|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on Mailing List C Correspondent No. 16
RESPONDENT No 10: Hello everyone, I just wondering if there is anyone on this list who is attracted to Peter and Vineeto? What is it you admire about their writing? RESPONDENT: What Peter and Vineeto are saying, their willingness to look at facts no matter about what or how painful for the ego, should be the first step for anybody on the road to freedom. The first step and the last, as good old J. Krishnamurti would say. Whenever there is pain, there’s the ego; hurt defines the boundaries of the ego, the attachments. Hence hurt is an opportunity to know these boundaries, to get to know oneself. ‘Know yourself’ has been said down the ages by many masters. So Peter and Vineeto are remembering us of a good thing, but at the same time they are proof of the saying that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. Their judging the failure or success of a master, guru or teacher by the lack of improvement in the condition of humanity as a whole is questionable. Questionable because it is not a fact. Their statement that love is often a cover-up for malice, a thin layer of varnish embellishing personality, is true of course. But then to conclude that therefore no love at all exists is another matter. It is not a fact either. In my view, Peter and Vineeto say worthwhile things, but they present too many would-be facts. I wonder why they don’t just talk about their joyful experiencing of the body and nature, and leave it at that. As a bonus they could explain how to reach this state of happiness, by all means, but to call it the only true alternative in the same breath, the only true alternative that will work at last, as if it’s another washing powder with some new powerful enzymes, washing whiter than other powders... give me a break. I doubt it that their ‘way’ will prove to be the final answer to the ‘human condition’, that it will accomplish what until now no other teaching has been able to achieve. If it were truly the only answer, then surely Richard would actually, factually be the only real saviour, the only Messiah, whether he likes it or not. He would be, if not the only son of god, very close to God’s image. By the by, it’s very good that Vineeto and Peter challenge lazy, sleepy Sannyasins, their views, belief systems. For a while that is... Or I should rather say that it’s No. 10’s question that challenged me. Well, never mind... VINEETO: I had gone into the collective psychic world of fear, the instinctual fear in the Human Condition, when a familiar and safe setting of one’s conviction is shaken up. RESPONDENT: What is easily done by you and Peter is what I would call ‘generalization’. There are people who protect their convictions, but this doesn’t necessarily imply that all people do it. The responses that you get are not necessarily all based on fear. If you would see the differences in people, you wouldn’t be able do write so easily, as you do. ‘Generalization’ makes writing easy, because it is an oversimplification. And oversimplification leads to confidence. VINEETO: I am pleased that No. 10’s question has challenged you into writing. I am looking forward to our discussion. On my way to freedom in the last two years I have always welcomed scrutiny, it helps me to sweep out the cupboard – an expression I use to describe cleaning myself up. What you call ‘generalizations’ are simply facts. They apply to every human being. That’s why they are called facts (‘what is the case’, dictionary definition). You are welcome to question Peter or me on every fact. Peter has written to someone a few days ago:
I can be so confident because I write about the Human Condition. I have seen it working in me, I can see it working in everybody. * VINEETO: Well, I also found out that it does not need a psychic intuition or empathy to come to that conclusion. I could have reached there by straight forward common sense. RESPONDENT: I guess that you assume that the intellect or common sense is generated by biochemical processes within the body? VINEETO: How else? Do you assume there is a Divine Source that puts intelligent thoughts into our brains? Intelligence is part of the normal functioning of the brain. The problem is, that this innate intelligence, which humans have applied to create, for instance, all the technological progress, is distorted by the malice and sorrow of the Human Condition. With emotions and feelings operating one cannot think clearly, considerably and benevolently, everybody experienced this. Beliefs and concepts stifle intelligence because we prefer to believe and trust an authority rather than investigating facts for ourselves. Fear and the resulting self-centredness are the main hindrances for common sense. RESPONDENT: When I studied psychology some years ago, for only about three months because it’s really dry stuff, the main psychology course was taught by a professor who didn’t believe in the psyche. The book he warmly recommended to us was titled ‘Der Geist Fiel Nicht Vom Himmel’ (The Spirit or Psyche didn’t Fall from Heaven). The professor surely was a man of common sense, wasn’t he. He really believed that the Psyche is created by biochemistry of the body. It was a socialist university. In Louvain, at a catholic university, the psychology professor believed a soul or psyche exists, of course. Socialists tend to be materialistic, don’t they, maybe because of their long struggle against the church-supported governments, and they tend to be physical because of belonging to the working class, using their body a lot. VINEETO: What do you want to prove by giving me the example of two professors believing opposite theories? But then, what were your conclusions of their teaching? What facts did they give you, what were your investigations? You are presenting opposite beliefs, not facts. As I see it, psychology in itself is based on one assumption after the other, and the different schools are all unable to produce valid empirical facts to prove their theories. This is because psychology itself – I have studied it for four years – is trying to conceptualise, understand and change human emotions and behaviour. Behaviour is one thing, one can produce some empirical data on behaviour. But Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Carl Gustav Jung, Erich Fromm and others were trying to conceptualise something that is part of the collective psychic construct, produced in the head (or heart), feed by the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. From within the Human Condition, influenced by their current concepts, beliefs, upbringing or environment the particular psychologist is as trapped in his belief system as are his clients. Psychology tries to produce maps for the psychic world, whereas the fact is that the psychic world is a huge construct of imagination and instincts, and can be eliminated entirely (both ego and soul). Once you have stepped out of the real world of emotions and beliefs into the actual world, with the ‘self’ in temporary abeyance as in a pure consciousness experience, you can see the root cause of human emotions and beliefs very clearly. No psychology needed. * VINEETO: Once I saw with apperception – bare awareness – what I was doing, that I was joining this ‘real’ world of feelings and concepts, it disappeared in a ‘pop’. Now, being back here, I can communicate again about this so wondrous, fairy-tale-like, sensuous, obvious actual world... RESPONDENT: hmmm, sounds really Osho-like VINEETO: It is very hard to talk about something outside of beliefs to a believer. And I am still new in this business of describing actual freedom. I only know how I got out of my spiritual beliefs and that it rocked me to the very core. I have seen the psychic world from the outside like planet earth from a space-ship. Once you dare not to assume or imagine anything and only rely on your physical senses, this psychic world is seen as the imagination it is, woven by all of humanity since humans have lived on earth... quite a challenging thing to question or leave behind. Or do you say that Osho was not talking about transcending the body, transcending sex, in order to become enlightened? ‘Sensuous’ includes all physical senses – but definitely not the sixth sense, which is imagination. RESPONDENT: You could call the AFH process stupid then, or unnecessary, or you could be grateful that it enabled you to discover something precious. It would be silly for you to do the AFH now, but it wasn’t silly at the time. VINEETO: I did not call the AFH process stupid. I told the story to explain about postponement, and that this intense group process triggered my peak-experience. Most probably others had those experiences in similar processes. I also said, I then filed it away as simply one of those group-highs, and by doing this I avoided the full impact of it. Afterwards I went back to hoping for enlightenment, hoping for the right man, hoping for ‘Existence’ to reward me for my efforts... * VINEETO: With this insight that there is only now, that I live only now, and that there is no heaven to go to – I woke up into full awareness and aliveness. Postponement only brings more misery, hope is for the hesitant one who does not want to take the first step to freedom. RESPONDENT: very Osho-like VINEETO: It may look like that at first glance, but Osho talks about ‘leaving the body’, not dying. He said he would dissolve into his people, when he dies, so there must be something he believed would remain of him after his bones were burnt. His ‘now’ always had the implication that there is also a life-after-death. Once I fully accepted the fact that life after death is a mere belief, dearly ‘wished for’ by the psychological and psychic entity within, the very impact brought now, this very moment, much closer. RESPONDENT: What do you think Osho said about living here and now? Is it really that different from what you are saying? Don’t tell me he promised God or Heaven, because I know for a fact that he didn’t. VINEETO: What do you mean ‘I know for a fact that he didn’t’. Yes, he didn’t promise the Christian or Jewish God or Heaven, but he kept talking about the divinity of Existence, dissolving into Godliness. The concept changed from God as a person to God as a quality. If I meditated enough I would reach that Godliness or discover it in me. * VINEETO: And this is where I see one of the main differences between the freedom, Peter and I talk about, and the teachings of the enlightened masters of all ages: the concept of life after death. ‘Eternity’ was a good attraction at the time, improving on the notion of the Christian heaven and hell. The idea was that the soul was eternal, and would live on for ever and ever, evolving and in bliss, or, in endless re-incarnations of sorting out one’s karma. It offered the dream of ‘me’ living on for ever, even after physical death, ‘I’ would continue... and it leads to the most insidious postponement – everything will be fixed with enlightenment or in Nirvana after death... RESPONDENT: I don’t know where you as a sannyasin got all these ideas from, because all what you are saying here are just your interpretation of what enlightened masters of all ages intended. VINEETO: How did you interpret all the stories about life after death, about dissolving into the divine energy of Existence, about re-incarnation and karma? Wasn’t re-incarnation one of the very reasons to become enlightened in this life-time, to stop the wheel of endless births and deaths? It definitely was it for me. * VINEETO: This belief in eternity comes in many forms and disguises, but if you take a closer look, you will always find that the Divine, the Melting with the Universe, the Dissolution into the Greater Whole – life after death – are part of Eastern teaching. RESPONDENT: ‘Eastern Teaching’... this again illustrates your tendency to generalize. There are many different so called Eastern teachings. And certainly Osho isn’t part of it. You’re on a sannyas-list and ‘Eastern Teaching’, or what you present of it, is irrelevant here. VINEETO: Ok, if you want to – I can give you two quotes to ponder about:
I have come to see Osho’s teaching as a modern version of Eastern Teaching. He talked on Buddha, Krishna, the Zen-Masters, Zarathustra, the Sufi-Masters, Lao-Tzu, Ramakrishna, on all the important representatives of Eastern and Western religions. But in order to question the Master after a devotional relationship of almost two-thirds of my adult life, I first had to question several ingrained concepts in me. I found the belief in authority was a big issue and a strong need, to always have somebody to guide me, love me and to belong to. Surrender to his authority was an easy option. There was also the belief in God or Existence, the ultimate and invisible authority, some (non-physical) energy outside of me and outside of the physical universe. This energy represented the ultimate power and Wisdom. Dismantling the need and belief in authority allowed me to stand on my own feet for the first time in my life. What a freedom not have to react to people, men in particular, out of superiority or inferiority, but to be able to communicate with everybody as fellow human beings! Now I am my own authority, deciding what is silly and sensible, using the common and practical intelligence of the human brain. I am responsible for every action in my life and I can acknowledge that now. However, this meant that from then on, I could not blame anybody for making me jealous, miserable, grumpy, afraid, angry or frustrated over any issue. Now there was no more excuse, no more hiding place. These emotions were my reactions and my behaviour, which I had to face and change in order to be free. And then there was love. The need to be loved and the hope to become Divine Love one day. Love for the Master made it impossible to question anything he said; I was following him not only for bliss, but for love. And yet, so many things didn’t add up. I had needed to explore the nature of the bonds with the Master and face the fears which came along with dismantling my relationship with Him – he who claimed to represent the ‘Absolute Truth’ in the spiritual world. Once I had seen through the belief in the ultimate authority of God or Existence, I could then more easily set out to investigate the facts of enlightenment. You see, all those beliefs I had to tackle first in me, before Peter and I could begin to talk openly about Osho without me being offended. If you are ready to look for proof that Osho was in fact talking about godliness, divinity, merging with the Universe, etc. you can send the search function through one of the discourses on the Osho-website, read without Sannyas-eyes and find out the answer for yourself. * VINEETO: The eternal, undying soul spoils the game of living now as the only moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, but if it does, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the soul doesn’t exist. Concepts may spoil the only moment of being alive (and not even this is true, because it’s great fun to joke with concepts and joking is perhaps the very best way of being in the moment), but the fact that some people’s ideas about the soul makes them unhappy doesn’t necessarily imply that the soul doesn’t exist. It’s just that some people do not understand, that’s all. VINEETO: Strange way to argue, I must say. Are you saying, the soul exists, and some people don’t understand it? You don’t say how you know that the soul exists. Yes, many, many people teach, believe and fervently hope that the soul exists. That does not make it a fact. No scientist has ever seen it or weighed it – and they have gone a great length to prove the existence of a physical thing they could call soul or spirit. And if it is not perceivable by the physical senses, it must be a concept, an imagination. What is your concept about the soul? The soul is the part of the ‘self’ that everybody wants to keep and nurture, and that nobody has dared to question in its totality. Our identity is made up of ego and soul, the one who ‘we think we are’ and the one who ‘we feel we are’. In Eastern teaching the aim is to get rid of the ego, and one is then rewarded with ‘universal love’, the feeling of being ‘one with everything’ and eternal bliss. One’s identity simply shifts from the ego to the soul, from the head to the heart via sublimation of the bad emotions and enhancing of the good emotions. The core of the problem, emotions and instinctual passions are not given an ounce of consideration. * VINEETO: That’s where Richard shocked my out of my socks: He proposed that there is no life after death. You die when you die, full stop, basta, finito, extinct. RESPONDENT: This is not a fact at all. It’s a good method to become more concerned about living now but it is not a fact. It’s as you say, a proposition. VINEETO: Could you explain, why this is not a fact to you? Have you talked to any dead people who have physically returned to earth and reported evidence of life after death? Have you seen photographs of spirits when they returned to earth? Spiritists over centuries have tried to provide factual evidence of what they ‘see’ ie. imagine, but none has been able to come up with satisfying material. Life after death has never been actually proven, and I see no point in taking your belief as a fact. It remains a belief. To believe is to ‘fervently wish to be true’. And there is no doubt that humans fervently and desperately wish for an after-life, an immortality of some kind. * VINEETO: When I asked Richard why he is so confidently positive about this statement, he replied: ‘Because there is nobody and nothing in me that lives on, I am only this flesh and blood body, there is no soul, no entity inside this body that could live on.’ ... RESPONDENT: He is not the only one who said that man has no soul; again this is no proof that the soul is only imagination. If people pretend they have a soul when they haven’t then, of course, they imagine, but who knows, perhaps there are some people with a soul. It’s not that I hope there are some, mind you, it’s just impossible to state as a fact that a soul does not ever exist in a human being. The only fact here is that a lot of conceptualization exists in the world. VINEETO: I actually don’t know what you mean by ‘soul’ which some people have and some don’t. I understand ‘soul’ as the sum of heart and feelings, human aspirations, the ‘thing’ that lives on after the death of the ego and after physical death. Since there is no physical evidence of a soul in the human body, that proves that it is a concept and imagination – a very powerful imagination as such. It is believed by all of Humanity, in some form or other. Most religions have a heaven to go to after death and others believe in their ancestors watching over them. In the past have experienced glorious heartful moments and days which were filled with warmth and love-for-all. But living in the actual world now most of the time, without the ups and downs of those soulful feelings, life is fresh each moment, thrilling, wondrous, a dance and a delight. Richard stated that there is nothing in him, neither ego nor soul, which would live on after his
physical death. He had become enlightened (got rid of his ego) in 1981. But something was never quite right. So, in years of investigation he
worked himself out of the immense delusion and imagination of the concept and feeling of being the ‘soul’ by questioning everything that was
not experienced by the physical senses. It is not just a statement or a concept that there is no soul. It is his very ongoing experience. To make
up your own mind you might want to read about * VINEETO: But if one single man can live outside of imagination, can live without love and emotion, then emotions and soul are not facts but collective products of our fertile imagination and instinctual programming. RESPONDENT: This is reasoning as good as any. VINEETO: I found it so convincing that I had to question my own dearly held convictions. * VINEETO: Then, the concepts of ‘divine energy’, ‘eternal soul’, ‘Existence looking after us’, etc, are seen as only built and refined over the centuries to keep the fear of death at bay, to console us about the terrifying fact of approaching death. RESPONDENT: Of course, but it doesn’t prove that ‘divine energy’ or ‘eternal soul’ are concepts to all people. Generalizing again here. VINEETO: You seem to say they are facts and not concepts for you. How? What makes them facts for you? * VINEETO: It was a shock and not easy to look the fear of death in the face, but it brought me here. Not knowing if I am alive tomorrow, I can only live this moment – there is no afterlife. If I don’t like life now, I am the only one to change it. To say, as I often heard quoted, that ‘everything is perfect as it is’ or, ‘one gets on with life and life will take care’ are just more disguises for the same postponement. RESPONDENT: This is your interpretation of ‘everything is perfect as it is’. To me everything is perfect as it is, but postponement is not necessarily a consequence. VINEETO: First of all, you say, ‘not necessarily’. So you know about the possibility of postponement. Second, everything is only perfect in the actual world. Humans don’t live in the actual world, they live in the ‘real’ world of malice and sorrow. In the ‘real’ world they argue with, fight and kill each other, every day. Or they live in the spirit-ual world, where they merely pretend that the ‘real’ world doesn’t exist – and then are able to say ‘everything is perfect as it is’. * VINEETO: I had taken all those things quoted as facts, before I met Richard, but they could not stand the scrutiny of my discrimination. I had strong experiences or ‘realisations’ about truth, love, hope etc. and that had made it all the easier to believe them as real – I don’t deny that those experiences are real. But they are not actual, which means, you cannot verify them through seeing, touching, hearing, smelling or tasting them. They exist in the head and only in the head (or are felt in the heart), and they are different for everybody. A Christian sees Jesus in a vision, a Sannyasins may hear Osho talk ‘truth’ in their minds. RESPONDENT: So you’ve learned, you have seen that YOU made concepts. The trouble was not in the words ‘everything is perfect as it is’, but in you. The trouble is not in the teaching but in you who interpreted it. There’s no need to shit on the teaching as you are now or is there. VINEETO: I had always defended the Master and blamed me. It is part of believing in authority. Once that belief in authority was questioned and eliminated, I could come back to the issue, examine the teachings of the master and the life of the master, what he said, what the result was, for me, for others and for the country that had been stricken with Eastern teachings since millennia. It revealed a totally different picture. But everybody has to do that for him/herself. That’s all that this discussion is about – to twig anybody who is interested into finding out for themselves, rather than believing what others say...
VINEETO: I agree fully with your understanding that it is very good to question all the beliefs one has. It is the first and most important step to experience the actual world, which is only hidden behind all the concepts, emotions and beliefs we have heaped on top of it. For instance, the moon was for Gurdjieff not just the moon, but the place where all souls would go. How could he see the moon as the big piece of rock that it factually is? RESPONDENT: It’s only possible to say something within the context of some teaching, e.g. science. Science is limited by the sensitivity of the instruments to do research with. The rockiness of the moon is therefore only factual within limits. Gurdjieff said that man has no soul and that suffering feeds the moon. This may very well have been factual for him even though it isn’t for me. VINEETO: First, science is not a teaching – at least not until Einstein came and based physics on his (maybe never provable) hypothesis’.
Second, I could say, because science hasn’t invented the green-cheese-microscope, it doesn’t mean, the moon is not made of green cheese. How do you want to prove that theory wrong? According to science everything unproven is a hypothesis. So the idea that suffering feeds the moon is either a hypothesis or a belief, not a fact. And so is the belief in a soul – until we have invented the soul-weighing- or the soul-colouring-machine. And third, if it is not factual for you, why defend Gurdjieff’s theory? How can a fact in Gurdjieff’s time be a non-fact today? * VINEETO: I spent a lot of time with Peter, had resistance at the start – being a devout sannyasin then – RESPONDENT: When devout, there’s all possibility to go to the opposite, becoming ‘ factual ’ as you call it. It’s the other side of the same coin. VINEETO: Maybe you haven’t studied psychology long enough to know that moving to the opposite is not one’s only option – even as a psychological reaction. I was a Sannyasin, because in my understanding Sannyas was the best on offer at the time. The longer I was on the spiritual path, the more I was determined to become the best I could be – at that time that was getting rid of the ego. Upon meeting Richard, I had to admit that I had not seen everything yet. There was something still better on offer – the purity of the actual world, not only without ego, but also without soul or being. Further, I discovered that applying his method brought results within a few months – the tangible results of becoming happy and harmless, of being able to live together in utter peace and harmony with a man 24 h a day, every day. It is not the other side of the same coin. It is not an opposite belief – I have come to my senses. * VINEETO: The first thing I had to do after 17 years of spiritual conditioning was to switch my brain back on. I delighted in using my intelligence again, started doubting the old, used scrutiny and discrimination to slowly question everything that I had taken for granted wisdom. What a gullible person I had been, you could have told me any fairy-story of astrology and invisible energies, channelling and chakras, and I was ready to believe it all! RESPONDENT: Now you’re ready to deny it all, which is the other extreme. VINEETO: I don’t have to deny it, those fairy-stories are simply not the case. The ‘only’ thing I had to do was to dare and question what I believed, to dare and live without believing. * VINEETO: And then I encountered fear – fear to leave the familiar fold – my peers, my sannyasin friends and acquaintances, the women’s club with their particular beliefs and feelings, family-sentiments, love-dreams. Most of all, I was fearful to question the authority of Osho, of God, of the divine plan behind it all, and the belief in authority as such. Suddenly I had to realize and acknowledge that I am alone, standing on my own two feet, nobody is there who knows ‘the truth’ and no all-caring and all-powerful ‘Existence’ is ‘taking care of me’. RESPONDENT: So the truth can’t be reached then or hasn’t been reached yet. Up until now Richard, Peter and you have not discovered the truth either. VINEETO: I don’t talk about ‘discovering the truth’. ‘Truth’ is simply just another belief, believed by many and experienced by some as emotional conviction. Truth is like love and bliss, a construct of our incredibly powerful fervent imagination. Once you step out of imagination, truth simply disappears, and you leave your ‘self’ behind and step into the actual world of perfection and magic, purity and delight. No truth needed. The actual world is already always here. * VINEETO: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? This is the core sentence and the method to all of Richard’s discoveries, the key to the actual world. With this sentence you can take apart the whole of your psyche, bit by bit, digging deeper and deeper into your unconscious. Whenever you are not happy now, there is something to look at. And every moment not happy, or not investigating into the reasons of unhappiness, is a wasted moment. There is only now, only this moment; yesterday is but a memory, tomorrow but a fantasy. If I waste this moment of being alive, because I am complaining about something, or I am worried or half-hearted, it is a wasted moment of my life. It is so wonderfully simple, so obvious – and yet, with all our conditioning, beliefs, emotions and instincts in action, it is very difficult to understand and actualize. But now, with this method, you can examine and investigate everything that keeps you from being happy now. RESPONDENT: There’s nothing new under the sun. VINEETO: Well, if this is not new for you, tell me, what are your discoveries when you apply this method, every day, each time you are not happy, each time you are proud, sarcastic, annoyed, bored, irritated, sad, resigned, cynical, resigned or desperate? If that method is all too well known to you, tell me what success you had with it in your life. Are you happy and harmless, every day, whatever the circumstances? Do you live with your woman in peace, harmony and equity all day long, day-in, day-out? And, if it is not new, and you apply it with success, why do object to what I say? I have never come across such a radical and successful method before that can clean you up completely from any identity whatsoever. Pursuing this method sincerely and relentless one can rid oneself completely of the psychological and psychic entity inside of oneself. I assume that’s why so many people object – it works. It has worked for me, and I am nobody special. I am an ordinary person, a down to earth, normal, flesh and blood human being, and if I can do it, anybody can do it who wants to take the challenge. You said in your mail to Peter the other day, ‘for myself the limit is that that masters shouldn’t be dead for more than 50 years’ . What do you do with the dead masters then? Bury them? Delete them? Why should their guidance be as old as 50 years, and what’s the need for any authority at all? Why not rely on your own sensibility and sensate experience of this moment of being alive? After all, it is the only moment you can experience being alive.
RESPONDENT: I have never seen the collective psychic world of fear. Show it to me, prove it to me. Whether or not it exist is immaterial to me. VINEETO: Well, you can only see it if you are not completely in it. The words in your letter convey very clearly that you are living right in the middle of this psychic world of fear and dread. Maybe you have your emotions so well under control that you don’t feel them. But your writing is self-evident in that you live in that grey, dead, dreadful world of no-concept, no hope, no delight, no life. It is ‘immaterial’ to you whether it exists or not, because, from your own words, this psychic world of indifference and ‘via negativa’ is your only reality, all that you know and live in. RESPONDENT:
VINEETO: So Osho was lullabying you out of the real world into the spiritual world of no-mind. RESPONDENT:
VINEETO: If life after death is not your concern, and you are not concerned with life here on earth (you call it illusory) then I guess you are not concerned with life and living at all. * VINEETO: To believe is to ‘fervently wish to be true’. And there is no doubt that humans fervently and desperately wish for an after-life of some kind. RESPONDENT:
VINEETO: Yes, you are right, there is no point in writing to you any further. If you guess you can’t get rid of fear, then you will have to live the rest of your life in fear – and that is your choice. But negating and trying to deny that there is now a way out of the mess which the spiritual teaching has put humanity in, is simply stupid and destructive. There is a third alternative to being normal and being spiritual (hopeless). You could be alive, in your senses and see a coffee-cup as a coffee-cup and not as an assumption or an illusion. The only way out of dread is coming back to here , into the actual world. You have decided it is not for you. So be it. I have decided not to spend the rest of my life in fear and dread, and it worked. I decided not to stop in the middle. Only the death of the psychological and psychic entity inside of you, which produces doubt, fear and dread, makes it possible to be fully living in this sparkling, magical actual world. Nothing else is needed but the complete extinction of the psychological and psychic entity – and nothing less will do.
RESPONDENT: ‘A pity that the List server doesn’t accept pictures, isn’t it. Pictures say more than a thousand words, hence enable one to be brief. And yes, the ladies made me giggle too, laugh actually. I already forwarded it to a friend in need...’ VINEETO: Oh, good, aren’t they cute? Yes, I agree, and a pity also that I cannot send you the smell of the night-jasmine from outside my window or the dripping sound of raindrops on palm-leaves and tin-roof, the smoothness of night air, perfect temperature, moist and soft... So I use words to convey a little bit of it, to describe this very paradise we are living in. You might experience very similar smells, sounds, sensations where you are... or different ones, but with similar delight. Nice to hear from you. How are you doing?
RESPONDENT: A pity that the List server doesn’t accept pictures, isn’t it. Pictures say more than a thousand words, hence enable one to be brief. VINEETO: Yes, I agree, and a pity also that I cannot send you the smell of the night-jasmine from outside my window or the dripping sound of raindrops on palm-leaves and tin-roof, the smoothness of night air, perfect temperature, moist and soft... So I use words to convey a little bit of it, to describe this very paradise we are living in. You might experience very similar smells, sounds, sensations where you are... or different ones, but with similar delight. Nice to hear from you. How are you doing? RESPONDENT: I’m doing fine, thank God... Why do you say ‘nice’? After so many months I guess I’m supposed to know it’s not a feeling of yours, but rather a bodily sensation which you are able to label as niceness, isn’t it. But why is it there? Or is it just a manner of speech, and are you sensing niceness all the time, ‘nice to hear from you, and nice not to hear from you as well’. Perhaps you are living in a world of no peaks and no valleys, no highs and no lows, which is ‘nice’, but not as opposed to ‘awkward’? Or do you, being not more than a physical body, also know not so nice sensations, which others on the list, in your view mistakenly, would describe as ‘being offended’? I mean there are offensive smells, so are there offensive messages as well in that material sense? Do you make distinction between nice, nicer, very nice, not so nice? Why would you want to share the paradise you live in, if you couldn’t possibly FEEL like doing so? Again a purely bodily felt urge? Just common sense? A logical deduction that being without sorrow and malice is preferable to being miserable? Why bother about others at all if you don’t feel compassion or love or even kindness? Now, answer me privately, and take it as an exercise to be brief. In due course, as a reward, you may then be able to write common-sense sutra’s to the list as well... VINEETO: Look, I don’t know if I have disturbed your ‘thank-god’ peace... If you really want to know how it is possible to live without emotions, feelings and instincts then maybe you can ask straight questions – I have no objections to answering any question. But of the above I can’t make head nor tail what it is that you are asking or hinting at. Nice simply means nice, it is a unpretentious expression for the joy to be alive and to communicate with a fellow human being. I was simply wondering how you were doing after you disappeared from the list for a while ... Benevolence is the quality of the physical universe, it is neither love nor compassion, neither ‘feeling’ nor ‘being’. When everything of ‘me’ is eliminated, the actual world becomes apparent. Benevolence is intrinsic to the actual world.
VINEETO: Benevolence is the quality of the physical universe, it is neither love nor compassion, neither ‘feeling’ nor ‘being’. When everything of ‘me’ is eliminated, the actual world becomes apparent. Benevolence is intrinsic to the actual world. RESPONDENT: Benevolence is a quality of the physical universe’, you say. According to my dictionary ‘universe’ means ‘the totality of all the things that exist; creation; the cosmos’. So we can assume that anything physically limited in space such as a rock, a door, a car, the moon, the sun is not benevolent. But, according to you, as soon as we take it all together, as the physical universe, suddenly there’s benevolence. How can that be? This is a mystery isn’t it? Can this magical and sudden appearance be explained or understood by your common-sense? VINEETO: There is no malice and sorrow in the physical universe. There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad, sadness, grief, compassion, love, or any other feeling in the physical universe. These are feelings that are in human beings only (and in a rudimentary form in some animals). Feelings and instincts are both the product and the very substance of the psychological and psychic entity within the human body. So when you rid yourself from this alien entity within the human body, when there is no malice and sorrow in this human body, the perfection and benevolence become apparent. It is the Human Condition that prevents human beings from being as pure and perfect as the physical universe and thus from experiencing the purity, perfection and benevolence of this infinite magnificence of the actual world. RESPONDENT: Also, you, sensing this benevolence, after eliminating all emotions, feelings and instincts, are living in a paradise and you would want others to experience the same. But it isn’t love or compassion, you say, oh beware me no, but benevolence. VINEETO: No, it is neither love nor compassion, for love and compassion are passions (com-passion), they stem from the feeling of separation and loneliness. Without bad feelings there is no need for good feelings to compensate – no malice, no love – no sorrow, no compassion. Compassion is sharing sorrow with other human beings, it keeps everyone trapped in the idea that this earth is a terrible place to live.
And it is simply common sense. Why should I not want everybody to share the same paradise? Why not have peace on earth, for everybody? We are fellow human beings. Anybody, who wants to, can do the same thing that I did and live in the same benevolent paradise that I live in. Doesn’t that make sense? RESPONDENT: Isn’t this inventing of new terms a playing with words only to separate yourself from other similar sounding statements made by, say, sannyasins? To emphasise that they are 180 degrees wrong and you are right? VINEETO: Well, it you who insists that both should be the same thing. I am not inventing new terms for the same thing, I am using words to describe a different thing. When airplanes were invented, they weren’t called ‘cars’. Two different words for two different things. Love and compassion are feelings within the Human Condition, they are a well-meaning but futile attempt by the psychic entity to mimic the actual intimacy and benevolence which become apparent when ‘I’ disappear. Why shouldn’t it be possible that there is something new under the sun, something that actually works? It is my very experience, every day.
VINEETO: I must warn you right in the beginning, that this is a really long piece of writing. I did not want to be sloppy and explain the subject shorter – the benevolence of the physical universe without the superimposed human invention of a creator or ‘divine energy’. I guess, there is always the delete button... RESPONDENT: So we can assume that anything physically limited in space such as a rock, a door, a car, the moon, the sun is not benevolent. But, according to you, as soon as we take it all together, as the physical universe, suddenly there’s benevolence. How can that be? This is a mystery isn’t it? Can this magical and sudden appearance be explained or understood by your common-sense? VINEETO: There is no malice and sorrow in the physical universe. There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad, sadness, grief, compassion, love, or any other feeling in the physical universe. These are feelings that are in human beings only (and in a rudimentary form in some animals). Feelings and instincts are both the product and the very substance of the psychological and psychic entity within the human body. So when you rid yourself from this alien entity within the human body, when there is no malice and sorrow in this human body, the perfection and benevolence become apparent. It is the Human Condition that prevents human beings from being as pure and perfect as the physical universe and thus from experiencing the purity, perfection and benevolence of this infinite magnificence of the actual world. RESPONDENT: Vineeto, I know this by now. You didn’t answer the question. It is this: you, as an actualist advocate the use of common sense. You say that benevolence is the attribute of the physical universe. Since the universe is infinite, we can assume that anything limited in space, say a chair, is not benevolent. VINEETO: The point of this conversation is that I talk about my experience. Without the feeling of fear or power there is only benevolence around me and in me. To convey a ‘proof’ of that experience to someone who is convinced that the world consists of good and bad, sorrow and compassion, aggression and love is almost doomed to fail. To understand, one needs to contemplate the very possibility of it being possible.
That is where the peak-experience comes in. You might remember a moment or a brief period when you felt neither fear nor love, neither sorrow nor compassion, but a startling at-easeness and clarity, as if seeing this magnificent world for the first time with open eyes. In such a moment of purity, when the ‘self’ and its editing and distorting emotions are temporary absent, one can experience this very obvious benignity and benevolence of the actual world. Now to your question: RESPONDENT: ... you, as an actualist advocate the use of common sense. You say that benevolence is the attribute of the physical universe. Since the universe is infinite, we can assume that anything limited in space, say a chair, is not benevolent. VINEETO:
Maybe you can see it from the other side – in the physical universe there is neither good nor evil; both good and evil are values of the Human Condition – the basic instincts of aggression, fear, nurture and desire, overlaid by our ‘identity’. Remove that construct and what you are left with is neither good nor evil, but a benign and benevolent physical actuality. But as we are all inflicted with the Human Condition, we perceive the world only in terms of human emotions, interpreting everything according to the way we have been programmed and taught, according to morals and ethics, fear, love and hate. Take rain as an example – somebody might find it beautiful, another feels sorrowful, another angry when a rainy day is disturbing his plans. Everyone has an emotional interpretation, a self-centred reaction. Rain is just rain, in itself benign and benevolent. It is benign in that it intends no harm, and it is benevolent in its quality of bringing nourishment and delight, the delight you experience when you yourself are benign. RESPONDENT: So why is it that when all physical objects are taken together as a physical universe, suddenly benevolence appears. This is beyond my common sense. Moreover, benevolence isn’t physical, is it. VINEETO: To understand that benevolence is physical you first have to understand the term ‘actual’. Actual means ‘not merely passive’. It describes the experience that nothing in this physical universe is dead, things are continuously evolving and changing. A seed grows into a carrot, when I eat them they turn into my skin, flesh, bones and brain. A timber table has its own life from seed to tree to timber to crafted furniture to aged wood and then it is deteriorating into soil. The continuous movement is a physical one – there is nothing meta-physical in it. It never stops, never ends. Benevolence is the intrinsic movement of the physical universe to be its best. A tree grows the best way it can, using whatever resources are available. Animals have an instinctual capacity to ensure the survival of the fittest, the strongest, the most adaptable. Vegetation and animals on this planet have evolved from the simplest to the most complex. Human beings with our incredibly refined ability to think and make sense of the world are the only intelligent species of the physical universe. This very computer is a visible outcome of the human brain, with colour-screen, background, sound, storage capacity and all its gimmicks. But this human brain is still restricted and distorted by our animal instincts in the primitive brain. The benevolence with its urge to be the best it can be has now evolved to a stage where it is possible to break free of the animal instincts, of the Human Condition. Fed by our intent to be the best we can be the brain can fix itself up, it can re-wire itself and eliminate the redundant instincts altogether. There is no divine, mystical or ethereal energy doing it, the urge to be its best is a physical quality of the universe. To put the idea of God into this obvious perfection and purity is to completely miss the point of the very magnificence happening around us all the time. Should you want to read a bit more on this issue, Peter’s chapter ‘Universe’ and ‘Evolution’ explain these fact a bit deeper, and Richard has written about it at length in his journal and correspondence. *
RESPONDENT: So actualism is not The Truth after all? VINEETO: No, actualism is not ‘The Truth’. The Truth is an invention as part of the Human Condition. There are, in fact, many variations of ‘The Truth’ – the multitude of religious wars are ample and passionate expression of those variations ... actualism is a tried and tested way of being here in the world as it actually is ... stripped of the veneer of reality that is super-imposed by the psychological and psychic entity within the body. And actualism is not a vision or belief, it is simply an accurate description of the actual world of sensual delight. * VINEETO: I am virtually free from both personal sorrow and Universal Sorrow and am able to be considerate without the emotional and passionate involvement that comes automatically with being an identity. And it is simply common sense. Why should I not want everybody to share the same paradise? Why not have peace on earth, for everybody? We are fellow human beings. Anybody, who wants to, can do the same thing that I did and live in the same benevolent paradise that I live in. Doesn’t that make sense to you? RESPONDENT: No it doesn’t. As an actualist, you are a body, nothing more, and are therefore limited in space. Benevolence is the quality of the physical universe which is infinite. Hence you couldn’t possibly be benevolent or considerate yourself. VINEETO: The feeling of being limited and separate comes from the alien psychological and psychic entity inside each human being. To overcome this feeling of separation and limitedness Eastern spirituality teaches to ‘stop thought’ and to identify solely as the ‘feeler’ in the heart. The resultant oceanic feeling of ‘Oneness’, ‘Unity’ and ‘Wholeness’ gives rise to the misconception that the separate self has been eliminated. As a matter of fact, the separation has only been bridged by a ‘connection’ to the other through the feeling of Love and Compassion. But the very problem, the separate (limited) psychic entity of the ‘feeler’ is still very much alive. It is the psychological ‘I’ and the psychic ‘me’, the alien entity ‘possessing’ this body that make me feel separate and limited in the first place. Without the ‘self’ there is nobody to be separate, and I experience the actuality, benignity and benevolence that is already present in the physical universe. You know, when I first realised that this universe is actually unlimited, vast, endless, without borders, I also knew that there is no place where gods could be – there is nothing outside this physical universe, there cannot be, by the very meaning of infinite. Have you ever gone to the NASA-site and looked at the horse-nebula, the neutron-stars, the cluster-galaxies, the earthrise seen from Apollo circling the moon? http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/ We are all made from the same stuff, physically, the stuff of the universe! Or have you ever looked at the actuality of a simple china coffee-cup? The texture, the colour, the design, and then considered the raw materials for it – they have developed on this planet for millions of years until they were discovered and manufactured into this simple coffee cup. The machines involved, the tools, the transport, ... This cup was manufactured somewhere on this planet, shipped to this country, driven to the shop where I bought it from, handled by many people... The universe is all one big happening, everything linked to something else, all happening at this very moment – nothing is merely passive. Whichever direction you look, there are physical wonders upon wonders, once the ego-centric and ‘soul-centric’ shackles are taken off one’s senses and brain. * VINEETO: Well, it is you who insists that it should be the same thing [benevolence and compassion]. I am not inventing new terms for the same thing, I am using words to describe a different thing. When airplanes were invented, they weren’t called ‘cars’. Two different words for two different things. RESPONDENT: Likewise it could be said that it is you who wants it to be different. If you insist on being different you may end up creating another movement thus adding to the division in the world and hence intensifying atrocities already there. VINEETO: ‘It being different’ and ‘me wanting it to be different’ are not the same thing. ‘It’ is different and that is a fact. Me objecting to that fact would simply be silly. To acknowledge the fact that compassion is a feeling of ‘me’ within the Human Condition and that benevolence is a quality experienced with ‘me’ absent is anathema to ‘me’. It is not something ‘I’ would want. Actualism is not a movement and never can be, only individual people can clean themselves up and discover the actual world for themselves. Everybody has to do it for him/herself. In actualism, power and compassion simply do not exist, and they are very ingredients needed for atrocities to happen. No passions, no wars. * VINEETO: Love and compassion are feelings within the Human Condition, they are a well-meaning but futile attempt by the psychic entity to mimic the actual intimacy and benevolence which become apparent when ‘I’ disappear. Why shouldn’t it be possible that there is something new under the sun, something that actually works? It is my very experience, every day. RESPONDENT: First: if something actually works, this doesn’t prove the failure of everything else. VINEETO: No, but it proves its superiority to everything that does not work. RESPONDENT: It may be possible that something new appears, but then how are we supposed to know? VINEETO: You will have to check it out for yourself – after all, to simply believe what everyone else tells you is to be gullible to the extreme. By the way, did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not in the dictionary? RESPONDENT: Actualists claim that they never lived before and will never live again afterwards. So whatever they know about past achievements of man comes out of books which doesn’t cover all of history and is an interpretation of the writers. VINEETO: Not only me or the ‘actualists’, nobody has lived before or will afterwards – they may imagine that they are eternally alive as ethereal spirits, but that is only an imagination born out of the fervent wish to be immortal. Therefore all the ‘Truths’ perceived from eternal souls, past lives, divine visions, etc. are a delusion (an illusion born out of an illusion). You are right, everything that is said or written is interpreted and perceived through the filters of the Human Condition. But nevertheless, one can sort out the facts about the past achievements of man from his beliefs and interpretations. Without the ‘self’, which is responsible for the distortion, one can sort facts from fiction. I discovered ‘me, the believer’ – now the very act of believing is impossible. Your next question is a chapter by itself. Now we come to the last bit of the fascinating discussion. You know, I delight in the challenge your questions give me, finding the right description ... maybe you understand what I talk about. I have not written about this before, although Peter and I have talked about it a lot, but I had not been as concise as in writing to others. You wanted to know why I said: ‘Nice to hear from you’. Well, I am having a great time. How ‘bout you?... RESPONDENT: I don’t think you read Akashic records, do you? VINEETO: Yes, I have been tapping into those Akashic Records when ‘I’ still lived in the psychic world, and I have been studying the phenomenon as such on my way to freedom. It is a fascinating subject. As I have seen it, ‘Akashic Records’ is another word for the whole of humanity’s beliefs, the whole of Ancient Wisdom. For some reason this collective belief is accessible to whoever expands his or her ambition and search in the direction of collective beliefs and feelings. Nevertheless, those ‘Akashic Records’ are nothing but humankind’s collective imagination with millions of details and variations. They are the whole of the atavistic beliefs and, as such, an intrinsic part of the Human Condition. In that collective psychic world one finds Universal Sorrow with its opposite – Compassion and Universal Dread with its opposite – Bliss. Those feelings, when one taps into them, are very powerful and convincing. You have probably experienced them yourself. They seem so all-encompassing as if there has never been anything as compelling and true as this experience. So powerful as to be convincingly real – one feels that one has discovered the Hidden Secrets of Humanity – that All has been revealed! That is simply due to the nature of the collective. And yet, these compelling feelings and thoughts are not actual. They only exist in the head (or heart). The moment I become aware of what is happening and, as a result, stop feeding them, they shrink into normal size emotions and eventually die away. Here is a bit that I wrote when I had an experience of Universal Dread – if you are interested... The desperate feeling of being forever trapped in the psychic world that I experienced during that dread is summed up in the saying that you keep quoting: ‘There is nothing new under the sun’.
This drama was one of the many that I encountered when dismantling the psychic entity in me, the very ‘who’ I thought and felt I was. It is an enormous drama, played out on the stage and along the script of humanity’s past. The more the ‘self’ felt exposed and threatened, the more the drama changed from being personal into being felt as the vastness of the collective psyche. It was an incredibly fascinating time, discovering the emotionally compelling, yet dreamlike fantasy world that the Human Psyche is capable of producing. As one piece after another of the psychic construct fell off ‘me’, it simultaneously removed another layer of the dampening and distorting veil that had covered my physical senses. The colours are now more vivid, the sounds multi-layered, the skin awake to feel the temperature and consistency of the air, the tiny hairs on the forearm being touched by the soft breeze, everything is alive, throbbing, delighting in the smorgasbord of the unending sensual pleasures that this world presents. Everybody teaches, believes and hopes that love and compassion are the remedy for misery and hate, and nobody told us that those ‘good’ emotions are as much part of the disease as the ‘bad’ emotions. To free oneself from the whole disease of the Human Condition, the Psychological as well as the Psychic World, is to arrive in the actual world of people, things and events. A flesh-and-blood body innocent of any ‘being’ whatsoever is benevolent, free of both good and evil, delighting each moment in the infinite magnificence of being here and being alive. Wow, what a big loop that was – from the Akashic Records back to the benevolence of the actual world – I am still catching my breath. I really enjoy this conversation. Tell me what you make of it.
VINEETO: Now we come to the last bit of the fascinating discussion. You know, I delight in the challenge your questions give me, to find the right description ... maybe you might understand what I talk about. RESPONDENT: The last bit indeed. And I do understand... It was perfectly clear to me from the very beginning that my pertinent questions would only incite you to plug the many holes in the ‘Ark of Noah’ of actualism. As a matter of fact I may be mentioned in the history books to have been at the cradle of actualism as one of its founding fathers, especially if they are written by ‘jokers’ like No. q, but what to do... As for your posts they are lengthy indeed, something one expects more from chapters in a book than from messages to a list. I will have to read them some other time if at all. But then others more in tune with actualism may read them, to their advantage or not, I leave this for them to decide. No doubt they will ask you many more questions, so you can look forward to some more ‘fascinating’ discussions. VINEETO: Ah, so the name of the game is asking ‘pertinent questions’ to poke ‘holes in ... actualism’ – is this the pirating game that No. 26 was talking about? It reminds me of the game we played as kids, we called it ‘sink the ship’ – blindly ‘shooting’ into the other’s territory of imaginary warships. The only thing I don’t understand is why you don’t even bother to check if you have sunk the ‘Arc of Noah’ – you don’t read the answers. So it’s blindly shooting and no communication – a strange pirating indeed. I had taken your questions for genuine interest and answered accordingly – explaining something radically new and different to both ‘normal’ and ‘spiritual’. Since actualism is not a vision or belief, philosophy or movement, but simply an accurate description of the actual world of sensual delight, it has no ‘holes’ – only delights that have not been described before.
RESPONDENT to No 23: If you want Peter to go to his own list, it’s perhaps not the best policy to start discussing the validity of his achievements on this list, or is it. I don’t want to exactly define what happened to him, but the impression I get from actualism is, that it is a good means of becoming at odds with the rest of the world, while at the same time interpreting this as proving one’s right. This seems to be a mental strategy, to feel more justified the more resistance an ‘actual’ attitude provokes. VINEETO: You obviously decided make your points about me now via No 23. When you say ‘mental strategy’ I assume that you refer to actualism as being not ‘affective’, as in eliminating emotions and feelings in order to experience the actuality of the physical world. What your impression overlooks is that there are three ways to experience the world: cerebral (mental), affective (feeling) and sensate (through the senses). Actualism is the experiential understanding that nothing physical is merely passive; the personal experience of the universe experiencing itself as a sensate (sic!) and reflective human being as opposed to a cerebral or affective perception. Therefore both of your impressions of it being ‘a mental strategy’ and of it evoking a feeling in me as in ‘feel more justified’ are false. RESPONDENT to No 23: Actualism feeds on resistance, isn’t it. Discussing with P & V always turns out to be a confrontation of two different worlds, two continents pushing against each other with actualists always managing for the opposing continent to slide under theirs, pushing it upwards; I guess that to be on top is an indication of superiority, and must really feel good. VINEETO: Actualism doesn’t ‘feed on resistance’ but, as it is a different world to the spiritual-feeling world, it certainly provokes resistance as it offers an alternative that goes against everything that has been taught as wisdom up to now. It is non-affective and non-cerebral, has no beliefs, no spirits, no soul, no life after death – and to top it off, it makes you aware of the fact that every human being is born with primitive animal instincts ... brrr, and who wants to hear that! And yet, as you have noticed, facts are superior to beliefs and common sense, with its capacity to distinguish between silly and sensible, is superior to any morals of good and bad. Furthermore, a direct experience of the magic and magnificence of the physical world is far superior to any affective experience, and being happy and harmless, as the direct result of the elimination of ‘self’, beats enlightenment by a country mile. Just facts. It is not merely ‘feeling’ good, it is simply living perfection. RESPONDENT to No 23: It’s strange how P & V constantly misunderstand; Vineeto, e.g. asked me in her last missive why I didn’t want to read it, to see whether or not I had succeeded in sinking the ‘Ark of Noah’ of actualism. Apparently I failed to make her understand that ‘The Ark of actualism’ can never come to the surface in the first place, unless discussion continues. I tried to indicate to her that pertinent questions couldn’t possibly sink the Ark if she continued to diligently use the impact of them to plug up the holes already present, because the opposite would happen: it would come afloat. VINEETO: As Peter already pointed out in the last mail that ‘Anyone of spiritual conviction is so far from having the ability to apply common sense that for them to even use the term leaves me gasping in incredulity.’ Therefore misunderstanding is bound to happen. And one thing you obviously fail to understand is that actualism is an accurate description of the actual world of sensual delight. What you call ‘holes already present’ is simply a result of the blinkers of the ‘self’ that everyone is wearing, be they aware of it or not. It prevents one to see what has always been right under our noses. RESPONDENT to No. 23: Asking pertinent questions only refines [Vineeto’s] system of thought, it seems, to the point of eventually becoming infallible. Now it is typical and for the mind very appealing to try and create such a system of thought, isn’t it. And who would want to further participate in that? VINEETO: Actual Freedom is infallible – because it is actual and not a system of thought. How can this rain pouring down be fallible, how can the wind rustling the leaves be fallible, how can the clicking of the keyboard be fallible, how can the taste of ‘liverwurst’ and cucumber pickles in my mouth be fallible – it is already here, sensately actual. Human beings, with their clouded perception of feelings, emotions, beliefs and instincts – the ‘self’ – are unable to experience the universe in its abundance, magnificence, purity and perfection. As you can see by the reaction on this list – it is obvious that to acknowledge those facts and to question dearly-held beliefs and feelings is not ‘appealing for the mind’ at all – nor for the heart. The very fact that there is a method that works that eliminates the ‘self’ completely – and not merely transcends it into a grand ‘Self’ – makes it non-appealing to people who are keen to keeping their ‘self’ intact. You are right here – ‘who would want to further participate in that?’ Being the universe experiencing itself as a human being – once experienced – is so blindingly and obviously superior to anything else that I have ever come across in my spiritual search.
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
