|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 99
VINEETO: Welcome to the Actual Freedom mailing list. RESPONDENT: You wrote – It appears that ‘someone’ is unwilling to chat online or in person, so I will try another tack. I’ve enjoyed reading the info on this site and I am grateful for the added focus that it has given me. I like the the use of the word ‘actual’ in relation to real as it feels clearer. VINEETO: As it has only been two days and two hours since your first post to this list, I wonder how you can already get the impression that ‘‘someone’ is unwilling to chat online or in person’. RESPONDENT: I thank Vineeto and Peter for their experiences and insights on male/female relationships, if that is the appropriate term to use. [name deleted], the woman that I am with, and I have been doing similar things and the views here have enhanced our seeing and looking. VINEETO: Peter and I have been living in perfect peace and harmony without a quarrel, bicker or compromise for several years. Is that what you mean by you and [name deleted] ‘doing similar things’? RESPONDENT: I agree with Richard in one of his writings that the master needs to make himself available 24/7 to show all that he is practicing what he is saying, in the flesh. I invite you to have a coffee with me, Richard. I’m here to explore and get clear rather than find fault and criticise. I would thrive being in the presence of the people here. VINEETO: As Richard is not ‘the master’ your expectation that he ‘needs
to make himself available 24/7’ and that you would ‘thrive being in the presence’ is a non sequitur. I can only
suggest that when you ‘explore and get clear’ you pay specific attention to the statement that ‘an actual freedom is
180 degrees opposite to spiritual beliefs’. There is RESPONDENT: As I wrote in my previous posting, the more I read on this site, the more anomalies pop up and I would like to explore these. VINEETO: Those ‘anomalies’ you discover are a very good clue that you are indeed dealing with a brand-new paradigm and not an extension/ enhancement/ advancement of spiritual/ philosophical/ metaphysical practice. Personally, it took several months of reading Richard’s Journal and passionate discussions with Peter until I started to experientially understand the basic difference between ‘actual’ and ‘spiritual’. I now understand that everything one usually experiences as real is filtered, edited, produced and coloured by the ‘spirit’, i.e. by ideas, beliefs, emotions or passionate thoughts and is therefore spiritual. Usually there is not even a chance to experience the actual world directly because one is completely immersed in a spiritual world, created by instincts, emotions, feelings, beliefs and imagination. In that context it makes no difference if one surrenders to a master or ‘only’ believes in a God, an afterlife, the Grace of Existence, Universal Love or a god of one’s own making – everyone is removed from the actual world. RESPONDENT: One of my experiences is that sometimes, what I say is slightly different to what I mean and something gets lost in translation or transmission. So, what is coming up could simply be that I am just missing something to connect everything. I read where Vineeto states simply that actual is only that which is perceived through the senses. VINEETO: Yes, for instance –
RESPONDENT: If that is the case, much of what is said about actualism isn’t actual, because it seems to come from beyond the physical senses. The mission statement of altruism, happiness and freedom from malice, sorrow etc, to me, goes outside the parameters of the here/now actual. VINEETO: May I ask, did you have or do you remember having had a pure consciousness experience? If yes, then you would know from experience that actualism is indeed about the actual. If no, then why do you presume to know what ‘goes outside the parameters of the here/now actual’? If you are really ‘here to explore and get clear rather than find fault and criticise’ then the best way to genuinely explore is to acknowledge that you don’t know what the ‘parameters’ of the actual are because you have never experienced the absence of ‘me’ for yourself or have not yet succeeded in remembering having experienced the absence of ‘me’ for yourself. For instance, if you look up what Richard writes about altruism you will find that he
says he is not altruistic If you look up And your statement that being free from the feelings of malice and sorrow is supposedly ‘outside the parameters of the here/now actual’ indicates that your idea of ‘the here/now actual’ is something entirely different than the actual ‘here/now actual’. RESPONDENT: I also don’t get a sense of what is left after all is gone. I hear references to ‘a flesh and bone body’, ‘a human being’, a human body that the universe manifests through and ‘the universe experiencing itself’. These sound lovely, yet i don’t get it. If I see that I am just a flesh and bone body, then I’m not the universe and if I’m the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and bone body, then that makes more sense, but if I’m the universe then I’m not the flesh and bone body until i make it so as the universe. If I say that I am a human being, I am identified as that and no longer am the universe. If I am the universe, is that any different to all the other references to that something that is more than this identity, such as god, spirit, un-manifest self, that are criticised here? VINEETO: What is left after ‘I’ and ‘me’ become extinct, or go in
abeyance as in a PCE, is this flesh and blood body brimming with sense organs and the best way to find out what this means is not
by armchair philosophising but by experiential exploration. The way to experientially explore actualism is very simple – you ask
yourself, each moment again, ‘How do I experience this moment of being alive?’ If you am not feeling good then you have
something to look at to find out why and get back to feeling good as soon as possible. For a more detailed explanation you can
access RESPONDENT: Where does it say that the universe is peaceful and perfect? VINEETO: When there is no identity to experience the universe as malicious and sorrowful then this body can sensately experience the inherent quality of the universe, which is perfection (peerlessness), benevolence (no malice) and purity (no identity/spirituality). RESPONDENT: Is there a mission statement for the universe to only experience being happy and harmless here on earth? VINEETO: You may have to re-read the passage from where you got the impression that there are ‘mission statements’ and that ‘the universe to only experience being happy and harmless here on earth’. Personally I had to read Richard’s Journal over and over, sometimes properly understanding a single sentence took me a day of contemplation, simply because for my spiritually conditioned mind the grasp of the simple facts of actuality needed some untwisting/undoing and casting aside of my own beliefs, opinions, assumptions, presumptions and expectations. RESPONDENT: If all is the universe, what is all the stuff that actualists are trying to be rid of? VINEETO: The instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, of course. RESPONDENT: When I sit and pause and look at what is now, I can see everything as what is and then any movement seems to be a subtle shift in view, discernment or preference, or, as I often do, make a stand, draw a line in the sand and attempt to enforce this stance. What I have read from the actualists seems to support the latter. VINEETO: No, actualists describe actuality whereas an identity tends to ‘make a stand’ about their belief/ opinion/ worldview. RESPONDENT: There seems to be much judgement and condemnation of people and the human condition on this site, … VINEETO: No, actualists describe actuality whereas an identity interprets the stating of an obvious fact or the calling a spade a spade as a ‘judgement and condemnation of people’. As for my judgment of the human condition – if I did not judge, as in ‘estimate, appraise, make a mental assertion or statement’, my being entrapped, stifled, bound and handicapped by the human condition then I would not aspire to become free from it. RESPONDENT: … which to me, is incongruent and very un-actual, according to your parameters, of what is ‘actual’. VINEETO: They are your parameters, and your interpretations of the parameters, of what you think ‘is ‘actual’’. RESPONDENT: Again, this isn’t to make you wrong, it’s just that it doesn’t make sense to me. What you claim and what you say are incongruent in some areas. VINEETO: So far it seems that you indeed try to ‘make you wrong’ because you have phrased all of your observations as statements rather than posing questions. What you perceive as ‘claim’ is in fact the report of how actualists experience life after the human condition has become extinct (for Richard) or is greatly diminished in a virtual freedom (for Peter and Vineeto). What you described as ‘incongruent’ so far is solely based on your (affective) interpretation of what you read. This misinterpretation comes as no surprise, given that you wrote in your first post to this list –
A genuine and persistent exploration of what is on offer on the actual freedom website will easily reveal that the ‘third alternative’ you were exploring on your own is not the third alternative of an actual freedom from the human condition – the extinction of both ego and soul.
RESPONDENT: It appears that ‘someone’ is unwilling to chat online or in person, so I will try another tack. (…) VINEETO: As it has only been two days and two hours since your first post to this list, I wonder how you can already get the impression that ‘‘someone’ is unwilling to chat online or in person’. RESPONDENT: Yeah, I know. I got a little impatient. It took about 2 weeks to sort out Topica and finally get on and I was eager to play. VINEETO: Ah, so was your ‘Lighten up, guys’ (RE: Richard’s reply to ‘Coffee with Richard’, 26.4.2006) a comment on yourself, then? * RESPONDENT: I thank Vineeto and Peter for their experiences and insights on male/female relationships, if that is the appropriate term to use. [name deleted], the woman that I am with, and I have been doing similar things and the views here have enhanced our seeing and looking. VINEETO: Peter and I have been living in perfect peace and harmony without a quarrel, bicker or compromise for several years. Is that what you mean by you and [name deleted] ‘doing similar things’? RESPONDENT: Yup, that’s what we are doing, without the several years bit. It’s been nice hearing about your experiences as there aren’t many that we have been able to talk to at this level. (not that we have had that level with you, just your stories resonate) VINEETO: As you say further down ‘what’s wrong with malice and sorrow?’ I don’t see how your experiences can have anything to do with living in utter peace and harmony – devoid of malice and sorrow. * RESPONDENT: I agree with Richard in one of his writings that the master needs to make himself available 24/7 to show all that he is practicing what he is saying, in the flesh. I invite you to have a coffee with me, Richard. I’m here to explore and get clear rather than find fault and criticise. I would thrive being in the presence of the people here. VINEETO: As Richard is not ‘the master’ your expectation that he ‘needs to make himself available 24/7’ and that you would ‘thrive being in the presence’ is a non sequitur. I can only suggest that when you ‘explore and get clear’ you pay specific attention to the statement that ‘an actual freedom is 180 degrees opposite to spiritual beliefs’. There is a library page with selected correspondence available on that topic <snip URL> RESPONDENT: I don’t see Richard as a master. I was basically saying that I wanted to meet Richard to experience his living of what he is saying. VINEETO: You can always Having talked to Richard in person and having followed all of his correspondences on several mailing lists I can personally confirm that he says what he means and means what he says and that he is as candid, factual and benevolent when he writes as when he talks. RESPONDENT: I rarely support any beliefs, be they spiritual or actual. VINEETO: Ha, there is no such thing as an actual belief. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the url. Is the ‘180 degree opposite’ article a compilation of beliefs or actual experiences? VINEETO: The diagram explains the nature of spiritual enlightenment and how to reach it and demonstrates how this is diametrically opposite to an actual freedom and to the process of becoming actually free from the human condition. It is not a ‘compilation of belief’ but a schematic explanation of facts drawn from personal experience. RESPONDENT: Reading that makes me feel uneasy. VINEETO: Is feeling for you the final arbiter of assessing what you encounter? RESPONDENT: I have heard ‘the only way’ theme many times and I can appreciate the thought that used to linger in my head, ‘Well, this time it’s for real’, yet I don’t understand how anyone can make that statement in all seriousness. VINEETO: In order to be able to begin exploring what an actual freedom entails you will have to abandon suspicion and cynicism, take what is written at face value and re-kindle your naiveté. Naiveté will allow you to at least consider the possibility that there is an alternative to either real-world cynicism or spiritual-world defeatism – a possibility to go beyond what humans are genetically encoded and socially conditioned to perceive/do. The actual freedom website consists of experiential reports – extensively peer-reviewed – about the actual world that exists outside of/independently from/beyond human passions, concepts and imagination. RESPONDENT: I prefer to experience the human condition fully rather than perpetuating or eliminating it, which would make actualism not the only way. Maybe I see a fourth way. This is coming from my own experiences and looking rather than philosophical. I agree with the ‘going with whatever comes up without avoiding and seeing it for what it truly is, an experience for the universe to have as this flesh and blood body’. I am here to experience fully, not to eliminate. Whatever happens with the experience happens and things may change of their own accord. VINEETO: If you ‘prefer to experience the human condition fully rather than perpetuating or eliminating it’ then there is nothing for you to ‘thrive being in the presence of the people here’. As the Welcome Message to this list has already informed you, this mailing list is to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding and to assist in elucidating *just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition* and you would get no support for your approach of ‘whatever happens … happens’. * RESPONDENT: As I wrote in my previous posting, the more I read on this site, the more anomalies pop up and I would like to explore these. VINEETO: Those ‘anomalies’ you discover are a very good clue that you are indeed dealing with a brand-new paradigm and not an extension/ enhancement/ advancement of spiritual/ philosophical/ metaphysical practice. RESPONDENT: You could be right and I am open to whatever is in that paradigm. VINEETO: If only you were. However you go on to say – RESPONDENT: Yet, your paradigm is familiar to me and feels limiting and culty. VINEETO: You seem to have already made up your mind that the new paradigm of an actual freedom ‘is familiar’ and ‘feels limiting and culty’. It seems indeed that feeling is for you the final arbiter of assessing what you encounter RESPONDENT: Even your ‘180 degree opposite’ view reeks of spiritual dogma that you claim to be against. VINEETO: Again, you are using a feeling-assessment to make judgement instead of determining the facts of the situation. Whereas becoming free from one’s beliefs, worldviews and philosophical viewpoints requires to scrupulously and honestly inquire into the facts of the matter. Your suggestions that actualism be a ‘spiritual dogma’ have already been
answered in Common Objections RESPONDENT: I began reading your literature … VINEETO: What you call ‘literature’ are experiential reports from actualists. RESPONDENT: … and agreeing with the essence of ‘actualism’ and ... VINEETO: So far I read that you are suspecting the writings to be a ‘compillation of beliefs’, that ‘reading that makes [you] feel uneasy’, that you ‘don’t understand how anyone can make that statement [that an actual freedom lies 180 degrees opposite to spiritual beliefs] in all seriousness, that you ‘prefer to experience the human condition fully rather than perpetuating or eliminating it’, that you prefer that ‘things may change of their own accord’, that ‘that paradigm’ ‘feels limiting and culty’ to you and that it ‘reeks of spiritual dogma’. What is this ‘essence of ‘actualism’’ that you are agreeing with? RESPONDENT: ... yet the more I read the harder it is to swallow and feels less actual. VINEETO: There is no need to ‘swallow’ anything. There is no need to either believe or disbelieve. Everyone is invited to assess what is written and verify the reports by their own pure consciousness experience. Besides, what you ‘feel’ to be actual or in this case ‘less actual’ is not the actuality talked about on the Actual Freedom Trust website. I repeat for emphasis: Actuality exists independent of human concepts, feelings and emotions, it is actual – ‘existing in fact as evidenced by the physical senses, in action or existence at this time, existing in act and not merely potentially or apparently’ Oxford Dictionary * VINEETO: Personally, it took several months of reading Richard’s Journal and passionate discussions with Peter until I started to experientially understand the basic difference between ‘actual’ and ‘spiritual’. I now understand that everything one usually experiences as real is filtered, edited, produced and coloured by the ‘spirit’, i.e. by ideas, beliefs, emotions or passionate thoughts and is therefore spiritual. Usually there is not even a chance to experience the actual world directly because one is completely immersed in a spiritual world, created by instincts, emotions, feelings, beliefs and imagination. In that context it makes no difference if one surrenders to a master or ‘only’ believes in a God, an afterlife, the Grace of Existence, Universal Love or a god of one’s own making – everyone is removed from the actual world. RESPONDENT: Thanks for sharing your experience and that you needed time to understand. I feel I have a handle on the difference between ‘actual’ and ‘spiritual’ ... VINEETO: If only you did. RESPONDENT: … although they appear to be relative terms open to interpretation. VINEETO: They are not used as ‘relative terms open to interpretation’
in the writings of the Actual Freedom Trust website but are clearly defined terms for precise communication. Vis: Glossary, RESPONDENT: Your (actualist) view of spirituality appears to me to be very extreme, as I get from the 180 degree list. I use the term loosely in conversation as I was unfamiliar which another that suited. VINEETO: Not ‘very extreme’ just very thorough … but I know what you mean as I can remember well how extreme the proposition of questioning *every* belief appeared to me whilst I was still in the grip of my spiritual beliefs. However nowadays, after I questioned and eliminated all my spiritual beliefs I can hardly understand how I could have held onto them so passionately for so long. RESPONDENT: I’ve been using actual and actualism to get a feel and I’m getting a hang of them. VINEETO: What you have written so far does not support your assertion and your subsequent sentences only confirm that you are not ‘getting the hang of’ actual and actualism – RESPONDENT: You also seem to differentiate between god and the universe. What if god is actual? VINEETO: Which god? There are over 1,200 gods worshipped across the world. God, any god, is the very opposite of actual – they are bodiless and immortal spirit entities, invisible, inaudible, untouchable, unable to detect by smell or taste and as such their existence is solely based on and dependant on human passionate imagination. How can any god be actual as actual is ‘existing in fact as evidenced by the physical senses, in action or existence at this time, existing in act and not merely potentially or apparently’ (Oxford Dictionary)? RESPONDENT: What if god is the universe? VINEETO: Are you a Pantheist RESPONDENT: Then I am god as the universe or the universe as god. VINEETO: This is such a solipsistic statement that I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: You talk about being the universe, … VINEETO: No, I don’t talk about ‘being the universe’. RESPONDENT: … being unborn and undying, VINEETO: No, I don’t talk about ‘being unborn and undying’. RESPONDENT: … and also a flesh and blood body which will die, end, finish. VINEETO: Not ‘also’ – that’s what I am – ‘a flesh and blood body which will die’. And when I will die, that is the end, finish, over and out. RESPONDENT: What happens then? VINEETO: Then this body will decompose and be the foundation/food for other life-forms. RESPONDENT: How can you be both unborn, yet finished? This is an anomaly to me. VINEETO: I never said I was unborn. This ‘anomaly’ is entirely of your own making. * VINEETO: The actual that is evidenced by a pure consciousness experience is what is left when the ‘believer’, the ‘feeler’ and the ‘thinker’ – all of the ‘self’ – is in abeyance, when all ‘my’ input has ceased. Then a tree is simply a tree, a coffee cup is a coffee cup and street noise is simply street noise without any emotional or spiritual relevance to the eyes seeing and the ears hearing. There is no malice and sorrow, no love and condemnation, no affective or philosophical meaning in anything actual. This is the actual world, which only becomes apparent in its utter magic and ever-fresh exuberance when the ‘self’ is either temporarily absent or permanently extinct. Vineeto, List D, No 2, 27.8.2000 RESPONDENT: Well, I agree with the first part, up to and including the ‘...ears hearing’. VINEETO: If only you were. RESPONDENT: What happens when you call people obnoxious, are they just a cup or are they ugly cups, obnoxious cups. Obnoxious is not actual, where I come from. VINEETO: If you could show to me where I have been calling people obnoxious then we could discuss the matter as an actuality rather then an imagined proposition. RESPONDENT: When affective values are placed on things, it’s no longer actual to me. VINEETO: And yet you have been continuously using your affective faculty in order to assess actualism and actuality. RESPONDENT: What’s wrong with malice and sorrow? VINEETO: Are you for real? Do you ever watch the news on television, read the newspapers, listen to the radio? Are you not aware of what human beings, driven by malice and sorrow, are continuously doing to each other? Are you aware of the amount of people being threatened and abused, raped and maimed, tortured and killed every day? Are you aware of the amount of people who kill themselves due to sorrow and despair every day? RESPONDENT: Why exclude them from the actual. VINEETO: I don’t need to exclude malice and sorrow – they simply do not exist in the actual world. You agreed to this yourself only 4 sentences above –
When the ‘feeler’ and the ‘thinker’ is in abeyance, malice and sorrow are nowhere to be found. RESPONDENT: Isn’t any action actual … VINEETO: The point of the discussion is the ‘actual world’, the world of the senses as opposed of the world of feelings and beliefs and any action from within the human condition of malice and sorrow inevitably prevents one from experiencing the purity of the ‘actual world’. RESPONDENT: … and only the affective values and judgements placed on them are not. VINEETO: There is a vast difference between affective values and thorough, sensible judgement as in discernment, assessment, acumen, perspicacity, sensibility. A little perceptiveness when watching the news on television will reveal that it is the instinctual survival passions that all human beings are endowed with that cause all the mayhem and misery and not the values and judgments placed on these instinctual passions that are the cause of harm and sorrow. * RESPONDENT: If that is the case, much of what is said about actualism isn’t actual, because it seems to come from beyond the physical senses. The mission statement of altruism, happiness and freedom from malice, sorrow etc, to me, goes outside the parameters of the here/now actual. VINEETO: May I ask, did you have or do you remember having had a pure consciousness experience? RESPONDENT: Yes, Vineeto, I have. VINEETO: Your understanding of a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience then must be as misguided as your understanding of the difference between spiritual and actual such as your proposal ‘what if god is actual’. * VINEETO: If yes, then you would know from experience that actualism is indeed about the actual. RESPONDENT: The two aren’t synonymous to me, Vineeto. VINEETO: If you are interested in discussing what is written on the actual freedom website, it would make sense, wouldn’t it, to stay with the meaning of the words used in the context they were written and not put your own twist on the meaning of a word in order to then dispute what was written. This technique is known as a straw man argument. RESPONDENT: I will agree that a PCE is about the actual. VINEETO: And yet ‘the actual’ your are talking about includes malice and sorrow (‘What’s wrong with malice and sorrow? Why exclude them from the actual.’) and you ‘prefer to experience the human condition fully rather than perpetuating or eliminating it’. As such the pure consciousness experience your are talking about is neither pure nor ‘self’-less. RESPONDENT: I’m undecided about actualism. VINEETO: Not really, going by your statement that ‘I prefer to experience the human condition fully rather than perpetuating or eliminating it’. RESPONDENT: To me, PCE doesn’t see malice or sorrow as something bad to be rid of. It’s the emotional, judgemental concepts that make them so and I see actualists doing this with a kind ‘evil’ label attached and I thought actualists were against the ‘good/evil’ game. VINEETO: Sounds more like an ASC to me. * VINEETO: If no, then why do you presume to know what ‘goes outside the parameters of the here/now actual’? RESPONDENT: No need of a reply. VINEETO: Are you still sure about that? * VINEETO: If you are really ‘here to explore and get clear rather than find fault and criticise’ then the best way to genuinely explore is to acknowledge that you don’t know what the ‘parameters’ of the actual are because you have never experienced the absence of ‘me’ for yourself or have not yet succeeded in remembering having experienced the absence of ‘me’ for yourself. RESPONDENT: I have experienced the absence of ‘me’ as you put it which makes the rest of what you say irrelevant. VINEETO: When you experience the absence of ‘I’ and ‘me’ in toto then you will know that neither malice nor sorrow exist in this actual world, and you would also know that neither God nor good and evil are actual. * VINEETO: For instance, if you look up what Richard writes about altruism you will find that he says he is not altruistic. (...) Altruism is something the identity needs to activate in order to enable an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Thank you, I have read what Richard wrote and I get your point even though the re-interpretation of the word suits actualism. VINEETO: What you call ‘re-interpretation’ is simply Richard’s description of the inherent human quality of altruism that allowed Richard-the-identity to self-immolate –
* RESPONDENT: [If that is the case, much of what is said about actualism isn’t actual, because it seems to come from beyond the physical senses. The mission statement of altruism, happiness and freedom from malice, sorrow etc, to me, goes outside the parameters of the here/now actual.] VINEETO: If you look up the subject of happiness you will also find that Richard says that he has not felt happy for years – (...) RESPONDENT: That’s fine for what Richard says. Why does the goal, on your 180 diagram, refer to the search for freedom, peace and happiness? VINEETO: Why shouldn’t it? I recognized and acknowledged that I was shackled by the human condition and have since dedicated my life to becoming irrevocably free from it. * VINEETO: And your statement that being free from the feelings of malice and sorrow is supposedly ‘outside the parameters of the here/now actual’ indicates that your idea of ‘the here/now actual’ is something entirely different than the actual ‘here/now actual’. RESPONDENT: Yup, maybe it does. VINEETO: Ok, do you want to stick with your interpretation or find out something new? RESPONDENT: Where I am in experiencing actual, is that there is no need to eliminate or be free of anything. VINEETO: This body can experience actuality when the identity is in abeyance and during a PCE there is no need to be free of anything. However, until I am irrevocably free from the human condition, the ‘self’-less experience inevitably ends and leaves ‘me’ with a job to do. RESPONDENT: Why would the universe try to be free of itself as it own creation? VINEETO: This question implies that the universe was an entity trying to do something. The physical material universe does not do anything – I as an intelligent apperceptively aware human being however can recognize that life without self is perfection and delight while life as ‘self’ is ridden with malice and sorrow and I for one have made a choice to do something about it. RESPONDENT: What if the universe is here to experience malice and sorrow and finds actualists trying to get rid of it. VINEETO: Your little model universe has nothing at all to do with the actual physical universe and herein lies the difference between an ASC and a PCE. In an ASC ‘I’ create a universe as I feel and imagine it to be, so real that it seems to be actual whereas when the ‘self’ is absent, the actual world becomes apparent as it actually is. * RESPONDENT: I also don’t get a sense of what is left after all is gone. (…) VINEETO: What is left after ‘I’ and ‘me’ become extinct, or go in abeyance as in a PCE, is this flesh and blood body brimming with sense organs and the best way to find out what this means is not by armchair philosophising but by experiential exploration. (...) RESPONDENT: Thank you for the url’s and I agree with you about experimental exploration and I take you to be generalising in referring to the armchair philosophy. Yet I don’t agree with you about ‘If you am not feeling good then you have something to look at to find out why and get back to feeling good as soon as possible.’ I would ask ‘How am I experiencing this ‘not feeling good’ feeling in this moment of being alive’, and slip deeper into the delight of this not feeling good. VINEETO: You already said that you find nothing wrong with malice and sorrow and that ‘‘prefer to experience the human condition fully rather than perpetuating or eliminating it’.’ ‘T’is no wonder then that you ‘don’t get a sense of what is left after all is gone’ – you are not at all interested in what is left after the ‘self’ is gone but prefer to ‘slip deeper into the delight of this not feeling good’. RESPONDENT: Why should ‘not feeling good’ be any different to ‘feeling good’. It’s only the human program telling the difference or preference and this is carried into actualism under the guise of ‘getting free’. VINEETO: Your suggestion to re-define one’s preference to include malice and sorrow is generally publicized as Advaita. RESPONDENT: I also disagree when Richard says in his url ‘For starters: one needs to fully acknowledge the biological imperative (the instinctual passions) which are the root cause of all the ills of humankind.’ To me, it’s the misinterpretation this ‘biological imperative’ that is the cause and is perpetuated here. It supports your paradigm, yet very dissociative. VINEETO: Here you are merely reiterating the tried and failed spiritual teachings that there is nothing wrong with the instinctual passions and that ‘wrong thought’ and ‘wrong conditioning’ are the culprits. However, what you call ‘very dissociative’ is actualists calling a spade a spade and stating the obvious and observable fact that instinctual passions are the root cause of malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: This is where I leave actualism to its own business and move on. VINEETO: Move on as in turning another 180 degrees to arrive back at 360/0 degree as you suggested at the bottom of your post? RESPONDENT: Yet, it’s the snippets of true actuality that draws me back and we come together to experience the ‘actual’ and differences don’t exist. VINEETO: Would you care to expand on the ‘snippets of true actuality’ that you agree on with actualists? * RESPONDENT: Where does it say that the universe is peaceful and perfect? VINEETO: When there is no identity to experience the universe as malicious and sorrowful then this body can sensately experience the inherent quality of the universe, which is perfection (peerlessness), benevolence (no malice) and purity (no identity/ spirituality). RESPONDENT: Where do you get that from, Vineeto? VINEETO: From the ‘self’-less experience of a pure consciousness experience, of course. RESPONDENT: What makes these preferred qualities more ‘inherent’ to malice and sorrow? VINEETO: Malice and sorrow are the results of the animal instinctual passions – only feeling beings have malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: I see that that belief is the problem to be experienced and not to be got rid of. VINEETO: Yet it is not a belief as there are no beliefs in a pure consciousness experience. RESPONDENT: This belief of yours is no different to any religion or spiritual creed that you claim to be opposed to. VINEETO: To put your own affective spin on my report and then argue against it is known as a straw-man argument. RESPONDENT: That opposition in itself creates an illusion of separation and opposition, and still follows similar lines. You make something wrong, try to eliminate it and live happy and harmless ever after. Maybe the Germans thought the same about the Jews. ‘If we eliminate them all, then we will be happy.’ Is there a difference? VINEETO: You are not the first, and will certainly not be last, to liken the elimination of one’s own malice and sorrow to fascism and the holocaust. It is usually one of the last resorts before the conversation becomes completely silly and disintegrates into name-calling and schoolyard-taunts. So much for ‘… I was exploring on my own, a third alternative and was thrilled to see others doing the same’ (First step, 22.4.2006), hey? * RESPONDENT: Is there a mission statement for the universe to only experience being happy and harmless here on earth? VINEETO: You may have to re-read the passage from where you got the impression that there are ‘mission statements’ and that ‘the universe to only experience being happy and harmless here on earth’. Personally I had to read Richard’s Journal over and over, sometimes properly understanding a single sentence took me a day of contemplation, simply because for my spiritually conditioned mind the grasp of the simple facts of actuality needed some untwisting/ undoing and casting aside of my own beliefs, opinions, assumptions, presumptions and expectations. RESPONDENT: Yes, I got that impression from your ‘story’ in some of the posts, that it took you a while to de-condition. I can imagine someone spending those years with Rajneesh and his playful references to Germans and the need of a 4x2 piece of wood. Maybe he had a point. VINEETO: At least I was willing to admit that I had spiritual beliefs and that they were diametrically opposite to the actual world Richard reported to experience 24/7. RESPONDENT: Maybe a mission statement isn’t the correct use of words. Maybe ‘dogma’, with things like, ‘this is the one and only way’ the goals, the pure intent, the constant work on elimination of the ‘bad’ things and hanging on to the ‘good’ even though they, too, are said to be eliminated. VINEETO: When you willingly and deliberately devote your life to becoming happy and harmless, then the practice of actualism is neither a ‘mission statement’, a ‘dogma’ nor ‘constant work’ – there is only the ongoing incremental decrease of malice and sorrow and the incremental increase of peace, harmony and delight. Actualism is not theory but practical application with tangible results. * RESPONDENT: If all is the universe, what is all the stuff that actualists are trying to be rid of? VINEETO: The instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, of course. RESPONDENT: So are the Christians, the Buddhists etc. and as you say, what do they have to show for it? VINEETO: Your research has failed you here. Christians believe in an original sin that only Jesus can save them from and Buddhists believe in the Wheel of Karma that one needs to stop in order not to be endlessly reborn. Neither religion talks about the instinctual passions as being the cause of malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: I don’t get why you are trying to get rid of the universe, … VINEETO: Again, you are arguing with yourself in a straw-man argument as I never said that I am ‘trying to get rid of the universe’. RESPONDENT: … even if it’s only the bits you don’t like or don’t really know what to do with. VINEETO: To first call the human condition the ‘universe’ and then suggest I am trying to get rid of bits of the universe is to confuse the issue of actualism to the point that a sensible discussion becomes impossible. RESPONDENT: So, out with the baby and bathwater. Why not the bath? VINEETO: As for the baby and the bathwater, I refer you to * RESPONDENT: When I sit and pause and look at what is now, I can see everything as what is and then any movement seems to be a subtle shift in view, discernment or preference, or, as I often do, make a stand, draw a line in the sand and attempt to enforce this stance. What I have read from the actualists seems to support the latter. VINEETO: No, actualists describe actuality whereas an identity tends to ‘make a stand’ about their belief/ opinion/ worldview. RESPONDENT: I’m sure that they believe that they do. VINEETO: Why is it that whatever actualists say is a belief to you whereas you are sure about the truth of what you proclaim? * RESPONDENT: There seems to be much judgement and condemnation of people and the human condition on this site, … VINEETO: No, actualists describe actuality whereas an identity interprets the stating of an obvious fact or the calling a spade a spade as a ‘judgement and condemnation of people’. As for my judgment of the human condition – if I did not judge, as in ‘estimate, appraise, make a mental assertion or statement’, my being entrapped, stifled, bound and handicapped by the human condition then I would not aspire to become free from it. RESPONDENT: Again, I’m sure that they believe that they do VINEETO: Again, why is it that whatever actualists say is a belief to you whereas you are sure about the truth of what you proclaim? RESPONDENT: ... and here I see a fine line, like your response to my query into why ‘someone’ wasn’t chatting. It felt a little loaded to me. VINEETO: Is the truth of what you proclaim given credence by your feelings? Be that as it may – the fact is there was nothing ‘loaded’ when I said –
RESPONDENT: I agree that there is a subtle level of discernment and preference, that feels to be deeper than the human condition, that guides movement into manifestation and what one could call freedom. VINEETO: I’m not quite sure what you agree to because in order to reach ‘deeper than the human condition’ one needs to abandon reliance on feelings and begin to discern with apperceptive awareness. * RESPONDENT: … which to me, is incongruent and very un-actual, according to your parameters, of what is ‘actual’. VINEETO: They are your parameters, and your interpretations of the parameters, of what you think ‘is ‘actual’’. RESPONDENT: ‘Most certenly’, as one of the Stooges would say. If you want to keep giving them to me as mine, who am I to argue. VINEETO: And yet you do argue, in this case you argue with your own interpretation of what you consider to be ‘un-actual’ (whatever that means). I can only point out that your interpretation of what you have read is not what is written on the actual freedom website. * RESPONDENT: Again, this isn’t to make you wrong, it’s just that it doesn’t make sense to me. What you claim and what you say are incongruent in some areas. VINEETO: So far it seems that you indeed try to ‘make you wrong’ because you have phrased all of your observations as statements rather than posing questions. What you perceive as ‘claim’ is in fact the report of how actualists experience life after the human condition has become extinct (for Richard) or is greatly diminished in a virtual freedom (for Peter and Vineeto). RESPONDENT: Gee, and I thought I was just referring to what I have read on this site and the discrepancies that I pick and query. OK, I see that I haven’t backed up as to what some of these discrepancies are and pose questions. I have read quite a lot of articles here and haven’t kept a record of little things that come up. I’ll be more vigilant and pose questions when they come up. VINEETO: If you want to further your understanding of actualism I can only recommend to pay special attention to the difference between altered states of consciousness and a pure consciousness experience and between ‘choiceless awareness’ as taught by Eastern Mystics and apperception. * VINEETO: What you described as ‘incongruent’ so far is solely based on your (affective) interpretation of what you read. This misinterpretation comes as no surprise, given that you wrote in your first post to this list –
RESPONDENT: OK, and is that your opinion or is it actual or an actual opinion? VINEETO: The statement that you misinterpreted what you read on the Actual Freedom Trust website is not an opinion – it is an observation of the various mis-interpretations and mis-understandings you have presented in the last 3 posts and have only reinforced in this post. In other words, what you at first perceived as ‘others doing the same’ has turned out as not being the same at all. Just look at your questions and preferences –
* RESPONDENT: Why is my interpretation a misinterpretation? VINEETO: I don’t know why – that is for you to find out. I only point out that what you think the words ‘actual freedom’, ‘actualism’ and ‘actuality’ mean are not what they actually mean. RESPONDENT: I don’t think I’m affective when I read. VINEETO: I can only go by what you write and this is what you write –
* RESPONDENT: What did you do when you read my posts? Were you affective in your interpretation of what you thought I wrote. VINEETO: This is known as the fallacy of many questions aka asking a loaded question. And no, I had no affective response to what you wrote but I certainly chuckled on several occasions about the blatant misunderstandings of actualism. RESPONDENT: My impatience certainly got up your nose. VINEETO: Did it? How do you know? … unless you rely on your feelings as the final arbiter, feelings which are notoriously fickle and unreliable. RESPONDENT: What was actual about that? VINEETO: Here it is again, the straw-man dispute about a perception that has no basis in fact. * VINEETO: A genuine and persistent exploration of what is on offer on the actual freedom website will easily reveal that the ‘third alternative’ you were exploring on your own is not the third alternative of an actual freedom from the human condition – the extinction of both ego and soul. RESPONDENT: I agree it’s not. I’ve moved on to the fourth alternative via a 360, a further 180 to you. Maybe I’ll call it ‘Actual Freedom without extinction’. VINEETO: Without extinction of ‘me’ it is not an actual freedom from the human condition – you might as well call what you are doing by what it is known in spiritual circles – ‘Advaita Vedanta’ or ‘Acceptance of What Is’, which is not the fourth but the first alternative to real-world cynicism. Proper labelling of what you do will help you in finding like-minded people. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
