|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 66
VINEETO: The only method I systematically apply, and ever needed to apply, is to keep asking whether I want to hold onto the particular feelings that come with being a believer or whether ‘I’ could afford to drop the belief in question in exchange for being more happy and convivial. (…) RESPONDENT: And how did you find all those beliefs w/o a ‘method’ of inquiry (i.e. specific questions)? VINEETO: And yet I had a method of inquiry – the questions that followed the method of attentiveness were merely common sense, the application of sensual observation combined with the experience of what works and what doesn’t work in regard to my aim. RESPONDENT: You basically asked yourself the questions that *made sense to you* to find out what was going on with your psyche. It makes sense, yet I’m not convinced that a set list of questions might not be helpful. VINEETO: How could a list of my questions help you discover what you believe? * VINEETO: I started with the aim of living with Peter in unconditional peace and harmony (which soon expanded to being unconditionally happy and harmless) and applied the method of being attentive to this moment of being alive. Putting this attentiveness into a list my line of questioning would look something like this – with the proviso that when I notice that I am feeling hurt or peevish or irritated the first thing to do is to get back to feeling good – (…) I also knew that I could only be happy (and stop being annoyed at the person who said ‘this’) if I replaced the belief in question with facts and given my intent to do so the next line of action became obvious. RESPONDENT: I have a question! Please give me a *specific* example of ‘replacing a belief’ with a fact. VINEETO: OK.
And another specific example –
And a third specific example –
* VINEETO: Often I discovered another layer of belief/ conditioning underneath the first belief which needed further probing into my psyche. RESPONDENT: This is where I stumble. Sometimes I feel I’m not going ‘deep’ enough and other times I feel that the layer are too deep to penetrate. VINEETO: The investigation only needs to be as deep as the belief goes, in other words, once you reach a sensately verifiable fact that replaces the belief then the beliefs disappear and with it all the feelings that propped it up. * VINEETO: (…) Along with abandoning beliefs and the related fickle good and bad emotions I also made some practical changes in my life so as to have more free time (in exchange for having less goods, less social status) and less social engagements. RESPONDENT: I can and have cut out many social ties, yet I don’t think I can really cut out my work hours presently. I could cut out some wasted time on some hobby type pursuits. VINEETO: Personally, my reason for not wasting time with activities that hold no interest for me is that I have more free time to do something that pleases me such as a pursuing a hobby or to do nothing when it pleases me such as gazing out the window and enjoying the sights, sounds, possibly smells and movements of my immediate surroundings.
RESPONDENT: Vineeto, were you experiencing a EE when you said it was ‘sweet’? (in the video conversation) VINEETO: It was more than that – I was experiencing a near ‘me’-death experience – it is a very sweet luring pull towards oblivion. I’m sure one day I will succumb to it.
RESPONDENT: I was wondering if you could ‘break down’ how you experienced life at the beginning of virtual freedom … year by year … to the present. VINEETO: I found some correspondences where I have described how I experienced life in the last few years and dated them for your convenience. *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RESPONDENT: I was wondering if you could ‘break down’ how you experienced life at the beginning of virtual freedom … year by year … to the present. VINEETO: I found some correspondences where I have described how I experienced life in the last
few years and dated them for your convenience. RESPONDENT: I appreciate you arranging this. While it does seem that virtual freedom ‘deepens’ as time goes on, it is consistent enough, that I can tell that I’m not there yet. I walk around in virtual freedom land quite a bit on a daily basis, but I’m not there ‘99%’ of the time for sure. Thanks VINEETO: Two things come to mind that might be relevant. One is something I wrote to Alan way back in 1999 –
When I took up actualism there was no one to compare my own progress with on the wide and wondrous path because Irene had already made her turn-around and Richard’s path to an actual freedom led through enlightenment and I therefore had to forge my own path and go by my own assessment. What I had as a guide, however, was the comparison to the time before I started to apply actualism, before I made it my goal in life to clean myself up as much as humanly possible so as to facilitate an actual freedom from the human condition. And this comparison became more and more startling as the months went by until the time came when I could no longer even imagine how people manage to insist on perpetuating the emotional and actual turmoil that is called ‘normal life’ when there is such an easy-to-follow alternative on offer. Nowadays I often think I am normal while everyone else is busy being mad. In other words, at some stage, based on my comparison to life before actualism 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. Or, to use one of my mixed metaphors Peter finds so confusing – once you lift the bar you have something to hang your hat on. The other thing that comes to mind is that after cottoning onto my bad-mood-habits I found it relatively easy to be happy when I was by myself, at home, or in nature. What was not so easy was to maintain this happiness when I was interacting with other people, be it sorting out male-female issues and/or spiritual beliefs with Peter, being stuck in traffic, being challenged at work or feeling confronted/ lost/ bored on social occasions. Interactions with people brought up a plethora of real challenges to my beliefs, my convictions, my habits, my gregarian/ territorial/ aggressive/ defensive instincts, my prejudices, my pride, my worries and fears, my taboos and emotional hurts and so on. Sometimes an irritation over a small thing, such as a high-pitched voice, a screaming child or a driver cutting in on me proved to be but the tip of the iceberg of deep-seated emotions that were there for the investigating. I found that nothing is too small to investigate, particularly when it happens repeatedly – being emotionally upset, no matter how trivial it might seem, is always an indication that ‘I’ am throwing the spanner in the works. Writing to the mailing list was a particular challenge to ‘not let the buggers get me down’ given that putting me down was often their sole intent in communicating. But my aim was to become un-irritable, to become aware of all the things that caused me to become angry, peeved, sad, down on myself, iffy, doubting or outright hopeless. I found discovering how I tick and keeping my innocuity in an often adversary climate more exciting than climbing Mount Everest or bungee-jumping … to make peace-on-earth one’s number one priority is not only the best meaning ‘I’ can give to my life, it is also highly challenging and extremely rewarding.
RESPONDENT: In another method (one of the few others which correctly identifies emotions and not thoughts as the central cause of suffering) they have a interesting insight. It is the experience of the method’s founder that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’. Specifically, the want for approval, control, and security/ survival/ safety (there is another want, which I think is an extension of this third want, the want to be separate, but I’m not as clear about this one). I often can see one of these wants behind my emotions as well. Perhaps someone on the board might find this helpful or not. I am curious how this jells with others experience. Interestingly, in this method the non-suffering feelings are CAP – courageousness, acceptance, and peace. The ultimate goal is imperturbability. Apparently, this man achieved this by paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all (the basic method can be summed up as 1) become aware of the feeling, 2)feel the feeling, 3)identify the feeling, 4)relax into the feeling, 5)until the feeling releases). I found it interesting where he wrote that after living in bliss for some time continually, he saw that was still ‘imperfect’ and he dissolved that to a even deeper (and more restful) peace. VINEETO: Ah, No. 66, yet again attracted to the age-old spiritual methods, even though disguised in a new frock? When I typed ‘AGFLAP’ into Google and it came up with the label for the method you described – the ‘Sedona method’ – I had to laugh. Sedona is the spiritual Mecca of New Mexico and amongst other things is/has been the residence for a large group of Rajneesh’s ‘Inner Circle’ from where they have been holding court teaching their ‘privileged’ version of going in and letting go, a technique which was in many aspects identical to the above described method. But one does not need to know all this to find out that the ‘Sedona Method’ is spiritual through and through – just look at this explanation of ‘How It Works’ from their site –
Whereas in actualism I acknowledge that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and only when ‘I’ am gone in my totality can the always already existing peace of the actual world become apparent. This is how the ‘Sedona Method’ is advertised –
Whereas in actualism I incrementally abandon both the good *and* the bad feelings in order that I can be what I am – a flesh-and-blood body only. The testimony of a happy customer finally confirms that the ‘Sedona Method’ is nothing but the plain old dissociation technique –
Seeing that you recommend this method as being possibly ‘helpful’ for ‘someone on the board’, I wonder what it is that motivates you to recommend a dissociation technique on this actual freedom board – and why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’ instead of endeavouring to live in the actual world of the senses is a mystery to me.
RESPONDENT: In another method (one of the few others which correctly identifies emotions and not thoughts as the central cause of suffering) they have a interesting insight. It is the experience of the method’s founder that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’. Specifically, the want for approval, control, and security/ survival/ safety (there is another want, which I think is an extension of this third want, the want to be separate, but I’m not as clear about this one). I often can see one of these wants behind my emotions as well. Perhaps someone on the board might find this helpful or not. I am curious how this jells with others experience. Interestingly, in this method the non-suffering feelings are CAP – courageousness, acceptance, and peace. The ultimate goal is imperturbability. Apparently, this man achieved this by paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all (the basic method can be summed up as 1) become aware of the feeling, 2)feel the feeling, 3)identify the feeling, 4)relax into the feeling, 5)until the feeling releases). I found it interesting where he wrote that after living in bliss for some time continually, he saw that was still ‘imperfect’ and he dissolved that to a even deeper (and more restful) peace. VINEETO: Ah, No. 66, yet again attracted to the age-old spiritual methods, even though disguised in a new frock? RESPONDENT: I’m not going to deny that their sometimes is a ‘attraction’ towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods. I find some of them interesting and I am open to learning whatever I can from other people and their discoveries. VINEETO: Personally, I had to spend quite some time investigating and reflecting in order to fully understand the radicality of an actual freedom from the human condition as opposed to the imagined spiritual freedom I had pursued before. Once I did understand however, that an actual freedom is down-to-earth, factual and pertains to this actual tangible world and is indeed a freedom for this flesh-and-blood body while a spiritual freedom is achieved by and for the imaginary spirit ‘being’ occupying this flesh-and-blood body, it was blindingly obvious that nothing short of totally freeing this flesh-and-blood body from the imaginary spirit ‘being’ would do. I knew then once and for all that there is simply no point in fiddling with the imaginary spirit ‘being’ in order for the imaginary spirit ‘being’ to have a feeling of freedom whilst the actual flesh-and-blood body remains in the same clasp of the imaginary spirit ‘being’ as ever. As such the methods I had learnt before and the techniques offered within the human condition no longer held any attraction as I clearly recognized them as moving deckchairs on the Titanic, so to speak, while leaving the core problem, ‘me’, untouched. * VINEETO: When I typed ‘AGFLAP’ into Google and the it came up with the label for the method you described – the ‘Sedona Method’ – I had to laugh. Sedona is the spiritual Mecca of New Mexico and amongst other things is/has been the residence for a large group of Rajneesh’s ‘Inner Circle’ from where they have been holding court teaching their ‘privileged’ version of going in and letting go, a technique which was in many aspects identical to the above described method. RESPONDENT: Rajneesh was a ‘master’ of promoting a wide selection of methods so that is not too surprising. VINEETO: If you are suggesting that Rajneesh promoted a wide selection of both spiritual and non-spiritual methods then it may clarify the issue to contemplate if he would have promoted the actualism method without alteration. Fact is that Rajneesh took whatever method he came across, such as emotional release therapy and human growth movements and turned them into tools for dissociation (such as ‘I am not my feelings, I am not my body’) as the sole method towards enlightenment. I remember my admiration for this mastery of adaptation at the time when I participated in those emotional release and awareness groups and as I listened to him talking about Western therapy as a tool for becoming enlightened. * VINEETO: But one does not need to know all this to find out that the ‘Sedona Method’ is spiritual through and through – just look at this explanation of ‘How It Works’ from their site –
RESPONDENT: I do remember reading that sometime and of course it did remind me of how ‘The Release Technique’ is different from actualism. VINEETO: Not just different – 180 degrees in the opposite direction. * VINEETO: Whereas in actualism I acknowledge that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and only when ‘I’ am gone in my totality can the always already existing peace of the actual world become apparent. RESPONDENT: Yes, I do understand that. VINEETO: If you understand that then why the attraction to ‘the Release Technique’ which states that ‘we are misidentifying that we are the feeling’? * VINEETO: This is how the ‘Sedona Method’ is advertised –
RESPONDENT: I see the key word ‘master’ here. However, from literature I have read, it seems to suggest that ‘Lester Levinson’ was continually at peace, which does sound more than mere ‘mastery’. It should be kept in mind that the presentation of the Sedona method for everyday folk/business people and the ‘end goal’ of what Lester pointed too are somewhat different. VINEETO: Do you realize how much information you have to ignore/ put aside/ interpret in order to still consider ‘the Release Technique’ a non-spiritual method? As for ‘the ‘end goal’ of what Lester pointed too are somewhat different’, this is how you introduced the method –
* VINEETO: Whereas in actualism I incrementally abandon both the good *and* the bad feelings in order that I can be what I am – a flesh-and-blood body only. RESPONDENT: Yes. VINEETO: Do you also understand that by ‘paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all’ Lester Levinson focuses towards the core of his ‘being’ which is ‘empty, silent, and at peace’, something which is markedly different to an actual freedom from the empty, silent, and peaceful ‘being’ itself? * VINEETO: The testimony of a happy customer finally confirms that the ‘Sedona Method’ is nothing but the plain old dissociation technique –
RESPONDENT: Indeed, though they try to ‘minimize’ the spiritual aspect of the method, it is still there. Since, at its basic level it is a method of ‘releasing’ emotions, a more secular person may take it just as that: an emotional release method. VINEETO: Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not found in any of the common dictionaries? * VINEETO: Seeing that you recommend this method as being possibly ‘helpful’ for ‘someone on the board’, … RESPONDENT: No, that is not what I meant. I was only referring to the insight about the ‘three wants’ (Which you have oddly failed to address at all. This is all the more strange considering I even labelled ‘wants’ as the subject header. VINEETO: The reason I did not address ‘the three wants’ themselves is because in order to understand the nature of an insight one needs to look at where it is coming from and what it is aiming for, which I did. RESPONDENT: Is it any wonder at all to you why someone-anyone-could come across with the impression that you, Peter, and Richard sometimes answer questions in a way that appears underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative?). Addendum: To halt any misunderstanding. I’m not making an accusation here. Just a question. Also, please disregard Richard’s and Peter’s name being put in there. I will just stick to the present post (not willing to go through old posts). VINEETO: To stick to the present post – what you call ‘underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative’ is me filling in the information that you had (cunningly?) left out – the label and origin of the method, the message behind it from its founder, its final aim and a report of someone practicing the method (‘I am a watcher’) and then I pointed out how the Sedona method radically differs from the actualism method. How else can you assess the effects and results of a method/an insight unless you look at it in its entirety? RESPONDENT: I thought the insight about most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety, to be possibly helpful to someone’s self-understanding. VINEETO: Ha, I can agree insofar that to understand how one’s ‘want/ desire’ for ‘imperturbability’ can easily lead to accepting a dissociation-technique as being non-spiritual is vitally important in order to avoid the Rock of Enlightenment. * VINEETO: … I wonder what it is that motivates you to recommend a dissociation technique on this actual freedom board … RESPONDENT: LOL! What!? I specifically did not even mention the name of this method (and gave no links either) VINEETO: Look, just removing the street sign ‘Honolulu’ is not going to change that the road is actually going to Honolulu and not mentioning the name of this method is equally not going to change where this method is heading to – denial, detachment, dissociation and ultimately delusion. In other words, when you are ‘open to learning whatever I can from other people and their discoveries’, as you say above, while blithely ignoring the context of their discoveries – where they are coming from and where they are heading to and why – then you will only end up more confused than before. RESPONDENT: [I specifically did not even mention the name of this method (and gave no links either)] just so this flaming cowpie of an accusation would not be drummed up. I almost just wrote about the ‘wants’, but I thought everyone would understand what I was writing better if I can the ‘context’ of the method. VINEETO: I did not accuse you of anything, I was merely calling a spade by its proper name with the intention to inform you of the whole picture and possibly warn you and/or others of the trap of dissociation that is the basis of so many fashionable new-age techniques. As for how ‘most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety’ – you might be curious as to which ‘want’ was responsible for interpreting my post as a ‘flaming cowpie of an accusation’. To put in a practical plug for the actualism method, once I discover/recognize what causes my upset about what somebody said or did, be it want/desire or fear, irritability or an urge to defend a pet belief or self-image, I can simply drop those feelings because I see the silliness of something, anything, spoiling this moment of being alive – as opposed to, as Mr. Levinson makes us believe, because ‘at the core you are empty, silent and at peace’. * VINEETO: … – and why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’ instead of endeavouring to live in the actual world of the senses is a mystery to me. RESPONDENT: As well it should, since nowhere, and I do mean ‘nowhere’ do I mention that I’m searching for any of the above. VINEETO: So you saying ‘the ultimate goal is imperturbability’ did not reflect your own goal? Why then did you mention as a matter of interest (‘interestingly’), in detail, how another man achieved this ultimate goal? RESPONDENT: What is a mystery to me, is how on earth you could jump from reading me describe a method (and singling out one aspect of it that seemed insightful) to imagining that I’m a practitioner of it. VINEETO: I imagined nothing, I said –
If your goal is not ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ why mention as a matter of interest (‘interestingly’), in detail, how another man achieved this ultimate goal? The problem with ‘singling out one aspect of it that seemed insightful’ is that you have to deny and ignore the context of this insight, in this case that ‘at the core you are empty, silent and at peace’. As such, the insight of Mr. Levinson ‘that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’’ is nothing but a rehash of the four Noble Truths, the essence of Buddhism –
Whereas actualism acknowledges the fact that all feelings and emotions are the result of the instinctual animal survival passions which form themselves into a feeling ‘being’ and recognizes the fact that unless this ‘being’ voluntarily dies, emotions and feelings will continue to arise. RESPONDENT: My goal is still a virtual freedom. That all being said, is it possible that ‘I’m’ wasting time thinking about things like the Sedona method. Absolutely. The journey continues … VINEETO: Does this possibility become more distinct and obvious when you put the Sedona Method in its rightful context? Personally, in order to become free from the lure of spiritual beliefs I had to learn how to recognize and thus avoid the traps of spiritualism in its myriad forms and deceptive disguises … and believe you me, spiritualists are everywhere, even under the bed! … that is, until you drag them out and pop them like helium balloons.
RESPONDENT: In another method (one of the few others which correctly identifies emotions and not thoughts as the central cause of suffering) they have a interesting insight. It is the experience of the method’s founder that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’. Specifically, the want for approval, control, and security/ survival/ safety (there is another want, which I think is an extension of this third want, the want to be separate, but I’m not as clear about this one). I often can see one of these wants behind my emotions as well. Perhaps someone on the board might find this helpful or not. I am curious how this jells with others experience. Interestingly, in this method the non-suffering feelings are CAP – courageousness, acceptance, and peace. The ultimate goal is imperturbability. Apparently, this man achieved this by paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all (the basic method can be summed up as 1) become aware of the feeling, 2)feel the feeling, 3)identify the feeling, 4)relax into the feeling, 5)until the feeling releases). I found it interesting where he wrote that after living in bliss for some time continually, he saw that was still ‘imperfect’ and he dissolved that to a even deeper (and more restful) peace. VINEETO: Ah, No. 66, yet again attracted to the age-old spiritual methods, even though disguised in a new frock? RESPONDENT: I’m not going to deny that their sometimes is a ‘attraction’ towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods. I find some of them interesting and I am open to learning whatever I can from other people and their discoveries. VINEETO: Personally, I had to spend quite some time investigating and reflecting in order to fully understand the radicality of an actual freedom from the human condition as opposed to the imagined spiritual freedom I had pursued before. (…) I knew then once and for all that there is simply no point in fiddling with the imaginary spirit ‘being’ in order for the imaginary spirit ‘being’ to have a feeling of freedom whilst the actual flesh-and-blood body remains in the same clasp of the imaginary spirit ‘being’ as ever. RESPONDENT: Likewise, I do not wish to just fiddle with my ‘self.’ Anything I learn about the human condition is with the intent to use it toward the ending of ‘me’. This is not to say that everything in fact works out toward that end (if it did I’d likely be virtually free already). VINEETO: On the one hand you say that you ‘do not wish to just fiddle with my ‘self’’ while on the other hand you say that you sometimes have ‘a ‘attraction’ towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods’. Just so that there is no confusion – ‘emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods’ are a sure-fire way of fiddling with one’s ‘self’. * VINEETO: As such the methods I had learnt before and the techniques offered within the human condition held no longer any attraction as I clearly recognized them as moving deckchairs on the Titanic, so to speak, while leaving the core problem, ‘me’, untouched. RESPONDENT: In the end, without the pure intent of actualism, all other methods will fail to end or nearly end (virtual freedom) the self. Where we differ is I think it is possible that aspects of other people’s work can be helpful in minimizing the self (but ending it actually or virtually). This very well might be a waste of time on my part. However, if I learn something, perhaps it will be worthwhile. It is at the least interesting and sometimes ‘fun’. VINEETO: Given that the real goal of any spiritual practice is to uncover/ strengthen/ realize the ‘real me’, the Higher Self, the ‘silent core’ or God by any other name, it is impossible that any ‘aspects of other people’s work can be helpful in minimizing the self’. * VINEETO: Sedona is the spiritual Mecca of New Mexico and amongst other things is/has been the residence for a large group of Rajneesh’s ‘Inner Circle’ from where they have been holding court teaching their ‘privileged’ version of going in and letting go, a technique which was in many aspects identical to the above described method. RESPONDENT: Rajneesh was a ‘master’ of promoting a wide selection of methods so that is not too surprising. VINEETO: If you are suggesting that Rajneesh promoted a wide selection of both spiritual and non-spiritual methods then it may clarify the issue to contemplate if he would have promoted the actualism method without alteration. RESPONDENT: No he would not, as it directly contradicts his belief of a spiritual world. VINEETO: Do you agree then that anything promoted by Rajneesh or derived from his teachings is indeed spiritual in nature? * VINEETO: Whereas in actualism I acknowledge that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and only when ‘I’ am gone in my totality can the always already existing peace of the actual world become apparent. RESPONDENT: Yes, I do understand that. VINEETO: If you understand that then why the attraction to ‘the Release Technique’ which states that ‘we are misidentifying that we are the feeling’? RESPONDENT: I have to admit something is triggered within me when you ask this to the point question. I feel ‘uneasy’, a bit of anxiety. VINEETO: Direct questions are the only way to inquire into a murky issue, a belief or a specific emotional reaction. They can make one feel uneasy because ‘I’ am about to be exposed and any exposure to the bright light of awareness is going to weaken ‘me’ … which is the very aim of applying the actualism method in the first place. RESPONDENT: Why? 1) Dissatisfaction with the pace the actualism method has proceeded (true it has worked more than anything else, but the elusive virtual freedom is still not there). VINEETO: Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it ‘dissatisfaction with the pace I have proceeded with the actualism method’, whereby one of the reason this pace is dissatisfactory is because you keep being attracted/ distracted/ diverted ‘towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods’? RESPONDENT: 2) Thinking that perhaps there is some flaw or lack of method to the actualism method and therefore I can perhaps speed things up by taking something from another method and use it towards the goal of becoming virtually free. VINEETO: Again, taking the notoriously cunning and ‘self’-preserving nature of one’s identity into account, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that ‘perhaps there is some flaw or lack in the way I am using the actualism method’? * VINEETO: This is how the ‘Sedona Method’ is advertised –
RESPONDENT: I see the key word ‘master’ here. However, from literature I have read, it seems to suggest that ‘Lester Levinson’ was continually at peace, which does sound more than mere ‘mastery’. It should be kept in mind that the presentation of the Sedona method for everyday folk/business people and the ‘end goal’ of what Lester pointed too are somewhat different. VINEETO: Do you realize how much information you have to ignore/ put aside/ interpret in order to still consider ‘the Release Technique’ a non-spiritual method? RESPONDENT: Yes, if you take it ‘in context’ it is ‘spiritual’. I was exploring if certain parts of it could be ‘coopted’ towards the goal of a virtual freedom. VINEETO: Why would you hoodwink yourself into thinking that a spiritual method (to keep it in its context) could possibly be able to help deliver a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow when freedom from malice and sorrow as this body in this lifetime has never been on the agenda of spiritualists? Their aim lies in aggrandizing the ‘self’/ realizing the ‘Self’ instead of becoming free from one’s ‘self’ in toto. * VINEETO: Whereas in actualism I incrementally abandon both the good *and* the bad feelings in order that I can be what I am – a flesh-and-blood body only. RESPONDENT: Yes. VINEETO: Do you also understand that by ‘paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all’ Lester Levinson focuses towards the core of his ‘being’ which is ‘empty, silent, and at peace’ and which is markedly different to an actual freedom from the empty, silent, and peaceful ‘being’ itself? RESPONDENT: Yes, the key problem with all these spiritual methods is they all seem to be blind of the delight in sensuousness. I have not lost sight of this. Without attentiveness leading to sensuousness, any actualist is indeed just fiddling with himself. VINEETO: More to the point, the key problem with all spiritual methods is that they teach to disengage, disassociate and finally dissociate from being here in this place at this moment as this flesh-and-blood body and encourage you to be someone else, somewhere else. By their very nature, all spiritual methods point towards the opposite direction of becoming actually free from ‘me’. * VINEETO: The testimony of a happy customer finally confirms that the ‘Sedona Method’ is nothing but the plain old dissociation technique –
RESPONDENT: Indeed, though they try to ‘minimize’ the spiritual aspect of the method, it is still there. Since, at its basic level it is a method of ‘releasing’ emotions, a more secular person may take it just as that: an emotional release method. VINEETO: Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not found in any of the common dictionaries? RESPONDENT: Ha, I’ve seen this one before. :) VINEETO: The reason I asked you this trick question is because you were willing to forego/ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe that there is something secular in the Sedona method. Besides, what is the point in ‘releasing’ emotions only to have them return at the next occasion when you can instead find the trigger and the underlying reason why you got emotional in the first place and be done with it once and for all? * VINEETO: Seeing that you recommend this method as being possibly ‘helpful’ for ‘someone on the board’, … RESPONDENT: No, that is not what I meant. I was only referring to the insight about the ‘three wants’ (Which you have oddly failed to address at all. This is all the more strange considering I even labelled ‘wants’ as the subject header. VINEETO: The reason I did not address ‘the three wants’ themselves is because in order to understand the nature of an insight one needs to look at where it is coming from and what it is aiming for, which I did. RESPONDENT: I understand that this is how you proceed. You do have a intent/ purpose/ agenda when you write and you do consistently stick to it. At times this can appear to be underhanded, but that does not make it so. VINEETO: No, it is the other way around – I have an intent/ purpose/ agenda as to what I want to do with my life and my writing reflects this single-pointedness. I also have plenty of expertise in exposing spiritualist beliefs and practices from having had/used them myself and from becoming free from them myself and I can smell a dead rat from miles away. Isn’t labelling/ exposing a spiritual belief or practice for what it really is the very opposite of being ‘underhanded’? – particularly as I am writing on a mailing list specifically set up for the purpose of sharing experiences of how to become free from spiritual beliefs and from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Your are promoting actualism. That is how it seems to me. VINEETO: There are several meanings to the word ‘promoting’ whereby this is what it usually means when used in this context –
Actualism has no need of having its merits advertised because it works in practice. However, given that my sharing the experience of becoming virtually free seems to be mere promoting to you, you speak from the position of a potential and skeptical customer rather than a committed boots-and-all actualist, n’est ce pas? RESPONDENT: I have no problem with that. VINEETO: Why then do you call what I write as appearing ‘to be underhanded’?
* RESPONDENT: Is it any wonder at all to you why someone-anyone-could come across with the impression that you, Peter, and Richard sometimes answer questions in a way that appears underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative?). Addendum: To halt any misunderstanding. I’m not making an accusation here. Just a question. Also, please disregard Richard’s and Peter’s name being put in there. I will just stick to the present post (not willing to go through old posts). VINEETO: To stick to the present post – what you call ‘underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative’ is me filling in the information that you had (cunningly?) left out – RESPONDENT: If it was ‘cunning’ on my part it was subconsciously so. I was not attempting to judge/explore a ‘whole’ method, but merely a part of one. VINEETO: And it does not seem cunning to you to insist on exploring only part of the Sedona method, thereby ignoring its origin (Buddhism), its technique (disassociation as in ‘I am not my feelings, I am the watcher’) and its ultimate goal (imperturbability for at the core of my ‘being’ I am empty, silent and at peace) in order to maintain the belief that an aspect of the method may be useful for becoming virtually free from the human condition? I am not suggesting you were trying to deceive someone else but you sure have succeeded in deceiving yourself. * VINEETO: … the label and origin of the method, the message behind it from its founder, its final aim and a report of someone practicing the method (‘I am a watcher’) and then I pointed out how the Sedona method radically differs from the actualism method. How else can you assess the effects and results of a method/an insight unless you look at it in its entirety? RESPONDENT: While I do see your point, it seems to me that a ‘part’ of a method could be useful even while the goal or other parts are unsatisfactory. VINEETO: No, for the simple reason that none of the methods and techniques promoted anywhere in the world is concerned about becoming free from malice and sorrow let alone concerned with the total elimination of ‘self’, both ego and soul. * RESPONDENT: I thought the insight about most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety, to be possibly helpful to someone’s self-understanding. VINEETO: Ha, I can agree insofar that an understanding how one’s ‘want/ desire’ for ‘imperturbability’ can easily lead to accepting a dissociation-technique as being non-spiritual is vitally important in order to avoid the Rock of Enlightenment. RESPONDENT: Yes, this is a worthwhile clarification. While I don’t think I could ever be satisfied with the ‘Rock’ I remain open to the possibility of a ‘diversion’. This is worth some more consideration on my part. VINEETO: The question I ask myself in similar situations is what issue am I trying to avoid with such diversion? * VINEETO: As for how ‘most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety’ – you might be curious as to which ‘want’ was responsible for interpreting my post as a ‘flaming cowpie of an accusation’. RESPONDENT: As I was not intentionally promoting a method nor adopting their goal, what else is your ‘I wonder what it is that motivates you to recommend a dissociation technique on this actual freedom board – why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’’? Ok, if this is not a accusation, then it is at least incorrect. No? VINEETO: You may not have been aware of the intention, but the fact is that you were introducing a spiritual method as ‘a interesting insight’, you were expressing your interest in their definition of the non-suffering feelings and you were describing their ‘ultimate goal’, ‘imperturbability’, complete with specific instructions as to how this goal has been achieved with the expressed purpose that someone ‘might find this helpful or not’. If this is not an endorsement, then I don’t know what is. * VINEETO: … – and why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’ instead of endeavouring to live in the actual world of the senses is a mystery to me. RESPONDENT: As well it should, since nowhere, and I do mean ‘nowhere’ do I mention that I’m searching for any of the above. VINEETO: So you saying ‘the ultimate goal is imperturbability’ did not reflect your own goal? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is what I’m saying. VINEETO: Ok, if you say so. It was not obvious from your initial post because nowhere, and I do mean ‘nowhere’, did you mention that you were *not* searching for any of the above. * VINEETO: Why then did you mention as a matter of interest (‘interestingly’), in detail, how another man achieved this ultimate goal? RESPONDENT: I was sitting at a computer, in good spirits, and it seemed worth writing not only for the passing of information, but because I thought that something might ‘pop up’ and indeed something has. I was curious about others experience with the ‘wants’ and I went ahead and gave a minimal context to the method. VINEETO: The reason why this rehash of a Buddhistic method is such codswallop is because if one’s aim is to become free from the human condition then it makes no sense whatsoever to adopt the stance that desire is the cause of all suffering emotions. Remove/ dissociate from the desire for freedom from malice and sorrow and what you are left with is a defeatist’s peace similar to the Advaita Vedantist ‘do-nothing-change-nothing-just-drop-desire-approach. Without a passionate desire for an actual freedom there simply would be no reason to get off one’s bum and actually and practically do something about one’s malice and sorrow. * VINEETO: The problem with ‘singling out one aspect of it that seemed insightful’ is that you have to deny and ignore the context of this insight, in this case that ‘at the core you are empty, silent and at peace’. As such, the insight of Mr. Levinson ‘that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’’ is nothing but a rehash of the four Noble Truths, the essence of Buddhism –
RESPONDENT: :) That is interesting as I now recall a Buddhist saying that the Sedona method is like a modern western form of Buddhism. VINEETO: And yet it did not ring any warning bells at all? * RESPONDENT: My goal is still a virtual freedom. That all being said, is it possible that ‘I’m’ wasting time thinking about things like the Sedona method. Absolutely. The journey continues … VINEETO: Does this possibility become more distinct and obvious when you put the Sedona Method in its rightful context? RESPONDENT: At the very least I’m likely ‘stalling’ my progression to a virtual freedom. It also occurs to me that ‘searching’ and ‘experimenting with techniques’ has been a habit of mine for many years now, and that it may be about time to say ‘enough is enough’. VINEETO: Only you can know when ‘enough is enough’ but I know from my own experience that I had to burn the bridges to all of humanity’s tried and failed solutions in order to prevent me from dithering and in order to muster the courage to move into unknown territory – and my whole process of actualism has by and large been unknown territory and still is as far as the ultimate step is concerned. * VINEETO: Personally, in order to become free from the lure of spiritual beliefs I had to learn how to recognize and thus avoid the traps of spiritualism in its myriad forms and deceptive disguises… RESPONDENT: The actualist insight that one is spiritual at some level until a actual freedom comes to mind. VINEETO: This is just another diversion tactic. Here is what you are referring to –
The fact that an actualist acknowledges that they remain a spirit-like ‘being’ until ‘self’-immolation does not mean that they retain their spiritual beliefs or keep being attracted to new spiritual beliefs or techniques. It is part and parcel of the early process of actualism to expose all of one’s spiritual beliefs, be they from one’s original conditioning or accumulated later in life. Only then will it become obvious that any psychological, therapeutic, psychoanalytical and/or mind-control techniques are from within the human condition, intending to shift bits of ‘self’ from here to there and simply cannot, and want not, offer a solution to becoming free from the ‘self’ completely. * VINEETO: … and believe you me, spiritualists are everywhere, even under the bed! … that is, until you drag them out and pop them like helium balloons. RESPONDENT: One more thing: recently I have been getting to know a girl and she is rather religious. VINEETO: Ha … not just under the bed, in the bed. RESPONDENT: I have felt the ‘pull’ toward my previous faith even though it is not something I would seriously consider (I look at the pull to spiritualism as a disease. Like a AAer’s pull to drink). So, even now, I lie in bed alone, yet sleeping with a ‘red in my bed’ as well. VINEETO: The point is that I needed to be interested, very interested, in my ‘pull’ towards spiritualism in order to find out all the hooks and loops that tied me to these beliefs. To merely chastise spiritualism as a disease or treat it as a bad habit wouldn’t do, I had to thoroughly understand how ‘I’ tick and why in order to see through the enormous con that spiritualism is – and the worst thing is that everyone is in on it, by the very nature of the human condition. It is not a little thing to do. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the replies VINEETO: You are welcome.
VINEETO: I did some radical pruning to the original post for shortening and to avoid repetition. * VINEETO: Given that the real goal of any spiritual practice is to uncover/ strengthen/ realize the ‘real me’, the Higher Self, the ‘silent core’ or God by any other name, it is impossible that any ‘aspects of other people’s work can be helpful in minimizing the self’. RESPONDENT: You mean the instinctual self here, not the social self which can of course be minimized by other means? right? VINEETO: And what would be the point of minimizing the social self without doing something about the instinctual passions which are the root cause of the human condition? Haven’t you noticed that spiritual practice has always only been about shedding and/or transcending one’s social conditioning in order that the ‘Real Self’, ‘me’ at the instinctual core of my ‘being’, can reign supreme unimpeded by social concerns, inhibitions and restraints? * VINEETO: Do you agree then that anything promoted by Rajneesh or derived from his teachings is indeed spiritual in nature? RESPONDENT: In the actualist definition of ‘spiritual’, then yes. VINEETO: As it is spiritualists who define the word ‘spiritual’ different to the dictionary definition, you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to use semantics as an explanation for your search of spiritual methods. This is what you yourself have to say about ‘the actualist definition of ‘spiritual’’ at the end of your post (now snipped) –
Apparently not. Just consider if the fence you are straddling between spiritual techniques and actualism was made of barbed wire, what would the top strand be doing right now? Talking about straddling (‘straddle an issue – be undecided about, be non-committal about, equivocate about, vacillate about, waver about, sit on the fence about, hem and haw about’ Oxford Thesaurus) – have you noticed that most of your answers to my queries or comments fall into this same category? Here are some examples of non-committal communication –
I am reminded about a conversation we had some time ago on a similar note about whether it is necessary to be 100% certain about God’s non-existence or whether a non-committal agnostic position will do just fine and this is how you expressed your preference then –
I don’t know what your position is today but I know from my own experience that in order to free myself from belief and doubt I had to ascertain the indubitable fact about the issue – in other words as long as I am avoiding certainty on particular issues I simultaneously avoid radical change. * VINEETO: Do you realize how much information you have to ignore/ put aside/ interpret in order to still consider ‘the Release Technique’ a non-spiritual method? RESPONDENT: Yes, if you take it ‘in context’ it is ‘spiritual’. I was exploring if certain parts of it could be ‘coopted’ towards the goal of a virtual freedom. VINEETO: Why would you hoodwink yourself into thinking that a spiritual method (to keep it in its context) could possibly be able to help deliver a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow when freedom from malice and sorrow as this body in this lifetime has never been on the agenda of spiritualists? Their aim lies in aggrandizing the ‘self’/ realizing the ‘Self’ instead of becoming free from one’s ‘self’ in toto. RESPONDENT: A desire to use whatever I can to reach my goal? Or, yes, perhaps, ‘me’ holding on to ‘myself’. No perhaps, that is certainly part of it. VINEETO: Now that you discovered that hoodwinking yourself into thinking that a spiritual method could possibly be able to help deliver a virtual freedom is ‘certainly part of’ ‘‘me’ holding on to ‘myself’’ – what are you going to do about it? * VINEETO: Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not found in any of the common dictionaries? RESPONDENT: Ha, I’ve seen this one before. :) VINEETO: The reason I asked you this trick question is because you were willing to forego/ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe that there is something secular in the Sedona method. RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... ok. I do see that I was very willing to ‘prune’ the Sedona method to take out the ‘diseased’ branches. VINEETO: No. It is not the ‘branches’ of spiritualism that are ‘diseased’ and could be ‘pruned’ – spiritualism itself, its underlying basis, its goal, all of its techniques and all of its flow-on effects are steeped in narcissism and rotten *to the core*. In order to become virtually free from malice and sorrow spiritualism has to be eradicated, literally. * VINEETO: Besides, what is the point in ‘releasing’ emotions only to have them return at the next occasion when you can instead find the trigger and the underlying reason why you got emotional in the first place and be done with it once and for all? RESPONDENT: Good question. To be fair though, even in my practice of actualism, my emotions still come back. Sure, there is R’s report that this can stop but I have not proven this in regards to myself. VINEETO: If the same ‘emotions still come back’ at similar trigger-events, in similar situations, then there is something amiss in your practice of actualism. * RESPONDENT: Your are promoting actualism. That is how it seems to me. VINEETO: Actualism has no need of having its merits advertised because it works in practice. However, given that my sharing the experience of becoming virtually free seems to be mere promoting to you, you speak from the position of a potential and skeptical customer rather than a committed boots-and-all actualist, n’est ce pas? RESPONDENT: To a certain extent I know actualism works. My wording may have come across as somewhat glib/demeaning, but I did not intend it to. Hmm ... yes, I suppose ‘I’ have distanced myself from actualism recently. Not ‘purposefully’ mind you. I’ve sort of ‘slid into’ this attitude recently. VINEETO: ‘Purposefully’ or not, what counts for your experiencing of life is that you have *in fact* distanced yourself from actualism. Recognizing this fact as a fact is an essential prerequisite for doing something about it, such as making a conscious choice of returning to the wide and wondrous path to Virtual Freedom for instance. * RESPONDENT: I have no problem with that. VINEETO: Why then do you call what I write as appearing ‘to be underhanded’? <snipped definition> RESPONDENT: Unfortunately, at times I read into what you and others write with all of the past ‘conflicts’ in mind. This is no doubt an emotional state partly created from all the reading on this list I’ve done. VINEETO: The ‘emotional state’ is not ‘created from all the reading on this list’ – doubt and conflict is already part and parcel of the human condition no matter what the trigger as ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’. Again, recognizing this fact without blame or excuse gives you the impetus to do something definitive about it. RESPONDENT: Sometimes it does seem like you (and others) and trying to ‘score points’ in the interest or disinterest of actualism. VINEETO: And what points would that be, and what would I get for the score of, say, 1000 points of actualism and from whom? Could it perhaps be that what you call ‘trying to ‘score points’’ ‘in the interest or disinterest of actualism’ is in fact pointing out a fact that could help someone becoming free from their particular belief or misunderstanding or misconstrual or feeling-fed myopia which in turn would improve their experiencing of this moment of being alive? RESPONDENT: Whether it is so is another story all together. VINEETO: Why be so non-committal about it? Don’t you want to know for a fact ‘whether it is so’ or not? Don’t you want to lay your doubts to rest once and for all? RESPONDENT: If I had to lay my cards down I would say you are not being underhanded. VINEETO: O.k. Now that you established that I am not being underhanded, does that maybe throw a different light on what I say about spiritual methods in general and the Sedona method in particular? * VINEETO: To stick to the present post – what you call ‘underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative’ is me filling in the information that you had (cunningly?) left out – RESPONDENT: If it was ‘cunning’ on my part it was subconsciously so. I was not attempting to judge/explore a ‘whole’ method, but merely a part of one. VINEETO: And it does not seem cunning to you to insist on exploring only part of the Sedona method, thereby ignoring its origin (Buddhism), its technique (disassociation as in ‘I am not my feelings, I am the watcher’) and its ultimate goal (imperturbability for at the core of my ‘being’ I am empty, silent and at peace) in order to maintain the belief that an aspect of the method may be useful for becoming virtually free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: Yes, it is cunning, but only toward myself. VINEETO: Why do you say ‘only’ – aren’t you the one human being who really counts when it comes to not cheating yourself/ not obstructing your own freedom? * RESPONDENT: While I do see your point, it seems to me that a ‘part’ of a method could be useful even while the goal or other parts are unsatisfactory. VINEETO: No, for the simple reason that none of the methods and techniques promoted anywhere in the world is concerned about becoming free from malice and sorrow let alone concerned with the total elimination of ‘self’, both ego and soul. RESPONDENT: Somewhere Richard or you suggested that I was on a path of confusing myself further with the intermingling of my psychological/ spiritual methods and actualism. Particularly now, this does seem to be the case. VINEETO: This is what I said to you in this same thread –
And this is what Richard said to you on the subject of psychological management techniques –
* RESPONDENT: While I don’t think I could ever be satisfied with the ‘Rock’ I remain open to the possibility of a ‘diversion’. This is worth some more consideration on my part. VINEETO: The question I ask myself in similar situations is what issue am I trying to avoid with such diversion? RESPONDENT: It is a good question. I’m asking it, but I can’t quite answer it yet. VINEETO: Putting all your eggs in one basket, perhaps? * VINEETO: You may not have been aware of the intention, but the fact is that you were introducing a spiritual method as ‘a interesting insight’, you were expressing your interest in their definition of the non-suffering feelings and you were describing their ‘ultimate goal’, ‘imperturbability’, complete with specific instructions as to how this goal has been achieved with the expressed purpose that someone ‘might find this helpful or not’. If this is not an endorsement, then I don’t know what is. RESPONDENT: Perhaps a unconscious ‘endorsement’ snuck in there, but it was not my intention. VINEETO: Personally, I was very interested whenever I discovered apparently ‘unconscious’ endorsements or rejections and hidden agendas, because the emotions that were under the carpet, so to speak, were far more significant for discovering how ‘I’ ticked than my brushed-up presentable good intentions. * RESPONDENT: My goal is still a virtual freedom. That all being said, is it possible that ‘I’m’ wasting time thinking about things like the Sedona method. Absolutely. The journey continues … VINEETO: Does this possibility become more distinct and obvious when you put the Sedona Method in its rightful context? RESPONDENT: At the very least I’m likely ‘stalling’ my progression to a virtual freedom. It also occurs to me that ‘searching’ and ‘experimenting with techniques’ has been a habit of mine for many years now, and that it may be about time to say ‘enough is enough’. VINEETO: Only you can know when ‘enough is enough’ but I know from my own experience that I had to burn the bridges to all of humanity’s tried and failed solutions in order to prevent me from dithering and in order to muster the courage to move into unknown territory – and the whole process of actualism has by and large been unknown territory and still is as far as the ultimate step is concerned. RESPONDENT: Yes, I will likely continue to distract myself if I continue in this fashion. I expect to be burning some more bridges real soon. VINEETO: What do you ‘expect’ has to happen first before you can burn ‘some more bridges’?
VINEETO: I am reminded about a conversation we had some time ago on a similar note about whether it is necessary to be 100% certain about God’s non-existence or whether a non-committal agnostic position will do just fine and this is how you expressed your preference then –
I don’t know what your position is today but I know from my own experience that in order to free myself from belief and doubt I had to ascertain the indubitable fact about the issue – in other words as long as I am avoiding certainty on particular issues I simultaneously avoid radical change. RESPONDENT: This is a hitch for me in regards to actualism. No matter how long and hard I think or experience some things, this ‘100% certainty’ eludes me. I’ve tried to force the certainty at times (with the intent of furthering my freedom), but being a radically honest person, I can always smell that I’m kidding myself to be ‘certain’ of certain things. VINEETO: There are two aspects achieve to certainty on topics that really matter such as knowing that God does not exist. One is applying attentiveness, observation, reflection, contemplation, understanding and having the direct information from a self-less experience (PCE). The second aspect is as important – becoming aware of one’s feelings of doubt and fear which need to be recognized and disempowered when they are interfering with a clear understanding of a particular issue. Take the belief in Santa Claus – you probably agree with me that there is a 100% certainty that Santa Claus (or something equivalent from your culture) is the stuff of children’s fairy tales – that such a figure does not exist in actuality. In fact, it would be impossible to take up this child’s belief again even if you wanted. The same certainty can be achieved as far as the non-existence of God is concerned, however, it will take more research, contemplation, determination and attentiveness to the feelings of fear and doubt because the belief in God is universal to the human race – one steps a big step outside of the fold when one dares to really investigate the fiction of God by any name. People will offer you all kinds of hooks to hang on to such as the supposed need for tolerance, the platitude that ‘one can never know such things till after death’, that not-knowing is the highest wisdom and similar objections to indubitable clarity. But by far the biggest obstacle for me was the fear to acknowledge that I am indeed on my own, that nobody looks after me from above and that nobody (or no-thing) awaits me after death. Curiously enough that was also the biggest relief and freedom after I jumped the hurdle and undeniably acknowledged that in an infinite material universe there is no space for a metaphysical ‘Somebody’ – there is indeed nobody looking after me nor looking at me with ever-judgmental eyes and I can live my life as I please. There are no absolute god-given values of what is good and what is bad and I can instead follow my intelligence to sort out silly from sensible. It’s not a matter of forcing certainty but instead collecting facts until they become overwhelmingly obvious as well as becoming aware of one’s fears and doubts that prevent taking on board those obvious facts. * RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... ok. I do see that I was very willing to ‘prune’ the Sedona method to take out the ‘diseased’ branches. VINEETO: No. It is not the ‘branches’ of spiritualism that are ‘diseased’ and could be ‘pruned’ – spiritualism itself, its underlying basis, its goal, all of its techniques and all of its flow-on effects are steeped in narcissism and rotten *to the core*. In order to become virtually free from malice and sorrow spiritualism has to be eradicated, literally. RESPONDENT: While I do *obviously* have a propensity for/to doubt, nonetheless, it strongly seems to me that spiritualism has far to many tentacles wrapped around me in my life for me to play with fire like this any more. A decisive break must indeed be made. VINEETO: Once I understood that doubt is a useless tool for understanding something I could begin to separate my feelings from the facts. Nowadays no feelings interfere when I am looking for the facts in a certain theory or method or proposition. Some words and phrases easily provide obvious clues that behind an apparently secular façade there is superstition, Eastern Mysticism, self-flagellation or self-aggrandizement, surrender to the Divine, aspiration to become the Divine, detachment and dissociation, and so on. I kid you not, *all* aspects of society including science are steeped in spiritual belief. * RESPONDENT: To be fair though, even in my practice of actualism, my emotions still come back. Sure, there is R’s report that this can stop but I have not proven this in regards to myself. VINEETO: If the same ‘emotions still come back’ at similar trigger-events, in similar situations, then there is something amiss in your practice of actualism. RESPONDENT: Not always, but certainly with some situations. I can see the silliness of it, but the emotions are still stirred. VINEETO: When an emotion keeps coming back then I know that I need to look deeper in order to understand the underlying pattern that hooks me to this particular emotion. Which aspect of my identity is so adamantly holding onto this particular feeling and why? What part of my identity am I defending by not allowing myself to abandon this particular emotion? * RESPONDENT: Sometimes it does seem like you (and others) and trying to ‘score points’ in the interest or disinterest of actualism. VINEETO: And what points would that be, and what would I get for the score of, say, 1000 points of actualism and from whom? RESPONDENT: Some would say ‘points for your ego’, but that is not what I think, though at times I’m ‘tempted’ to entertain that idea. Another little trick ‘I’ have to distance myself from ending myself. VINEETO: When I met Richard and learnt about an actual freedom from the human condition I took the time and effort to check him out thoroughly and once I came to the conclusion (via close observation and the direct experience of actuality in pure consciousness experiences) that he is indeed the genuine article and walks the talk, I proceeded to the next step – to learn as much as possible from him in order to become actually free myself. I figured it was useless to return to doubting just because something Richard said or pointed out did not suit ‘me’ – in fact it is to expected that most things Richard says will not suit ‘me’ because ‘I’ can only survive in murky waters. * VINEETO: Could it perhaps be that what you call ‘trying to ‘score points’ ‘in the interest or disinterest of actualism’ is in fact pointing out a fact that could help someone becoming free from their particular belief or misunderstanding or misconstrual or feeling-fed myopia which in turn would improve their experiencing of this moment of being alive? RESPONDENT: Yes, certainly. I usually take it that way. Of course ‘I’ am also an expert of taking things actualists say with a dark cloak of doom as it serves ‘my’ self-interests. VINEETO: Well, if you already know that it is ‘a dark cloak of doom’ that makes you perceive things in a certain way then you can opt to follow the facts instead of succumbing to your feelings. * RESPONDENT: Whether it is so is another story all together. VINEETO: Why be so non-committal about it? Don’t you want to know for a fact ‘whether it is so’ or not? Don’t you want to lay your doubts to rest once and for all? RESPONDENT: Without meeting you, how could I really ... really know your true motivations though. Sure doubt has its downside, but I’m in no rush to delude myself with false conviction after freeing myself of my religion. Ultimately, it seems all I can do is verify actualism for myself. Nonetheless I honestly don’t think your being underhanded when I really think clearly. Sometimes my mind is clouded by a particular emotion. VINEETO: Do I understand you correctly that you would be able to take what I say at face value if you didn’t let your mind be clouded by a particular emotion? You could forever nourish doubt about my ‘true motivation’ – even after meeting me – but taking the words at face value (i.e. not letting your feelings run rampant) is all that is needed in order to understand what I am saying. * RESPONDENT: While I don’t think I could ever be satisfied with the ‘Rock’ I remain open to the possibility of a ‘diversion’. This is worth some more consideration on my part. VINEETO: The question I ask myself in similar situations is what issue am I trying to avoid with such diversion? RESPONDENT: It is a good question. I’m asking it, but I can’t quite answer it yet. VINEETO: Putting all your eggs in one basket, perhaps? RESPONDENT: Occasionally, Richard or you or Peter say something about my situation that is so dead on that it is amazing that I did not see it myself. I’m afraid (and not just a little), but very much so, of putting all my eggs in a basket (like I did with Eastern Orthodoxy). And yet I *know* that doing this ‘half assed’ will never work. Orthodoxy only ‘worked’ when I gave it my all and of course actualism will be/is the same. Also, I have taken (in my mind) on the identity of the ‘reasonable/ open minded’ actualist on this list. Can’t be to certain and carry on that identity, now can I! A concern for what certain other writers of this list think of me and my posts has crept back in (for awhile this seemed gone). The silly thing about this is that it is patently obvious that the non-actualists don’t have a clue on how to live in peace and harmony. VINEETO: Yep, you put your finger on the nub of the issue – this ‘identity of the ‘reasonable/ open minded’ actualist’ certainly had a vested interest in considering ‘reasonably/ sensibly certain as being quite enough’, as you wrote to No 81 last year. RESPONDENT: And then there is some embarrassment on still working through all this years later from my initial start with actualism. Better now than never. VINEETO: Never mind the embarrassment because that is yet another diversion reinforcing ‘me’. Once you recognize the ‘‘reasonable/ open minded’ actualist’ in action and leave ‘him’ behind, the very reason for embarrassment also disappears. * VINEETO: If this is not an endorsement, then I don’t know what is. RESPONDENT: Perhaps a unconscious ‘endorsement’ snuck in there, but it was not my intention. VINEETO: Personally, I was very interested whenever I discovered apparently ‘unconscious’ endorsements or rejections and hidden agendas, because the emotions that were under the carpet, so to speak, were far more significant for discovering how ‘I’ ticked than my brushed-up presentable good intentions. RESPONDENT: Yes, indeed, that is obvious now, especially with the ‘mountain’ of issues that have become uncovered in this exploration. VINEETO: Given that the ‘mountain of issues’ we’ve discussed are all interconnected it seems to boil down to one core issue – ‘the ‘reasonable/ open minded’ actualist’ who wants to keep a bit of spiritualistic methodology on the side. Now that you have exposed ‘him’ ‘his’ days are numbered. * RESPONDENT: Yes, I will likely continue to distract myself if I continue in this fashion. I expect to be burning some more bridges real soon. VINEETO: What do you ‘expect’ has to happen first before you can burn ‘some more bridges’? RESPONDENT: To see through the fear of committing to actualism *totally*. And then to commit myself totally again to the pursuit of freedom. That is indeed the main one. VINEETO: You know, it’s always quite cute to find out that what I am afraid of doing is already happening on its own accord while ‘I’ was still busy objecting and worrying. RESPONDENT: There is nothing to lose as all the spiritual teachings mentioned here and elsewhere do not deliver freedom. Not a full/honest freedom. VINEETO: Indeed not. RESPONDENT: This was a long, but actually energizing exploration. VINEETO: It’s great fun swapping notes and passing on some experience with the practice of actualism.
VINEETO: It’s not a matter of forcing certainty but instead collecting facts until they become overwhelmingly obvious as well as becoming aware of one’s fears and doubts that prevent taking on board those obvious facts. RESPONDENT: After looking at these issues I can see that I’ve let fear and doubt distract me with issues I’ve already answered to my satisfaction. VINEETO: Actualists in the area here have a saying in mock-Latin – ‘illegitimi non
carborandum’ … or the short version – ‘non carborandum In other words, when you embark on a journey to leave the humanity behind (as ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’), then every man and his dog will endeavour to prevent you from doing so, often with the best of intentions. Don’t let them succeed because when they succeed, you, this flesh-and-blood body called No 66, loose. * RESPONDENT: Whether it is so is another story all together. VINEETO: Why be so non-committal about it? Don’t you want to know for a fact ‘whether it is so’ or not? Don’t you want to lay your doubts to rest once and for all? RESPONDENT: Without meeting you, how could I really ... really know your true motivations though. Sure doubt has its downside, but I’m in no rush to delude myself with false conviction after freeing myself of my religion. Ultimately, it seems all I can do is verify actualism for myself. Nonetheless I honestly don’t think your being underhanded when I really think clearly. Sometimes my mind is clouded by a particular emotion. VINEETO: Do I understand you correctly that you would be able to take what I say at face value if you didn’t let your mind be clouded by a particular emotion? You could forever nourish doubt about my ‘true motivation’ – even after meeting me – but taking the words at face value (i.e. not letting your feelings run rampant) is all that is needed in order to understand what I am saying. RESPONDENT: Yes, that is about right. Ultimately, of course I must continue to prove to myself the viability of actualism. VINEETO: Why? Do you continue to prove to yourself the viability of your car engine starting when you turn the ignition key? Once you know it works then that’s a fact, isn’t it? * VINEETO: Yep, you put your finger on the nub of the issue – this ‘identity of the ‘reasonable/ open minded’ actualist’ certainly had a vested interest in considering ‘reasonably/ sensibly certain as being quite enough’, as you wrote to No. 89 last year. RESPONDENT: The ‘reasonable actualist’ even went further and ascribed to the value of doubt. VINEETO: You apparently still do – otherwise why the need to ‘prove to myself the viability of actualism’? * RESPONDENT: Yes, I will likely continue to distract myself if I continue in this fashion. I expect to be burning some more bridges real soon. VINEETO: What do you ‘expect’ has to happen first before you can burn ‘some more bridges’? RESPONDENT: To see through the fear of committing to actualism *totally*. And then to commit myself totally again to the pursuit of freedom. That is indeed the main one. VINEETO: You know, it’s always quite cute to find out that what I am afraid of doing is already happening on its own accord while ‘I’ was still busy objecting and worrying. RESPONDENT: It really is and that is totally correct. I am confident that at this point ‘I’ can only slow this process down, but not stop it. VINEETO: Then full steam ahead and ship ahoy, eh?
RESPONDENT: Ultimately, of course I must continue to prove to myself the viability of actualism. VINEETO: Why? Do you continue to prove to yourself the viability of your car engine starting when you turn the ignition key? Once you know it works then that’s a fact, isn’t it? RESPONDENT: Hmm … true. To be more specific I know it works in making me more happy and harmless (far more than anything ever has), but I’ve yet to have the success you and Peter have, so in that sense alone I’m still proving it. Does that make more sense? VINEETO: The success I had with the actualism method is directly related to overcoming/ abandoning the persistent feelings of doubt that plagued me at the start of the process. To be scared of the new adventure of pursuing an actual freedom is one thing but to nourish doubts about its value and validity after I had established the fact that actualism works and that the actual world as experienced in a PCE is the genuine article proved to be the glue that kept me in stagnation and fear. In my experience, feelings of doubt go hand in hand with the desire to keep the door open leading back to a ‘normal’ life and when I finally abandoned my habit of doubting actualism I also knew that I could never be ‘normal’ or ‘spiritual’ ever again. * VINEETO: Yep, you put your finger on the nub of the issue – this ‘identity of the ‘reasonable/ open minded’ actualist’ certainly had a vested interest in considering ‘reasonably/ sensibly certain as being quite enough’, as you wrote to No 89 last year. RESPONDENT: The ‘reasonable actualist’ even went further and ascribed to the value of doubt. VINEETO: You apparently still do – otherwise why the need to ‘prove to myself the viability of actualism’? RESPONDENT: There is still some doubt about attaining a virtual freedom, and I can see that this doubt is really just holding me back as there is indeed ‘no other game worth playing in town’. VINEETO: Now that you no longer ascribe to the value of doubt, can you see that doubt is nothing but the flipside of faith and trust? Certainty arises from knowing something for a fact and mustering the courage (that it sometime takes) to act on it despite arising feelings of doubt and fear. Here is what I wrote about doubt a few years ago –
Remember, non carborandum
RESPONDENT: Peter and Vineeto, If after 10 years of VF you figured you could only become AF by going *through* not *around* enlightenment, would you do it? VINEETO: Let me put it this way –
Whose advice would you consider worth following up? Besides, I had enough ASCs after I started practicing actualism in order to have experiential confirmation that altered states of consciousness have not only nothing to do with an actual freedom from the human condition (as experienced in a PCE) but are also a rubbish tip par excellence where many, many seekers for freedom have disappeared for ever. In short, nobody who wants to become actually free needs to repeat Richard’s approach and do the arduous detour through enlightenment. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
