, all of it, from beginning to end. RESPONDENT: I prefer the term ‘nature’ or ‘universe’ in which case physical matter would be a significant subset contained within ‘God’. VINEETO: ‘Physical matter … a significant subset contained within ‘God’’ is still a concept ‘pertaining to a spirit’, i.e. a spiritual, whereas actualism is utterly, completely, absolutely, totally, without exception non-spiritual. God by whatever name and by whatever preference is a spiritual fairytale invented and kept alive by passionate minds and contumacious souls. In other words there is no such thing as an actual physical God. To believe that the physical universe is Divine is subscribing to Pantheism –
This physical universe is experienced as far, far more extraordinary when stripped of the veneer of being relegated to ‘a significant subset contained within ‘God’’. * RESPONDENT: I chose to use the Work without knowing where it would take me. VINEETO: And yet you have just made it clear that you already know where ‘the Work’ is not going to take you –
Personally I never placed any such conditions on my self-investigations otherwise I would never have questioned, let alone become free of my vainglorious spiritual beliefs. RESPONDENT: Just to amuse me with your surrealist logic – VINEETO: Sorry, no amusement – I don’t use much logic, certainly not ‘surrealist logic’. Logic is the domain of men in ivory towers who theorize, philosophize and rationalize about their concepts and most the time their musings have nothing to do with reality, let alone actuality. I much prefer common sense; it is far more reliable, accurate and also far more practical and beneficial. RESPONDENT: – could you depict, in your own words, the particular ‘preconception’ that you are perceiving in my words? VINEETO: I think you said it very clearly yourself –
And –
According to your own words ‘the Work’ doesn’t invalidate your beliefs, thoughts, feelings and concepts. Whereas in actualism I questioned and investigated all of my beliefs, I took apart all aspects of my social identity and I inquired into all of my good and bad feelings because I have realized that my beliefs and my good and bad feelings keep my identity in place and prevent me from being happy and harmless. There is a diametrical difference between actualism and Byron Katie’s methodology, not only in goal but also in technique. * RESPONDENT: I started using the Work some time after using the actualist method and found that it works in very well with ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ VINEETO: Of course, you can use the sentence ‘how am I experiencing myself being alive’ for any purpose of your own choosing but in actualism this sentence is used with the sole intent of becoming harmless and happy – otherwise it is not actualism. RESPONDENT: Good. I wouldn’t want to be mistaken in the street as a narrow minded actualist. Sorry for the tautology – I meant actualist. VINEETO: If your flip-flopping about the nature of Byron Katie’s work is an example of being open-minded then I am more than glad to have given up the belief that one needs to remain open-minded. I found that all that was required for me to be sensible was to simply acknowledge the facts of the matter – regardless of whatever feelings and beliefs I may have originally had about the matter. And yes, for those who want to keep all their options open, actualism can appear to be narrow-minded – it does away with all spiritual beliefs for a start. For me, I felt I had nothing left to lose after I had trodden the spiritual path for 17 years and found it lacking in the most essential thing I wanted from life – to live with a man and with all of my fellow human beings in peace and harmony. I know it is not everyone’s cup of tea and that you sneer at having such an aim as being ‘narrow-minded’ but for me it’s the very best. * RESPONDENT: Will this bring an actual freedom? VINEETO: Of course not. Byron Katie’s intent of ‘self’-knowledge is equivalent to ‘God’-knowledge and an actual freedom is freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow … and spiritual beliefs are a major component of human malice and sorrow. Not only do spiritual beliefs feed off human malice and sorrow and by doing so actively perpetuate human malice and sorrow, spiritual beliefs only exist and only continue to exist because human beings insist on remaining passionate and imaginative beings. Which is why only the ending of being a ‘being’ will bring an actual freedom from the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: Thankfully, Byron Katie’s intent is not mine. VINEETO: Given that you seem somewhat flexible as to whether Byron Katie’s teachings are spiritual or non-spiritual I wonder how you can judge her intent as not being the same as yours? Unless I missed it, I don’t recall you saying what your intent in your process of self-investigation is other than ‘I chose to use the Work without knowing where it would take me’ which seems to indicate that you have no intent at all. * RESPONDENT: Who really knows? I certainly have my doubts. VINEETO: I wonder why you wonder. From what you have written thus far on this mailing list you come across as an avid supporter of spiritualism and an equally avid dissenter to the possibility, let alone desirability, of human beings becoming free of malice and sorrow. If you are wondering about an actual freedom from malice and sorrow then it doesn’t manifest in what you write. RESPONDENT: I’m an avid doubter of your crackpot logic. VINEETO: Ha, commonsense cracks straightjacket pot logic any day. * RESPONDENT: All I can say is that it’s fun and I am feeling freer than I ever have. VINEETO: ‘Freer’ from malice and sorrow? RESPONDENT: Yes indeed. Enough to encourage further investigation. VINEETO: You might even find that actualism is not so ‘narrow-minded’ after all. * RESPONDENT: So far my investigations have not led me to invalidate my misgivings about the anti-guru guru Richard’s self proclaimed status of being the one and only human being to have ever achieved an actual freedom from the human condition. VINEETO: Given that you make no distinction between a spiritual freedom and an actual freedom your ‘misgivings’ are based on voluntary ignorance and as such irrelevant. You could just as well have ‘misgivings’ that Rome has no Eiffel Tower because you insist to ignore the many road signs that say that Rome is not Paris. You are driving by the wrong map. RESPONDENT: Wrong map? Depends where you want to go. VINEETO: Looks like you are still a few country miles away from understanding the difference between spiritual and non-spiritual. To understand the diametrical opposite requires a weariness of the empty promises and haloed wisdom of spiritual teachings, a non-antagonistic attitude from the reader, a suspense of his or her suspicion, cynicism, sarcasm, doubt and pride and a good dose of naiveté. But above all, in order to understand what actualism is on about, one needs the intent to do so – and this intent is none other than the intent to be harmless towards others in order that one can be happy. RESPONDENT: I certainly don’t want to go to planet Vineeto where the mental ecology has been clear felled and replaced with a dogma. VINEETO: It’s not the ‘mental ecology’ (whatever that is) that ‘has been clear felled’ but the whole fantasyland of spiritual ideas, sacrosanct concepts, dearly-held beliefs, sacred psittacisms, venerated truths, ancient superstitions and so-called wisdom. Of course, for someone who still holds the pantheistic notion that ‘physical matter’ is ‘a significant subset contained within ‘God’’ any description of a god-less physical universe appears like a ‘dogma’ or worse. I remember that at some point in my investigations into my spiritual beliefs the world seemed terribly bland and bleak without the comforting assurance of the shared-by-all fantasy that a divine force is looking after things. But I soon came to realize that this was an image solely created by my fears and with the encouragement of Richard’s report that there is an actual world hidden by my beliefs and feelings I proceeded to question my cherished ideas and feelings and eventually discovered the vibrant splendour and the vivid abundance of actuality in a stunning PCE. To have an unmitigated experience of the purity and perfection of this magical wonderland we all live in is something not to be missed. VINEETO: I took the liberty of snipping large parts of your reply in order to concentrate on the pertinent points. * RESPONDENT: Coming from my direct experience, I cannot agree with your ridiculous conclusion that ‘her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth’. How the hell would you know anyway, given your lack of direct experience with the Work? VINEETO: As I said, I have ample experience with the practice of acquiring ‘self’-knowledge’ from years of spiritual therapy which included methods like Byron Katie’s ‘look inside rather than outside’. I also have the contrasting experience of a PCE when one is not being a ‘self’ and I have my experience of years of living in virtual freedom from malice and sorrow. By this comparison I know that any self investigation without the explicit aim of becoming harmless and happy is inevitably ‘self’-empowering and ‘self’-aggrandizing although I would not have understood, let alone admitted to it, in my spiritual years. Maybe it is easier to understand when I say that in spiritual practice one’s ego-self might receive some bashing but one’s soul-self will always emerge closer to God or to the ‘divine nature’ and thus grander than ever. <snip> RESPONDENT: I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual. VINEETO: If you ‘don’t give a toss’ then why do you make the comment that actualists are placing a ‘spiritual’ scare tag’ on Byron Katie? Either her teachings are spiritual or they are not. Which is it? RESPONDENT: Byron Katie can be as spiritual as you like and I don’t give a toss. VINEETO: I’m not making Byron Katie spiritual – by her own words she declares herself to be spiritual. It was you who made a very clear statement that she is not spiritual and that you believe she has attained actual freedom.
One of the main thrusts of your argument that Richard is not the first to be free from the human condition in toto was that others, Byron Katie included, had also attained an actual freedom. Yet when it was made clear that her method of self-investigation is diametrically opposite both in intent and in practice to the actualism method then suddenly is not important at all that she is spiritual and you toss it aside as irrelevant – ‘I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual’. You made the claim she ‘attained actual freedom’ – a freedom that includes freedom from spiritual belief and calenture – and now you are busy fudging the issue and/or attempting to avoid it. Given that you yourself maintain the pantheistic belief that –
… you are not likely to want to clearly distinguish between what is spiritual and what isn’t because pantheists are renowned for having a vested interest in keeping the distinction between spiritual and non-spiritual blurred. Many Pantheists think of themselves as being non-spiritual because they have turned their back on formal organized religions such as Christianity and they choose to remain unaware of the fact that they have only landed themselves in a more nebulous but no less virulent religious belief system. * RESPONDENT: The Work itself isn’t. Here are the four questions for the Work: 1. Is it true? 2. Can you be absolutely sure it’s true? 3. How do you react when you think that thought (believe that belief etc)? 4. Who or what would you be without the thought or belief? Turn it around. Where is the spiritual component in this? VINEETO: What you have done is taken Byron Katie’s method and stripped it of all of its spiritual and religious intent and presented that as proof that the Work itself is not spiritual, which only means that you take snippets from here and there in order to fit your pantheistic all-inclusive agenda. You separate the milk from the yoghurt, so to speak, in separating Byron Katie’s God-hood from her method that came to her in her God-hood so that other people can become as free as she perceives her God-hood to be. If you strip the context and the intent of the method you are using, I am wondering when you use Byron Katie’s technique from which direction you ‘turn it around’ and into which direction you ‘turn it around’ and what’s the purpose of this effort. * RESPONDENT: Where have I tried to assert that Byron Katie is not spiritual? VINEETO: Here –
And here again –
I know you have acknowledged that ‘I’m a contrary guy at times’ but it would seem that your ‘vigorous response to actualists’ is based solely on maintaining a ‘vigorous response’, regardless of the facts of the matter. Perhaps somewhere in your next ‘vigorous response’ to me you could make it patently clear as to whether you are arguing that Byron Katie is spiritual or that she is not spiritual otherwise I am left with the impression that you are writing to me solely for the sake of disagreeing with me. RESPONDENT: That’s your best shot? That’s really lame. I’ve just re-read your quotes and I still cannot see where I have said that Byron Katie is not spiritual. Anyone else see it? I can’t. I look forward to more language abuse from Vineeto. Being an actualist means never being in error, apparently. Perhaps, Vineeto, you can prove my cynicism about you wrong and just admit a small error of misunderstanding on your part. VINEETO: So when you say Byron Katie ‘says that she offers a method for freedom. She doesn’t say that it is spiritual salvation’ and ‘BK just uses different language to you’, does this not mean that you are trying to assert that Byron Katie is not spiritual? You might have noticed that I did ask you to clarify the matter for me by answering a simple question –
You have chosen to pass over this question in this post and you now accuse me of language abuse and suggest that I have to prove your cynicism wrong by admitting my ‘small error of understanding’. Firstly, if you are cynical of me then that is your business and secondly, if you will provide me with a clear answer to my question then my ‘small error of misunderstanding’ will be cleared up. In other words, I was asking for clarity, you continue to fudge the issue and continue to be adversarial. RESPONDENT: Just to clarify, in those quotes I was suggesting that it was unimportant as to whether BK is getting all spiritual and fuzzy on us or not. I was, however, asserting that the Work itself is not spiritual (it’s just four questions and a turnaround) and I will add right now that you can combine the Work with any agenda or intent you care to, spiritual or not. VINEETO: Let me introduce to you some direct quotes from Byron Katie herself about her method in which she makes it unequivocally clear that her method is about Love and God and Truth and nothing else –
And just a last one because it is so explicit –
Her teachings are a true expression of the Pantheism that has become the religious flavour of the decade –
RESPONDENT: To get all tizzy about BK’s spirituality is probably a bit like refusing to drive a VW Beetle because Hitler had a hand with the design. You can get all ‘principled’ if you like but you can admire the design and engineering without loving Hitler and becoming a Nazi. VINEETO: Automotive engineers designed the VW Beetle and Hitler only approved the finished design, which he then ordered to have built as a cheap people’s car. Your comparison is utterly flawed because Hitler did not have ‘a hand with the design’ whereas Byron Katie’s method came solely as a result of her own state of dissociation –
In other words, there was no separation between her method and her altered state of consciousness – the method came as a result of her being in an altered state and she makes it clear that her method is designed specifically to enable others to reach the same state. * VINEETO: I found that all that was required for me to be sensible was to simply acknowledge the facts of the matter – regardless of whatever feelings and beliefs I may have originally had about the matter. RESPONDENT: That’s so banal. ‘Oh of course slap forehead. I should have been looking at the facts of the matter!’ Wow that’s revolutionary. What till the world hears about that one! Hey, everyone, try this! Check the ‘facts of the matter’ and get over it! Gee, no one else but an actualist looks at the ‘facts of the matter’, right? Vineeto, let me break this to you gently ... there are people in the world who are every bit as sincere as you are about checking ‘the facts of the matter’ regardless of how they feel and who are sincerely willing to relinquish beliefs and preconception in order to do so. Many of those people are scientific in outlook and realise that all beliefs are contingent – those of us who don’t realise this are blinkered by unconscious choice. VINEETO: So far your statements ‘I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual. The Work itself isn’t’ prove the opposite – you were not only disinterested to ‘check the facts of the matter’ for yourself but when ‘the facts of the matter’ were presented to you, you then responded with denial, duckshoving, cynicism and sarcasm. It would be a pity to let the facts of the matter stand in the way of a good belief, hey? As for being ‘blinkered by unconscious choice’ – once I realized that my ‘unconscious choice’ prevented me from living happily and in peace with others I decided to un-earth and disempower the unconscious parts of my psyche in order to be able to start making conscious and sensible choices. There is no other secret to making the unconscious conscious but the determination and sincere intent to do so in order that one can become both harmless and happy, the rest is application and diligence. * RESPONDENT: The Work is definitely not spiritual – it’s a method for self investigation. VINEETO: Has it ever occurred to you that the method is only as good as the goal one wants to achieve with using the method? <snip> In short, if the aim is not ‘self’-immolation it is inevitably ‘self’-aggrandizement and ‘Self’-empowerment. RESPONDENT: Ah, yes. Goals are good for achieving desired outcomes like building empires and manipulating the masses but in some matters, including self investigation, I prefer to let the investigation and curiosity direct the outcome. Preconceptions are so boring. VINEETO: The goals in actualism have nothing to do with ‘building empires and manipulating the masses’ – I wonder if you read anything at all on the Actual Freedom Trust website as your cynical fantasy is running wild again. To have the goal to get rid of malice and sorrow is indispensable for the ‘desired outcome’ of being happy and harmless because unless I have the deliberate and altruistic intent to actively tackle the human condition within me, I am forever at the mercy of the genetically encoded forces of nature – the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. What you call ‘so boring’ is nothing other than the intent to change the ancient and genetically imprinted heritage of human nature. * VINEETO: There is a diametrical difference between actualism and Byron Katie’s methodology, not only in goal but also in technique. RESPONDENT: Yes, there is a difference there. Actualists like to ‘take apart’ and destroy their concepts. VINEETO: I am pleased that at last you recognize differences between your favourite teachers and actualism because in my experience such acknowledgements can lead to a clear-eyed understanding of what actualism is on about. But it is not that actualists ‘destroy’ their concepts for no reason or purpose – my beliefs and emotions are questioned whenever they stand in the way of me being happy and harmless. The intent comes first and the investigation of beliefs and feelings only happens as a consequence of this intent. In other words, I know what I want – an actual freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow – and then I do whatever it takes to reach my goal. To investigate without the goal to become actually free from ‘self’ is purely ‘self’-serving. RESPONDENT: Tell me – how does one take apart a thought or belief? Do you mock it and call it ‘silly’ to make it go away? Does this wipe the program clear? The computer analogy only goes so far with the mind. Attempts to banish thoughts are ultimately futile. VINEETO: Actualism is not about banishing thoughts at all – actualism is about becoming free of the instinctual passions that are the source of all of human malice and sorrow. And you again deliberately ignore the most important part of the method of actualism – pure intent. For someone for whom ‘preconceptions are so boring’ pure intent does not even enter the picture of self-investigation and consequently taking apart one’s beliefs will appear ‘futile’. When you have the intent to become free from your insidious good and bad feelings in order to experience the felicitous feelings each moment again, then the investigation into your beliefs and feelings has a purpose and a direction and as such will show incremental success. RESPONDENT: I prefer the Byron Katie model – examine your thoughts and beliefs deeply enough and they will unravel naturally. Gentle observation does the trick. That’s been my experience. VINEETO: Does what trick? What is the purpose of ‘unravelling’ your thoughts and beliefs? What is it you achieve and how do you know that you achieved something if you have no preconceptions and no goal, let alone a benchmark against which to measure your success? As for ‘gentle observation’ and without ‘preconceptions’ at that – I think the description of the human condition on Richard’s homepage speaks for itself –
Byron Katie never went ‘deep-sea diving’ herself, she grabbed for the tender passions as soon as there was a chance and blew them up all out of proportion such that she now perceives herself to be God personified, and not only herself but ‘everything and everyone’ as well. There is far, far more to becoming free from the human condition in toto than an intent-less ‘gentle observation’. * RESPONDENT: All I can say is that it’s fun and I am feeling freer than I ever have. VINEETO: ‘Freer’ from malice and sorrow? RESPONDENT: Yes indeed. Enough to encourage further investigation. VINEETO: You might even find that actualism is not so ‘narrow-minded’ after all. RESPONDENT: Well, I’m sorry to say you haven’t been a good advertisement for that possibility. VINEETO: Seeing that I ‘haven’t been a good advertisement’ and the
conversation only seems to invoke cynicism on your side, we might as well stop right here. I just wonder what your ‘further
investigation’ will consist of given that you already declared Richard’s writing to be ‘bullshit’ * VINEETO: Looks like you are still a few country miles away from understanding the difference between spiritual and non-spiritual. To understand the diametrical opposite requires a weariness of the empty promises and haloed wisdom of spiritual teachings, a non-antagonistic attitude from the reader, a suspense of his or her suspicion, cynicism, sarcasm, doubt and pride and a good dose of naiveté. But above all, in order to understand what actualism is on about, one needs the intent to do so – and this intent is none other than the intent to be harmless towards others in order that one can be happy. RESPONDENT: How harmless are you? Would you protect yourself if attacked? VINEETO: The way you phrased your question, it is not about harmlessness but
about the unliveable ideal of pacifism. Two weeks ago Peter replied to No 58’s question of ‘what is the actualist
definition of harmlessness?’
RESPONDENT: Rather than communicate with me on the common ground we do share you prefer to jump on differences. VINEETO: The only common ground I discovered so far is that we are both human beings who both speak English. Is there more?
VINEETO to No 58: I am pleased that you recognize the fact that whenever I post
something to this mailing list you read and think with your reproductive organ. It explains not only the tastelessness of your
reply but also the incoherence and non-relevance of it to the content of RESPONDENT: Damn this is funny. Thanks Vineeto. You play the perfect straight character to No 58 the comedian. Comedians need a poe-faced straight to really shine and you do that so well by constantly thinking with your Dick. PS Your opening is fly-blown VINEETO: Ah, never let a chance pass you by to have a snigger in the corner with your mates … this time to jump on No 58’s bandwagon of sexual innuendos and putdowns that are part of his self-serving crusade against actualists. I guess if you have got nothing to say of consequence or of substance on this mailing list other than your hackneyed re-working of the typical stereotyped objections to peace on earth … then you have got nothing of consequence or substance to say. I am curious as to whether you speak this way to the women amongst the lonely old
people you keep company with
VINEETO: Ah, never let a chance pass you by to have a snigger in the corner with your mates … this time to jump on No 58’s bandwagon of sexual innuendos and putdowns that are part of his self-serving crusade against actualists. I guess if you have got nothing to say of consequence or of substance on this mailing list other than your hackneyed re-working of the typical stereotyped objections to peace on earth … then you have got nothing of consequence or substance to say. I am curious as to whether you speak this way to the women amongst the lonely old
people you keep company with RESPONDENT: Truly I didn’t think you’d fall for it
but thank you for demonstrating to the class that you still have your social identity VINEETO: I merely pointed out the fact that you never let a chance pass you by to have a snigger in the corner with your mates and the fact that you have nothing of consequence or of substance to say on this mailing list. That you somehow construe my pointing out the facts as a ‘reactionary moral indignation’ and then go on to snigger at your own conjecture only emphasises my point that you still have nothing of substance and consequence to say.
VINEETO: I merely pointed out the fact that you never let a chance pass you by to have a snigger in the corner with your mates and the fact that you have nothing of consequence or of substance to say on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: You already made that pointless point. VINEETO: It is not pointless at all to draw attention to the fact that all you have to offer is wind and no pith. * VINEETO: That you somehow construe my pointing out the facts as a ‘reactionary moral indignation’ and then go on to snigger at your own conjecture only emphasises my point that you still have nothing of substance and consequence to say. RESPONDENT: ‘snigger’ is a loaded term. It’s meant to be a put down. VINEETO: No, snigger is a term that describes a ‘loaded action’ – http://www.cornelsen.de/tw_statisch_neu/wow/_archiv/laugh/snigger.html – if you find it a put down, why do it? RESPONDENT: There is indignation behind it or you would just use a neutral term if you were ‘pointing out the facts’. Your language betrays you and your denials just highlight that. VINEETO: I can think of no other term that describes your comment more accurately … (sniggering is something schoolboys do when they first practice their sexual innuendos about girls … as well as something that girls do when they first practice their sexual innuendos about boys) –
* RESPONDENT: Your replies are provoked and it shows. VINEETO: Ah, the old spiritual game – one is ‘free’ to make any comment about another and should the person deign to respond to the comment then the response is dismissed as ‘provoked’ as in ‘ha, I pushed your buttons’ – a well-worn way of claiming the moral high ground of being more dispassionate and dissociated than the other. RESPONDENT: Do you really think I care whether I have something of ‘substance and consequence’ to say? VINEETO: Whether you care whether you have something of substance and consequence to say is beside the point – the point is that your objections towards actualists and actualism *are* without substance and consequence. In other words, merely restating your attitude and intent does nothing to alter the fact. RESPONDENT: Find a ‘point of shame’ to attack in me that really works in me, if you can, because if you find one and I feel it, I will be greatful. VINEETO: I am not interested in finding a ‘point of shame’ – that
is entirely your agenda Personally, I was much more concerned about sincerity, integrity and dignity, in other words I was concerned if I lived by my own standards rather than being worried about living up to other people’s religious/spiritual morals and ethics.
VINEETO to No 58: I am pleased that you recognize the fact that whenever I post something to this mailing list you read and think with your reproductive organ. (…) RESPONDENT: Damn this is funny. Thanks Vineeto. You play the perfect straight character to No 58 the comedian. Comedians need a poe-faced straight to really shine and you do that so well by constantly thinking with your Dick. PS Your opening is fly-blown VINEETO: Ah, never let a chance pass you by to have a snigger in the corner with your mates … this time to jump on No 58’s bandwagon of sexual innuendos and putdowns that are part of his self-serving crusade against actualists. <snip> RESPONDENT: Truly I didn’t think you’d fall for it … VINEETO: I merely pointed out the fact that you never let a chance pass you by to have a snigger in the corner with your mates and the fact that you have nothing of consequence or of substance to say on this mailing list. <snip> RESPONDENT to No 66: Richard et al could only manage ridicule in the end. You have started with ridicule. Perhaps your sincerity will win out eventually. VINEETO: Automorphism
RESPONDENT: Hi All check out the book excerpt below. It’s an interesting read from one of the Wests great communicators on the subject of Zen. Compare this with Actualist dogma and see what it does for you, if anything. (snipped THE WAY OF ZEN by Alan W Watts Part Two: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE Chapter 2 ‘Sitting Quietly, Doing Nothing’ page 156-162) VINEETO: In case you a not aware of it – this is a non-spiritual mailing list. You are not only cross posting from a religious-spiritual site (Zen Buddhism from Mr. Alan Watts classifies as spiritual) but also proselytising. Talk about double standards! Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
