|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 73
RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘Body’ –
From what I have been taught, the teaching of Vipassana is to go beyond both body AND consciousness, or mind. The goal is not to react to sensations, because that is what you actually are. ALSO, if properly seen, a ‘sankhara’ does NOT arise again once it has been seen. Thus Vineeto’s statement of anger arising again is not valid, and her understanding of Vipassana is in err. It must be Osho’s understanding, which also was in err. When the suffering is seen, it does not rise again because experiential wisdom is gained about the cause of the suffering. Then the body knows not to enact this cause again and there is no more suffering. Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite? Maybe you guys just know vipassana as taught by quacks... VINEETO: But then again, maybe not? I practiced Vipassana daily for many years including several retreats led by Goenka-trained Vipassana teachers but I only understood what Vipassana and all of the spiritual practices were really about after I had several pure consciousness experiences. When the ‘self’ is temporarily absent it is very easy to recognize all the silly things one does in order to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic, as I used to call it – to rearrange one’s ‘self’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on and Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve this ‘rearrangement’. Vipassana is not flawed because some teachers are quacks – it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core. * RESPONDENT: What have any practicing actualist do to overcome fatigue? To get more energy? Only reason for this is that since abandoning Vipassana I have been fatigued more than normal, and Vip gives me a lot of energy... VINEETO: I remember when I started practicing actualism I was often very tired. What I noticed in particular was that when I started to think about and tried to investigate particular issues that were close to the bone – issues such as my loyalty to my former spiritual beliefs – my thoughts tended to shift from this uncomfortable subject as a way of avoiding the issue, I invented diversions and distractions so as not to stick to the issue at hand, I experienced hot and cold flushes, I caught myself wanting to flee or wanting to fight, I suddenly became very tired if confronted with the issue, etc. In retrospect it was often as if the whole cunning ‘me’ swung into action so as to desperately defend ‘my’ precious beliefs and feelings in exactly the same way an addict feels that he is fighting for survival when his drugs are withdrawn. Here is what I wrote to a correspondent about my guesses and theories at the time –
However, regardless of what one might speculate about what happens physically in the brain, I am now convinced that in the early years of abandoning the beliefs that make up the wisdom of the real world all of my tiredness was due to the emotional turmoil that such a radical process inevitably produces. That this was so was also made evident by the flip side of the process – whenever I resolved an issue I had been struggling with, I suddenly became lively, energetic, happy, palpably more free and at ease with myself and the rest of the world.
RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘Body’ – <snipped> Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks... VINEETO: But then again, maybe not? I practiced Vipassana daily for many years including several retreats led by Goenka-trained Vipassana teachers but I only understood what Vipassana and all of the spiritual practices were really about after I had several pure consciousness experiences. When the ‘self’ is temporarily absent it is very easy to recognize all the silly things one does in order to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic, as I used to call it – to rearrange one’s ‘self’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on and Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve this ‘rearrangement’. Vipassana is not flawed because some teachers are quacks – it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core. RESPONDENT: Hello Vineeto, Your response was very helpful to me. It is clear to me that you do know what you are talking about... VINEETO: A few days later you have apparently changed your mind – RESPONDENT: Yes, also, what can explain the TREMENDOUS increase in happiness and harmlessness that occurred directly after (continuing to now) the first Goenka course that I sat about 1.5 yrs ago? I have practiced very diligently and received many benefits from regular practice, but I have also seen people that have practiced many years that I would not even be able to tell were practitioners. I have seen people repeatedly take courses with no improvement, I just think they are not practicing correctly. Furthermore, if one moves to OSHO style meditation after taking a Goenka course, one truly did not understand the technique being taught at the Goenka course. I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique. VINEETO: I do wonder why you want to discuss your practice of Vipassana meditation when there is no doubt for you that you ‘received many benefits from regular practice’? You gave a reason in your latest post –
In this case I can only say that you have yet to understand that the practice of
Vipassana (together with its desired outcome) and actualism are 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I can recommend some
reading on this particular topic RESPONDENT: After considering Vineeto’s response to my post I found that YES, I did indeed benefit from these courses and NO her experience was not the same as mine. VINEETO: Your experience of Vipassana is not the same as mine because I now understand that Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve a ‘rearrangement’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on. Once I clearly understood this there was no point in me ever again quietly sitting with my eyes either closed or open, trying to go ‘somewhere else’.
RESPONDENT: Vineeto, did you ever question any previous Vipassana teachers you knew about actualism? If so, how did they respond? What did you gather from their responses? I’m quite certain your experiences would be helpful to hear. VINEETO: Whenever I have talked to convinced spiritualists, be it to former friends and acquaintances, to those who make their living out of spiritualism, or to spiritualists on mailing list, it became obvious that they were not interested in even considering questioning their own beliefs and practices – after all, they had invested the major part of their lives in Eastern mysticism/religion. In the early stages of my investigation into the human condition I listened to their arguments and objections in order to explore any remaining questions and doubts I had myself about spiritualism vs. actualism. However, I soon learnt that unless someone is utterly discontent with their belief system and spiritual practice, any facts I present would fall on deaf ears. This is how Richard has described the impediments that prevent a believer from recognizing, let alone acknowledging facts and my experience fully concurs with his observation –
The only thing that I needed to do to gain absolute certainty and unwavering confidence about the actual world Richard was talking about was to actively question all the truths, beliefs, philosophies, psittacisms and spiritual techniques I had taken on board and in doing so I too had to confront the issues of loyalty and intellectual pride. I also knew that having been a believer all my life, I now had to make the effort to find out the facts for myself. This was after all the only way that I could ascertain, without the smidgen of a doubt, whether or not actualism was yet another belief or whether there indeed existed an actual world that was independent of any human belief – an objective reality, so to speak. Eventually my rigorous questioning of my own beliefs allowed a crack to form in the
armoured plate of my beliefs which, after a period of intense confusion, resulted in a pure consciousness experience in which the
world outside of my beliefs became stunningly apparent for the first time. I have described the lead up to and the experience
itself in RESPONDENT: Peas, VINEETO: Peas, carrots, Brussels sprouts and lamb chops followed by a cup of fresh-ground freshly brewed coffee with honey and a little cream. PS: You may also find the
VINEETO: The only thing that I needed to do to gain absolute certainty and unwavering confidence about the actual world Richard was talking about was to actively question all the truths, beliefs, philosophies, psittacisms and spiritual techniques I had taken on board and in doing so I too had to confront the issues of loyalty and intellectual pride. I also knew that having been a believer all my life, I now had to make the effort to find out the facts for myself. This was after all the only way that I could ascertain, without the smidgen of a doubt, whether or not actualism was yet another belief or whether there indeed existed an actual world that was independent of any human belief – an objective reality, so to speak. Eventually my rigorous questioning of my own beliefs allowed a crack to form in the
armoured plate of my beliefs which, after a period of intense confusion, resulted in a pure consciousness experience in which the
world outside of my beliefs became stunningly apparent for the first time. I have described the lead up to and the experience
itself in RESPONDENT: So yeah Vineeto – I guess I can relate to your period of confusion you mentioned. VINEETO: Would you care to describe in what way you can relate to my period of confusion? RESPONDENT: I am just having a hard time *not* paying attention to sensations. I mean I am aware, when I see, hear, touch, whatever there is always sensation. VINEETO: I don’t see where the problem should lie in paying attention to sensations. Personally I found it far more difficult to get an on-going awareness of my feelings and emotions when and as they were occurring – and particularly the unwanted and undesirable ones that I had been busy denying or repressing for years. RESPONDENT: Am I supposed to ignore sensation? VINEETO: No. Sensate experiencing doesn’t interfere with being happy and harmless … unless you are confusing bodily physical sensations with the affective feelings and emotions that have their roots in the animal instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: I mean this is the message I get from actualism, … VINEETO: If that is ‘the message [you] get from actualism’ then you
have thoroughly misunderstood actualism. I can recommend RESPONDENT: … but if I am not aware of sensation I am really not aware, if you catch my drift... Any comment anyone has will be appreciated. VINEETO: There is much more to be aware of than sensation. Given that the aim of actualism is to eliminate the affective faculty in order that thoughtful-sensate experiencing is free to operate, paying attention to sensate experiencing whilst neglecting to be attentive to one’s feelings and emotions makes no sense at all. If I can ask, what is your intent when you are ‘aware of sensation’?
RESPONDENT: Wow, I think it’s just wonderful I have the opportunity to talk with someone who has already undertaken this AF path from a similar place that I have (i.e. Vipassana). VINEETO: Just so there is not confusion – it does not matter from which spiritual tradition you begin to look into actualism – actualism is always 180 degrees opposite to all spiritual beliefs and practices. RESPONDENT: Anyway, lately I have been very attentive to all (emotions, feelings, sensate, and especially attentive to HAIETMOBA, and it’s been pretty fun. Something you said about problems really clicked with me – in SC Serendipity about when you have a problem ‘make it bigger’ in order to see what’s really going on. So it’s been great. VINEETO: I take it that this is the quote you are talking about – to No 4, 10.9.1999 What I suggested in this particular conversation was related to the co-respondent’s specific ‘problem’, i.e. the problem that he could no longer go back to his ‘ordinary happiness’. In other words I suggested that he not settle for second best. No way was I suggesting ‘when you have a problem’ to ‘make it bigger’ – artificially inflating one’s problems and the associated feelings can only serve to increase ‘self’-centredness. In this context the following conversation is more to the point –
RESPONDENT: I was most confused about Richards responses to my inquiries about Vipassana – I mean, I know that this body is watching this body, the central nervous system is being aware of itself, but Richard (and everyone) thought I was talking about becoming the watcher or some such nonsense. VINEETO: This is what Richard said to you –
When you say ‘this body is watching this body’, are you indicating that whilst practicing Vipassana you are the flesh and blood body only and that the social-instinctive identity (both the thinker and the feeler) is completely absent? Are you saying that when you practice Vipassana your social-instinctive identity is temporarily absent and you are then having a pure consciousness experience? Or do you, whilst practicing Vipassana, practice being an observer of the ‘sensations’ coming and going – the ‘sensations’ being a catch-all phrase for both the affective feelings as well as sensate experiencing? If so, then you might ponder that ‘he’ who is doing the observing at these times is not the flesh and blood body but is a psychological/ psychic entity who thinks and feels himself to be separate from the flesh and blood body. I do realize that this can be confusing, but the whole of spirituality and spiritual practice is predicated upon the notion that ‘who you really are’ is a spirit – a spirit being who happens to inhabit this flesh and blood body whilst the body is alive. ‘You are not the body’ or ‘you’ have a body or ‘you’ have to look after your body’ or ‘you have to treat your body as a temple’ and so on are common spiritual refrains. To suggest that any of the spiritual teachings or any of the associated practices are taking about ‘this body is watching this body’ is patently non-sense. This is how the body is described and defined in Buddhist scriptures – and Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices – [emphasis added] (http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.html). RESPONDENT: So many of my posts to this list come from my take of what I learned in those Goenka courses, which is to constantly pay attention (to sensations, and to everything that is going on), and when Richard says that AF is 180 degrees opposite, I really wondered what he meant. Of course he was referring to the goal, and the intentions one has. Anyway, responses are below... VINEETO: Perhaps if I put it this way – when you board a bus or a train or an aeroplane, the first thing you inquire is where it will take you. And if its destination is not the same as your intended destination, don’t you leave the bus or the train or plane and find another vehicle that will ensure you reach your destination? To stay with the metaphor, there is no way that you can take the aeroplane called Vipassana, designed to carry you to Parinibbana, the mystical end of suffering, and expect to arrive at an actual freedom from the human condition. It is simply not possible. In order to change course, you will have to land, leave the plane, orient yourself when back on the ground and make yourself acquainted with the new destination in order to find out if that is what you want and how you will get there. * VINEETO: Eventually my rigorous questioning of my own beliefs allowed a crack to
form in the armoured plate of my beliefs, which, after a period of intense confusion, resulted in a pure consciousness experience
in which the world outside of my beliefs became stunningly apparent for the first time. I have described the lead up to and the
experience itself in RESPONDENT: So yeah I guess I can relate to your period of confusion you mentioned. VINEETO: Would you care to describe in what way you can relate to my period of confusion? RESPONDENT: Maybe I can’t after reading your responses, my confusion seems to stem from my misunderstandings of AF, not from questioning beliefs at this point. VINEETO: Maybe this helps to understand actualism – one starts the process of actualism by freeing oneself of all of one’s beliefs, morals and ethics that make up the bulk of one’s social identity. Therefore it is practically impossible to do that while following the instructions of a spiritual teacher whose method originated from spiritual beliefs he cobbled together from others, a method designed for a specific spiritual end-point, in this case Parinibbana, the mystical end of Dukkha. * RESPONDENT: I am just having a hard time not paying attention to sensations. I mean I am aware, when I see, hear, touch, whatever there is always sensation. VINEETO: I don’t see where the problem should lie in paying attention to sensations. Personally I found it far more difficult to get an on-going awareness of my feelings and emotions when and as they were occurring – and particularly the unwanted and undesirable ones that I had been busy denying or repressing for years. RESPONDENT: Am I supposed to ignore sensation? VINEETO: No. Sensate experiencing doesn’t interfere with being happy and harmless … unless you are confusing bodily physical sensations with the affective feelings and emotions that have their roots in the animal instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: I most certainly am not. Sensate experience does not cause misery, affective experiencing does. VINEETO: OK. Then the question then surely is: what do you do when you become aware that you are feeling miserable? * RESPONDENT: I mean this is the message I get from actualism, … VINEETO: If that is ‘the message [you] get from actualism’ then you have thoroughly misunderstood actualism. I can recommend ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’, accessible from the Actual Freedom Homepage, as it lays out very simply the whys and hows of actualism. RESPONDENT: I know, I thought I knew the in’s and out’s until Richard told me there was something wrong with enjoying sensations in my body... VINEETO: If you re-read what Richard said you will find that he did not say what you made it out to be. This seems to be the quote you are referring to –
What Richard endeavoured to explain to you is that ‘enjoying sensations in my body’ is incorrect practice according to the teachings of Mr. Ba Khin and Mr. Satya Goenka. In other words, if you are enjoying sensations in your body you are not practicing Vipassana but some technique of your own making. It helps to read all the words, if necessary several times, and then ask specific questions, before jumping to conclusions thereby adding to your confusion. * RESPONDENT: … but if I am not aware of sensation I am really not aware, if you catch my drift... Any comment anyone has will be appreciated. VINEETO: There is much more to be aware of than sensation. Given that the aim of actualism is to eliminate the affective faculty in order that thoughtful-sensate experiencing is free to operate, paying attention to sensate experiencing whilst neglecting to be attentive to one’s feelings and emotions makes no sense at all. RESPONDENT: I completely agree, but I have never said I pay exclusive attention to sensations. Given that you did not talk about affective experiences but only about ‘sensations’ I found it relevant to point out that the real job in actualism is to pay attention to one’s feelings and emotions and discover the underlying beliefs, morals, ethics and values because it is these feelings that initially prevent one from even considering setting off down the path to becoming happy and harmless. * VINEETO: If I can ask, what is your intent when you are ‘aware of sensation’? RESPONDENT: Only if I am aware can I be certain I am not causing harm to anyone else or myself. My problems stem from my blind actions/ reactions I have found. The level of direct sensation is the deepest level of experience, and to be aware each moment how I am experiencing that moment is essential for my own well-being and the well-being of others. I know that I am partly experiencing the actuality of this universe, and if I can connect to this part of experiencing and widen it there will surely be peace in my life. VINEETO: I don’t know what you mean by ‘partly experiencing the actuality of this universe’ – ‘partly’ as in some times or ‘partly’ as in half-and-half? I am asking because the first would be a pure consciousness experience and the second would be self-deception.
RESPONDENT: I was most confused about Richards responses to my inquiries about Vipassana – I mean, I know that this body is watching this body, the central nervous system is being aware of itself, but Richard (and everyone) thought I was talking about becoming the watcher or some such nonsense. VINEETO: This is what Richard said to you –
When you say ‘this body is watching this body’, are you indicating that whilst practicing Vipassana you are the flesh and blood body only and that the social-instinctive identity (both the thinker and the feeler) is completely absent? Are you saying that when you practice Vipassana your social-instinctive identity is temporarily absent and you are then having a pure consciousness experience? Or do you, whilst practicing Vipassana, practice being an observer of the ‘sensations’ coming and going – the ‘sensations’ being a catch-all phrase for both the affective feelings as well as sensate experiencing? If so, then you might ponder that ‘he’ who is doing the observing at these times is not the flesh and blood body but is a psychological/ psychic entity who thinks and feels himself to be separate from the flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: No, why would I practice becoming an ‘observer’? Life is too fun to sit back and watch... VINEETO: Given that you say you practice Vipassana (see below), which is practicing ‘to sit back and watch’ the rising and falling of thoughts, feelings and sensations and given that you also said ‘I know that this body is watching this body’, I am at a loss what to make of your assertion that you do not ‘practice becoming an ‘observer’’. * VINEETO: I do realize that this can be confusing, but the whole of spirituality and spiritual practice is predicated upon the notion that ‘who you really are’ is a spirit – a spirit being who happens to inhabit this flesh and blood body whilst the body is alive. ‘You are not the body’ or ‘you’ have a body or ‘you’ have to look after your body’ or ‘you have to treat your body as a temple’ and so on are common spiritual refrains. To suggest that any of the spiritual teachings or any of the associated practices are taking about ‘this body is watching this body’ is patently non-sense. This is how the body is described and defined in Buddhist scriptures – and Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices – (snipped quote) RESPONDENT: If that is nonsense, that how can you say that I now practice Vipassana or have been practicing Vipassana (or any form of spiritualism)? VINEETO: By taking your words at face value. Vis:
* RESPONDENT: According to you, I gave up Vipassana the night I discovered AF (whilst reading some stuff by J. Krishnamurti), about the end of June 2004. I have never stated since then that I am trying to reach Parinibbana, become detached from the body, or described ‘who’ I really am as spirit. I have not tried to become an ‘observer’. Knowing this, why do you keep insisting that I am practicing Vipassana? And if I am practicing some technique of my own making I should slap a patent on it because it sure brings damn good results. VINEETO: As this conversation continues it seems to become more and more obvious that you indeed put your own personal spin on whatever method you discover. But hey, if whatever you practice works for you, then why ask for my input?
VINEETO: I do realize that this can be confusing, but the whole of spirituality and spiritual practice is predicated upon the notion that ‘who you really are’ is a spirit – a spirit being who happens to inhabit this flesh and blood body whilst the body is alive. ‘You are not the body’ or ‘you’ have a body or ‘you’ have to look after your body’ or ‘you have to treat your body as a temple’ and so on are common spiritual refrains. To suggest that any of the spiritual teachings or any of the associated practices are taking about ‘this body is watching this body’ is patently non-sense. This is how the body is described and defined in Buddhist scriptures – and Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices – (snip) RESPONDENT: According to you, I gave up Vipassana the night I discovered AF (whilst reading some stuff by J. Krishnamurti), about the end of June 2004. I have never stated since then that I am trying to reach Parinibbana, become detached from the body, or described ‘who’ I really am as spirit. I have not tried to become an ‘observer’. Knowing this, why do you keep insisting that I am practicing Vipassana? And if I am practicing some technique of my own making I should slap a patent on it because it sure brings damn good results. VINEETO: As this conversation continues it seems to become more and more obvious that you indeed put your own personal spin on whatever method you discover. But hey, if whatever you practice works for you, then why ask for my input? RESPONDENT: Because I want to know how to work better. I do what I do, I want others to understand what I do, and any feedback concerning this helps me find my best way. For example, if someone could convince me that sitting back and grooving on ecstatic vibes (almost always present) is detrimental to my happiness, I would certainly stop and try something else. As it is, I rather enjoy these waves of pleasure pervading my every nerve ending, but needed clarification on how this was not Vipassana. VINEETO: As you say you quite enjoy the practice of ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ then clearly actualism is not for you because, as the very term expressively states, actualism is all about what is actual whereas vibes, being feelings, are not actual. RESPONDENT: I also need to be able to differentiate between what I am doing and Vipassana in order to explain myself to others. VINEETO: Given that you are on record as saying –
I don’t see why you think I would be able to help you explain yourself to others in regards to the difference of what you are doing and Vipassana. Be that as it may, in case you are interested in understanding the theory of Vipassana,
there is plenty of information
RESPONDENT No 32: Yes, I taste this freedom from time to time as I gradually let go of the various social protective masks and aspects of my identity. I begin to get a taste of the powerful instinctual passions, especially fear (habitual response to ‘losing’ something) and anger (habitual response for not ‘getting’ something) and the self-centred perspective they automatically create even when operating as a background noise. VINEETO: What I found was that the ‘background noise’ is actually the
engine of ‘me’ running all the time ready to flare up at any given opportunity. Although the opportunities to ‘flare’
become more and more rare, given that I am no longer bait for most of the usual follies and passions, the engine noise will only
stop when ‘I’ am finally extinct. RESPONDENT: Wow, Vineeto. Just by reading this and other recent posts by you have I been able to realize some important things, and had questions answered. I say, how much of this ‘engine noise’ do you still experience these days? VINEETO: When I try to compare the current ‘engine noise’ to the level I experienced before I started practicing actualism I can only vaguely remember what went on in my head and heart back then as the process of dissolving one’s ‘self’ leaves no scars. What I do remember though is that I had an uninterrupted stream of mostly worrying thoughts and feelings, which dominated my day-to-day life and that I felt a desperate need for feel-good ‘holidays’ in order to recover from my constant worries and sorrows. When I began practicing actualism I naturally became more and more aware of the feelings that were driving those worrying thoughts and after I experienced the stillness of the absence of ‘me’ in a PCE it became all the more urgent to do something about the non-stop ‘noise’ of ‘me’. Nowadays I feel excellent almost all the time, i.e. the ‘noise’ of ‘me’ is no longer interfering with me being happy. However, the presence of my ‘self’ is noticeable enough for me to know that the virtual freedom I enjoy is not the end of the path. The stillness that is always here and that becomes apparent when ‘I’ temporarily disappear in a PCE is bait enough to entice me to go all the way. RESPONDENT: And to what extent do PCE’s pervade your life? VINEETO: As guiding lights the memories of PCEs pervade every moment of my life but PCE nowadays do not happen very often. At the beginning of practicing the actualism method I had many stunning insights into the human condition and quite a few of them stunned me into pure consciousness experiences. In the years of practicing attentiveness I have developed a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the human condition and of actuality and as a consequence those PCE-triggering insights have become less frequent. Once in a while a PCE sneaks up on me when I am the least expecting it but what I am more concerned about is the quality of my life between PCEs for this is when the real work happens. When all is said and done a PCE is not within my control, certainly not ‘my’ control, but how I experience my daily life is something I can do something about on a moment-to-moment basis, and that is what the method of actualism is all about. To put it differently – the job that ‘I’ need to do can only be done by ‘me’, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. And the moment I uncover the last bond and untie the last knot that connects me to humanity, ‘my’ demise will happen on its own accord.
RESPONDENT: Funny thing, I just got Richard’s journal today, thanks for sending it. I am certain it will be great reading. After practicing and reading about actualism for some time I really don’t have a desire to read too many other things. I like literature on the natural world, like national geographic and the like, but most of the stuff that kept me entertained in the past doesn’t really catch my fancy anymore. If I remember correctly you reported a similar change of focus and it is quite clear how most literature has an unwanted influence behind it. VINEETO: When I understood that actualism not only lies 180 degrees opposite to all spiritual endeavour but, more importantly, that the attentiveness intrinsic to being an actualist actually works to make me noticeably more happy and more harmonious in my relating with other people, I stopped searching for solutions elsewhere and stopped valuing the opinions of those who seek solutions within the human condition. In other words, I lost interest in other people’s solutions to their self-created problems, particularly the spiritual solutions, because a bit of clear-eyed research revealed that no matter how they packaged their solutions, their proposals were all within the human condition and as such yet another rearrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic. My focus changed in that I started to find out the facts rather than blindly continuing to believe what was written in the books and newspapers and presented in the television reports. I slowly discovered that what is presented as truth is often rife with assumptions, conjectures, distortions and beliefs while facts are far and in between – for the simple reason that those writing the books and newspapers and those making the TV reports are, just like everyone else, afflicted with the human condition and dictated by the instinctual passions. I also found that while it was easy to question the information I considered ethically or morally wrong, it was far more challenging – and far more fruitful – to investigate what I believed to be good and right, to dare to question my favourite assumptions and beliefs about the world. Naturally I had been much more receptive to and accepting of, in other words gullible about, information that accorded with my own moral and ethical values but I knew that making the effort to ascertain the facts of the matter about the nature of the universe and exactly what it is to be a human being was part and parcel of the job of eliminating exactly those moral and ethical values along with my beliefs. So my experience is that when you read the reports and articles from the National Geographic Society with both eyes open you might well discover their particular way of distorting information and presenting theory and belief as being fact in order to promote their own particular agenda.
RESPONDENT: Funny thing, I just got Richard’s journal today, thanks for sending it. I am certain it will be great reading. After practicing and reading about actualism for some time I really don’t have a desire to read too many other things. I like literature on the natural world, like national geographic and the like, but most of the stuff that kept me entertained in the past doesn’t really catch my fancy anymore. If I remember correctly you reported a similar change of focus and it is quite clear how most literature has an unwanted influence behind it. VINEETO: When I understood that actualism not only lies 180 degrees opposite to all spiritual endeavour but, more importantly, that the attentiveness intrinsic to being an actualist actually works to make me noticeably more happy and more harmonious in my relating with other people, I stopped searching for solutions elsewhere and stopped valuing the opinions of those who seek solutions within the human condition. In other words, I lost interest in other people’s solutions to their self-created problems, particularly the spiritual solutions, because a bit of clear-eyed research revealed that no matter how they packaged their solutions, their proposals were all within the human condition and as such yet another rearrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic. RESPONDENT: Yes, I am not searching for solutions by such people. VINEETO: Any book or magazine you read and any television program you watch is created by ‘such people’ because they all fall under the category of ‘those who seek solutions within the human condition’. To stop looking for solutions is the first step, the next step is to divest yourself of a lifetime of beliefs that you have either deliberately or inadvertently taken to be truths. RESPONDENT: You stated earlier something to the effect that you were watching a documentary on animals and were clearly able to see the instinctual passions in action. VINEETO: The reason I was able to see the instinctual passions in action in chimpanzees is because I have observed and explored the instinctual passions within myself without my observations being foiled by social morals and ethics. RESPONDENT: My question is, do you think that video is superior to the written word as a format? And if so why even bother with the Actual Freedom Trust website, why not just do the video format? VINEETO: The first point I would make is that in terms of clarity, accuracy, reliability and credibility the written word is a superior form of communication to the spoken word. The second point is that a video without a spoken commentary would be meaningless in attempting to convey to the person watching any new information that is outside of the box of their usual way of thinking and feeling. RESPONDENT: The reason I ask this is because I have found that one can learn about the natural world from others’ factual written reports of it. One does not need to go find out everything for oneself. VINEETO: My investigations into so-called ‘factual written reports’ have revealed that those facts are far and in between because most reporters have a passionate agenda that drives them to make these reports in the first place. Just because something is printed does not make it factual, and just because a film bears the label ‘documentary’ does not mean it is a factual report. RESPONDENT: Although I do see a certain amount of information distortion at almost every information source that I look at, it does not mean that I will close my eyes and ears to them, because that is what comprises the world as it is and people as they are. VINEETO: I wonder whose writing you are responding to because I did nowhere say that it is useful to ‘close my eyes and ears to them’. What I said was that ‘I lost interest in other people’s solutions to their self-created problems because … their proposals were all within the human condition’. And because I know ‘national geographic’ magazine (I have their complete works from 1888-1997 on 39 CD’s) I also know that the magazine’s reports are far from factual and that the National Geographic Society has a clear agenda in spreading their particular NDA message to the latter day luddites of the world. As an actualist, I found it essential to make the effort to find out the facts for myself on the issues that were of interest to me and not merely accept what others tell me to be truths. One of the things I discovered in the early days of my investigations into the human conditions is just because everyone believes something to be so does not necessarily mean that it is a fact. The extent to which belief dominates human thinking and feeling is literally mind-blowing. It takes a bit of daring to question the revered wisdom and accepted truths of one’s peers and relentlessly pursue the facts of the matter but if you are sincere in wanting to be free of the beliefs and passions that are the nitty-gritty of the human condition it is obvious that there is no other path to take. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
to No 4, 16.4.1999
