|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 60
RESPONDENT: I think I know what lies behind my problem with the actualist method. Now that I know what it is, I’m even more surprised that others are not experiencing it too. It is NOT attentiveness per se that causes me to rebel. I am quite capable of observing, exploring and feeling my feelings deeply ... if (and ONLY if) I regard the feelings as both meaningful and valuable in some way. But, in actualism, attentiveness is accompanied by a goal that devalues the feelings, and this automatically introduces a wish to be rid of whatever I happen to be feeling (and a corresponding frustration that it is not happening). This is not the same thing as repression or denial; I am not ignoring the feelings or shoving them away. But the fact that I regard them as having no intrinsic value or meaning makes all the difference. When ‘Richard’ started practising his method, he did not have this problem. He was a man on a mission to bring about peace on earth; it was the most meaningful thing he had ever done, and he did it with his whole heart and soul, generating ‘love for all and sundry’, ridding himself of ‘impure thoughts’ (indicating that he was striving for a moral purity as well as a sensate/ reflective/ affect-free purity). He became intensely obsessed by the mission, and his affective energy fed the ‘process’ that eventually snuffed ‘him’. It is not possible for ‘me’ to do this because (a) I know that the outcome of following this through to its natural destination is enlightenment, not actual freedom – and we’re told that this is 180 degrees opposite to where we want to be; and (b) one does not have any belief in the deepest psychic forces that create momentum on the scale of a sense of ‘divine’ destiny ... unlike Richard who had been ‘chosen’ to fulfil a mission. If ‘Richard’ had been an actualist at the time, what would have happened? It seems to me that he’d have quickly cut off his own energy supply – and, I bet, he would not be where he is today. Make sense? VINEETO: No, it doesn’t. The problem you describe would only occur for someone who wants to jump to a total freedom from feelings without wanting to walk the walk via a virtual freedom from the human condition – i.e. without wanting to do what is obviously necessary in order that ‘I’ can become free of malice and sorrow – to become as happy and as harmless as humanly possible. A virtual free person is not entirely free of feelings – which is impossible while still being a ‘being’ – but has diminished both malice and sorrow (the bad feelings) and their pacifiers (the good feelings) in order to fully experience the felicitous/ innocuous feelings and enjoy the sensate pleasure of being alive. The urgency to clean myself up from both the bad and the good feelings arose not only from having activated my naiveté but also from having developed a concern and consideration for my fellow human beings whom I wished to free from the effects of my malice and my sorrow – it had nothing at all to do with having ‘a sense of ‘divine’ destiny’ nor of being ‘‘chosen’ to fulfil a mission’ (and nor did it with Richard if you care to carefully read his Journal). Incidentally the actualism method does not ‘devalue’ feelings per se but the combination of an on-going attentiveness and pure intent enables you to make a choice between the different feelings that occur. Once you have understood, in your own right, that malice and sorrow create havoc both in yourself and in others and that love and compassion do exactly the same then the choice for the felicitous/ innocuous feelings becomes obvious and easy. Make sense?
RESPONDENT to Richard: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method. Practising the method itself induces feelings that would not otherwise be present. All I have to do to is start asking myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, and pretty soon it sets off the feedback loop I’ve written about several times now. This does not happen in daily life; it is caused by practising the method. I’ve just this minute been writing about this again here <snip> RESPONDENT No 66 to Richard: (...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from an experienced actualist. VINEETO to No 66: The whole scenario that has been displayed on this mailing list in the last 2
weeks reminds me of a scene repeatedly used in comedies where a man staggers home drunk, sees his bruised face in the mirror and begins to apply
ointment and bandaid to the mirror. In fact the situation has now evolved to the point where the same man is in the process of smashing the mirror
to bits Given that No 60, despite first asking every one’s opinion on the issue, has now proceeded to warn
everyone off I’m talking about nothing other but good old pride. As an added staying power pride has its own
feed-back loop in that pride itself prevents one from admitting that pride is the problem – it’s a sticky wicket but nothing that cannot be
overcome with a good laugh. (...) RESPONDENT: It seems you’ve just fulfilled the prediction I made weeks ago:
Well done. VINEETO: If I may point out, this is an unmoderated mailing list and as such your attempt to stifle any response to criticisms you offer about the content of what is being discussed on this mailing list and of those who are offering it is somewhat bizarre. The ‘prediction’ you posted was nothing other than a ploy, and a transparent ploy at that, designed to stifle any response to your criticisms from those most qualified to respond. Your subsequent responses to those who did respond made it clear that your sole aim was not to listen and take on board, but to dismiss and disparage. You have however fallen into the trap you set for others, as in your rush to score points you have apparently missed the fact that I was not addressing you but rather was responding to another correspondent who said he had some similar experiences. Given that he didn’t pre-empt his comment with gratuitous put-downs, I was only too happy to reply in a way that offered some information about the ways and means that the human condition operates in practice and is habitually perpetuated by rote. * RESPONDENT No 66 to Richard: While wishing to know why another is having problems with the method may seem unrelated to my own practice of actualism, in this case I’ve had some experiences that mirror No 60’s. VINEETO to No 66: As you probably know from experience in your line of work – empathizing with a bad habit, someone else’s or one’s own, only serves as an encouragement for maintaining it. RESPONDENT: No hard feelings if people choose to ostracise me at your suggestion. Bit low though, I would’ve thought. VINEETO: I have in no way suggested ostracizing you at all, in fact what I was talking to No 66 about was something that is typical of the human condition. I know very well from my own experience that empathizing with another’s problem or seeking sympathy from others for my problems only serves to validate and reinforce the same problem in me. After all the human condition is common to all. * To sum it up, it is none other than you who is ostracizing yourself by offering criticisms whilst at the same time cutting yourself off from the possibility that the responses may well be of use to you in your current dilemma. In fact you made it abundantly clear that you do not even want to ever become as happy and harmless as the people who had success with the method … which in itself makes your criticism of the actualism method utterly pointless.
RESPONDENT to Richard: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method. Practising the method itself induces feelings that would not otherwise be present. All I have to do to is start asking myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, and pretty soon it sets off the feedback loop I’ve written about several times now. This does not happen in daily life; it is caused by practising the method. I’ve just this minute been writing about this again here <snip> RESPONDENT No 66 to Richard: (...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from an experienced actualist. VINEETO to No 66: The whole scenario that has been displayed on this mailing list in the last 2
weeks reminds me of a scene repeatedly used in comedies where a man staggers home drunk, sees his bruised face in the mirror and begins to apply
ointment and bandaid to the mirror. In fact the situation has now evolved to the point where the same man is in the process of smashing the mirror
to bits RESPONDENT: It seems you’ve just fulfilled the prediction I made weeks ago:
Well done. VINEETO: If I may point out, this is an unmoderated mailing list and as such your attempt to stifle any response to criticisms you offer about the content of what is being discussed on this mailing list and of those who are offering it is somewhat bizarre. The ‘prediction’ you posted was nothing other than a ploy, and a transparent ploy at that, designed to stifle any response to your criticisms from those most qualified to respond. Your subsequent responses to those who did respond made it clear that your sole aim was not to listen and take on board, but to dismiss and disparage. [Emphases added by No 60] RESPONDENT: Where once you advocated sticking to the facts, taking people’s words at face value, and being considerate of others, you have now given free rein to the all-too-human tendency to wildly speculate about another’s motives. I am not personally bothered by this any longer, but the hypocrisy is worth probably worth pointing out ... on the off chance you want to do something about it. (See the emphasised sections above). VINEETO: Okay, are you saying that you have not attempted to stifle any response to criticisms you offer and that your ‘prediction’ from the 15.5.2005 was not a ploy designed to stifle any response to your criticisms from those most qualified to respond? If so, it is clear where the confusion lies as, I did not realize when you wrote the above ‘prediction’ that you were unaware that what you wrote was a ploy to stifle any responses that others may have to your criticisms. But then again I can see why I was confused as this was not the only instance of you using such a ploy – in this case by telegraphing the nature of the response that others can expect from you should they question your statements –
RESPONDENT: [I am not personally bothered by this any longer, but the hypocrisy is worth probably worth pointing out ... on the off chance you want to do something about it.] VINEETO: Whatever hypocrisy you are attempting to bring to light – it does not exist on my part of the conversation. Given that you have mentioned the subject, the following exchange may be relevant –
... whereas as of 1.11 AM AEST this morning you were still sticking around nay-saying and throwing rocks from the sidelines. RESPONDENT: Here are some plain facts: I have experienced problems with the actualist method. I have described these problems several times and sought feedback. Many people have offered helpful and well-intentioned suggestions. Some of the things they suggested were things I had already considered; others were new. I gave them all an open ear and an open mind. None of them went to the root of the problem. VINEETO: You have made it clear from the very beginning of this current round of your query about the actualism method (15.5.2005) that you do not have ‘full confidence’ in any of the ‘seasoned actualists’ you listed above as having been ‘unhelpful’ –
The way I understood your post to No 73 was that you most valued the responses from those whom you had adjudged as having not succeeded with the actualism method, at least not ‘the wondrous benefits of a virtual freedom that Peter and Vineeto started reporting almost from the first’. RESPONDENT: The comments I have had from seasoned actualists on this topic (i.e. the ones you describe as ‘most qualified to respond’) have been scant, and unhelpful. From you: Nothing, as far as I can recall. VINEETO: Despite the fact that you stated you only have full confidence in those correspondents who have been practicing the method but had not yet achieved the results that Peter and I report, I subsequently wrote a post to you on the topic and at the end asked you ‘Make sense?’ to which you replied ‘Yes, it does.’ (Vineeto re: Problems w/ Method, Mon 23/05/2005 2:09 PM) So much for ‘nothing’, ‘scant, and unhelpful’ RESPONDENT: From Peter: ‘If all else fails, read the instructions.’ VINEETO: Did you actually read the instructions and follow them literally? Did you read Peter’s Journal where he described in detail how he followed the exact-same method Richard used, what objections and obstacles he came across in himself and how he overcame them? Did it pass you by that he wrote ‘an introduction to actual freedom’ so as to lay out the path to becoming actually free as simple and as unambiguous as possible and that he has written hundreds of thousands of words to correspondents on this mailing list detailing his experiences in implementing the very method you are so dismissive of, and pre-emptively dismissive at that? RESPONDENT: From Richard: ‘I have no intention whatsoever of even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation, as to why you have what you characterise as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method, let alone doing so.’ VINEETO: Now here is a thought – you have received fourteen (14) posts from Richard since you raised the topic and in fact you were almost exclusively the only person Richard conversed with in the last week – has it ever occurred to you that Richard is endeavouring to tell you something about how to use the actualism method the way he used it which so far you weren’t able to, or refused to, understand? All events considered, this ploy to prove everyone wrong except No 60 has now become so fantastically wide-ranging as to include almost everyone on this list – no wonder it is difficult to recognize it as such. Shakespeare could write a play on it. As I see it the whole ho-hum about your non-success with the actualism ultimately has been exposed by
you as being a furphy
You then went on to describe what you ‘are after’ –
For a discerning mind it is patently obvious that if you are after an intact psyche, love and pure feelings then the actualism method, if practiced as described on The Actual Freedom Trust website, would take you 180 degrees away from what you say you are after. RESPONDENT: So ... I guess that’s that. VINEETO: Well, yeah, I guess that’s that, then. … Or not. One never knows what experiences and insights life has in stall.
RICHARD: It is not my version of the hymnic ‘peace on earth/good will to all mankind’ which is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site at all: it is, rather, the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where it is startling obvious that it be something which no amount of behavioural pattern alteration will ever bring about. RESPONDENT: No kidding? RICHARD: I am not kidding when I report how startling obvious it is in a
PCE that to be superficially altering behavioural patterns – such as being a vegetarian, a vegan, a fruitarian, or a pacifist (aka practicing
non-violence/ahimsa) – will ever bring about that already always existing peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: It is also startlingly obvious that neither will any other superficially altered behavioural patterns – such as adoption of your terminology, imitation of your style and manner, adoption of a happy/ harmless/ sensible morality, or any of the other superficially altered behavioural patterns that go under the name of actualism – bring about the condition you call peace-on-earth. (Which, incidentally, seems to express itself more and more often as a taste for conflict). VINEETO: Looks like staying away didn’t work. PS: Have I succeeded in correctly reading you between the lines
RESPONDENT No 58: Richard says all emotion is deleted ... but he doesn’t act that way. Someone who had no emotions would not answer questions and communicate with his highly valued fellow man in the manner he does... but we all notice he has gone AWOL from his own list. Thankfully. I always told him, he should get lost & stay lost. Finally he has taken my advice. VINEETO: Did you also tell the sun to rise this morning? RESPONDENT: Hey, even if he did ... I rose of My Own Accord. VINEETO: Well done, sun. You are aware, of course, that the actual sun never rises – http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/top10/top10_results.html
RESPONDENT: I should have trusted my own judgement all along. This ‘happy and harmless as humanly possible while remaining a self’ bullshit ... it’s just delaying the inevitable (and maybe getting so comfortable with it that there’s no longer a powerful enough incentive to go the rest of the way). No two ways about it, ‘self’-immolation is out and out suicide, an all-or-nothing affair if ever there was one ... and all the happy/harmless minimise-this-feeling maximise-that-feeling is no more than another game of ego, another way of jerking off and jerking oneself around. No thanks. VINEETO: There is another option. Think of the following scenario – one foot is tied to the bed It is obvious that a person in the above situation would not be able to walk out the door and as such
may well find teachings of the ilk that ‘everything is already ok as it is’ It would explain why some people say that the actualism method is as easy as putting one foot in front of the other while others seem to encounter unsurmountable difficulties. Just an idea that may be of help to you in making sense of your current situation.
RESPONDENT No 71: It is all quite pathetic, this hierarchy business. RESPONDENT: Perhaps we should go into the business of selling Virtual and Actual Freedom Certificates. We could have them signed, dated, stamped and watermarked so that the owner can be in no doubt as to their freedom status. And they can prove it to anyone if challenged. VINEETO: You are a few years too late, No 60 and No 71, because this issue has long been settled. Vis – Vineeto to Irene, 30.11.1998 Richard: What are simply marvellous idea! May I suggest? Could the draw be held at some particularly delightful restaurant ... like the ‘Pockets’, perhaps? First there could be a sumptuous feast on the balcony overlooking the tropical gardens ... followed by a post-prandial draw over coffee? Any suggestions? Secondly ... why a draw? Maybe it could be done by vote like the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel? You know, get a bit of ritual going ... smoke up the chimney and all that? And would it be an annual thing? Biannual? How often could we get to dine out on this pretext? Thirdly ... what badge of office should the chief disciple wear? Not a cloth badge like the Brownies or the Scouts ... maybe a hat? Or – now here’s a thought – why not a baton! The Field Marshals get a baton ... and a real fancy one at that. There may even be a baton lying around here some-place ... it was dropped in a hurry by the previous tenant and never passed on properly. I’ll have a look around and see what I can find, eh? And fourthly ... what are the duties of the chief disciple ... and what are the perks of office? Have you put much thought into all this? Perhaps a director’s meeting is called for? We have been rather slack about this matter, have we not? Better get our act together ... and PDQ. And here is the acceptance speech from the unanimously elected Chief Disciple himself –
And here is the Edict from the unanimously elected Chief Disciple –
All suggested changes to this democratically elected hierarchical structure have to be applied to the chief disciple in triplicate.
VINEETO to No 66: Two things come to mind that might be relevant. One is something I wrote to Alan way back in 1999 –
RESPONDENT No 66: Yes, even merely stating that I experience good parts of my average day in a virtual freedom ‘puts me out there’ in a way. I would not declare myself virtually free until I was quite certain, and it would be after months of such certainty. RESPONDENT: Hmmmm. I think you might be missing Vineeto’s hint here. Maybe Vineeto missed it too, somewhere along the line. The basis of that little bootstrap operation is to fake it until there’s no evidence that you’re faking it. VINEETO: No, the point is not about faking anything, a point which is obvious from my explanation in the next part of my post to No 66 that you snipped –
I have always been clear that my intent always was and still is to become free from the human condition in toto and as such it would be utterly silly to lie to either myself or to others. The reason why there is ‘no evidence that you’re faking it’ is because I am not faking it and I never have. It is indeed possible to effortless live virtually free from malice and sorrow. Have you not thought it odd that within the human condition it is par for the course that to be happy and harmless is considered a mark of insincerity yet to feel sad about being here and to be antagonistic towards one’s fellow human beings is regarded as the hall mark of sincerity? RESPONDENT: Let it become such a good act that it might as well be genuine, as far as anyone knows. No-one else can know what you’re experiencing. And, besides, who the fuck are ‘you’ to judge? Voila. You’re ‘virtually free from the human condition’, because you’ll be damned if you’ll let that mask slip, publicly OR privately. VINEETO: Your derogatory opinion about becoming and/or being virtually free is well publicized –
As such it comes to no surprise that you are now inventing a ‘faked’ virtual freedom in order to cast aspersions on what others have chosen to do with their lives. Here is how Richard answered your previous concerns regards virtual freedom –
Your current derogatory remarks only demonstrate that you have obviously decided to take no notice of the first-hand reports from the expert on becoming actually free but that you prefer to continue to rely on your feelings and be guided by your imagination as to what the process of becoming free from the misery and mayhem of the human condition may involve. RESPONDENT: I wonder if Richard endorses this little bit of ... ummm ... applied sincerity? VINEETO: Ha, it should be clear by now that Richard does not take the conclusions drawn from your ‘gut feeling’ and your ‘intuition’ as being fact.
VINEETO to No 66: Two things come to mind that might be relevant. One is something I wrote to Alan way back in 1999 –
RESPONDENT: (…) The basis of that little bootstrap operation is to fake it until there’s no evidence that you’re faking it. VINEETO: No, the point is not about faking anything, a point which is obvious from my explanation in the next part of my post to No 66 that you snipped –
I have always been clear that my intent always was and still is to become free from the human condition in toto and as such it would be utterly silly to lie to either myself or to others. The reason why there is ‘no evidence that you’re faking it’ is because I am not faking it and I never have. (…) RESPONDENT: You say: I made Virtual Freedom my standard and I was then bound by my own integrity and supported by my intent not to slip back into not having a perfect day. I say: Virtual Freedom must be constantly policed ... maintained affectively and cognitively by a constant barrage of actualist ideation. VINEETO: Your idea that happiness ‘must be constantly policed’ is nothing new, it can be found in many proposed strategies for happiness. To name but a few –
The traditional secular ways of being happy always involve constant self-policing in that any outbreaks of anger or sadness must be either ignored or denied or kept under control via repression and fear of punishment – it implies a moral imperative, a set of ideals, morals and ethics that need to be met and maintained – whereas living in virtual freedom is nothing like that at all because being guided by pure intent makes morals and ethics altogether redundant. Virtual Freedom means that I have learnt via the simple method of being attentive to how I am experiencing this moment to live with ease and in peace – there is hardly anything that can upset me and as such I don’t need to keep myself under control. In fact life becomes so deliciously out from control that it would be more accurate to say that life is increasingly living me instead of ‘me’ trying to direct my life, let alone control and police myself. Even when there is an occasional situation that causes fear or irritation to arise, the ongoing habitual attentiveness allows me to swiftly return to being at ease. In other words, being happy and harmless is the consequence of having become free from the emotional problems arising out of my beliefs/ ideas/ opinions/ worldviews and the mayhem arising from my instinctive drives strutting the stage and as a result I am able to tackle any practical problems that occur with an unimpeded down-to-earth intelligence. RESPONDENT: In other words, you say tomayto, I say tomahto, let’s call the whole thing off. VINEETO: You have made it quite clear in your recent post to Richard that you are not virtually
free of malice and sorrow, and that when you said you were virtually free, you were joking In other words, I know tomatoes by taste, you call them lemons, why don’t you call the whole thing off?
VINEETO to No 105: Yes, I checked it again and I had got it wrong. Sorry for the confusion. (Subject line: Brat re: Contemplation) RESPONDENT: No 65, I thought for one heart-stopping moment we might be witnessing something entirely new in human history: an aspirant to the ‘summum bonum of human experience’ discovering how to acknowledge a mistake ... seemingly without any resentment, hostility or counterpunch! (But then I saw the Freudian slip in the title...) (Oh well.) ;-) VINEETO: To a cynic and/or declared anti-actualist my spelling mistake may read as a ‘Freudian slip’ with some dark hidden meaning – for me it was simply a dyslexic slip of which I have quite a few when I write but because the subject line does not have a spell checker, my swapping of letters went unnoticed.
VINEETO: You wrote a while back – RESPONDENT: (Thinking aloud, welcoming feedback/criticism) At this point, virtually everything about AF makes sense to me intellectually. (The exceptions are minor). All remaining reservations have a common thread: the fear of inhumanity & madness, the fear of losing capacity for fellow-feeling, compassion, intuition, empathy, etc. (Same old shit that everyone on this list must be facing – or dithering about – in their own way). VINEETO: When you think straight about the ‘fear of losing capacity for fellow-feeling’ – and this is what it takes for me to eventually overcome a deep-seated fear – then you will find that there is obviously a difference between fellow-*feeling* aka compassion and recognizing fellow-ship as in actually caring for and considering one’s fellow human beings who I actually meet. Take a situation where you arrive as the first at a road-accident – you would stop, secure the road, assess immediate danger such as fire, inform police and ambulance, assist the people involved in the accident with first aid and do whatever is necessary to alleviate your fellow man’s or woman’s situation. In an actual situation the course of action is usually obvious and often feelings of compassion don’t arise until afterwards, as they would interfere with doing what needs to be done. Now meeting someone who needs help at a road accident is a rather rare situation in order to practice actual caring – help as action rather than feeling sympathy – whereas when I started to pay attention to my daily routine of interactions with people, and became more sensitive how my words and actions where affecting not just myself but even more so my fellow human beings, I could easily see in what way I could replace a feeling compassion for the suffering all of human kind (which has no tangible effect whatsoever except on me who is feeling it) with an active and tangible change in the way I treat people in my immediate surrounding. Take driving – I’m sure you know the difference between being followed by an angry, impatient or even reckless driver and a reasonable sensible driver who drives according the given conditions and considers his/her fellow drivers. Take work – I’m sure you enjoy work much more when your colleagues are pleasant, polite, forthcoming, cooperative, considerate or even happy rather than grumpy, don’t want to be here, sullen, competitive, petty, bossy, bored and so on. Take living together – it was always my dream to live in perfect peace and harmony with a man but prior to actualism I never managed to do so. Now not only do I get the benefit myself from having sorted out my emotional problems, my partner equally benefits from living with a happy woman who is actively committed to an equitable harmonious partnership. In short, fact is that people actually tangibly benefit from me being happy and harmless whilst in my pre-actualism years they may have *felt* temporarily comforted by my expressed sympathy and compassion but given that one cannot change the human condition for somebody else, feelings were all I had to offer. This insight was the very reason why I left my job as a social worker and went off to the East searching for the solution to the riddle of life. Additionally, paying ongoing attention to my own feelings and passions had the result that I became far less ‘self’-centred, ‘self’-oriented and busy being involved in my own problems and was therefore far more able to actually notice other people around me as my fellow people living out their own lives as opposed to seeing them as players on the stage of ‘my’ life and automatically classifying them as competitors or possible benefactors, as a business opportunity, as a possible love-interest, as a friend or an enemy, as a co-spiritualist or as aliens, and so on. The process of actualism is not one big heroic jump into oblivion, not at the start anyway, but about *practically* doing something about all the little things in daily life that prevent me from being harmless and considerate.
VINEETO: During my process of actualism there was a time when I watched the biography of many people who made it to being famous enough to have a biography report made about them. I wanted to find out what exactly it is that made people successful in what they wanted to achieve in life, be it a gold medal in an Olympic sport or the winner of the Tour de France, be it a successful business entrepreneur or a famous dancer or painter, be it a well-known architect or a renowned author or inventor or, in the spiritual realm of achievements, become an enlightened master. What all these people had in common was a burning passion to be successful at their chosen field of interest and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach their goal. RESPONDENT No 23: This shows that likely you have not (yet) understood what a spiritual master is. VINEETO: I take it then that you have not read Mohan Rajneesh’s autobiography ‘The Golden Childhood’ or any other autobiography or biography from a genuine enlightened person? They all describe, without exception that they were pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years with a strict discipline of meditation, fasting, yoga and other spiritual disciplines and then, when after years of arduous practice they exhaustedly relaxed and gave up control enlightenment happened. Face it, there is no such thing as a free lunch – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord – you’ll have to work really, really hard for it. RESPONDENT: Without exception? I thought someone would have commented by now but it appears to have escaped everyone’s notice. Vineeto, surely there is the glaring exception of Richard? Is that an oversight on your part, or has Richard since had cause to doubt that what he knew in those 11 years was enlightenment? VINEETO: You may want to check the details of how Richard’s enlightenment came about –
RESPONDENT: Without exception? I thought someone would have commented by now but it appears to have escaped everyone’s notice. Vineeto, surely there is the glaring exception of Richard? Is that an oversight on your part, or has Richard since had cause to doubt that what he knew in those 11 years was enlightenment? RESPONDENT No 71: I agree. There are many many examples of enlightened masters (including Ramana Maharshi) who did not pursue enlightenment, but it came to them, unasked. Now PCEs do happen of their own accord, but as far as I can see, actual freedom as a persistent state takes hard (but enjoyable) work. VINEETO: Are you saying that you agree that enlightenment needs no effort? Arthur Osborne, an ardent devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi and particularly well known as the Founder Editor of the Mountain Path, the spiritual journal of Sri Ramanasramam, as well as the Editor of ‘The collected works of Ramana Maharshi’ and ‘Author of Teachings of Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words’ wrote in his biography of Ramana Maharshi –
Not only does he report of Ramana’s dedication for making the Divine manifest but also of his application of ‘continual effort’. RESPONDENT: I don’t want to detract from the point you were making – that becoming extremely good at anything requires intense and persistent effort – it was just the mention of meditation, spiritual practices, prayer and fasting that made me think of Richard as an obvious exception. VINEETO: I was half way through answering both of your recent posts on this topic when your latest posts arrived in one of which you said –
I assume that anything and everything I would say to you in my response would fall into this same category so I decided to leave it. I’m sure I’ll hear from you if my assumption was incorrect.
RESPONDENT: Without exception? I thought someone would have commented by now but it appears to have escaped everyone’s notice. Vineeto, surely there is the glaring exception of Richard? Is that an oversight on your part, or has Richard since had cause to doubt that what he knew in those 11 years was enlightenment? <snip> RESPONDENT: I don’t want to detract from the point you were making – that becoming extremely good at anything requires intense and persistent effort – it was just the mention of meditation, spiritual practices, prayer and fasting that made me think of Richard as an obvious exception. VINEETO: I was half way through answering both of your recent posts on this topic when your latest posts arrived in one of which you said –
I assume that anything and everything I would say to you in my response would fall into this same category so I decided to leave it. I’m sure I’ll hear from you if my assumption was incorrect. RESPONDENT: Was Richard a glaring exception to your ‘without exception’ scenario? You say you were half way through your response. Do you mean you were half way through ‘yes’? Or half way through ‘no’? [Addendum] By all means, send me half your response, and I’ll figure out the other half myself... VINEETO: This is what you informed me just recently –
As I’m neither a dentist nor in the business of knowingly inflicting pain I will refrain from any further correspondence with you as long as you experience it this way. Anyway, there is so much information on The Actual Freedom Trust website already that you can figure out everything for yourself if you want to.
VINEETO: To straighten out your line of argument – VINEETO to No 23: During my process of actualism there was a time when I watched the biography of many people who made it to being famous enough to have a biography report made about them. I wanted to find out what exactly it is that made people successful in what they wanted to achieve in life, be it a gold medal in an Olympic sport or the winner of the Tour de France, be it a successful business entrepreneur or a famous dancer or painter, be it a well-known architect or a renowned author or inventor or, in the spiritual realm of achievements, become an enlightened master. What all these people had in common was a burning passion to be successful at their chosen field of interest and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach their goal. I take it then that you have not read Mohan Rajneesh’s autobiography ‘The Golden Childhood’ or any other autobiography or biography from a genuine enlightened person? They all describe, without exception, that they were pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years with a strict discipline of meditation, fasting, yoga and other spiritual disciplines and then, when after years of arduous practice they exhaustedly relaxed and gave up control enlightenment happened. Face it, there is no such thing as a free lunch – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord – you’ll have to work really, really hard for it. RESPONDENT: 2. Vineeto says that they (ie. all genuine enlightened people), WITHOUT EXCEPTION: a) PURSUE ENLIGHTENMENT b) FOR MANY YEARS. c) with a STRICT DISCIPLINE OF MEDITATION d) FASTING e) YOGA f) OTHER SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES 3. Richard is a glaring exception to the above in that: a) Richard did NOT pursue enlightenment for many years (Jan-Sep 1981) (…) VINEETO: Richard did not pursue enlightenment. Full Stop. And to spell it out for plain understanding – he is not one of the people ‘pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years’.
VINEETO: Richard did not pursue enlightenment. Full Stop. And to spell it out for plain understanding – he is not one of the people ‘pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years’. RESPONDENT: Well then, are you agreeing now that Richard was indeed a glaring exception to the scenario you claimed was true ‘without exception’? Specifically: that all genuinely enlightened people pursue enlightenment like all get out for many years, with a strict discipline of yoga, fasting, meditation, etc? Is he or is he not a glaring exception to what you said was true without exception? Let’s have it... VINEETO: You still don’t get it, do you? Richard does not fall into the category of the people I was talking about – ‘*they were pursuing enlightenment* like all get-out’ – because Richard was not pursuing enlightenment. At the time he did not even know that there is such a thing as enlightenment.
RESPONDENT: Vineeto, Do you or do you not acknowledge that Richard was a glaring exception to your ‘without exception’ scenario, for the very reasons I specified (ie. he did not pursue enlightenment like all get-out for many years; he did not know what enlightenment was at the time; he did not meditate; he did not fast (AFAIK); he did not practise yoga). If not, why not? If so, at what point did it become clear to you that what I was saying (about Richard being an exception) was correct? VINEETO: I did, thrice. 1. See fourth paragraph from the bottom – 2. The last two paragraph of this post – 3. The last paragraph of this post – It is indeed a dead horse you are flogging.
RESPONDENT: Vineeto, Do you or do you not acknowledge that Richard was a glaring exception to your "without exception" scenario, for the very reasons I specified (ie. he did not pursue enlightenment like all get-out for many years; he did not know what enlightenment was at the time; he did not meditate; he did not fast (AFAIK); he did not practise yoga). If not, why not? If so, at what point did it become clear to you that what I was saying (about Richard being an exception) was correct? VINEETO: I did, thrice. 1. See fourth paragraph from the bottom – 2. The last two paragraph of this post – 3. The last paragraph of this post – It is indeed a dead horse you are flogging. RESPONDENT: Not yet it isn’t. I appreciate you acknowledging unambiguously that Richard was indeed an exception to your ‘without exception’ scenario, for the reasons that I mentioned right from the outside. VINEETO: No, Richard was not an exception to my ‘without exception’ scenario – he was an
exception to all people pursuing enlightenment. Richard was searching for a way to be able to live the PCE 24hrs a day. This is described as the
Fallacy of Accident RESPONDENT: Now, you still haven’t answered the other question above: at what stage did you realise that what I was saying about Richard being an exception (for the reasons specified) was correct? VINEETO: As this is a leading question (also known as Plurium Interrogationum or the Fallacy of
Many Questions I knew before I wrote my reply to No 16 that Richard is in a different category to people pursuing enlightenment ‘like all get-out’ because he never did pursue enlightenment at all. RESPONDENT: Did you agree with me all along? VINEETO: No, you had put Richard into the same category as spiritual seekers in search for enlightenment – he never was. RESPONDENT: Did you change your mind at some point? VINEETO: No. RESPONDENT: Or ...? VINEETO: Or … do you now have ‘a load of egg’ on your face
RESPONDENT: Not yet it isn’t. I appreciate you acknowledging unambiguously that Richard was indeed an exception to your ‘without exception’ scenario, for the reasons that I mentioned right from the outside. VINEETO: No, Richard was not an exception to my ‘without exception’ scenario – he was an
exception to all people pursuing enlightenment. Richard was searching for a way to be able to live the PCE 24hrs a day. This is described as the
Fallacy of Accident (…) RESPONDENT: Did you agree with me all along? VINEETO: No, you had put Richard into the same category as spiritual seekers in search for enlightenment – he never was. RESPONDENT: Did you change your mind at some point? VINEETO: No. RESPONDENT: Or ...? VINEETO: Or … do you now have ‘a load of egg’ on your face RESPONDENT To No 98: With V’s latest mindbendingly illogical final word on this ‘without exception’ saga quoted below, I hereby rest my case and trust that it has been proven beyond a doubt. You are all free to make up your own minds; as for me, my own twisted games are quite enough of a challenge without spending more hours, days, weeks on someone else’s. VINEETO: Did you just miss the opportunity to catch yourself in the act Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
