RESPONDENT No 32: My aim is to be myself and the beginning of real work requires mostly eliminating this stuff from one’s psyche. I wonder what are your practical experiences in coming face to face with the human (social) legacy.

VINEETO: I have followed the doctrine to ‘be myself’ or ‘be who I Really am’ for 17 years and it sucks.

My aim is to become completely free from being my ‘self’ as I have numerous times experienced in a pure consciousness experience that it is ‘me’ who is standing in the way of experiencing the peace and perfection that is already always here. Actualism is the specifically designed and tested method to reach this goal.

Facilitating self-immolation requires much, much more than mere ‘eliminating this stuff from one’s psyche’. First it requires investigating the facts of one’s sweeping generalisations and emotional reactions in order to understand what benefits one could in fact draw from actualism. If you are already so affected by the sound of a simple descriptive label that you are unable to find out what it means then that is indeed the first obstacle that needs to be removed.

The next requirement, if you want to come ‘face to face with the human (social) legacy’, is to turn the B.S. detector that is habitually and instinctively directed outwards, inwards towards yourself so that you are able to investigate what personal beliefs, personal morals and personal ethics are the initial triggers for one’s emotional hang ups. Once discovered, these beliefs, morals and ethics can then be questioned and eliminated one by one in order to dive even deeper into one’s psyche.

RESPONDENT to No 32: Actualism is a method that works and does exactly what Richard, Vineeto, Peter and others say. It is important to read the rest of the site, apart from the mailing list, to see the importance of the PCE, Richard’s experiences with the ASC and the spiritual world, and the others’ experiences in living actualism. There’s a lot of lived life and work in it and it’s the most sense all in one place that I’ve ever seen.

VINEETO: It is great that you are enjoying the website and the information about the pitfalls of the spiritual world. The more I looked into what is spiritual, the more I found that every aspect of life is in some way or other steeped in spiritual beliefs, visions, truths, wisdoms, religious guidelines and moral-ethical values.

If you have a closer look you may discover that No. 32 is not alluding to eliminating his complete psyche, but only the ‘stuff’ that is ‘separating one from his original identity’. He said that his aim is ‘to be myself’ and he described in an earlier post what that means by this – ‘a state in which I had acquired real I, a Being made of light, ... a God’.

I am certainly not ‘playing with words’ when I say that facilitating self-immolation requires much, much more than mere ‘eliminating this stuff from one’s psyche’. The spiritual seeker aims to become his or her real I, God, ‘Real Self’, ‘Me’, Divine, enlightened, One with God, Love Agapé or whatever other name accords with the spiritual path one is following. Spiritualism is to merely prune the hedges – some unwanted or undesirable beliefs and feelings are suppressed or sublimated – while actualism is the method to strip away all belief so as to get at the root of the problem. Unless I have as my aim becoming free from my identity in toto then the method of actualism does not work.

I know it’s a hard pill for many to swallow, but actualism has got nothing to do with spiritualism – it is down-to-earth, i.e. not in any way or form other-worldly or meta-physical.

*

VINEETO to No 32: To publicly announce that ‘I hate every word that ends in -ism’ is to merely parrot borrowed psittacisms and pass the responsibility for your personal antagonism on to others. Humourism is certainly a useful and delightful asset that can assist you on your way to getting rid of your identity in toto.

RESPONDENT to No 32: This is the point where she starts to sound like Richard, not that there’s anything wrong with how Richard sounds, but she’s just parroting his words and phrases. For her to accuse you of ‘merely parroting borrowed psittacisms’ when that is exactly what she is doing, and missing the entire point of your post in the process, is a bit rich I see no ‘personal antagonism’ in your post, but quite a lot in Vineeto’s.

VINEETO: I said that No 32 is ‘merely parroting borrowed psittacisms’ because his ‘system of thought’ is directly derived from his spiritual teacher Gurdjieff and he interprets his other-worldly experiences according to this belief system. If presenting facts and calling a spade a spade is ‘hectoring, pedantry and showing-off’ for you, then you may have fallen for the spiritual trap of ‘we are all talking about the same thing’, ‘we all have the same goal’, ‘Truth is essentially the same’, etc.

The third alternative offers a method to eliminate one’s psyche completely and become free from both the real-world ‘self’ and the spiritual-world ‘Self’ so as to be free to experience the astounding sparkling actuality of the physical world we live in. The diagram on the library page ‘180 degrees opposite’ might make this distinction more clear to you.

*

VINEETO: Your comparison between ‘Richard and George’ Gurdjieff is a very good example to make this difference more apparent –

RESPONDENT: Gurdjieff’s ‘self remembering’ method (bad name): ‘be aware, as often as possible, with each breath, of your thoughts, emotional reactions, actions and perceptions in the most objective impartial manner possible.’

Actualism’s method: continually run the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

VINEETO: Only at a superficial glance does Gurdjieff’s method read as being similar to the actualism method, but at closer examination you will discover that the aim of his ‘work’ is to increase ‘self’-presence in order to achieve spiritual superiority to the ordinary man – man No. 1, 2, 3 in contrast to developed man No. 4, 5, 6 – and to more fully develop one’s soul, whereas actualism aims at ‘self’-immolation, eliminating the ‘self’, both ego and soul completely – two diametrically opposite methods aimed at producing two diametrically opposite results. To quote George –

[George Gurdjieff]: The Work is a spiritual discipline. It carries a core of great ideas and practices, which are at the heart of all religions and all ways. This way of inner development, to be pursued by ordinary people in everyday life, has been passed down by word-of-mouth from ancient times to our own through many generations of teachers and students. It requires great self-discipline. Gurdjieff, http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1236/index.html#thework5

Gurdjieff believed that his teachings needed to be transmitted in person so that the special energy emanating from the teacher is utilized. Vis:

[George Gurdjieff]: The Way of Gurdjieff is an oral tradition. The understanding of his work can only be received by direct contact between teacher and pupil, and by the work of pupils together in organised groups. Under conditions of a special atmosphere of trust that can exist in such a group, people working together learn to face their own inner poverty and confusion. Working in this way, conscience is awakened along with consciousness. Consciousness, Conscience, and Sensation form the tripod upon which an integrated development of human potential must be based. Gurdjieff prepared a nucleus of people to be able to transmit his teaching after his death. Gurdjieff, http://www.bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/misc/G.html

Actualism is perfectly transmittable through words alone, no direct contact between teacher and pupil, no work of pupils together in organized groups, etc, and practicing actualists all over the world can testify to that. Actualism consists of a scientific do-it-yourself method and the website is simply an aid to any do-it-yourself-er in that it sets out the facts about the human condition, documents the experiences from practicing actualists and provides answers to the stereotypical objections from numerous spiritualists.

Once you have made up your mind that you want to make becoming happy and harmless the most important thing in your life, you no longer need to prostrate yourself to any authority, suck up on any master’s energy or wait for anybody’s blessing to get on with the ‘work’, or, as we like to call it, the only game to play in town. All the information that you need is freely available on the website and this mailing list provides the opportunity to then share your experiences in applying the method with other like-minded people, swap stories or pick their brains for useful information.

So far, not many have woken up to the immense freedom that such a non-spiritual method of disseminating information offers in marked contrast to the traditional spiritual enslavement via the master-disciple or priest-congregation relationship.

VINEETO: I cannot comment on your general impression – you will need to give me specific examples where I have used an ‘aggressive style’. However, I can comment on your example of my post to No 42 – where I commented ‘about Richard as mystic’. Vis –

[Vineeto]: You wrote to No 37 in answer to his letter to Richard –

[Respondent No 42]: Perhaps Richard is saying that so long as we have the illusion that our existence, our ‘I’ is separate from the whole we cannot be objective. For the mystic good or bad are not separate possibilities. While we make judgements we do not penetrate to any real meaning.

[Vineeto]: To consider Richard a mystic can only mean that you must have read the website meditatively, i.e. with both eyes closed. For a precise understanding the differences between mysticism and actualism I refer to the The Actual Freedom Trust Library. Vineeto to No 42, 17.7.2002

You may interpret my response as ‘over the top’ ‘alienating’ and an example of my ‘aggressive style’ but I did use the words ‘meditatively’ and ‘eyes closed’ deliberately and for good reason. No 42 has not only reported that he spent 40 years on the spiritual path following first G. Gurdjieff and then M. Rajneesh, but he also clearly stated his predilection for the spiritual virtue of ‘not-knowing’ in lieu of a genuine freedom from malice and sorrow –

[Respondent No 42]: A wise man said of the mystical experience, ‘There is nothing you will not be able to know, but paradoxically there is nothing you will want to know.’ It seems to me that marital bliss and the absence of malice and sorrow, as the aim is a serious limitation of the possibilities. No 42 ‘Sold Short’ 22.6.2002

Given that No 42 has been subscribed to the Actual Freedom mailing list for a while now and is still presenting Richard as a mystic, at best that means that he read the ongoing posts about actualism with both eyes closed. If he has read with open eyes, then his reading was certainly meditative – in the spirit of ‘not-knowing’ and not wanting to know.

I can well understand when people do not want to know about becoming free from the human condition, because I know from experience that the process of investigating the human condition can sometimes be a daunting enterprise. What I cannot understand, however, is why someone is still misinterpreting actualism as spiritualism when it has been clearly stated many times that actualism is about questioning all beliefs.

RESPONDENT: I wanted to ask you some time ago (as Osho has advised his students in the USA to attend Gurdjieff-Ouspensky groups after the closure of his Oregon branch) if you have experimented with ‘self-remembering’?

VINEETO: I wasn’t aware of such advice although I was at the Oregon ranch when it folded. However Osho aka Mohan Rajneesh embraced all kinds of spiritual techniques and traditions, knitting them into his own teachings whenever it suited him, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. I have heard it said that some of the futile, thoughtless and demeaning tasks that Rajneesh set for some of his followers were reminiscent of some of Gurdjieff’s techniques but I can’t attest to Gurdjieff having influenced Rajneesh’s teachings or methodologies.

When I looked up where Rajneesh mentions ‘self’-remembering I found that he considered it to be the same as Buddha’s ‘right mindfulness’ or Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘awareness’. He also said –

[Mohan Rajneesh]: ‘These are the two paths: self-forgetfulness, the way of the world and self-remembrance, the way of God.’ Rajneesh, The Hidden Harmony, Ch 3

As for ‘self’-remembering, I usually called my practice awareness, which was noticing or watching my thoughts and feelings, arising with them the aim of distancing myself from my unwanted or undesirably feelings and thoughts. Needless to say, this practice of distancing or dis-identifying or dissociating did nothing to aid me when it came to living happy and harmoniously in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are.