RESPONDENT: I am saying that the ‘feeler’, the one who ‘experiences’ love, compassion, beauty, deathlessness or universal energy, pure consciousness, actualism, observation, are all included in the ‘self’ which really doesn’t exist and can stand in the way of anything. I would also throw in purity and perfection as projections of this same, fictional self.

VINEETO: If you talk about a feeling of purity and a feeling of perfection then you certainly have a point. However, an experience without a ‘self’ is non-affective, i.e. without any emotion, therefore the purity is actual and the perfection is the perfection of the actual infinitude of the physical universe. May I suggest that a mere theoretical approach won’t give you a sufficient understanding in that matter, because it is limited by its cerebral-only stance. Only a direct experience of the utter purity of ‘self’-lessness can give you the full understanding of ‘self’-lessness. If you had such an experience of ‘self’-lessness, without ‘feeling’ or ‘knowing’ yourself to be whatever your latest version is of who you really are, then you would have experienced that this physical universe is perfect, pure, infinite and eternal.

From your statement above, where you blithely dismiss everything and anything, you are beginning to sound like a nihilist who denies the existence of everything and anything. (...)

*

RESPONDENT: No, we don’t all know that there are two types of love. When love is just a word, an idea that you can look up in the dictionary, then of course you can argue either for or against the dictionary definitions. Any word or concept can be argued back and forth.

VINEETO: Do you mean to say that words that is listed in the dictionary cannot be used to describe an experience purely because they has been listed in the dictionary? If that is so, then for every experience you would have to continuously invent your own personal language, which no one except you will be able to understand – otherwise the experience is just a mere word? So someone feeling love or frustration or anger, as per the dictionary definition, is really just experiencing a word or concept that ‘can be argued back and forth’? No wonder you imagine feelings are just thoughts. Have you never experienced feelings and emotions as something other than thoughts or words or concepts that ‘can be argued back and forth’?

No wonder you have such difficulty in understanding that it is the feelings and emotions that arise from both the tender and savage instinctual passions that are the root cause of human malice and sorrow. For you, a feeling or an emotion is just a word in a dictionary.

I am talking about the two types of love, human love and divine or universal love, as I have experienced them and as I have found them in countless descriptions of many, many people. Of course, if you take these experiences, dismiss them as being mere words and turn them into concept to ‘be argued back and forth’, then the discussion is purely theoretical, liable to distortion, and rather useless.

RESPONDENT: I could argue that actualism is just another concept which has failed to manifest peace in the real world and that it, like the concept love, has attained in the minds of those who believe in it, the status of divinity, and that it, too, is an escapist fantasy usually for those who have suffered the devastating effects of the failure of some other philosophy. But I am not concerned with either philosophy or with religious and secular belief.

VINEETO: Exactly my point. To think that actualism is a ‘philosophy’ or a ‘religious or secular belief’ results in turning the applied method of actualism into a concept to ‘be argued back and forth’. Then the discussion is purely theoretical, liable to distortion and rather useless.

RESPONDENT: I am concerned with the nature of the mind when it is not caught in any kind of verbal and ideological entrapment, and the nature of those reactions which prohibit such a mind from operating within the human organism. The word I use to describe the action and nature of the uninhibited mind is love. In that sense, I have redefined the word to represent an action which is neither socially nor organismically typical.

VINEETO: I think I will start a dictionary called ‘No. 8’s words’ for further correspondence with you, because ‘love’ is only one of six words that you have redefined in this post alone. Nevertheless, ‘since you don’t have the benefit of discussing with Krishnamurti directly’ you cannot possibly know if your personal definition of love is also his understanding of love in his sentence of ‘you must love and not condemn.’

Just for my collection of ‘No. 8’s words’ – what is the meaning of ‘organismically’?

However, I don’t follow your logic that you are ‘concerned with the nature of the mind when it is not caught in any kind of verbal and ideological entrapment’ when you yourself are making up your own words and redefining others to describe your experience and worldview. Further, when explaining those unique words and definitions to others you still have to use those despised dictionary words that mere ordinary mortals can understand.

*

VINEETO: It is possible, after all, to change human nature and erase one’s instinctual programming.

RESPONDENT: I think not. Possibility is just a form of hope. If one can imagine what is possible, one can avoid dealing with what is real. It is just common self-delusion.

VINEETO: You would have to say that as the logical conclusion and rational deduction from your belief that –

[Respondent]: such uninterrupted unfoldment of psychological and physical reaction then, is causeless; there is no cause occurring, which is leading to an effect. In that case, it is pure consciousness, which perceives its own limitations, its own tendency to project from both genetically based reaction, as well as from its social conditioning. There is, therefore, no effort required for self-comprehension. [endquote].

If I read what you are saying in simpler language, you are claiming that you are causeless, beyond cause and effect – therefore you are irreproachable as to your own limitations and genetically based reactions, because what or who you really are is ‘universal consciousness’. In my book that is avoiding dealing with what is real, no matter how you care to word it.

However, I am simply talking from my own experience. I have erased my social conditioning and my instinctual passions to a degree that I can live in perfect peace and harmony with another human being for 24 hrs a day, seven days a week. I am having a perfect day 99% of the time. This quality of life is a marked difference to my life only 3 years ago and a marked difference to everybody else’s life that I know of. Therefore I can say with confidence and certainty that it is, in fact, possible to change human nature.