VINEETO: I know from my own experience with actualism that feedback from other people’s experience can only go so far – I gained both reassurance and warning from Richard’s reports of his experiences but in the end I had to sort out my experiences for myself … and my benchmark for that was always my first major PCE. It was the experience of which I had the clearest memory simply because the difference to my normal day experience was so incredibly stunning and at the same time so unquestionably obvious.

RESPONDENT: Did this first PCE come from practising HAIETMOBA, or was it something you remembered from earlier in life?

VINEETO: This first major PCE happened about three months after I had learnt that there is an actual freedom that is beyond enlightenment and began examining my feelings of loyalty in regards to the spiritual master I had been following. After several weeks of intense questioning of what I had believed to be right and true this breakthrough into a PCE eventuated and it settled my burning questions about right and wrong beliefs – I experienced the unquestionable facticity of actuality that is far superior to any belief or any imagination ‘I’ could ever conjure.

You may be interested to read about the lead-up and the description of this PCE in ‘A Bit of Vineeto’.

After this PCE I knew the flavour of a pure experience and eventually remembered PCEs from earlier in my life, some in my childhood and some in my twenties and thirties.

So to answer your question, yes it did. It occurred after an intense period of being aware of the intensity of my feelings and beliefs and of being attentive to how ‘my’ wanting to hold on to these feelings and beliefs stood in the way of me becoming happy and harmless.

*

VINEETO: The reason why I am so persistent about keeping a clear distinction between the quality of a ‘self’-less experience as compared to the quality of an altered state with ‘a psyche present’ is because if anyone decides to want to become free from the Human Condition in toto then he or she needs to have an indubitable benchmark and therefore make a clear distinction between the two experiences. Otherwise one would waste one’s time chasing an Altered States of Consciousness instead of an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: I do understand your intent here, and FWIW I do appreciate it. As far as indubitable benchmarks are concerned, it is the ASC (not the PCE) that has started to reveal itself through HAIETMOBA,

VINEETO: The way you described your using the method it appears that you have created your own adapted version of the actualism method–

[Respondent]: It was a perfect opportunity to go deeply into the HAIETMOBA exercise. <…> So I deliberately stepped out of ‘actualist mode’, and allowed myself to experience the world in my own way. Interesting experience, 11.12.2003

You also said –

[Respondent]: I let my consciousness do whatever the hell it wanted to do. Gave it free reign, and paid full attention to it as something that is valid and authentic in its own right… Interesting experience, 11.12.2003

This is not the method of actualism as described on the Actual Freedom Trust website.

When I pay undivided attention to how I am experiencing this moment of being alive I do not consider my thoughts, beliefs and feelings ‘as something that is valid and authentic in its own right’ because from the benchmark of a PCE I know that ‘my’ perception is distorted by my beliefs, my feelings and my instinctual passions. When I pay undivided attentiveness I do this with the aim of uncovering any beliefs and disempowering any feelings which are standing in the way of experiencing the already existing perfection of the actual world.

Whereas to allow oneself ‘to experience the world in my own way’ and to give ‘free reign’ to one’s consciousness is a ‘self’-oriented and ‘self’-aggrandizing enterprise – a recipe for producing an Altered State of Consciousness.

RESPONDENT: … and as far as I can tell at this stage (early days, obviously), there is not a single disadvantage or danger to be found in the presence of ‘psyche’ as I’ve been experiencing it.

VINEETO: This obviously depends on what is your aim is in life. The main difference between what you are doing and the process of actualism is that in a PCE one’s ‘self’ is in abeyance, which allows the always already existing actuality to become apparent, whereas in an ASC you ‘experience the world in my own way’. By doing so you are indulging in personal imagination and there are as many personal visualizations of perfection as there are people in this world. If however you have the aim of living in peace and harmony with your fellow human beings, then using one’s personal visualizations as one’s benchmark is certainly a ‘disadvantage or danger’ to this aim.

RESPONDENT No 33: What I understood (from Richard’s mails mainly) so far is that: a direct experience is the final arbiter and while logic/ mathematics can sharpen the directly experienced, they are subservient to the direct experience. This is in contrast to the theoretical physicist/ mathematician’s viewpoint which is: logic/ mathematics is the final arbiter – direct experience is prone to error. Please correct this appraisal if necessary.

RESPONDENT: I think your appraisal is fair enough.

However, the question that interests me at this stage is not so much whether empiricists or rationalists should have the final say. The question that concerns me is: where is the ‘empirical’ evidence?

VINEETO: There is no empirical evidence that the universe is infinite and eternal, nor can there ever be – although it is paradoxical that those cosmologists who also acknowledge this simultaneously claim that they have found empirical evidence of a supposed creationist event that took place some 12 billions years ago, thereby claiming they have proof that the universe is neither eternal nor infinite. Infinitude is by its very nature beyond the reach of empirical data because we can never build a telescope powerful enough to look into infinity. There is only one evidence for infinitude and that is the unadulterated sensate apperceptive experience.

RESPONDENT: How can precise details concerning the origin, extent and duration of the universe be directly experienced? In the so-called ‘Big Bang’, we are talking about an event (or non-event) that happened (or didn’t happen) billions of years ago. How can one claim to have direct experience (thus empirical evidence) of what did or didn’t happen billions of years ago, on the basis of what one experiences in a lifespan of 50-odd years as a flesh and blood body with limited sense organs and limited intellect?

VINEETO: In a PCE – in absence of a scheming alien entity – one can clearly recognize that all theories about a beginning and an edge of the universe are mere anthropocentric fantasies (part and parcel of the human drama as you called it) and that questions about ‘the origin, extent and duration of the universe’ are utterly redundant. In a PCE I directly experience that matter is not passive, I directly experience that matter is in a continuous cycle of birth and death, generation and decay, composition and decomposition and that the belief that all this should not have been happening at some imaginary other point in time is plain silly. An intelligence freed of ‘self’-centredness can easily comprehend that there is neither ‘origin’ nor ‘extent’ nor ‘duration of the universe’ – those are man-made anthropocentric metaphysical inventions in order to get a grip on something that is, by its very nature, incomprehensible to both logic and rational thought. Infinitude cannot be thought through or reasoned out – it can only be experienced in delight.

The question is what is it that makes this so hard to understand?

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that what is being portrayed as empirical evidence is actually circular and self-validating logic:

VINEETO: No, what is being portrayed is neither empirical evidence nor logic – that is what you make of it. What is being portrayed are the results of apperception – ‘self’-less pure perception.

RESPONDENT: The universe is infinite and eternal because one (supposedly) experiences it that way in a PCE. A PCE reveals the actual facts of the cosmos. A PCE happens if (and only if) the universe is infinite and eternal. PCEs do happen. Therefore the universe is infinite and eternal. If this type of logic is allowed, one might say: the universe is imperfect because one experiences it that way in depression. Depression happens if (and only if) the universe is imperfect. Depression does happen. Therefore the universe is imperfect. This is not ‘empirical evidence’ of anything. It is circular reasoning based on one absolute experiential standard and several tenuous premises.

No 33, since you’ve been following the discussions closely, I’d appreciate it if you (or anyone else) let me know if you think my reasoning is off track. I am not asking you to ‘take sides’, just to drop me a note (by email if you wish) if you think I’m not making sense, or not understanding something that is clear to you.

VINEETO: When I started to look into actualism as an alternative to the spiritualism that I had practiced so long with unsatisfying results, the mind-boggling radicality of the 180 degrees opposite statements often caused my mind to gridlock. From whatever angle I looked at certain issues, I simply could not understand what Richard was saying. However, I had the burning desire to find out all there is to know about this third alternative because I had already experienced for myself that something was greatly amiss in the venerated teachings and practice of spiritualism.

In those situations when I couldn’t think my way out of my mental block, a condition which I later discovered to be cognitive dissonance, I used to ask myself what it was that was preventing me from understanding. Rather than accusing Richard of being bone-headed, stubborn, silly or wrong, I instead chose to question why I was so bone-headed that I could not understand what he had discovered and what emotional investment ‘I’ had in maintaining ‘my’ status quo by not understanding what he presented as his ongoing delectable experience of the actual world.

These were some of the questions I used to ask myself –

• What feelings prevent me from seeing this one particular fact?
• What fears do I have that prevent me from coming to a new understanding?
• What consequence will this understanding possibly have for ‘me’ and ‘my’ worldview if what Richard is saying is right?
• What consequence will it have for ‘my’ lifestyle, my friendships, my working situation if what Richard is saying is right?

To ask these questions was to sharpen my attentiveness as to how I felt, what I felt and why I felt it when I contemplated the issues that caused a mental block and this attentiveness also showed me how to move past those affective feelings that prevented a clearer understanding of those issues. In other words, attentiveness counteracts the instinctive ‘self’-centredness that is more or less happening all the time unless I become aware of it. Attentiveness combined with contemplation does wonders when one wants to penetrate ‘my’ automatically ongoing affective reactive-ness to emotionally charged topics.

Eventually my burning desire and my persistence not to settle for anything less than indisputable facts won over my fears of questioning what I believed to be absolutely right and true and, to make a long story short, one day something had to give – ‘my’ worldview collapsed in one fell swoop and I had my first pure consciousness experience which lasted for a night and the better half of the next day. I was with Peter at the time and experienced for the first time what it is to be with a fellow human being without having ‘self’-oriented expectations, fears and preconceptions. In fact I only noticed that those ‘self’-centred expectations, fears and preconceptions towards others were a constant feature of ‘me’ when they temporarily ceased.

The next day Peter and I went to the local market and I experienced first hand how everyone was not only selling their goods but with those goods their beliefs and convictions, their worldviews and ethics and everyone was absolutely convinced that he or she had the right truth. In the following days the memory of this direct experience made a big dent into all of my beliefs and truths but it took many more such break-throughs to question one ‘truth’ after the other and with each crumbled belief my understanding of the human condition expanded and the nature of actuality became more and more clear.

One of those break-throughs happened when I mused about the nature of the universe and my beliefs in a mystical, metaphysical or super-natural energy permeating it. The longer I contemplated the more it became clear that both a beginning to and an edge of the universe do not make sense because this theory raises far more questions than it solves, whereas an infinite and eternal universe does away with any and all the theorizing about the how, when and by whom or by what mysterious force the universe was created and what it is that it supposedly expands into. At this point it also dawned on me that in a universe without boundaries there is no physical space for any mystical Force to be ruling the world and the very meaning of actuality – matter devoid of spirit but in constant change – became stunningly clear, not just intellectually but experientially. The very simplicity of my intellectual understanding and the resultant immediate experiencing of this very understanding made the nature of the universe self-evidently obvious.

I acknowledge that it requires great daring, intent and stubborn determination to leave one’s safe haven of being an agnostic about the nature of the universe in order to recognize and experientially discover the facts about the nature of the universe as opposed to remaining ‘open’ to any and all theories about the universe. To leave the non-committal position of not-knowing behind and commit oneself to finding out the facts, whatever the cost, is a truly life-changing process as one’s whole personal worldview will fall apart and disappear. Naturally in the face of this threat, the survival instincts kick in, causing ‘me’ to opt for the safety of the status quo.

The first thing to counteract this automatic instinctual reaction is to become aware of it so that one can then make an informed decision in which direction one wants to proceed. But then again, you have apparently experienced the strength of theses passions –

[Respondent]: I started out with the intention of picking up the pace, using HAIETMOBA to awaken felicitous feelings and sensuous delight, hoping to bring on a PCE. For a while everything was going fine – untroubled, happy, buoyant, delighting in sun and sky and sea, etc. Then, seemingly out of the blue I was seized with a deep remorse. <…> I felt as if I’d betrayed everything I ever held dear; everything that was ever innocent, pure, honest and true in myself had turned into this wretched bag of scum walking along the beach trying to blithely exterminate all the goodness that had ever existed in this body. I couldn’t continue, and didn’t want to. I felt I’d rather be permanently sad yet true to my roots than give up my humanity in exchange for the absence of pain. Ruthless-Pitiless-Merciless-Relentless, 10.1.2004

The actualism method itself is very simple – the consequences of applying it are enormous.

RESPONDENT: (In the meantime, in daily life, I am practising actualism exactly as prescribed).

VINEETO: When I started practicing actualism I was in for many a surprise because I uncovered many aspects of ‘me’ that were hidden before. No 47 gave an excellent description of the process the other day –

[Respondent No 47]: Being sensible has turned out to be a very dangerous enterprise for ‘me’ <…> Before I came upon actualism I was like a mess swept under the carpet, next few months after that the carpet had been lifted and I was just a mess, now I have a handle on the broom. A Sensible Dialogue, 29.1.2004

RESPONDENT: If you have a close look at the posting you referred to above, you’ll notice that I was indeed questioning my own reactions, as well as questioning the phenomena that occasioned that reaction (i.e. Richard’s behaviour as it appeared to me).

VINEETO: Questioning my reactions for me means inquiring into why am I getting annoyed or why am I feeling sad. I found it useless blaming someone else or something else for making me annoyed or sad because when I came to understand that I am the only person I can change, I focussed my full attention on ‘me’ not ‘her’ or ‘him’ or ‘they’ or ‘it’.

This is how I use the method of actualism (as prescribed) with excellent outcome –

In order to investigate a feeling when it is occurring, the first thing I have to do is to stop trying to make it go away or stop trying to hang on to it as we have been socially or spiritually conditioned to do. As long as I object to having the (bad) feeling or desperately want to cling to the (good) feeling, I cannot examine what exactly is going on. The first thing to become aware of and understand was my automatic reaction of suppression or expression in order to be able to experience the feeling fully that I am then able to label and examine.

I began to notice that when I stopped fighting having the feeling or stopped feeding the feeling, its intensity was immediately reduced significantly and then I was be able to take a closer look of what has caused this particular feeling to appear in the first place. When feelings are really intense such that they have taken me over, any investigation at such a time is useless. I had to get back to at least feeling good, if not happy, again in order to be able to sensibly delve deeper into the reasons that got me upset or enraptured in the first place.

Then I could go about examining the feeling that I had just experienced – when did the feeling first start, what was the event or situation that caused the affective reaction, why did I feel insulted, self-righteous, misunderstood, rejected, sad, angry, worried, pissed off, etc., which of my cherished beliefs, truth, views, values, etc. is being questioned, in what way is this linked to my identity, is there a fear underneath the initial feeling, what is this fear about, and so on ...?

In this way I am conducting an empirical systematic inquiry into my own affective experience and I am in fact examining my own psyche in action – I don’t make the feeling go away, on the contrary, I allow it to come entirely to the surface so that I can feel the feeling so that I can conduct an extensive experiential examination into all its aspects. Once I overcame the initial moral and ethical objection to having undesirable and unpleasant feelings in the first place, a keen interest and fascination developed that came from being able to be aware of my own feelings and emotions while they were happening as well as being able to understand why they operate, how they operate and what is their root cause. I was becoming keenly interested in each detail and every opportunity that might give me a clue to the way I tick – and everyday life is rich with such opportunities.

The investigation into one’s feelings has to be experiential if it is to bring any tangible results – thinking about feelings and emotions removed from down-to-earth personal experience will only keep one at a surface level and will prevent one from penetrating into the very nature of one’s psyche. So the first thing for me to learn was to stop fighting my feelings and to stop feeding my feelings and allow myself to experience my feelings … all the while making sure that I kept my mouth shut and my hands in my pockets, in order that I wouldn’t do or say something I’d have to regret or feel remorseful about later on.

As long as I continue to have silent accusations, grudges, irritation, suspicions, defensiveness, anger, fear, etc. against someone, I always know that there is an unresolved belief, a hidden truth, a firm conviction, a dearly-held principle, a personal moral or value at stake that the other – usually inadvertently – has uncovered or questioned or opposed. In order to get back to being happy and, more importantly harmless, I then need to take this belief apart, as I call it. That means I look where and when I acquired it, why I believe it to be so, why I react emotionally when it is opposed and by doing so inevitably I discover the aspect of my identity associated with this belief – in other words, it is ‘my’ belief and to give it up will mean I have to give up some part of ‘me’. Only my intent to be happy and harmless will cause ‘me’ to give up something ‘I’ hold so dear.

This is the very reason why actualism is a do-it-yourself method because nobody can expose your own beliefs and truths but you.

*

VINEETO: As well as Richard’s experiential report there is also the option of inquiring into why you are now doubting the sincerity of the information supplied to you to the point of suggesting that Richard might still have an ‘ego/soul/affect’ and is possibly ‘simply unconscious of same’. (Being verballed by Richard, 29.1.2004)

Whereas you had said in a post to me only 2 days previous to this –

[Respondent]: ‘I’m intending to keep my mouth shut and learn for a while, but I couldn’t let this pass without a personal thanks. Every word speaks directly to where I’m at right now. I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness, sensitivity and clarity of these words, and the helpful intent that obviously lies behind them.

Thank you very much. It confirms that I’m among people who truly know what they’re talking about’. (re: infinity, 27.1.2004)

RESPONDENT: There is no ‘whereas’, Vineeto. I meant that, and I still do. I am trying to be more careful in differentiating and separating my personal impressions from what is actual/ factual, in growing awareness that my own reactions are not necessarily reliable.

VINEETO: Firstly, I have just read in your post to Peter that you had sent this as a private post. I apologize that I have inadvertently published it. I did not realize that it was a private post until just now as I very rarely receive private posts from list members and my MS-Outlook program does not display the difference in the preview pane.

As for ‘whereas’ – personally, if I felt that someone was unconscious of ‘his ego/soul/affect’, and for a period of 11-12 years at that, I wouldn’t simultaneous think he was someone who truly knows what he is talking about. To me that would be contradictory.

RESPONDENT: I’ve understood lately that I tend to take in gulps of reality, form a few impressions, and then start addressing those impressions – as if they were reality – without realising I’ve done so until afterwards. It’s something I’m trying to watch more closely. Richard has been rubbing ‘me’ up the wrong way lately, as I mentioned in the posting you referred to above.

VINEETO: When I experienced someone as ‘rubbing ‘me’ up the wrong way’, whenever I am discussing an issue with them, I always knew that I had something to look at in terms of finding the underlying emotional investment I had with regard to the issue that caused me to feel this way. If this was the case I usually stopped my discussion with whoever it was, got back to feeling happy and amicable, nutted out ‘my’ issue that was bugging ‘me’ for myself and then was again able to objectively listen to what the other had to actually say. In the early days of my relationship with Peter for instance I felt emotionally threatened whenever the topic of my being a disciple of Rajneesh came up, so much so that Peter and I agreed ‘not to talk about the war’, for a period which lasted about six weeks. In that time I had explored other areas of my conditioning and had found it so beneficial and successful that I was then ready and able to tackle the ‘big one’.

I am only saying this because this information might possibly assist you in your own practice of actualism. Inevitably every sincere discussion on this list will uncover many beliefs, viewpoints and truths one holds, will question ethics and values one might have, will disperse images one might have of oneself or trigger feelings one doesn’t like or didn’t know one had. The reason is because what is being discussed is the human psyche, how it is programmed to operate and what is the result of that programming, and therefore ‘I’ will feel inevitably exposed because ‘I’ am the human psyche.

For this very reason I always stress that it is important to establish one’s intent first – which essentially is ‘my’ agreement to ‘my’ demise – before attempting to start with the nitty-gritty of dismantling one’s identity, otherwise one ends up going round in circles and blaming others for one’s own feelings of frustration and despair.

The trick is to remember that the human condition applies to everyone and that nobody is to blame for it. And, as Richard emphasises again and again, it is important to be one’s own best friend in the enterprise of taking the identity apart –

Richard: None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. (...) ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent. Richard, List B, 25f, 22.6.2000

RESPONDENT: (And not just me, evidently).

VINEETO: Oh, the human condition – as the name suggests – is common to all. It’s a majority – an estimated 6 billion people.

RESPONDENT: Actualism has a ready-made explanation for why that might be the case – everything Richard writes is a potentially fatal poison to the identities that lurk inside us all. I know that Richard does not pander to identities, and so be it – I was writing about ‘my’ reaction to ‘my’ perception of him, and part of that reaction was the idea that ‘he’ is alive and well, albeit unconscious of himself. (Notice that I said: it makes me wonder ... And please notice that it isn’t the same as saying: I’m convinced that Richard is ... this or that.)

VINEETO: I wonder in what way publishing what you wondering about but are not convinced about can add to a sensible discussion about the topics at hand. As you would know by experience, expressing your feelings to others only adds fuel to the fire and to other people’s fire – investigating your own feelings by yourself in your own time is quite a different matter. I always found that I first had to sort out my feelings for myself before I could read with both eyes open, ask sensible questions of Richard or have a fruitful discussion that was helpful to me in furthering my inquiry into the human condition.

VINEETO: Inevitably every sincere discussion on this list will uncover many beliefs, viewpoints and truths one holds, will question ethics and values one might have, will disperse images one might have of oneself or trigger feelings one doesn’t like or didn’t know one had. The reason is because what is being discussed is the human psyche, how it is programmed to operate and what is the result of that programming, and therefore ‘I’ will feel inevitably exposed because ‘I’ am the human psyche. For this very reason I always stress that it is important to establish one’s intent first – which essentially is ‘my’ agreement to ‘my’ demise – before attempting to start with the nitty-gritty of dismantling one’s identity, otherwise one ends up going round in circles and blaming others for one’s own feelings of frustration and despair.

RESPONDENT: Well ... I’m not at all sure that I’ve agreed to ‘my’ demise. I can’t agree to that until I have satisfied myself that Richard is what he thinks he is, and what you and Peter think he is. As I’ve mentioned, I find his diagnosis of the human condition very lucid, penetrating and convincing. But I need to be more satisfied that he has the solution he thinks he does before I can commit to such a radical thing. Experiencing a certain lack of trust and fellowship makes it all the more difficult, but that is not Richard’s fault. He is what he is, and I’ll make of it what I make of it. Undecided so far.

VINEETO: You say you ‘find his diagnosis of the human condition very lucid, penetrating and convincing’ – but you don’t find his solution to the human condition ‘lucid, penetrating and convincing’. Have you ever wondered if this is so because you don’t want to agree ‘to ‘my’ demise’ and you therefore prefer to question Richard’s solution rather than conduct your own hands-on investigation of the instinctual passions that are the very cause of the human condition?

Personally, when I met Richard I had exhaustively explored the traditional ways on offer to deal with or dissociate from the human condition both in the normal world and in the spiritual world and I knew that despite sincere efforts and the efforts of billions of my fellow human beings before me none of the traditional eons-old methods had worked to free human beings from malice and sorrow. I had satisfied myself that the solutions on offer were at best half-baked and misguided, plus I was utterly fed up being ‘me’ – in short, I was ready to do whatever it takes to become free from ‘me’. Richard’s experience that both ego and soul are the culprit made imminent sense to me and his cheerful and considerate manner made it clear that he lived what he said. Once I had worked this out for myself I knew that all of ‘my’ objections were part of the problem and not part of the solution.

As for missing ‘a certain lack of trust and fellowship’ – you are bound to be disappointed when you expect trust, empathy, emotional understanding, condolences and belonging on a non-spiritual mailing list but if you want practical help how to minimize your antagonistic, sorrowful and anxious feelings and how to maximize the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, there is a smorgasbord of hints on the Actual Freedom Trust website, all of which is freely and frankly offered by a few of your fellow human beings. Fellowship with fellow human beings is yours for the choosing.

RESPONDENT: So I guess when I say I am practising actualism precisely as prescribed, it’s a bit of an overstatement. I’m been giving it a run by trying to awaken the felicitous feelings and minimise the emotions, but I don’t have enough confidence in actualism to go all the way yet. In fact, instead of gaining confidence in this, I’m becoming more disillusioned.

VINEETO: You need to put the horse before the cart. When you are fed up enough being ‘me’ and know with confidence that none of the other solutions work then you will be well equipped to use the actualism method to inquire into what your expectations and hopes are – because they are what prevent you from clearly understanding what an actual freedom is all about.

I have talked to many people in the past years who wanted to take on a bit of actualism in order to ‘awaken the felicitous feelings’ but who didn’t want to bother about inquiring into, let alone were prepared to give up, their precious hopes and expectations, their dearly-held beliefs and cherished feelings and many ended up accusing Richard and actualism for not catering to their particular foibles.

Actual freedom is not a business deal where you haggle for a compromise – actual freedom only happens when ‘I’ and all ‘my’ selfish demands disappear in toto.

*

VINEETO: The trick is to remember that the human condition applies to everyone and that nobody is to blame for it. And, as Richard emphasises again and again, it is important to be one’s own best friend in the enterprise of taking the identity apart –

Richard: None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. (...) ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent. Richard, List B, 25f, 22.6.2000

RESPONDENT: (And not just me, evidently).

VINEETO: Oh, the human condition – as the name suggests – is common to all. It’s a majority – an estimated 6 billion people.

RESPONDENT: All fundamentally driven by the same basic genetic code – fear, aggression, desire and nurture. That is the one aspect of actualism that I am absolutely sure about. The evidence is everywhere, within and without.

VINEETO: If you know that for sure then all it takes is to make a decision to become free from being driven – whatever it takes. Then it is only a matter of developing a persistent and dedicated practice of attentiveness to find out how these instinctual passions express themselves in your every neurotic or frantic thought, in your every feeling, in your every action.

RESPONDENT: Actualism has a ready-made explanation for why that might be the case – everything Richard writes is a potentially fatal poison to the identities that lurk inside us all. I know that Richard does not pander to identities, and so be it – I was writing about ‘my’ reaction to ‘my’ perception of him, and part of that reaction was the idea that ‘he’ is alive and well, albeit unconscious of himself. (Notice that I said: it makes me wonder ... And please notice that it isn’t the same as saying: I’m convinced that Richard is ... this or that.)

VINEETO: I wonder in what way publishing what you wondering about but are not convinced about can add to a sensible discussion about the topics at hand. As you would know by experience, expressing your feelings to others only adds fuel to the fire and to other people’s fire – investigating your own feelings by yourself in your own time is quite a different matter.

RESPONDENT: Simple answer: In addition to my own feelings / impressions there was the actual / factual issue of whether No 59 was being fobbed off and ‘verballed’ by Richard. The way I saw it, he was.

VINEETO: In German we have an expression that goes something like – ‘the way you call into the forest, the way it will shout back at you’. No 59 made his agenda very clear – he wants to ‘expose’ Richard as a fraud and has no interest at all in having an amicable discussion about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.

When I began to inquire into my feelings and emotions I found it to be a waste of time to take sides with another because they felt the same as I did. I found taking sides only served to justify my own animosity or my own unhappiness and it did not lead me to look at the source of my feelings, which is ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: More complete answer: Cognitive dissonance works two ways. There is a possibility that some of you see Richard as something he is not, and will desperately resist ‘seeing’ aspects of his behaviour that are not exactly consistent with someone who is ‘actually free from the human condition’. If No 59 sees something, No 58 sees something, I see something, no-one speaks about it – it’s all too easily swept under the carpet, because there is a vested interest in not seeing it. Everyone knows what kind of scenarios that can lead to.

VINEETO: First, cognitive dissonance is a mechanism that ‘I’, the entity, use in order to keep things as they are, to maintain ‘my’ status quo as it were, whereas ‘being open’ to understanding actualism requires a 180 degree turnabout in how one has been unwittingly taught to viscerally think about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.

My own cognitive dissonance stopped when I had my first major pure consciousness experience. I had desperately wanted to know if actual freedom was indeed actual, as in universally applicable to all human experience, independent of anyone’s personal viewpoint and the PCE undeniably proved that it is – when ‘I’ temporarily disappeared the actual world of the senses became apparent. Then I also knew that the actual world Richard describes is the very same actuality that I briefly experienced in my own PCE.

Second, when you say ‘not exactly consistent with someone who is ‘actually free from the human condition’’ – you do not actually know what is consistent with someone who is free from the human condition because you have yet to meet anyone who is actually free from the human condition. All you can do is project your idea of being actually free onto Richard and then demand he should behave according to your imaginary scenario.

Third, No 59 and No 58 have both clearly stated that they are not interested if Richard is actually free from malice and sorrow and they both repeatedly state their belief that it is useless to deliberately want to change human nature. Whatever they ‘see’ is a pre-conditioned ‘seeing’, in other words a feeling. Far from ‘no-one speaks about it – it’s all too easily swept under the carpet’, by far the majority of correspondents on this list passionately object to actualism and dispute the accounts of actualists – albeit for an assortment of reasons. As an example, the 65 posts that were posted to the list yesterday were almost all from objectors – rather than ‘all too easily swept under the carpet’ this is all upfront for everyone to see and for everyone to evaluate ‘what kind of scenarios that can lead to’.

The instinctual pull to remain within the fold is enormous – I have always compared it to gravity because of its automatic and permanent pull – and to even begin to recognize this instinctual pull requires the sincere intent to become free from it, whatever the cost. Without this intent you cannot help but side with the majority.

RESPONDENT: When I first started reading the Actual Freedom web site, I thought the core ideas sounded really interesting. Then when I started to look into the correspondence, I saw that Richard seems to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the minutiae, quibbling and quarrelling over trivialities, and seeming to be more interested in defending himself than helping the other. It almost deterred me from the start. I thought, how the hell can this guy have the goods he claims to have when all he does is bicker like the million and one pedantic geezers that hang out in newsgroups and mailing lists. It didn’t fit my impression of what a person who is actually free, beyond enlightenment, living a life of such quality that is unparalleled in human history, ought to be.

VINEETO: Of course, the ‘core idea’ can sound ‘really interesting’ in theory. People only begin to quibble and quarrel when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of actually doing the work of looking at their own beliefs and preconceptions, their feelings and passions. A little clear-eyed look at the website will reveal that the journals and articles are forthright, down-to-earth and to the point, whereas the majority of correspondence consists of answers to correspondents who raised objections to what was said. In short it is the correspondents themselves who set the agenda by the content and intent of their criticism.

I wonder why you feel Richard is ‘defending himself’ – aren’t his correspondents attacking him, often ad hominem? Do you think it is ‘not exactly consistent with someone who is ‘actually free from the human condition’’ to take the time and make the effort to put the facts straight and explain his experience in detail, over and over again? Do you think Richard should instead be a ‘lie-down-and-let-people- trample-all-over-him-pacifist? Do you think Richard should recant his discovery as Galileo was forced to do simply because the majority of correspondents think and feel he should not be challenging the status quo?

Is your idea that Richard should be ‘helping people’ by agreeing with them or pampering to everyone’s individual worldview and personal beliefs or that he should not respond to their concerns and attacks? By ‘helping people’ do you mean refraining from ‘discussing the minutiae, quibbling and quarrelling over trivialities’ that many people find important enough to raise as an issue?

*

VINEETO: I always found that I first had to sort out my feelings for myself before I could read with both eyes open, ask sensible questions of Richard or have a fruitful discussion that was helpful to me in furthering my inquiry into the human condition.

RESPONDENT: May I ask: does the kind of bickering I’ve witnessed here happen a lot in ‘real life’ too, or is it a text-only thing?

VINEETO: Ha! Never. I never talk to people about their personal beliefs let alone about the possibility of becoming free from all emotions and passions that constitute the human condition unless they invite me to do so, and even then the conversation soon turns to less threatening topics. If the ‘text-only’ comments on this mailing list were face-to-face group encounters then we actualists may well have been taken out and shot in front of the grateful mob who would have no doubt been glad to see justice done, such is human nature. T’is not for nothing that we choose to discuss these matters with our fellow human beings via the internet.

As a hint in case you are interested in less ‘bickering’ conversations – whenever I was in any way emotionally effected by what my correspondents wrote it has always helped me to look at my own feelings in the issue and then sleep over my response before I sent it so as to have some time to have a clear-eyed look at what was being said.

VINEETO: Ah, you discovered that you are fatally attracted.

RESPONDENT: Yes, the other options seem like half-measures and/or band-aid solutions now.

VINEETO: They certainly are.

*

VINEETO: What’s your plan?

RESPONDENT: Well, now that it’s a question of means rather than ends, I’m happy stick to practicalities and try out the advice of those who have been here before me. I’m trying to put actualism into practice as prescribed paying attention to how I am experiencing this moment, finding out what prevents this moment from being good -> great -> excellent -> perfect, learning about the structure and strategies of ‘me’; identifying the instinctual passions at the root of my being; understanding the source of my thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, fantasies, opinions, actions, etc; minimising the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (by feeling them, getting to know them intimately, observing what triggers them, observing their consequences, observing how they are related to each other, recognising certain repetitive patterns of feeling/behaviour and nipping them in the bud when appropriate, etc); using the freed up affective energy to enjoy being here as this flesh ‘n’ blood, a living part of this physical universe.

VINEETO: Yep. And when I did all this I found that as a consequence my behaviour towards other people changed dramatically because I became more considerate and inclusive in my actions rather than exclusively looking after ‘my’ interests. Investigating my beliefs and feelings also resulted in some radical changes because my genuine intent meant that I was compelled to act upon the realizations and understandings that my ‘self’-investigations revealed.

RESPONDENT: That’s the overall plan. The main focus for now is experiencing this moment, and taking it from there when problems arise.

I’m sure this is going to be an interesting process. Glad to have put the dithering and sniping behind now. It wasn’t much fun to finally realise that ‘I’ am a lost cause, but I couldn’t really get into this until I’d clutched at every possible ‘self’-sustaining straw (which is what I’ve been doing for nigh on 17 years).

VINEETO: Oh, it’s a very interesting process indeed, the most exciting adventure I have ever undertaken … and the most sensible as well.

It might have been a little easier for me to accept ‘that ‘I’ am a lost cause’, as you say, because when I joined the spiritual movement I took on board that I as ego was standing in the road of experiencing happiness – it’s just that nobody had dared to question ‘me’ as soul. What was difficult for me at first, when I came across actualism, was to acknowledge that all of the wise men down the ages had got it wrong, not just a bit, but utterly and completely.

RESPONDENT: I can almost hear other people saying: yeah, right, give up all the other ‘self’-sustaining straws and adopt actualism as the last refuge of a cunning self. I would have said the same a couple of weeks ago. But the bottom line has to be: let’s see what happens in practice. It’s the only way to find out. Early signs are good, and I don’t see any reason why it can’t continue that way.

VINEETO: To go by my experience, that’s what the ‘self’ is invariably going to do as part of ‘my’ survival strategy when one sets out on a path to ‘self’-immolation – to try and make actualism into another belief system, to turn the practical question of how am I experiencing this moment of being alive into a dulling mantra, to transmogrify one’s realisations into a message for the world at large rather than put them into practice oneself. However, these ‘self’-survival strategies are only minor stages in the adventure of discovering how ‘I’ tick because whenever I become aware of these tricks this very awareness combined with the sincerity to act upon my insights will render them impotent. No 47 once wrote a good description about how he discovered and dealt with what he termed ‘Actualist Calenture’ (even though the term calenture is misappropriated here).

What I found important to remember again and again – because it has been a deep-seated religious and ethical conditioning to feel shame and guilt when the ‘dark side’ of one’s own nature surfaces – was to be friends with myself because this enterprise can only be successful with ‘my’ full permission and cooperation – it is ‘me’ who has to stubbornly instigate and constantly fuel the process of actualism, and particularly so in the early stages. This also meant that I had to be particularly aware of another one of ‘my’ survival tricks – trying to become a ‘self’ devoid of feelings, which is not what actualism is about at all. You said in a recent post –

[Respondent]: What is the role of ‘me’ in this process? I don’t see any significant role for ‘me’ other than to acquiesce and cede control to the pure intent (which is simple but not easy). ‘Week in Review’ 20.3.2003

There is a very clear and significant role for ‘me’ in this process of becoming free from the human condition because ‘I’ am the only one who can do the job of dismantling ‘me’ to the point where ‘self’-immolation becomes possible. If not ‘me’, who else? If ‘I’ am not interested in undoing my shackles, then who else?

‘I’ don’t merely ‘acquiesce and cede control’ – I actively use ‘my’ passion for peace-on-earth to find out where I need to change in order to become harmless, I use ‘my’ desire for happiness to discover where I need to abandon being grumpy, melancholic, sad and depressed, I use ‘my’ yearning for stillness in order to find out where I am driven by frenzy and consumed by fear and I use ‘my’ longing for genuine harmony in order to determine where ‘my’ feelings of love and nurture stand in the way of an actual intimacy with my fellow human beings. And I use ‘my’ altruistic passion to bring about a final end to the bloody war-torn history of humanity in another flesh and blood body in order to keep ‘me’ on track in this unnatural process of taking myself apart and making my ‘self’ redundant.

These passions are what fuel and sustain my intent to become free from the Human Condition. And then, towards the end of the process, this intent itself ensures that as my instinctual aggressiveness and selfishness diminishes, my desire for peace is slowly replaced by an increasing experience of the actuality of peace-on-earth, as are the other passions slowly replaced by the tangible experience of the actuality of harmony, equanimity, happiness and intimacy. The altruistic passion to facilitate peace-on-earth will also give me the courage and determination to take the ultimate step into oblivion.

RESPONDENT: I have found that the question ‘Why does this moment suck?’ works much better for me than the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ This might sound silly, might be silly in fact, but that’s the way it is. For me, ‘Why does this moment suck?’ works better because:

(1) If the moment doesn’t suck, the question is harmless and absurd, and it might even enhance one’s enjoyment of the fact that this moment is a really good one.

(2) If the moment does suck (and there’s a strong chance that it will), I find the question slightly less irritating than ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ because (a) it somehow makes one feel less guilty and useless for not feeling so good; and (b) it immediately puts the focus on identifying and dispensing with the cause of the imperfection.

(3) It somehow makes whatever is spoiling this moment seem less daunting to overcome.

VINEETO: Asking such a question implies that it is this moment which sucks and that one only needs to change the circumstances of this moment in order to enjoy it.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that it could be construed that way, and that would indeed convey the wrong impression.

VINEETO: I did not construe anything, I took what you were saying at face value. The question ‘why does this moment suck?’ has ‘this moment’ as its subject and ‘suck’ as its verb which by simple grammatical rules conveys that this moment sucks and ‘why’ questions the reason.

RESPONDENT: Implicit in the asking of ‘How does this moment suck?’ or ‘Why does this moment suck?’ is a constant awareness that, if something is wrong with this moment, it’s because of ‘me’; something ‘I’ am doing / thinking / feeling / imagining is spoiling what would otherwise be a perfect moment.

VINEETO: From what you are now saying it appears that an explicit translation of your question would read something like this – ‘What is it that ‘‘I’ am doing / thinking / feeling / imagining’ which makes me experience this moment as sucking?’

However, despite your assertion that this question ‘immediately puts the focus on identifying and dispensing with the cause of the imperfection’ (2b above), you have since identified the cause of why the moment sucks in your post to No 37 – that, whatever the situation, the moment sucks ‘in the sense that an Olympic silver medal ‘sucks’’. In other words, whatever you do ‘dispensing with the cause of the imperfection’ the moment still sucks as long as you are not actually free.

Personally I don’t see how your question ‘why does this moment suck’ in combination with your assertion that it will suck as long as you are not actually free can ever facilitate a gradual diminishing of your resentment of being here and a gradual increase in your enjoyment of being alive.

*

VINEETO: Secondly, to ask ‘why does this moment suck?’ leaves out the crucial aspect of the actualism method, which is not only to become happier about being here but also to become harmless as well. As an example, I remember in the past whenever I expressed my hostility or irritation, I never experienced that the moment sucked but I was awash with feelings of liberation and relief, albeit temporarily –however my feelings of liberation and relief were always had at the expense of another person’s wellbeing.

RESPONDENT: Your point that harmlessness is just as important a part of actualism as happiness is not going to be disputed here.

I know what you mean about feelings of liberation and relief, and I would include those under the very wide umbrella of moments which ‘suck’. Basically, if it’s not a PCE, it ‘sucks’ in some sense, no?

VINEETO: My experience of life in virtual freedom is quite different. After I had practiced the actualism method for a few months, making being happy and harmless the most important thing in my life, I noticed that my basic resentment at having to be here – typified by the phrase ‘this moment sucks’ – began to disappear and I increasingly began to enjoy being here, which in turn encouraged me to run the actualism question more regularly and more precisely until it became a wordless constant state of attentiveness.

Nowadays I have excellent days every day and hardly ever experience moments that are spoiled by contrary emotions and feelings. If I labelled such excellence as ‘sucking’ because I am not yet actually free it would be a gross misrepresentation of how I experience being alive and not only would it be counterproductive to my own happiness but I would invariably burden others with my feelings of resentment and frustration. Life does not suck at all, life is quite wonderful as it is and being virtually free from malice and sorrow by far exceeds any expectations I ever had and being virtually free from malice and sorrow is certainly far, far better than being normal or being in love or having a spiritual, an out-of-this-world mystical or a paranormal experience.

In my experience, to label feeling excellent, joyous, exuberant and happy as ‘it sucks in some sense’ does nothing to encourage felicitous feelings, on the contrary, it denigrates the experience of being alive to the point where becoming happy and harmless isn’t possible.

RESPONDENT: That’s the way I’m looking at it. Anything less than a PCE contains an imperfection (however slight) that can be investigated.

(An advantage I find in ‘how does this moment suck?’ is that I’m less likely to settle for second best; that is, I’m less likely to drift into the inadvertent use of the question as a ‘mantra’, inducing a ‘comfortably numb’ state, which others have commented on before).

VINEETO: Whenever I found myself using the actualism question as a repetitious mantra I knew I wasn’t interested in finding out the answer to the question of how I am experience life right now. Realizing that, I then concentrated on finding out what prevented me from being interested in exploring how I experienced this moment of being alive and thus I was straight back into investigating how ‘I’ ticked. If you want to avoid settling for second then the best way is not change the question but answer it.

RESPONDENT: I tend to look upon harmlessness as an inevitable side-effect of ‘self’-free happiness.

VINEETO: It is, in fact the other way round – the intent to be harmless and to live in peace with one’s fellow human beings is the only way to crack the intrinsic instinctual selfishness of the human condition.

RESPONDENT: In the absence of ‘me’, there is an intrinsic benevolence here. It can’t be simulated by moral strictures; the only thing that is going to bring it about is the demise of ‘me’;

VINEETO: Yes, in a PCE, in the absence of ‘me’ one experiences the benevolence that is intrinsic to the actual world. However, when the PCE fades, then the real job begins for an actualist which is to actualize one’s insights gained in a PCE and do the nitty-gritty business of uncovering, understanding and putting a stop to the multitudinous cunning ploys that ‘I’ invariably produce spoiling the already existing perfection.

RESPONDENT: … and in the interim, the pure intent to facilitate same is the only workable substitute.

VINEETO: Pure intent is not an interim ‘workable substitute’ – it is in fact the very means to bring about ‘the demise of ‘me’’.

RESPONDENT: And when even that is insufficient: neither express nor repress, but study it, make a note of the circumstances in which it arose, figure out which aspect of ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ is involved, understand how silly it is to let such a thing spoil this perfect moment, and try not to fall for it again. Correct?

VINEETO: When you say ‘when even that is insufficient’ I am reminded of the note that one manufacturer prints on the lid of paint cans – ‘If all else fails read the instructions’. When I came across actualism ‘all else’ had failed and because I was interested in becoming free of the human condition, I decided that the best, easiest and only way to do so was to do what Richard had done to become free of the human condition – i.e. I followed the instructions and they worked wonders.

*

VINEETO: The actualism question is designed to bring to light all of one’s beliefs, feelings and attitudes that stand in the way of being both harmless and happy – thereby avoiding the usual pitfalls and limitations inherent in other methods of self-investigation.

RESPONDENT: (4) ‘... this moment of being alive’ has always had a slightly sanctimonious air about it, to me. I’m sure it didn’t have that tone for Richard, but it does for me.

VINEETO: It is one of the traits of the human condition to instantaneously and automatically attempt to change the circumstances that cause feelings of annoyance or irritation rather than concentrate on changing ‘me’ and investigate why one feels annoyed or irritated – which is what the actualism method is all about.

RESPONDENT: Yes. As mentioned above, the ‘How/Why does this moment suck?’ is aimed squarely at ‘me’. Nowhere else but ‘me’.

VINEETO: And when you don’t experience this moment as sucking, then asking how you are experiencing this moment of being alive also acts to remind you to appreciate the sense of wellbeing that comes from feeling good about being here and it can even provoke one into daring to feel excellent about being here.

*

VINEETO: If you stick with the original question of the actualism method – a method that made one person actually free and several others virtually free from the human condition – then you have the opportunity of uncovering whatever the religious/spiritual/philosophical conditioning is that causes you to feel that the simple descriptive expression of ‘this moment of being alive’ has ‘a slightly sanctimonious air’.

With the usual actualist disclaimer … it is only a suggestion, though.

RESPONDENT: Ha! I can explain this better now. ‘Sanctimonious’ was the wrong word. The ‘problem’ is that I tend to hear the words ‘this moment of being alive’ as if they’re spoken (whispered seductively, even) by the corny romantic lead in a Harold Robbins novel, or maybe Gone With The Wind ;-)

VINEETO: You are certainly not alone in having an aversion to practicing actualism – there have been many people who have come up with their own particular version of the simple straightforward question that has no other purpose than to focus one’s attentiveness on what is really going on ‘under the bonnet’ as it were.

RESPONDENT: Which is, of course, rather silly.

VINEETO: In my experience with actualism, when I understand that something is really, really silly, then sincerity and integrity demand of me that I stop falling into the trap of feeling this way again, that I stop believing something to be true despite facts to the contrary, that I stop indulging in the instinctual passions when I know the harm it does to me and others, and so on.

In short, when I understand something to be really silly, I change.

RESPONDENT: I think I know what lies behind my problem with the actualist method. Now that I know what it is, I’m even more surprised that others are not experiencing it too.

VINEETO: No, it doesn’t.

The problem you describe would only occur for someone who wants to jump to a total freedom from feelings without wanting to walk the walk via a virtual freedom from the human condition – i.e. without wanting to do what is obviously necessary in order that ‘I’ can become free of malice and sorrow – to become as happy and as harmless as humanly possible.

A virtual free person is not entirely free of feelings – which is impossible while still being a ‘being’ – but has diminished both malice and sorrow (the bad feelings) and their pacifiers (the good feelings) in order to fully experience the felicitous/ innocuous feelings and enjoy the sensate pleasure of being alive.

The urgency to clean myself up from both the bad and the good feelings arose not only from having activated my naiveté but also from having developed a concern and consideration for my fellow human beings whom I wished to free from the effects of my malice and my sorrow – it had nothing at all to do with having ‘a sense of ‘divine’ destiny’ nor of being ‘‘chosen’ to fulfil a mission’ (and nor did it with Richard if you care to carefully read his Journal).

Incidentally the actualism method does not ‘devalue’ feelings per se but the combination of an on-going attentiveness and pure intent enables you to make a choice between the different feelings that occur. Once you have understood, in your own right, that malice and sorrow create havoc both in yourself and in others and that love and compassion do exactly the same then the choice for the felicitous/ innocuous feelings becomes obvious and easy.

Make sense?

RESPONDENT: Hence we ask ‘how am I...’ and things turn out the way they turn out.

VINEETO: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? is not to be confused with a mantra that bridges bad moments until luck changes – this question is designed to be a piercing tool, an excavator, a well-digger and I apply it to uncover deeper and deeper layers of my unhappiness and my unfriendliness until I reach to the core of my identity. My suffering with the poor and downtrodden, the victims of war and violence, starvation and corruption was a longstanding issue – whenever I saw a contemporary report on television I would either be angry or sad and I had to look closely into my feeling connection with humanity in order to become gradually free from ‘my’ empathy and compassion, ‘my’ righteousness and idealism.

I experienced my psychic connection with people as emotional strings consisting of thousands of single strands – beliefs, values and instinctual passions – which I had to unhook one by one. Sometimes a whole bunch of them were loosened at once, and what a realization, but often it was a matter of tracing one feeling to its core and finding all the little ties and knots that connected me with the feelings and beliefs of other people. Often I was shocked when such a tie broke, particularly when I ‘unhooked’ my affective connection to a person close to me such as a family member or formerly close friends.

To become free from being connected with people is not a matter of cool detachment – as in ‘it doesn’t concern me’. What I discovered as I questioned my spiritual beliefs was that many suppressed feelings came to the surface, and I particularly became aware of the suffering of others as I no longer hid behind my feeling of righteous detachment. I began to understand that another’s feeling, when it resonates in me, is my social-instinctual identity in action. ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’ and there is no way of escaping the fact as long as I am an identity. To step out of humanity is to leave ‘me’ behind.

*

VINEETO: When you say ‘too quick’ I am reminded of the ‘quick and dirty processing pathway’ from the thalamus to the Amygdala that LeDoux and his team discovered (see Library Topics – Instinctual Passions). The emotional-instinctual response by its very nature is ‘too quick’, while a deliberate sensible answer requires thinking and contemplation.

RESPONDENT: I found this bit to be a fascinating bit of science when I first read about it, and consistent with my own discoveries. It just takes that split-second of deferring my responses to take the wind out of their sails. This helped enormously with the external aspects of my relationships with others. This is an example of the appeal (to me) of AF... its sound footing in the concrete/actual... no need for spirits/gods/planetary influences/etc.

VINEETO: As you say, ‘the external aspects of my relationships with others’ were the first to take care of. For me that meant I became determined to stop expressing any of my angry, sad, resentful, irritated, etc. feelings to the people I interacted with. The more ‘split-seconds’ I learnt to put between experiencing those feeling and expressing a thoughtful response, the less I transmitted these feelings to others.

Whilst the first aspect is to stop expressing such feelings to others, it is equally important not to repress them. It is only by not repressing my feelings of anger, sadness or resentment that I am able to experience them and then inquire into the nature of my beliefs and the bits of my identity that triggered those feelings in the first place. Whenever I became aware that I was feeling upset about a comment someone made, I took the opportunity to look for the reason why his or her comment had upset me.

As an example – did his or her comment in a conversation question a dearly held belief or opinion of mine? In that case I questioned why it was so important for me to maintain my belief and I looked deeper into the particular belief or opinion that had been disturbed. Slowly, slowly, with effort and diligence, those – touchy – beliefs were replaced by sound facts and simple sensibility which, in turn, enabled a joie de vivre to supplant the former ambience of doom and gloom.

RESPONDENT: With this recent episode however, my tools let me down – the situation was so dire that I knew that I was just fooling myself (and her) with this chicanery. So, apparently there was this vast gap between her and I, and no way to bridge it. I spend about a week in this excruciating place, trying to figure out how to engineer my way out, always to come up against the same wall. While my guts were churning away, I couldn’t help but think that somewhere in this impossible struggle lay a very important bit of information, and I was determined to fish it out. Eventually, the clouds parted, and the veils of that third entity, the ‘relationship’ and all its attendant accrued characteristics, dropped away, leaving simply two discrete beings, completely separate. Everything stood out clearly, all the emotional interactions, the unmet needs, the resentment, the control issues. Particularly, I saw in myself an element that Peter captured nicely.

I had been ‘holding back’ in an effort to maintain some sort of sanity in this chaotic relationship. It is obvious that it takes as much of an iron grip to hold someone at arm’s length as it does to clutch them tightly to one’s breast. Each is rigid and controlling.

VINEETO: Personally, I found ‘holding someone at arm’s length’ particularly tedious as I not only had to fend against the other’s attempts to come closer but also against my own yearning to have a more intimate relationship. I knew that by trying to hold back I was impairing myself as much as the other, depriving myself of the opportunity to find out and to learn something new about how to live in peace with a fellow human being. So when I met Peter and he introduced me to actualism, I jumped in with both feet – I wanted to get to the bottom of why I had never been able to achieve the peace and harmony in a relationship I so yearned for. This meant not only experiencing all the feelings that the relationship brought up but also tracing them deep to their instinctual core – the good feelings as well as the bad feelings, the desired feelings as well as the one’s I used to deny – the whole lot.

RESPONDENT: Peter continues with (once again) a very pithy and practical conclusion from this aspect: < Peter to Gary, 7.1.2003b>

Vineeto’s post arrived and really hit home:

[Vineeto to Gary]: ... I recently found an emotional ‘hook’ in my living together with Peter. I was contemplating about what exactly is standing in the way of ‘self’-immolation and found a bit of an affective identity in action – the ‘me’ who cherished the cozy corner I had in living together peacefully and delightfully. ‘I’ as an identity feel noticed and understood with Peter, he knows the happy ‘me’, the quizzing ‘me’, the puzzled ‘me’, the impatient ‘me’, he knows about ‘my’ aims and fears, ‘my’ quirks and wonderings. And this cozy relationship will certainly cease to be when I become free because then ‘I’ who is doing the relating will cease to be. Vineeto, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, Gary, 12.1.2003

and then goes on to coincidentally mirror my own recent discovery about the separateness of the two of us:

[Vineeto to Gary]: ... with astounding clarity I experienced myself as completely separate from Peter, two flesh-and-blood human beings not at all affectively or psychically connected in any way.

It was utterly amazing and magical that two complete strangers – as in not psychically connected – get to interact with each other in utter intimacy. In such intimacy there is no ‘me’ trying to pull the strings, no ‘me’ thinking or feeling about ‘me’ in relationship to the other, and a fresh, unmediated and direct experiencing happens on its own accord. Vineeto, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, Gary, 12.1.2003

VINEETO: Just to reiterate something that is essential for an actualist to keep in mind during his or her explorations – the aim and process of actualism is not to suppress feelings and emotions but to become aware of them in order to explore them deeply and exhaustively. The automatic reaction is to wheedle one’s way out of feeling the bad feelings – those that are considered bad and immoral or wrong and unethical – and consequently the essential first step is to be aware of one’s habit of suppressing, avoiding, withdrawing or denying them in order to feel superior, stay cool, be strong, rational or logical.

In order for the actualism method to work it is crucial to first get in touch with one’s feelings because if I want to find out about ‘me’ I can’t afford to only investigate the ‘better’ half of my surfacing emotions and ignore, repress or deny the dark side. To allow oneself to experience whatever feeling is happening often needs some investigation into what Peter recently termed the ‘Guardians at the Gate’ – the moral judgements and ethical evaluations that trigger feelings such as guilt, shame, defiance or righteousness whenever one starts to become aware of one’s dark side and feel one’s dark feelings.

And of course neither is there the need to express your feelings or wallow in them in order to become aware of them – after all the most important thing for an actualist is to be happy and harmless. As soon as possible get back to feeling good about being here or feeling excellent about being alive. Then you can put your feet up and spend some time contemplating on what it was that triggered you to stop feeling happy or being harmless. You will then find that it is vital to drop that part of your social identity that is causing you to be unhappy, sad, resentful, annoyed, frustrated, jealous, and so on, if you want to really want to be happy and harmless.

*

RESPONDENT: Facing the reality of my own demise has been one of my favourite obsessions in the past.

VINEETO: I am somewhat confused as to what you mean by ‘facing the reality of my own demise … in the past’ – are you referring to the demise of the ego that leaves the soul intact, as taught in each and every branch of Eastern mysticism, or are you referring to facing physical death?

Or are you talking about the recent past since taking up actualism – your contemplations about your own demise of your identity in toto, both ego and soul, something that is entirely new to human history?

RESPONDENT: I’ve always known that in that conundrum lies a very important bit of knowledge, but I usually got stuck in an existential quagmire.

VINEETO: The most important bit of knowledge that I have gleaned from contemplating the demise of my ‘self’ has been, and still is, the purity of my intent as an actualist. Contemplating death or ‘self’-immolation is not something that in itself brings me closer to becoming actually free of malice and sorrow but it certainly gives me a gauge measure to check if I am becoming comfortably numb, settling for second best or hiding in fear.

I found that the best strategy is to check out my intent and then get on with the business of being happy and harmless instead of, for instance, being frightened at the thought of ‘my’ demise. It’s useful to remember that every feeling I indulge in, for whatever ‘noble’ reason, is only going to feed my identity instead of diminishing it.

I have spent many years exploring therapy groups and spiritual feeling states and it was quite a challenge to slowly wake up to the fact that feeling is not identical to actuality – in fact, feeling has nothing to do with actuality. In the past I might have felt harmless but was nevertheless quite harmful in that my ‘self’-centredness inevitably caused ripples in other peoples lives. I found that while I might have felt that I valued peace, I still instinctively acted in attack and defence mode. While I might have felt that I was willing to sacrifice my ego for a higher cause, I was actually cultivating humbleness as a means of soul-istic ‘self’-aggrandizement, and so forth.

Through the rigorous and persistent process of actualism, I slowly learnt to extend my attention beyond what I thought and felt, i.e. my ideals and passions, so as to become aware of the tangible effects that my thoughts, feelings and actions had on the people around me. I discovered more and more that feeling myself to be harmless and actually being harmless were two completely different things. This process of distinguishing between feeling and actuality is the key to actually becoming happy and harmless compared to merely feeling happy and harmless.

I’m saying this because contemplating my demise has been one of my favourite topics since discovering actualism and only lately have I discovered that, while such contemplations can serve to fuel my intent, they don’t bring me closer to the actuality of being free, simply because I am contemplating about a time that is not now.

Which reminds me that Richard always maintained that one cannot think one’s way to freedom nor feel one’s way to freedom – something that I have persistently tried to do. It’s great that there aren’t any rights and wrongs in actualism – given the sincere intent to be free of malice and sorrow all explorations are useful explorations.

RESPONDENT: Today, while showering, the subject popped into my head for the first time in some while, and I was keenly aware that it was the identity that was clinging to that fear, and that this flesh-and-blood shall simply fade away, no fuss, no muss.

VINEETO: When you observe this experience a bit longer you will discover that ‘you’ as an identity are identical to that fear, they are in fact one and the same. ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’. And when fear leaves the stage for a moment, the identity is nowhere to be found and vice versa.

Then there is peace.

VINEETO: I remember you said that you no longer subscribe to spiritual practices but given that spiritual values and practices pervade human society like odourless vapour, an investigation of potential hangovers might still be of use. In case you are interested, some years ago there were several discussions on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list about the topic of Vipassana in distinction to actualism – Vineeto, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 4, 5.4.1999 and 16.4.1999, and No 7, 24.4.1999, 2nd question, Richard to No 4, 10.9.1999 and No 7, 23.8.1999

*

VINEETO: You wrote something to Gary the other day that seems to be a misinterpretation of what I wrote, so I couldn’t resist ‘butting in’. The misinterpretation is in the second part of this post but I am making a general comment at the start.

[Gary]: Within the Human Condition, the best one can ever do is to keep a check on oneself, lest one run amok due to unrestrained passions and instincts. However, I think when one is practicing an alert attentiveness that something entirely different than this monitoring process is occurring. We have spoken before on this list about ‘nipping it in the bud’. I believe I have heard you use this expression as well. When I have nipped a feeling in the bud, so to speak, the feeling or emotion does not even get off the runway, to use an aeronautical analogy. If, for instance, anger arises in regard to some interaction I have had with another person, I can nip this feeling in the bud by noticing the feelings and thoughts that are arising, but there is no need to monitor by keeping in check or controlling the particular feeling, as the feeling does not gain momentum and energy. Rather, one’s native intelligence can go to work investigating this feeling, if investigation is needed. The mere presence of the feeling means I have something to look into. If anger continues to cruise down the runway, so to speak, gathering a full head of steam, then I really have my work cut out for me. If not, then voilá! ... there is nothing further that I need do. Gary to No 38, 21.2.2003

RESPONDENT: I realize that ‘nipping it in the bud’ could be interpreted as either suppression, or as you say

[Gary]: ‘I can nip this feeling in the bud by noticing the feelings and thoughts that are arising, but there is no need to monitor by keeping in check or controlling the particular feeling, as the feeling does not gain momentum and energy’. Gary to No 38, 21.2.2003

The latter is what I intended, and your description jibes with that. As an example, the other day I had an angry moment, and I popped off at someone in an inappropriate (aka violate common consideration for others) manner. The moment swept me along, so there was little I could do to ‘nip it in the bud’, but the following feelings of embarrassment and shame I was able to ‘nip in the bud’. They arose, I recognized them, then got back to being H&H.

VINEETO: In the process of becoming happy and harmless, my main focus was on becoming harmless, i.e. ceasing being aggressive or angry towards others. In this case investigating my feelings means that I examine what triggered my eruption of anger, what caused me to up my defences, what is it that I am being defensive about and what part of my identity felt threatened and therefore caused me to react aggressively.

Once I am able to isolate the issue in question, then the next step is to clearly look at all aspects of this particular area of identity, be it an authority issue, a gender identification, professional pride, a certain belief or worldview or any other cause that made me react in an aggressive or inconsiderate manner. The difference between maintaining a social or spiritual moral code in order to keep a lid on outbursts of anger and the process of actualism is that in actualism I am changing my behaviour by incrementally removing the very triggers for feeling irritated, annoyed, resentful, threatened or aggressive.

To achieve this, I not only have to ‘recognize’ the arising feeling as a feeling, but I have to search for and identify the part of my identity associated with the feeling – ‘me’ as a woman, ‘me’ as a national identity, ‘me’ in my professional or work role, ‘me’ as a partner or family member, ‘me’ as a social identity with a particular philosophy, culture, religion or worldview, etc, etc. Unless I recognize, examine and finally incapacitate the part of my identity who feels offended and therefore responds offensively either covertly or overtly, there will inevitably be a similar harmful response in the next similar situation.

As for ‘feelings of embarrassment and shame’ – those feelings quickly became redundant as I incrementally succeeded in ridding myself of malice and sorrow. As an actualist, I set my sights higher than merely keeping the lid on my instinctual aggression by living by the rights and wrongs of some moral or ethical code. Actualism is about becoming free of malice and sorrow via a process aimed at ‘self-immolation – it is not about controlling one’s malice and sorrow via a process aimed at ‘self’-perpetuation.

*

VINEETO: The process you seem to be describing as ‘they arose, I recognized them, then got back to being H&H’ has a striking resemblance to the method of Vipassana. This Buddhist ‘watching practice’ is based on the understanding that ‘who’ you really are is your ‘consciousness’, i.e. a disembodied, desensitized ‘watcher’, dissociated from unwanted emotions and thoughts

In Vipassana, ‘watched’ anger eventually passes away, not because you understand its underlying reason and origin but because you become the watcher and distance yourself from your anger and merely watch it run its course. In the same way you can distance yourself from any feeling or emotion without ever having to investigate the substance of your ‘self’ – it’s instinctual core. To really face the fact that anger is ‘you’ in action, and that ‘you’ are the only cause and reason of anger arising, is the first and essential step to doing something practical about bringing an end to this emotion instead of merely witnessing it and waiting for it to pass away.

Actualism is not a method of passively monitoring, watching or observing one’s feelings – actualism is a method of actively investigating the origin of those feelings and thus rocking the very core of one’s identity.

RESPONDENT: So, ‘nip it in the bud’ doesn’t imply suppression, just an acquired skill in processing the emotions as they arise. As Vineeto discussed in another thread, it’s not necessary, or even useful to pump this through the grist mill every time, just recognize it as another manifestation of a fairly well understood response. Of course, there needs to be a check on this process to ensure that this categorization is not self-deception, a red herring.

VINEETO: I take it that the thread you are referring to is from my recent post to Gary –

[Vineeto to Gary]: Recently Peter and I were talking about this very quality of virtual freedom – after sufficient explorations into the human condition I am now able to ‘nip these reactions in the bud’ shortly after they appear and many events that usually would have triggered an angry or sad response in the past now fail to do so.

At my stage of the process the job now is to remember to stop the once essential but now redundant habit of rummaging around in my psyche in order to regurgitate issues that I have already explored, resolved and understood so as to get on with being happy and harmless as soon and as uninterruptedly as possible. Strangely enough that leaves ‘me’ increasingly with nothing to do, which in itself sometimes stirs the uncomfortable feeling of being redundant – a sure sign that my efforts of actively diminishing ‘me’ have had tangible effect. Vineeto, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, Gary, 12.2.2003

When I said ‘after sufficient exploration into the human condition’ I was referring to several years of actively dismantling and intensely exploring all aspects of my identity – an identity that was clearly seen and recognized in numerous ‘self’-less pure consciousness experiences as being an all-pervading yet non-actual ‘presence’. Such pure consciousness experiences are vital to the intent to investigate one’s identity because only in a PCE can I see, by the very comparison of ‘my’ absence, what havoc ‘I’ am continuously causing by ‘my’ very presence and what confusion, diversion and cunning ploys ‘I’ am inventing in order to stay in existence. The comparison of a PCE to ‘my’ normal life as an identity within the human condition also gives me the confidence that when I am ‘nipping feelings in the bud’ I am not repressing, ignoring or sidelining a ‘precious’ part of my identity.

*

RESPONDENT: <snipped a bunch of stuff I understand>

VINEETO: The reason I described the investigation process in detail is that nipping feelings of embarrassment and shame in the bud only serves to stifle the investigative process. To get rid of embarrassment I had to find the cause of my embarrassment – in the case you described the outburst of anger – and then in the same way follow up the reasons for my outburst of anger as I have described above. Embarrassment and shame are only the tip of the iceberg and nipping these first indicators of ‘me’ in action in the bud puts a full stop to further investigations and does nothing to eliminate the underlying causes for feeling shame and embarrassment.

RESPONDENT: Maybe I’m not making myself clear, or perhaps I’m using the wrong terminology again. When I talk about nipping the feelings in the bud, I don’t mean suppressing them. I’ve certainly learned how well that doesn’t work. The nipping means detecting them as they arise so that I can fully explore them. A secondary purpose of nipping is to stop the external manifestation, as you said a while back, to ‘keep my hands in my pockets’.

VINEETO: Mr. Oxford explains the figurative expression in question –

‘nip in the bud – fig. destroy at an early stage of development’ Oxford Dictionary,

which is the opposite to the meaning you attribute to the expression – ‘detecting them as they arise so that I can fully explore them’. Your terminology seems to get more confused the more you try to clarify it.

As for the ‘secondary purpose of nipping’ – from your description of the incident you provided as an example it appears that you expressed your anger and did not ‘keep your hands in your pockets’. Then, when ‘feelings of embarrassment and shame’ arose as a consequence of having expressed your anger, you ‘nipped them in the bud’, as in ‘destroyed at an early stage of development’.

In actualism – with its intrinsic aim of being happy and harmless – to keep my hands in my pocket means that I don’t express my anger in any form whatsoever towards others. This is eminently sensible behaviour. However, only by being aware that you are feeling angry as the feeling is happening, can you be aware of the sensibility of not expressing it. T’is best to put the cart before the horse – awareness before action leads to considered and considerate action. Being aware of feelings of shame and embarrassment at having expressed your anger to others are but signs that the horse has already bolted before you became aware of it.

There is much, much more to the phrase ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ than is apparent from a cursory glance, particularly for those who prize themselves as being already aware. (...)

*

RESPONDENT: Actually, my experience to date is kind of opposite of that. The ‘watcher’ is a useful component of the actual No 38, whereas the ‘dissociated’ entity is the identity, that which has the emotions and learned responses. I am being careful with that word ‘dissociated’ as it could imply suppression, sweeping it under the carpet. The whole point of this work is to keep it in clear view so that it can be taken apart, piece by piece, and that can’t be done if it’s hidden away.

VINEETO: This is the nub of the misinterpretation I was trying to explain. The ‘watcher’ is not ‘a useful component of the actual No 38’ – there is no way to experience the actual No 38 except in a pure consciousness experience. In a PCE the whole identity – both the ‘watcher’ and the ‘watched’ – temporarily go into abeyance.

The ‘watcher’ and ‘the ‘dissociated’ entity’ are part of the same identity – the ‘self’ split into two for the purpose of ‘self’-improvement.

RESPONDENT: Granted.

VINEETO: Are you saying you grant that –

‘the ‘watcher’ is not ‘a useful component of the actual No 38’’

and that

‘there is no way to experience the actual No 38 except in a pure consciousness experience’

and that

‘The ‘watcher’ and ‘the ‘dissociated’ entity’ are part of the same identity – the ‘self’ split into two for the purpose of ‘self’-improvement’?

The consequence of this agreement becomes apparent in your next paragraph.

RESPONDENT: But until my identity is eliminated (if that ever happens), I need to use some tools from my present perceptive context. That includes such artificial mechanisms as a ‘watcher’ or ‘monitor’, or forcing myself to remember to HAIETMOBA. By their nature, they are contrived, and certainly not for the long term. One day I would hope to abandon them when the need for them has passed, much as a child removes the training wheels from the bike, and experiences riding fully unencumbered.

VINEETO: If I understand you correctly you say that

• ‘until your identity is eliminated’ you need to use ‘such artificial mechanisms as a ‘watcher’ or ‘monitor’.

Above you ‘granted’ my statement that

• the watcher and ‘the ‘dissociated’ entity’ are part of the same identity.

Putting the two together you are then saying that

• ‘until your identity is eliminated’ you need to use ‘such artificial mechanisms as’ ‘the ‘dissociated’ entity’.

Whatever bicycle it is you are riding, this tautological cycling will certainly keep your identity safely in place … for as long as you choose.

VINEETO: The other day you wrote to No 37 making an assumption about me that I want to clarify –

RESPONDENT to No 37: Richard appears to have rewired his brain internally (and on the evidence I think that is true), so how do we know that it wasn’t simply rewired to experience the universe as timeless and infinite? Peter, Vineeto and others are attempting the same physical rewiring (not achieved yet... virtual freedom vs. actual freedom) by emulation of that programming... whether they or anyone else can ever accomplish the hard-wiring remains to be seen.

VINEETO: I am certainly not attempting an ‘emulation of that programming’. Actual Freedom is not about emulating a programming – it is about becoming free from one’s social programming and from the invidious effects of blind nature’s instinctual programming. With the actualism method I remove my default setting, the normal and spiritual programming of the human condition – I do not replace it with another programming. When the identity is removed – as experienced in a pure consciousness experience – the actual becomes apparent only because there is no programming interfering with experiencing what is already here.

Therefore I do not need to ‘ever accomplish the hard-wiring’ as you suggest – what I do in the continuous process of increasing attentiveness is to become aware of and remove the redundant software programming. Then the hard-wiring, human intelligence, can function undisturbed and undistorted and the senses perceive unfiltered delight.

Once you begin to practice actualism and begin to de-program your belief in the supposedly unknowable nature of the universe, then the nature of actualism becomes easily apparent.

*

VINEETO: The other day you wrote to No 37 making an assumption about me that I want to clarify –

RESPONDENT to No 37: Richard appears to have rewired his brain internally (and on the evidence I think that is true), so how do we know that it wasn’t simply rewired to experience the universe as timeless and infinite? Peter, Vineeto and others are attempting the same physical rewiring (not achieved yet... virtual freedom vs. actual freedom) by emulation of that programming... whether they or anyone else can ever accomplish the hard-wiring remains to be seen.

VINEETO: I am certainly not attempting an ‘emulation of that programming’. Actual Freedom is not about emulating a programming – it is about becoming free from one’s social programming and from the invidious effects of blind nature’s instinctual programming. With the actualism method I remove my default setting, the normal and spiritual programming of the human condition – I do not replace it with another programming. When the identity is removed – as experienced in a pure consciousness experience – the actual becomes apparent only because there is no programming interfering with experiencing what is already here.

RESPONDENT: Understood. My example was yet another on a long list of attempts to rationalize AF in terms that make sense to ‘I’. Clearly that can never happen as ‘I’ have a vested interest in making sure that the fundamental experience of the actual never happens.

VINEETO: Yes, you said it very well. As long as ‘you’ ‘have a vested interest’ in preventing ‘the fundamental experience of the actual’, all you can do is ‘rationalize’ actualism – to mean what it doesn’t mean ... because what actualism really means is the end of ‘me’.

When I discovered actualism and satisfied myself that it was genuine article, there came a point when I had to make a clear-cut decision. Either I would live the rest of my life settling for second best … or I would make a commitment, knowing well that this commitment would be the end of ‘me’. I don’t know why, but second best was never an option.

Once I had made this commitment something quite delicious happened – I discovered ‘I’ had something worthwhile to do – ‘I’ had a purpose, a goal worth dying for – and this commitment alone made ‘me’ immensely happy. Committing myself to actual freedom ended my search and began my process of discovery, I had found the effective method to achieve the freedom I had always longed for – the only thing left to do was to do it.

*

VINEETO: Therefore I do not need to ‘ever accomplish the hard-wiring’ as you suggest – what I do in the continuous process of increasing attentiveness is to become aware of and remove the redundant software programming. Then the hard-wiring, human intelligence, can function undisturbed and undistorted and the senses perceive unfiltered delight.

RESPONDENT: Regarding your last sentence above... the implication is that the underlying human intelligence (including the unique personality components) by its very nature is ‘happy and harmless’, sensately revelling in the universe. Is that a general case or could there be instances of specific human intelligences that do not have that nature, but revel in e.g. causing misery to others? Animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life, unless they’ve been damaged psychologically. Is being happy our birthright, which we typically squander?

VINEETO: Human intelligence is indeed an ‘underlying’ function of the human brain, underlying in that intelligence is subordinate to, and hence crippled by, the instinctual survival passions emanating from the now-redundant primitive or archaic brain. This is the ‘general case’ in that survival instincts are genetically encoded in each and every human brain. The experience of the actualism practice is that intelligence, when freed from the instinctual passions, is by its nature benevolent, sensible and intelligent.

I don’t know which kind of animals you have in mind, but animals on farms or in the wild do not enjoy life – they are driven by the survival instinct of ‘what can I eat, what can eat me’. In the wild animals are constantly on the alert, vigilant for predators and scanning for attack on prey. Animals that are provided with shelter, food and security become domesticated such that the survival instincts are not as pre-eminent but when push comes to shove the wild animal instantly re-surfaces – exactly as it does in the domesticated human animal when push comes to shove.

Animals are not aware that they are cruel, in panic, pining or bored but some are nevertheless are run by feelings and all of them are driven by instinctive imperatives. The idea that animals are innocent or happy is a myth.

Spiritual teachings have always maintained that one only needs to dissociate from one’s social conditioning in order to be ‘who you really are’ – the feeling ‘self’ which is none other than the animal instinctual passions. In contrast, actualism recognizes that the root cause of human malice and sorrow lays in the animal instinctual survival passions and not, as ancient wisdom has it, in conditioned thought and cultural socialization. A freedom from the human condition can only be achieved via ‘self’-immolation, which is both, the death of one’s ego (the social identity) and the extinction of one’s ‘being’ (the instinctual identity).

As for ‘is being happy our birthright’ – it does not make sense to call happiness our ‘birthright’ because there is no court where you could claim your ‘right’. I would rather describe it that the animal survival passions, universally manifest in humans as malice and sorrow, are our biological heritage – ‘me’ being as old as the first human – but a path to freedom from this software programming is now laid out. You can jump right on with both feet and complete the next step in human evolution.

*

VINEETO: Once you begin to practice actualism and begin to de-program your belief in the supposedly unknowable nature of the universe, then the nature of actualism becomes easily apparent.

RESPONDENT: Practicing actualism has two key elements: unravelling the accrued conditioning, and experiencing the actual universe directly. I’ve been diligently doing the former for some time, with great results, but have certainly been tripping over my own feet with the latter.

VINEETO: No wonder, you’ve ‘been tripping over my own feet with the latter’ – you have omitted the most significant part in your first ‘key element’ – the instinctual survival passions, which are a layer deeper than ‘accrued conditioning’. The ‘accrued conditioning’ is always first impediment to freedom, peace and happiness to be tackled and once there is a sufficient dent in the armour of one’s social identity, then it is possible to become more and more aware of the underlying crude instinctual passions. To believe that ‘I’ am a product of an accrued conditioning only is to remain ensnared in one’s spiritual-philosophical conditioning – the very first thing that has to go if one is to even begin to become a practicing actualist.

You may remember the piece from Peter’s ‘Practical Guide for Actualists’ –

Peter: It is vitally important to understand that two stages happen with every investigation of a particular deep seated emotion over a period of time, such as aggression, sex, love, sorrow, authority, desire, etc. – first the social identity is dismantled, only then are the raw instinctual passions underneath are exposed. I know, I keep flogging this point but it is the only way to go deep sea diving into one’s own psyche. The initial tendency is to go straight into trying to look at the instinctual passions, but this is a disingenuous short-cut that can only lead to snorkelling around on the surface. This two-stage investigation is the crucial difference between the spiritual version of denial, selective awareness and remaining a passive watcher of life and the Actualist’s application of sincerity, all-encompassing awareness and becoming an active participant in this moment of being alive. A Practical Guide for Actualists

I always found that my attempts at ‘experiencing the actual universe directly’ were putting the cart before the horse. Whenever I ask the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ and I am not happy, then I explore and remove the cause of not being happy – only when I am happy, can sensate experiencing have a chance of happening on its own accord. And whenever in the process of letting go of my spiritual beliefs I eradicated a cornerstone of my identity – a core belief, a deep-seated feeling, a bit of ‘me’ – then the crack in the door bought about a pure consciousness experience.

RESPONDENT: No 37’s recent missives have been very helpful in addressing my skepticism and understanding the crucial necessity of that facet.

VINEETO: It is amazing how much can be achieved by a good dose of naiveté combined with the determination to change radically and irrevocably.

RESPONDENT to No 23: The point I was trying to make was that actualism is fundamentally an intellectual process used for a non-intellectual end. HAIETMOBA is essentially a parlour trick in an attempt to bootstrap the mind into a PCE.

VINEETO: The point you are trying to make is clearly erroneous, as it is a misrepresentation of what has been elucidated on the Actual Freedom Trust website many times over. This is how the actualism process is described –

Richard: In the actualism process, as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to be feeling good, feeling happy and harmless and feeling excellent/perfect for 99% of the time.

If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) then with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception) ... and apperception reveals that there is only this actual world/universe. Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No 64 ‘Me’ is false, 10.3.2004

How you can make this into ‘fundamentally an intellectual process’ has got me beat. When I use the actualism method as described above it is not intellectual at all but a process of being aware of whatever is preventing me from feeling happy and being harmless right now. Put succinctly, the actualism practice is something one does and, as you know, doing something is not the same thing as thinking about doing something.

Asking myself how I am experiencing this moment of being alive is not ‘a parlour trick in an attempt to bootstrap the mind into a PCE’ – it is a method undertaken with the sincere intent to rid myself of the feelings of malice and sorrow in order to bring about peace on earth. A PCE can happen as a result when diligent and persistent attentiveness causes a crack in the bubble of one’s normal ‘self’-centred perception and the ‘self’ spontaneously and temporarily goes into abeyance.

RESPONDENT: It’s really just a mantra. The problem I had with this (and maybe others) is that my mind gets stuck in the mantra, and it becomes the end in itself.

VINEETO: Of course, when you reconstruct the actualism method into an intellectual exercise for selfish purposes (solely to induce an other-than-normal-experience) then it is no wonder that you have turned it into a meaningless mantra.

Has it ever occurred to you that the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is not merely a sequence of letters (‘HAIETMOBA’) but that it is a genuine question that demands a sincere answer, which requires that one is vitally interested in being here?

RESPONDENT: I’ve done enough reading and discussion now to realize that I’m just repeating myself. Think about it – what can be said on the 4 million words on the AF site that can’t be written in 1 or 2 pages? (that’s why I like the Advaita writings... the books are thin). Are we all so thick that we need to be fed the same material over and over again in slightly different variations? The answer is, of course, yes.

VINEETO: The biggest obstacle to understanding actualism is that sincere seekers who come to this site are already conditioned, trained and indoctrinated with spiritual/ philosophical concepts, which have already been integrated as a central part of their identity and thus actualism is at first merely seen as another version of the familiar Tried and Failed. I had the same difficulty when I first encountered actualism but I also had sufficient discontent, disappointment and doubt about the spiritualism process I had practiced for almost 2 decades that I was keenly interested in finding out if there was something fundamentally new in what Richard was saying even if that meant abandoning all I believed to be true and right.

The other night I had a realization about the way essential changes happen in my life and that is by determining the direction and then taking a leap. Determining the direction in which I want to go often takes some time because I need to investigate the various alternatives and then determine which of them I am sure I don’t want to do. It is a process of elimination whereby the only certainty is that I know that I am dissatisfied with things as they are, that I know where I don’t want to go and that the new will only become apparent after I have taken the leap of abandoning the old. The reason why doing something new is so frightening is because in order to take the jump I have to take both my feet off the ground – there is no slow motion and no certainty what the new will be like. I am doing it for the first time and more information and understanding will only be available after I have taken the leap. Yet I also know that unless I want to remain frozen in fear or compromise by being comfortably numb there is no way of avoiding such radical jumps into new territory.

Examples of such leaps were when I left home at 18, when I got divorced at 23, when I quit my first job as a drug counsellor at 25, when I sold all my possessions to go to India and live in the commune of a spiritual master, when I left the spiritual commune to come to Australia, when I irrevocably abandoned my Cinderella dream of love in order to be able to relate to a flesh and blood male human being instead of a dream prince, when I quit my job with the Sannyas community, when I irretrievably abandoned my belief in a divine Existence and its unfathomable mysteries only to discover that the actual is magical beyond my wildest imagination.

The point I am trying to make is that unless you are willing to question and throw out everything you have practiced so far – because you can recognize and acknowledge that your present philosophy hasn’t delivered the goods and because you are vitally interested in peace on earth – you cannot help but misunderstand and misconstrue what actualism is about and how the process works in practice. The diagram on The Actual Freedom Trust Library page endeavours to illustrate that one needs to completely backtrack from all of one’s spiritual, social and philosophical indoctrinations and beliefs, throw out everything one has unwittingly taken on board, rediscover one’s naiveté and start afresh – nothing less than abandoning the old and making a fresh start will do.

RESPONDENT: That’s the human learning process, same as e.g. mathematics. Personally, I’m at the point where I’m not reading or thinking anything new, so my intellect is full up.

VINEETO: If that means that you don’t want to engage your brain in order to learn and understand something entirely new to human history then actualism is clearly not for you. An actual freedom is utterly unnatural in that it goes against one’s intuition, one’s feelings and one’s basic instincts, and it is absolutely unfamiliar (unless one manages to remember a PCE). In order to understand what an actual freedom is about you would need to be sufficiently motivated to make the effort and have the patience to try to clearly comprehend what is been talked about – not because it is difficult per se but because it is contra-intuitive and threatening to one’s very being.

RESPONDENT: Since it’s obvious I’m not going to think my way to awareness (or whatever), a more visceral approach is needed. I think No 60 is saying roughly the same thing in his response.

VINEETO: Intuiting what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false (the ‘visceral approach’) will only reinforce what human beings have been doing all along because intuition itself is sourced in the instinctual passions.

Actualism is neither an intellectual exercise nor a visceral discernment of what is right and wrong but a method designed to increase one’s attentiveness of the three ways one experiences life – cerebral (thoughts); sensate (senses); affective (feelings) – with the straightforward intent to become unconditionally happy and unconditionally harmless. And attentiveness is not something you ‘think’ your way to but you simply begin to become aware, as in notice, what you are thinking, feeling and sensately experiencing.

The actualism practice is amazingly simple and it works like a charm.

RESPONDENT to No 58: And don’t forget about wanting to be happy and harmless. The above strikes me as being kind of arbitrary, a shopping list of trinkets to acquire. At this point, I might have said do whatever you want if it makes you happy, but I’m starting to think that the whole notion of happiness (and it’s evil twin unhappiness) is merely another trinket, an external, artificial object to be gained. No 30 got happiness, Richard got happiness, Peter got happiness, Vineeto got happiness, but it seems to me they are all clever metaprogramming (with possible exception of Richard... we’ll never really get inside his head) – ‘I’ve defined what happiness is and I’m going to do my damndest to convince myself I am it’.

VINEETO: For me as an actualist, becoming happy means that I investigate everything that stands in the way of being happy. In other words I begin by becoming aware of the causes of my unhappiness – feelings such as grumpiness, anger, irritation, sadness, moodiness, anxiety, etc. and then I take a clear-eyed look at the causes of my unhappiness and do whatever is necessary to prevent it from occurring again. When this attentiveness becomes on-going, the feelings that are an impediment to my happiness are disempowered. Furthermore, a genuine happiness is inextricably intertwined with becoming harmless – it is impossible to be happy unless one is harmless – something that is being overlooked again and again.

You’ve raised this question before and you have indicated that you have understood that becoming happy and harmless in actualism is definitely not being ‘merely another trinket, an external, artificial object to be gained’. Vis –

[Respondent]: Richard appears to have rewired his brain internally (and on the evidence I think that is true), so how do we know that it wasn’t simply rewired to experience the universe as timeless and infinite? Peter, Vineeto and others are attempting the same physical rewiring (not achieved yet... virtual freedom vs. actual freedom) by emulation of that programming... whether they or anyone else can ever accomplish the hard-wiring remains to be seen.

[Vineeto]: I am certainly not attempting an ‘emulation of that programming’. Actual Freedom is not about emulating a programming – it is about becoming free from one’s social programming and from the invidious effects of blind nature’s instinctual programming. With the actualism method I remove my default setting, the normal and spiritual programming of the human condition – I do not replace it with another programming. When the identity is removed – as experienced in a pure consciousness experience – the actual becomes apparent only because there is no programming interfering with experiencing what is already here.

Therefore I do not need to ‘ever accomplish the hard-wiring’ as you suggest – what I do in the continuous process of increasing attentiveness is to become aware of and remove the redundant software programming. Then the hard-wiring, human intelligence, can function undisturbed and undistorted and the senses perceive unfiltered delight.

Once you begin to practice actualism and begin to de-program your belief in the supposedly unknowable nature of the universe, then the nature of actualism becomes easily apparent. Vineeto to Respondent, 20.7.2003

[Respondent]: Understood. My example was yet another on a long list of attempts to rationalize AF in terms that make sense to ‘I’. Clearly that can never happen as ‘I’ have a vested interest in making sure that the fundamental experience of the actual never happens. Regarding your last sentence above... the implication is that the underlying human intelligence (including the unique personality components) by its very nature is ‘happy and harmless’, sensately revelling in the universe. Re: Cosmological Clarification, 21.7.2003

What you call ‘clever metaprogramming’ is your own misinterpretation of actualism and it was one of the first issues you raised when you came to this list –

[Respondent]: So my question is, how do AF adherents know they have turned off the programs, and not simply replace them with a more pleasing variety? This question is posed from curiosity, not criticism, as either response is a not bad way to live.

[Vineeto]: … Of course, if you are looking for a shortcut and consider turning actualism into your latest belief to file it with the rest of the passionate fairy-tales of human imagination, then you would be missing the point entirely. Actualism is not a belief or the imagination that one feels happy and harmless, but it is a proven method that, when applied with diligence, determination and pure intent, makes one tangibly and noticeably happy and harmless. The method of actualism is designed to discover, investigate and eventually eliminate the believer and that includes the believer in any system that one may have concocted out of the actualist writings. Vineeto to Respondent, 16.1.2002

Maybe this is an apt moment to reiterate something that is essential for an actualist to keep in mind during his or her explorations – the aim and process of actualism is not to suppress feelings and emotions in order to achieve ‘merely another trinket, an external, artificial object to be gained’, as you perceive it, but to become aware of one’s feelings and emotions in order to be able to explore them deeply and exhaustively.

The automatic socially-conditioned reaction is to wheedle one’s way out of feeling the bad feelings – those that are considered bad and immoral or wrong and unethical – by repressing the feelings and if this doesn’t work we have leant to revert to denial and/or deceit. Consequently the essential first step in becoming aware of one’s invidious feelings is to be aware of one’s habit of suppressing, avoiding or denying them.

In order for the actualism method to work it is crucial to first get in touch with one’s feelings (a common expression meaning to become aware of one’s feelings) because if I want to find out about ‘me’ in all of my guises I can’t afford to only investigate the ‘better’ half of my emotions and ignore, repress or deny ‘my’ dark side. To allow oneself to experience whatever feeling is happening often needs some investigation into what Peter has termed the ‘guardians at the gate’ – the moral judgements and ethical evaluations that trigger feelings such as guilt, shame, defiance or righteousness whenever one starts to become aware of one’s dark side and begins to feel one’s dark feelings.

It is important to remember that one needs to neither express one’s non-felicitous feelings nor wallow in them in order to become aware of them – after all the most important thing for an actualist is to be happy and harmless – and the aim is always, as soon as possible, to get back to feeling good about being here or feeling excellent about being alive. When you do get back to feeling happy and being harmless then you can put your feet up and spend some time contemplating on what it was that triggered you to stop feeling happy or being harmless. If you sincerely want to be happy and harmless you will then find that it is vital to drop that part of your social identity, be it a belief, a moral, an ethic, a value, a concept, a habit, that is causing you to be unhappy, sad, resentful, annoyed, frustrated, jealous, and so on.

As you can see, actualism is all about diminishing one’s identity to the point where one becomes virtually happy and harmless such that ‘self’-immolation can happen – it has nothing to do with re-programming, re-interpreting, re-defining, re-labelling, re-shuffling, acquiring trinkets or replacing one part of one’s identity with another more shiny outfit – if applied with sincerity and intent the method of actualism will evoke actual change and that’s why many apparently find it too frightening to commit to.

But once you get over the hump, it’s the best game to play in town.