|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 75
RESPONDENT No 65: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are criminal. VINEETO: When I use the word ‘investigate’ I use it meaning ‘research, probe, explore, inquire into, go/look into, study, examine, inspect, consider, sift, analyse; check out’ (Oxford Thesaurus). My investigation is a ‘self’-inquiry into my own beliefs and instinctual passions with the aim to become actually free from the human condition. For me, the very first step in this investigation was to admit that deep down, I was governed by instinctual passions – predominantly fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This simple act of acknowledgement meant that any feelings of guilt and shame (that ‘I’ am a criminal for having these passions) or feelings of self-righteousness (that ‘I’ am a saint for having repressed or denied these passions) that arose in my investigations were clearly seen for what they were – the inevitably by-products of socialization. For anyone who has done some ‘self’-investigation it is obvious that one can only observe and
investigate human instinctual passions if one is friends with oneself and coopts any aspect of oneself as an ally in this investigation into the
human psyche. Maintaining a moralistic attitude towards one’s instinctual passions unavoidably results in avoidance, denial and detachment. For this reason actualists have always maintained that before one can begin to examine one’s instinctual passions it is essential to first rekindle one’s naiveté and be guided by pure intent born from the experience of the perfection of the actual world. Then one can begin to take apart one’s social identity – one’s spiritual values and beliefs and one’s social morals and ethics – in order to replace them with naiveté and the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent. (snip) RESPONDENT: How can one be friendly with oneself if the identity is seen as a parasite inside the body? VINEETO: You must be referring to the identity being described as parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body. The word parasite when used in this way refers to its biological meaning –
Self-observation reveals that the identity, although non-actual in that it has no physical existence, is in fact a voracious parasite in that ‘he’ or ‘she’ causes the body to produce hormones and to expend energy resulting in additional cycles of emotional agitation and emotional exhaustion. The agitation part of the cycle is commonly referred to as stress and this stress is solely caused by the parasitical identity. As a result of experimentation we know that stress produces cortisol which in turn lowers the immune system of the flesh and blood body, thereby endangering the body’s very survival. Thus it is that ‘who’ one thinks and feels one is – one’s identity as distinct from the flesh and blood body – can and does cause harm to its host. So the first thing is to see that the term parasite is a descriptive term that conveys the facts of the matter and as such does not have any derogatory meaning. As for being friends with oneself, it makes no sense to castigate oneself, feel guilty or aggrieved, be resentful, get angry and so on simply because one finds oneself to be in the same boat as every one else. I have known for a long time – whenever I was being scrupulously honest with myself – that deep down something was wrong with ‘me’, that ‘I’ am an intruder, that ‘I’ stuff up the works. In moments when I was honest with myself I knew that despite all my virtuous morals and ethics, despite my ‘good’ spiritual practices, I would still get angry with friends and strangers, annoyed, sad, depressed, discontent, avaricious and blindly ambitious. For me this was simply an acknowledgement of facts clearly based on my own self-observation. In the post you are referring to you will notice I very clearly stated that –
and then I went on to say that ‘one can only observe and investigate human instinctual passions if one is friends with oneself and coopts any aspect of oneself as an ally in this investigation into the human psyche’. The point being that it is impossible for me to conduct a clear-eyed investigation of how ‘I’ tick if ‘I’ am busy castigating myself, feeling guilty, being resentful, getting angry and so on. It simply does not and can not work, one needs to break the lifetime inculcated habit of self-flagellation and start to be kind to oneself – to ‘be friends with oneself’ – in order to be able to address the core of the problem, ‘me’, the social-instinctual identity.
RESPONDENT: Richard claims that all the people he spoke to had PCE’s... some of them could only remember after repeated prodding? What is the credibility of such a report as the prodding can bias the subject? Because a lot depends on this claim... in fact the method rests on this claim... if this isn’t true for everyone, then the method can be applied only to a select few... VINEETO: The method cannot be applied *to* anyone but it can be applied *by* anyone. It is totally a DIY business because only you can be aware of how you are experiencing this moment of being alive. Have you tried it yet – sincerely and wholeheartedly?
VINEETO: If I can ask, what is you intent when you are ‘aware of sensation’? RESPONDENT No 73: 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: Is there no validity for one’s experience whilst not pure? Even if one is not experiencing purely, one is sensately experiencing... one is not hallucinating in the everyday world… so why is it a self-deception? VINEETO: I did not question the validity of No 73’s experience but was referring to experiencing ‘the actuality of this universe’ which only becomes apparent when the identity is temporarily, or permanently, absent. The reason I said this was that it is important to experientially understand that ‘I’ as the social-instinctual identity inevitably paste ‘my’ reality over the pure actuality of this universe. Once you come to understand this and start to experience how ‘I’ operate it is possible that an innate curiosity and fascination could well set in that will then of itself evoke a pure consciousness experience of the actuality of the universe. When I first came upon actualism, I couldn’t recall having had a PCE but Richard’s descriptions of the actual world struck a chord with me, so much so that I began to take notice of the way I constantly created ‘my’ own reality, which ‘I’ then projected on things, people and events. I first started to become aware of quite simple things – the way my own ‘mood’ completely affected my interactions with other people, becoming frustrated at not understanding the workings of a computer program, feeling melancholic when it rained, feeling sad when I heard a particular piece of music, worrying about an event that had not even happened yet and imagining all sorts of scenarios, and so on. Very quickly I came to experientially understand that I constantly live in a ‘reality’ entirely of my own making, and not only that but that everyone else is doing the same. RESPONDENT: Why is being a ‘self’ a self-deception? VINEETO: If you read what I said again you will see that I never said that being a ‘self’ is a self-deception.
RESPONDENT: hi Richard, Peter, Vineeto, What do you mean by ‘matter is not merely passive’? Can you please elaborate? VINEETO: You might want to check out the (only just compiled) Both Peter and Richard have responded to previous questions on the subject.
RESPONDENT: Do actualists view consciousness as epiphenomenon of matter? VINEETO: Yes, for an actualist initially this view is based on down-to-earth common sense, a view which soon becomes obvious in one’s everyday experience, whereas spiritualists would have us believe that matter is merely an epiphenomenon of some disembodied ‘Consciousness’. RESPONDENT: Is that what you mean by ‘matter is not merely passive’? No. Consciousness, the condition of being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep,
and sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is, as the definition suggests, a condition found in sentient beings, i.e. not all matter is
conscious. As for a detailed description in what way matter is not merely passive I suggest RESPONDENT: Do you think that it will be possible to assemble molecules in a laboratory to produce life one day? And nothing mysterious is going on? VINEETO: As far as I know, scientists have yet to discover where and how inanimate matter transformed into animate matter on this planet but I have heard that some favour the notion that it may well have been undersea vents where the hot mineral-rich magna from the earth’s core meets the salty water of the ocean. As to whether this, or any other animate-matter creating scenario can be duplicated in a laboratory one day I wouldn’t know, but given the astounding advances in biological knowledge and research of the last 100 years in particular it would be foolish to say no. RESPONDENT: Also if it is all a product of matter, can physics describe the dynamics of the evolution of a living being by a mathematical formula (albeit complex) one day? VINEETO: Mathematical formulas are but a human concept, an anthropocentric attempt to define the universe by equations, models and principles, whereas my interest as an actualist lies in sensately and apperceptively experiencing this moment of being alive and delighting in this eternal and infinite universe in its abundant magical splendour. RESPONDENT: Thus, the free will only being an illusion due to the absence of total knowledge? VINEETO: As for free will – the whole notion of free will gradually become more absurd the longer one practices actualism and the more one becomes free of the human condition. The more one becomes free from malice and sorrow, the less the need for will – as in fight and struggle against societal impositions and instinctual compulsions. What happens is that in the process of practicing actualism I am now much more able to make intelligent choices due to becoming free from my social conditioning and from being driven by my instinctual passions and in this process I discovered that my choices nowadays are not based on ‘free will’ but rather on acknowledging the facts of the situation and then making the best possible choice according to the given circumstances. Very often that means there is only one choice – the best. ’T’would be silly to use ‘my’ free will to obstruct the best, wouldn’t it?
RESPONDENT: The raw male sex instinct is greedy, insatiable and aggressive. It is a rapist by nature – if not for the social identity checking from within and the legal institutions from without, it could be worse. It is by denial and control of the black nature one is ‘good’. As it is said somewhere: there are two reasons for any action – one is the reason that is believed and stated; other is the real reason. Raw male sex instinct treats women as objects of pleasure to be exploited. I wonder how a female sex instinct is like – is it different in some details at least? VINEETO: In my experience the raw sexual instinct is, at core, not that of pleasure as in desire/gratification (as religious and spiritual teachers try to make us believe), but that of procreation/perpetuation, and observation of the sexual instinct in action in animal species in general will easily confirm this fact. Pleasure is merely the bait to get the job done to perpetuate the species. The instinct for procreation, however, is different for the male and the female. This is how Peter described it in his journal –
On the other hand the instinctual programming for women is to not only find a desirable man for mating but more importantly to find, and keep, one who is best suited to look after the offspring that result from mating. The consequence of this difference in instinctual sexual programming is, as we all know, a never-ending power battle between the sexes. In order to end this perpetual battle between the sexes I had to not only un-earth, understand and abandon my social conditioning as a woman but also my instinctual sexual programming which lay beneath the outer layer of one of the most fundamental aspects of social conditioning – socially appropriate sexual behaviour. It’s a fascinatingly intimate journey to make, literally close to the bone as the drive to procreate and reproduce is imprinted in the very cells of the body.
RESPONDENT: Do actualists view consciousness as epiphenomenon of matter? VINEETO: Yes, for an actualist initially this view is based on down-to-earth common sense, a view which soon becomes obvious in one’s everyday experience, whereas spiritualists would have us believe that matter is merely an epiphenomenon of some disembodied ‘Consciousness’. RESPONDENT: In this respect, then actualism is not different from materialism (that the universe is comprised of matter and the conscious phenomenon is a by-product of it)? VINEETO: No. Actualism is an alternative to both materialism and spiritualism and in this sense 180-degrees opposite to the usual either/or alternatives within the human condition – either spiritualism or materialism. In essence materialism is the experience of a grim reality, as in ‘life is a bitch and then you die’ as distinct form spiritualism, which is an imaginary experience of a supposed ‘other-reality’. A materialist’s experience of matter is distorted and corrupted by the instinctual passions and life is experienced as a continuous struggle and a perennial competition with one’s fellow human beings. In actualism I know that matter – the physical material universe – is pure and perfect and it is only ‘I’ who stands in the way of experiencing this purity. * RESPONDENT: Is that what you mean by ‘matter is not merely passive’? VINEETO: No. Consciousness, the condition of being conscious – as in being alive, not dead,
awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is, as the definition suggests, a condition found in sentient beings, i.e. not all
matter is conscious. As for a detailed description in what way matter is not merely passive I suggest RESPONDENT: I see what Peter is saying about the matter being circulated from inanimate to animate world continuously. Is that what he and you mean by matter is not merely passive? VINEETO: In part, yes. Have a good look at your hand – do you notice how matter, your hand, is changing right in this moment? Blood circulates through the veins, calorific energy is absorbed and changed into moving-energy, tendons help moving the fingers, bits of your skin fall off, fingernails and hair grow and need to be cut regularly, the skin can heal over a cut and so on. Whilst it is obvious that animate matter is not passive, what is rarely appreciated, let alone experienced, is that inanimate matter is not merely passive. The minerals and gases that are the very substance of the universe are not inert as in static, immutable, unchanging, rather they exist in perpetuus mobile and this is the quality of matter that one can experience as a sensuous vibrancy and an immediate intimacy in a pure consciousness experience. Another point worth making is that it is fashionable in some quarters to make a distinction between things that are natural as in unmodified by human beings and things that are unnatural as in modified by human beings – hence wood is deemed to be natural, aluminium unnatural, Aloe Vera is deemed natural and antibiotics unnatural. A little thinking reveals that this distinction is disingenuous as all of the things that human beings make are made of the matter that is this planet, and hence none of it is unnatural, foreign or alien. In order to experientially understand this you only need to reach out and touch the computer with your hand whilst reading these words and you can experience that the plastic/ silicon/ metal/ glass object is as ‘not merely passive’ as is your hand. Contemplation reveals that this object is fashioned from minerals of this earth; it is the same stuff as the hand that is touching it. And if you are wont to take it a step further you may well experience the fact that the separation between your hand and the monitor can magically disappear such that a sensuous intimacy can occur … particularly so if you bring your awareness to the finger tips where the touch is actually occurring as opposed to where the intellectual and affective interpretation of touch usually happens. RESPONDENT: The post below from Richard talks about an ‘aliveness’. Is that a complimentary interpretation of ‘matter is not merely passive’? VINEETO: It is not an interpretation, but the description of his ongoing everyday, every moment experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: I keep wondering about this because ‘actualism is defined (by Richard) to be the direct experience that matter is not merely passive’. So an actualist, by extension, is who has this experience... probably the PCE... and understands it. VINEETO: An actualist is also someone who, based on a memorable experience that matter is not merely passive, dedicates their life to do whatever it takes to being able to live this magical experience 24hrs a day. RESPONDENT: Can you elaborate on this aspect? Can you describe it further? What is the aliveness, magic you are talking about? VINEETO: Given that there are no spirits outside the fervent imagination of passionate beings, can you understand that you *are* the matter that is not merely passive – and not only that, you are also matter that can marvel at its own existence? Rather than trying to affectively feel or cerebrally (via thoughts) understand the magic and aliveness, you will be more successful when you begin to experience it sensately and sensuously for yourself. RESPONDENT: Do you experience it whilst not in a PCE? VINEETO: No. Whilst I nowadays feel excellent almost all the time, the magic only happens in a PCE. Sometimes it is so close that I can almost touch it, or smell it or sense it on the summer wind – but I never kid myself as I know that it only happens when ‘I’ let go of the controls completely (as in disappear) and allow it to happen. RESPONDENT: Why choose this as the defining characteristic of actualism? VINEETO: Ah, but it’s the other way around. When Richard became actually free and searched for a word that could best describe his ongoing experience of life he came across the word ‘actualism’ defined as ‘the theory that nothing is merely passive (now rare)’ Oxford Dictionary. * RESPONDENT: Do you think that it will be possible to assemble molecules in a laboratory to produce life one day? And nothing mysterious is going on? VINEETO: As far as I know, scientists have yet to discover where and how inanimate matter transformed into animate matter on this planet but I have heard that some favour the notion that it may well have been undersea vents where the hot mineral-rich magna from the earth’s core meets the salty water of the ocean. RESPONDENT: The materialism has it that the difference between animate and inanimate matter is that of complexity and constituents: both are essentially matter. Do you differ from this viewpoint? VINEETO: From my everyday observations, the difference between animate matter and inanimate matter is far more than ‘complexity and constituents’. The processes that make matter animate – cell division, reproduction, consumption, digestion, movement, aging, death, to name but a few, are astounding … and the addition of the ability of animate matter to be conscious is absolutely astonishing … and further the ability of animate matter be conscious of being conscious is truly wondrous. * VINEETO: As to whether this, or any other animate-matter creating scenario can be duplicated in a laboratory one day I wouldn’t know, but given the astounding advances in biological knowledge and research of the last 100 years in particular it would be foolish to say no. RESPONDENT: So, is a living thing an assembly of molecules and nothing else? In other words, ‘life’ is an epiphenomenon of matter? VINEETO: Life is not an epiphenomenon of matter but is the very quality of animate matter. The physical universe is not inert. Oxford Talking Dictionary * RESPONDENT: Also if it is all a product of matter, can physics describe the dynamics of the evolution of a living being by a mathematical formula (albeit complex) one day? VINEETO: Mathematical formulas are but a human concept, an anthropocentric attempt to define the universe by equations, models and principles, … RESPONDENT: What do you think about Newton’s laws of physics? They are mathematical formulas describing the dynamics of mechanical objects. Problems like protein folding try to understand the components of living creatures from physical standpoint. So just like we can describe the dynamics of a jet plane by formulas, we maybe able to model a living being by formulas (though actualism is not about this, but I am trying to evaluate the consequences of the ‘matter is primary, the rest is secondary’ – please correct me if this does not represent your views). VINEETO: Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is. That’s what makes it so magical. The universe is a physical material universe and there are no disembodied spirits anywhere to be found except in the hearts and minds of human beings who yearn for immortality. Nor was the universe created according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas or models – such beliefs arise from the stifling anthropocentric thinking and self-centred feelings that continue to inhibit the possibility of clear thinking from operating. * VINEETO: … whereas my interest as an actualist lies in sensately and apperceptively experiencing this moment of being alive and delighting in this eternal and infinite universe in its abundant magical splendour. RESPONDENT: Yes sure. You do not rule out thinking – factual thinking right? VINEETO: Not at all – attentiveness on its own gets one no-where. It was the combination of attentiveness, contemplation and determination that got me out of the mess of my beliefs and the tangled web of associated feelings. Here is how Richard describes this very essential ingredient –
* RESPONDENT: Thus, the free will only being an illusion due to the absence of total knowledge? VINEETO: As for free will – the whole notion of free will gradually become more absurd the longer one practices actualism and the more one becomes free of the human condition. The more one becomes free from malice and sorrow, the less the need for will – as in fight and struggle against societal impositions and instinctual compulsions. RESPONDENT: I see what you are getting at. I was merely using the term ‘free will’ to indicate freedom... free choice. VINEETO: Perhaps I can put it this way – when I came across actualism I realized that I was anything but free, i.e. I realized that the very notion that I had ‘free will’ or ‘free choice’ was nonsense. What I did see, however, was that I was now confronted by a simple choice – to stay as I was or to set my sights on becoming happy and harmless, no matter what the consequences. * VINEETO: What happens is that in the process of practicing actualism I am now much more able to make intelligent choices due to becoming free from my social conditioning and from being driven by my instinctual passions and in this process I discovered that my choices nowadays are not based on ‘free will’ but rather on acknowledging the facts of the situation and then making the best possible choice according to the given circumstances. Very often that means there is only one choice – the best. ‘T’would be silly to use ‘my’ free will to obstruct the best, wouldn’t it? RESPONDENT: Yes. Let me correct my query: If the living being can be described by a mathematical formula, is freedom of choice an illusion? VINEETO: The connection you are apparently making escapes me entirely. The description of a process, mathematical or otherwise, is not the process itself – or to put it simply, a thing is a thing, no matter what word or words are used to describe it or what mathematical formulas are used to describe it. As for freedom of choice, choice is always governed by the actual situation … and observation reveals that surprising little choice is needed, or is indeed available, in the everyday acts and circumstances that constitute being alive. To say it again for emphasis – when I acknowledge the fact, very often there is only one choice according to the given circumstances – the best.
RESPONDENT: The raw male sex instinct is greedy, insatiable and aggressive. It is a rapist by nature – if not for the social identity checking from within and the legal institutions from without, it could be worse. It is by denial and control of the black nature one is ‘good’. As it is said somewhere: there are two reasons for any action – one is the reason that is believed and stated; other is the real reason. Raw male sex instinct treats women as objects of pleasure to be exploited. I wonder how a female sex instinct is like – is it different in some details at least? VINEETO: In my experience the raw sexual instinct is, at core, not that of pleasure as in desire/gratification (as religious and spiritual teachers try to make us believe), but that of procreation/ perpetuation, and observation of the sexual instinct in action in animal species in general will easily confirm this fact. Pleasure is merely the bait to get the job done to perpetuate the species. RESPONDENT: Bait for whom? If the ‘instinctual passion’ is the ‘me’ – why does it have to have a bait? For the ego perhaps? For the cognitive part? For the intelligence? VINEETO: One of most fundamental aspects of actualism is that it acknowledges the fact that human beings are animals and because of this fact, the prime motivational impulse of the human species is survival as it is with all other animal species. Whilst individual members of animal species are programmed to do anything and everything possible in order to survive, the overarching instinct is the need to procreate – the continual reoccurring sequence of procreation being the only way any animal species can survive. As such, the sexual instinct is the most powerful instinct as anyone who has passed through the pains of puberty can attest. I found it important to take on board that the instinct to procreate, manifest as an instinctual passion in individual human beings, is a pre-programmed compulsion for both the male and female of the species and that it is a ‘blind’ senseless compulsion in that it ‘cares’ not for the individual welfare or happiness of individual members of the species. * VINEETO: The instinct for procreation, however, is different for the male and the female. This is how Peter described it in his journal – <snip> On the other hand the instinctual programming for women is to not only find a desirable man for mating but more importantly to find, and keep, one who is best suited to look after the offspring that result from mating. The consequence of this difference in instinctual sexual programming is, as we all know, a never-ending power battle between the sexes. In order to end this perpetual battle between the sexes I had to not only un-earth, understand and abandon my social conditioning as a woman but also my instinctual sexual programming which lay beneath the outer layer of one of the most fundamental aspects of social conditioning – socially appropriate sexual behaviour. It’s a fascinatingly intimate journey to make, literally close to the bone as the drive to procreate and reproduce is imprinted in the very cells of the body. RESPONDENT: So, generally it is not a ‘rapist’ in women? VINEETO: According to the dictionary rape means –
Some women are certainly capable of ‘taking a thing by force’, but women generally use methods other than physical in order to get what they want. RESPONDENT: Is the man treated/viewed as an object when the instinct is at its maximum? VINEETO: Of course. It is the nature of instinctual passion to treat the object of your passion as an object. An ongoing observation of your own sexual desires in action will reveal that it is the desire that needs to be satisfied, with whom is secondary. As a side issue, you have probably heard of the seven-year itch syndrome. It appears that 7 years is about the maximum period that the human sexual instinctual drive is capable of being domesticated and it may well be more than co-incidental that a child is capable of fending for itself by about age 7. RESPONDENT: So at the instinctual level, aspects that are important for being a good father is felt (‘turn on’ based on strength of a male perhaps? But this doesn’t mean that he will stick; maybe a strong emotional connection – chemistry – is indicative of the commitment?) VINEETO: Sociological studies report that women are attracted both to strong healthy genes as well as the man’s capacity for caring for their young. Personally I used the actualism method to find out about, and then subsequently abandon, my own social conditioning in regards to sex and when this was out of the way, I could then let the instinctual passions come to the surface and observe them unobstructed by feelings of shoulds and shouldn’ts such as guilt, pride or shame. Apart from self-observation (self-observation based on experiential doing as opposed to theorizing based on intellectual supposition) I found that the best way to find out about instinctual passions, was to read what primatologists report from observing primate behaviour in the wild as sociologists who study human behaviour are stymied not only by their own morals, ethics and beliefs but by those of their studied objects as well. Mind you, in doing so you need to keep your wits about you as many primatologists are reluctant to acknowledge the dark side of chimp behaviour. As for male commitment – sexual instinctual passions provide the first passionate impetus to get together and procreate and the instinct to nurture may well provide sufficient impetus to provide for and protect any ensuing infants but self-observation reveals that these passions have a blind senseless underbelly, a dark side that makes them a liability if you are interested in living in peace and harmony with a partner. If you aspire to live with your fellow human beings in peace and harmony then an entirely different kind of commitment is necessary, a commitment that is far from senseless.
RESPONDENT: Have you encountered a situation where people want to test your ‘harmlessness’ by poking, trying to be mean etc. VINEETO: Whenever people ‘test my harmlessness’ they often do so in order that they can then judge my behaviour according to their idea of harmlessness – being meek (in religious terms) or being a pacifist (in secular terms). Many a time I have seen discussions on this mailing list where correspondents demanded of Richard that he should not defend himself, so much so that when he takes the time to address their allegations he is often accused of being defensive, nitpicking or arrogant. The idea of having to be meek became obsolete when I eliminated my spiritual/religious beliefs and by
doing so I was able to see clearly that there are none so sanctimonious as the meek and mild. As far as pacifism was concerned I had to take a
close look at the unliveable ideals of pacifism in general – law and order is ultimately only maintained at the point of a gun, be it locally or
globally and to not see this and understand it is to have one’s head in the sand (or in the clouds). (See also
When I made it my goal to become harmless, in the early days I sometimes felt toothless, castrated and helpless, particularly in situations where I felt I was being ‘wronged’ or I was being treated ‘unjustly’. But once these feeling subsided and I looked at the situation as it really was, I could see how silly it would have been to waste my time passionately fighting other people or riling against the beliefs, morals or ethics of other people in order for ‘me’ to be right or for ‘me’ to feel justly treated. The simple act of becoming aware of having antagonistic and/or indignant feelings inevitably caused me to look at my own ideas and ideals of what I thought and felt was ‘right’ and ‘just’ and ‘fair’– after all the only person I need to change, and can change, is me. And this process of discovery is still in action as I am still finding sly remnants of the ‘good’ variety of humanistic ethics extant which sometimes cause distress or indignation – clear indications of how ‘I’ tick. RESPONDENT: [people want to test your ‘harmlessness’ by poking, trying to be mean etc.] in real lives? VINEETO: As a generalization, I rarely talk about the fact that I have made being happy and harmless the most important thing in my life, so the issue of others deliberately testing me out does not arise – life is rich in opportunities that test one out without provoking situations. The real life that is this mailing list is an exception of course, but then again, if one dares to stick one’s head up above the parapet, there will invariably be those who delight in throwing brickbats – such is human nature. You might also have observed that pointing out a fact that pulls the rug from under someone’s precious belief often raises their hackles and as such is considered to be an act of aggression in the believer’s eyes. Whilst I would not choose to take someone’s beliefs apart in ‘real life’, as you call it, this mailing list is up front about being a non-spiritual mailing list and has been specifically set up ‘to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition’. (From the welcome message to the Actual Freedom mailing list) As such this list is the very place to openly question and actively investigate all of the spiritual/philosophical beliefs, worldviews and psittacisms that pass for wisdoms and truths within the human condition so as to be able to make a clear-eyed investigation and assessment of the facts of the matter. When I first came across actualism I went through a phase of enthusiasm where I wanted to share with my then-friends from my spiritual years that I had found the solution to my life-long quest for peace and happiness, a quest which I assumed was the same for them. At first, I naively thought people would be as pleased as I was to hear about an alternative to the well-worn religious/spiritual path – but no, none of my former friends who I talked to was in the least interested in questioning their precious beliefs, let alone entertain the idea of abandoning the safety of the spiritual path, and setting off in a completely new direction. At first I was flabbergasted by their disinterest in actualism, but with increasing attentiveness I began to understand my own doubts and fears and saw it as an ingrained part of the human condition that one wants to avoid changing one’s own life but invariably either wishes or even demands that other’s should change. In short – I learnt to keep my mouth shut about abandoning beliefs, about becoming happy and harmless and about ‘self’-immolation and consequently the people I meet nowadays rarely feel threatened by what I do or say and therefore rarely treat me differently to everyone else. Mostly they are far too concerned with their own lives to even want to know what I am doing, let alone ‘test’ my harmlessness.
RESPONDENT: There seems to be a tremendous sorrow in me... it keeps coming back... it is not ‘Universal Sorrow’ or ‘compassion’ or something... it seems to not have reason (resentment to be here maybe?)... i am trying my best... it seems to be going away... but it keeps coming back... any suggestions? any experiences? Re: any suggestions welcome, 20.5.2005 AEST VINEETO: I am pleased to read you subsequently think you have cracked your ‘sorrow/depression’ –
This is what I once wrote to a correspondent about sorrow –
One will undoubtedly find many reasons and justifications as to why one feels sorrowful because feeling sorrow is such a predominant (and valued) characteristic of the human condition. However, despite what everyone else may believe or have you believe – the *only* good thing about sorrow is when it ends. I can remember one time when I seriously struggled with depression. It was in 1989 when after an extensive stay in the Rajneesh commune in India I had run out of money and returned to Germany. I had to struggle getting my feet on the ground in terms of finding a flat and earning a living but that was not that big of a deal. What I found depressing at the time was having returned to the ‘real’ world after years of living in the ‘sheltered workshop’ of a spiritual commune – life seemed dull and devoid of meaning in comparison. Having been influenced by spiritualized Western therapy I thought that if I only went deep enough into my pain and sorrow I would come out the other side of the tunnel and be ‘healed’. So I found myself a therapist to hold my hand, so to speak, and then I ventured into the dark terrain of endless sorrow, hour after hour and week after week. There was no end to the tears and yet no understanding presented itself as to what to do in order to leave this valley of tears. After about 3 months of regular tear-sessions I suddenly ran out of motivation to keep feeling sorry of myself so much so that I simply became fed up with being sad. I started laughing at my own silliness of wasting so much time for just feeling sad and being miserable – and of paying good money for the privilege of doing so, I might add on top of it. The experience stuck with me and whenever I came close to wallowing and indulging in sorrow I remember that despite my efforts and those of the therapist I had not found any intrinsic value in feeling sorrow … however it was not until I met Richard that I really learnt how to effectively leave it behind by blithely heading off in the other direction. * In this context I am reminded of a conversation Richard had with someone about what to do with
‘feeling bad’ in which the respondent similarly had some difficulty seeing the silliness of feeling bad Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
