VINEETO: Hi No 6,

VINEETO to No 1: With ‘my’ demise will come the ending of malice and sorrow in this flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT No 1: I was only pointing out to you that you make general inclusive statements about other people’s beliefs when you yourself are caught in the belief that something ‘will come’.

VINEETO to No 1: May I remind you of the law of cause and effect. When you take a stone up to a 35 storey building and drop it out the window, it ‘will come’ to fall on the ground in x number of seconds. In the same law of cause and effect ‘with ‘my’ demise will come the ending of malice and sorrow in this flesh and blood body’.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by ‘cause and effect’? Why do you take a physical event and then use that to demonstrate your ‘belief’?

VINEETO: I also said in this same post –

[Vineeto]: A pure consciousness experience, which everybody has had in their lives, gives evidence to the fact that ‘I’ am all that is standing in the way of perfection to become apparent. From these ‘self’-less experiences one can gain knowledge about the ‘self’ while one experiences the actual world temporarily free of one’s ‘self’. In the process of actualism one has many PCEs and is therefore able to check up on the diminishing of one’s ‘self’ and the practical success of the method in reducing one’s instinctual passions. [endquote].

A pure consciousness experience is not a belief. A PCE is a state when the ‘self’ with all ‘my’ beliefs, feelings, emotions and instinctual passions is temporarily absent. From these PCEs I derive my information and intent to dismantle the ‘self’, which in a PCE can be perceived in the clarity of bare awareness, without beliefs and emotions clouding my perception.

RESPONDENT: I am not denying the validity of your statement. But do we see the fallacy of this approach? Are the same laws applicable to the human psyche?

VINEETO: All human beings are born with a set of genetically encoded survival instincts broadly known as fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Further, this primitive ‘self’ is made more complex by our ability to think and reflect and, as such, we have a more elaborated ‘self’ consisting of ‘who’ we think ourselves to be and ‘who’ we feel ourselves to be – the human psyche. This human psyche is driven by the instinctual passions and as such, is epitomized by feelings of malice and sorrow.

Cause and effect apply because, with the demise of my ‘self’, malice and sorrow will disappear. As evidenced in numerous PCEs, it is the ‘self’ and nothing else that is the cause of me being malicious and sorrowful.

If you are not denying the validity of my statement, are you agreeing with it – or are you merely ‘sitting on the fence’, making analytical intellectual comments on the approach.

RESPONDENT: Is not the ‘cause and effect’ a one-dimensional approach to reality? Is not that a convenient explanation by the mind that is shrouded by beliefs?

VINEETO: As I said, in a PCE one’s thoughts are shrouded by neither beliefs nor emotions and the brain is therefore capable of stunning clarity. In ‘normal’ state, cause and effect is very evident in operation in our thoughts, feelings, emotions and passions – most usually some event, situation or fellow human being causes us to feel annoyed, resentful, peeved, angry, humbled, grateful, reverend, compassionate, melancholic, sad or depressed.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps the physical laws may be valid. I am not questioning that. Gravity existed before one made it into a cause-effect explanation.

VINEETO: Gravity has not been ‘made’ ‘into a cause-effect explanation’. It does not change the fact or nature of gravity when people find out how it works. Or are you a believer of a mysterious ‘big G’ like some metaphysical cosmologists?

In case you don’t understand the simplicity of it, gravity is what happens when you fall off a fence.

RESPONDENT: But is listening a matter of boiling down to cause-effect?

VINEETO: Who said anything about listening? I am talking about rolling up one’s sleeves and doing something about one’s lot in life – not listening, watching, or questioning. I don’t subscribe to ‘listening’. This ancient spiritual stay-aloof approach is neither liveable nor effective to bring about peace on earth. In order to eradicate malice and sorrow something far more drastic is needed.

RESPONDENT: I understand your responses to No 1 and No 2, but why do you want others to believe your statement?

VINEETO: I don’t expect anybody to believe my statement. To merely believe is to defy intelligence. My statements propose a practical down-to-earth alternative to NDA (New Dark Age-) wisdom and if what I say makes sense to you, you might be moved to investigate further and establish the facts for yourself and see if the method works for you.

RESPONDENT: What is an intelligent response to the situation?

VINEETO: Firstly, one needs a clear-eyed view to see the situation. If one starts with the wrong premise, for instance, that thought is the cause of all evil, one gets false results. You cannot have an intelligent response if you cannot see the situation without spiritual belief for you will forever remain a distant ‘observer’, watching, listening and questioning while remaining cut off from fully engaging in this astounding business of being a flesh and blood body on this paradisiacal planet.

RESPONDENT: Is knowing the cause (‘my’ demise) an understanding of sorrow?

VINEETO: No, ‘my’ demise is the ending of malice and sorrow. The cause of sorrow lies in the fact that human beings are born with an instinctual ‘self’ and further develop an overlaid social ‘self’ that separates us from the magnificence and perfection of the actual world. The resentment of having to be here as in ‘I did not asked to be born’ or ‘I really, really like the spirit-ual world’, lies at the core of all the various forms of sorrow.

RESPONDENT: Is not the cause an explanation arising out of a partial response to sorrow? I am not saying there is anything wrong with explanations, but can we see that the cause has to be ‘exposed’ totally and not be satisfied with one answer?

VINEETO: Which ‘cause’ has to be exposed totally? You seem to have a very strong aversion to someone finding the answer, for it does rather destroy the idea that one should continuously seek but never find.

RESPONDENT: Can there be a transformation from that ‘partiality’ of that cause to that totality of staying with that sorrow? Does not the ‘self’ exist even in that partial, fragmentary response instead of totally staying with that sorrow?

VINEETO: I don’t subscribe to the method of ‘totally staying with that sorrow’, a method devised by those who had no knowledge of our animal instinctual passions. To successfully investigate sorrow, I first need to honestly examine its trigger, and determine what belief, moral or ethic is implicated in the feeling. The next step is to trace it back to its core and, in experientially understanding its root cause, my instinctual ‘self’, I can then step out of it. If you do that process with sincere intent each time sorrow arises, your life will soon be 99% free from sorrow.

Has your method of ‘totally staying with that sorrow’ delivered freedom from sorrow for you so far?

And I am not talking about ‘a transformation’ either. The spiritual ideal of transformation or transcendence has failed lamentably, and always will fail for it does not address the fundamental issue – the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. ‘My’ demise is not a transformation but means exactly demise – the extinction of ‘me’ in my totality, both ego and soul. Finish, caput, extinct, dead as a dodo. Nothing less will do to completely eradicate malice and sorrow in me.

25.8.2000