|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on Mailing List D Correspondent No 4
VINEETO: Hi No 4, RESPONDENT No 5 to Richard: How can I be sure? You explain in a way that everyone can understand? RESPONDENT No 1: No 5, Richard uses an Oxford Dictionary for a pillow at night while he sleeps, and his PCE absorbs all the words and meanings which he altruistically uses to razzle-dazzle us into understanding his present state of mind (whatever that is). In other words, don’t worry about not understanding Richard, for he delights in being the only one of his kind in the world, of all time, and if you understood him, then he could not be the undisputed ruler and sole owner of all that he knows and understands. VINEETO: No 1, this is such a silly comment that I was tempted to send in a reply. I have been reading on the list since months, but never wrote. Personally, I can understand what Richard writes, and the longer I read the easier it is for me to understand his explanations about animal instincts, the human condition and a way to peace-on-earth. I am applying the method that he has described on the list many times, over a period of two years, with great success. Therefore your argument of him being ‘the undisputed ruler and sole owner of all that he knows and understands’ is simply a silly excuse – for if you actually understand what Richard talks about, peace-on-earth in this lifetime, then that understanding calls for unilateral action, for changing oneself. And who would want to give up their comfortable concepts and theories and start actually investigating themselves and changing their behaviour in order to become actually free of malice and sorrow? It is so much easier to find fault with the one who is talking about peace-on-earth than to get off one’s bum and investigate one’s own emotions, isn’t it? RESPONDENT: Namaste Friends, If you actually understand what Richard talks about you would realize, Good Friend Vineeto, that to post a response to such an obviously emotional offering is the height of folly and the furthest thing from the unencumbered intelligence that one must be if they have been applying the method that he (Richard) has described on the list many times since two years, with great success. Emotion, the compensatory response that is the cause of Beautiful No 1’s offering, has not the capacity to understand, yes? And whatever intelligence present is unable to read your offering because it is the strangle hold of the unintelligent emotion, yes? After all, according to Good Richard, the world is in the control of the disease of emotion. VINEETO: According to your logic talking to anybody would be ‘the height of folly’ because every human being is an emotional being, genetically programmed with instinctual passions. The silliness I responded to was the pretence of No. 5 and No. 1 not to understand what Richard is talking about, whereas it is such a simple statement that one can permanently get rid of one’s whole identity, both ego and soul. It is such a degrading, particularly female, conditioning to play silly instead of simply stating that ‘I disagree’. RESPONDENT: It is so much easier to find fault with the one who is talking from disease than to ask why one does not understand, as the dictates of Actual Freedom demands one must, what a complete and utter waste of time and resources offering a response is, isn’t it? VINEETO: It is such a degrading, particularly male, conditioning to pretend to know what the other is saying rather than admit that one hasn’t a clue. It is also a clever way to avoid having to admit to the possibility that the other may well be right! RESPONDENT: I wonder what Good Richard would think of the claim of ‘great success’ with his offerings? From here, I can see no space for there to be any particular level, great or poor, of success in what Richard offers. It is all or nothing, yes? There is no intelligence in the thought of a partial suicide, yes? Much Love VINEETO: ‘From here’, your spiritual world, is the wrong place to get the whole view. From the actual world where I live I have experienced increasing success ever since I started to apply the method – I am living with a man in perfect equity, peace and harmony for 24 hrs a day and I am having a perfect day 99% of my time. Actual Freedom is not ‘suicide’, it is self-immolation, and those two are 180 degrees apart. RESPONDENT: PS: Are you thinking of replying Good Friend Vineeto? Are those thoughts a failing in Good Richard’s method that he has described on the list many times since two years, and you have applied with great success, or have you failed to understand what the success of Good Richard’s methods actually means? There is no failure here. Your measure of success is certainly different to measuring actual success. It is your interpretation of what I wrote that makes you ‘fail to understand’ and revert to supercilious replies that make no sense. Contrary to spiritual teaching where there is only one end-result, if one removes one’s concept of one’s parochial self, actualism is about instigating actual change and that actual change shows instant success in my life and my relationship with my fellow human beings with every facet of identity, be it spiritual, social or instinctual , that is being demolished. It is not a feeling of success but success based on tangible results.
RESPONDENT: If you actually understand what Richard talks about you would realize, Good Friend Vineeto, that to post a response to such an obviously emotional offering is the height of folly and the furthest thing from the unencumbered intelligence that one must be if they have been applying the method that he (Richard) has described on the list many times since two years, with great success. Emotion, the compensatory response that is the cause of Beautiful No 1’s offering, has not the capacity to understand, yes? And whatever intelligence present is unable to read your offering because it is the strangle hold of the unintelligent emotion, yes? After all, according to Good Richard, the world is in the control of the disease of emotion. VINEETO: According to your logic talking to anybody would be ‘the height of folly’ because every human being is an emotional being, genetically programmed with instinctual passions. The silliness I responded to was the pretence of No. 5 and No. 1 not to understand what Richard is talking about, whereas it is such a simple statement that one can permanently get rid of one’s whole identity, both ego and soul. It is such a degrading, particularly female, conditioning to play silly instead of simply stating that ‘I disagree’. RESPONDENT: Namaste Good Friend Peter, A pleasure to communicate with you. VINEETO: I take it from your silly reply that you disagree. RESPONDENT: Perhaps you would show where the logic is incorrect? It is as follows:
Mind you, these are not thoughts form here, but are instead a tool to illustrate that anyone who would claim to understand Good Richard’s offerings (Posits 1 and 2) and still arrive at posit 4 is either:
VINEETO: Oh Dear. It’s let’s be tricky time, is it – all this nonsense started with your initial false premise that
This is, of course, nonsense, given that Richard himself has spent an inordinate amount of time responding to an obviously emotional person, namely you. You can posit ‘til the cows come home but meanwhile I’ll write and talk to whomever I please. * RESPONDENT: It is so much easier to find fault with the one who is talking from disease than to ask why one does not understand, as the dictates of Actual Freedom demands one must, what a complete and utter waste of time and resources offering a response is, isn’t it? VINEETO: It is such a degrading, particularly male, conditioning to pretend to know what the other is saying rather than admit that one hasn’t got a clue. It is also a clever way to avoid having to admit to the possibility that the other may well be right! RESPONDENT: Thank you for sharing your experience Good Peter. I will keep that in mind about you while reading your posts. VINEETO: I take it from your silly reply that you disagree. I am not ‘Good Peter’. * RESPONDENT: I wonder what Good Richard would think of the claim of ‘great success’ with his offerings? From here, I can see no space for there to be any particular level, great or poor, of success in what Richard offers. It is all or nothing, yes? There is no intelligence in the thought of a partial suicide, yes? Much Love VINEETO: ‘From here’, your spiritual world, is the wrong place to get the whole view. From the actual world where I live I have experienced increasing success ever since I started to apply the method – I am living with a man in perfect equity, peace and harmony for 24 hrs a day and I am having a perfect day 99% of my time. RESPONDENT: Please, I would claim no ownership Good Friend. ‘Owner of’ is an identity. VINEETO: Ah, so you don’t own your spiritual world, you just create it. * VINEETO: Actual Freedom is not ‘suicide’, it is self-immolation, and those two are 180 degrees apart. RESPONDENT: deep bow VINEETO: Forgive me please. I should have used one of Good Richard’s actual words. The corrected question would read ‘there is no intelligence in the thought of a partial extinction, yes?’ Your premise that ‘there is no intelligence in the thought of a partial extinction’ is again wrong as it derived from ‘your’ spiritual worldview. I am not talking about a spiritual path to Enlightenment but about investigating and incrementally extinguishing both my social identity and my instinctual passions to the point where they are now almost non-existent. The intent for this investigation is derived from many pure consciousness experiences, which have become my ultimate guide and measure. To measure success in the light of these PCEs is easy and as plain as a pikestaff. Even a partial extinction of one’s social identity and instinctual passions beats the common garden-variety of Self-Aggrandizement any day of the week. * RESPONDENT: PS: Are you thinking of replying Good Friend Vineeto? Are those thoughts a failing in Good Richard’s method that he has described on the list many times since two years, and you have applied with great success, or have you failed to understand what the success of Good Richard’s methods actually means? VINEETO: There is no failure here. Your measure of success is certainly different to measuring actual success. It is your interpretation of what I wrote that makes you ‘fail to understand’ and revert to supercilious replies that make no sense. Contrary to spiritual teaching where there is only one end-result, if one removes one’s concept of one’s parochial self, actualism is about instigating actual change and that actual change shows instant success in my life and my relationship with my fellow human beings with every facet of identity, be it spiritual, social or instinctual, that is being demolished. It is not a feeling of success but success based on tangible results. RESPONDENT: But Good Friend you offered this social identity: ‘I am living with a man in perfect equity...’ VINEETO: Oh, dear. Obviously you don’t know what social identity is in daily life – Your social identity is a psychological creation manufactured by society to act as a guardian over the wayward instinctually driven self you were born with. Guided by pure intent to become utterly happy and harmless, born of the PCE, one’s culturally-imposed social identity will gradually become redundant and can easily be eliminated. With an almost non-existent social identity one can live with another human being in perfect equity, peace and harmony 24hrs a day. Your idea of social identity is nothing but a cerebral concept and has nothing to do with actuality. You can keep focussing your attention on my use of a personal pronoun if you wish, but the real content of what I am saying is in the rest of the words of the sentence. Do you always miss the point of what is being said by getting stuck on the first word? Maybe we can move on to ‘am’ now? RESPONDENT: ... and spiritually you offered your identity to be the owner of time: ‘I am having a perfect day 99% of my time’ VINEETO: ‘Owner of time’, my foot. No 4, have a look at the clock, or your watch if you wear one. You don’t mind me using a personal pronoun or should I use an impersonal pronoun when addressing you. Do you see how the little hand moves as you watch it? This is called time. Now do you see after it has moved 5 of those little spaces. Well, that is 5 seconds more of your life ticking away. Is that too complicated to understand or should we discuss the matter for a few more posts? As for ‘spiritually you offered your identity’ – this is again your spiritual conjecture because there is not a skerrick of spiritual belief in me, I am hosting no spirits whatsoever, and I don’t believe in any life after death. Maybe your ‘deep bow’ position is responsible for your bent interpretation of straightforward words?
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
