|
(List D refers to Richard’s List D
Vineeto’s Selected Correspondence Harmless
ROY: Life is already pretty great as it is. But there are times that
something happens, and it’s apparent that if I was free from this natural and social conditioning, it would have
been different – specially for others: the experience of others you be better if I didn’t behave the way I
behaved. That part, being “harmless” is as appealing to me, as being “happy” at this point, I
think. VINEETO: Hi Roy, I like what you wrote here – I remember ‘Vineeto’ writing about how ‘she’ discovered that feeling harmless was not enough, ‘she’ recognized that ‘she’ wanted to be harmless, not just feel harmless.
ROY: By being harmless you are already helping everyone without
being altruistic in the traditional sense. You are harmless if you manage to deconstruct your biological and social
conditioning. Once you understand those you realize when you judge people and why you are judging them, when you are
mean and why you are being mean, etc… VINEETO: Yes, being harmless is doubly beneficial, it reduces/ eliminates your harmful actions and simultaneous reduces your harmful vibes which are often more powerfully harmful than the words or actions themselves. As for “when you judge people” – ‘thou shalt not judge’ is both a Christian adage and common in Eastern spiritual teachings but doesn’t hold up in real life. Judging, i.e. to make appraisals, is a necessity in everyday life – the values by which to judge, however, can be harmful or beneficial. Judging both yourself and other by the (conditioned) rules of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is following the values passed on from long-dead people or God(s) as the ultimate arbiters. Judgement according to sensible and silly, however, is indispensable.
(Richard, List B, No. 42, 12 November 2000).
Often such judgements (based on being silly or sensible) can be current appraisals of people or situations, which can change when new facts emerge. However, when you discover that you were “mean” then your ‘assessment’ was based on your feeling anger, defensiveness, feeling insulted, righteous, hurt, etc., and you can then investigate the underlying feeling. ROY: For example today I saw a woman with revealing clothes and
immediately I became angry. It’s an automatic feeling (which is interesting because I used to think that it started
with thoughts). The difference now from before is that I realize what’s going on with me and the feeling stops
quickly. VINEETO: This a good example of a feeling reaction based on a certain conditioned value of ‘thou shalt not wear revealing clothes if you are a female’. Even though the feeling stopped quickly for you it would be interesting to contemplate if the conditioning which set up this ‘rule’ stands in the way of being happy and harmless – just so that it won’t offend you next time it happens. ‘Vineeto’ also discovered in ‘her’ quest of becoming factually/ actually harmless, that it wasn’t enough to investigate and disempower the ‘bad’ emotions and their related conditioning but even more so the ‘good’ emotions. Each ‘good’ feeling has a dark twin underpinning it. Here is how Richard described how during his enlightenment ‘he’ examined the ‘good’ and particularly the ‘Good’ and given that is was so revered in all societies, it was a mammoth task –
Cheers Vineeto
ROY: Thanks a lot for the time you spent writing this reply! It is very helpful and this forum has become a very important resource for me thanks to many of you here. VINEETO: Hi Roy, Thank you for your feedback, and I am delighted that you understand so much of what I explained. It’s a lot to take in and even more to digest. I much appreciate your response. Just two more points I’d like to comment on. ROY: Intimacy to me used to mean being exceptionally close to someone in a vulnerable/fragile way, and now it means being fully transparent without worries about what I share / say / how the other person reacts / if they will accept me or not / etc. I guess I didn’t ever had this type of real human connection in the past. VINEETO: An actual intimacy is indeed happening with everyone and everything “being fully transparent” and, of course “without worries” of any kind. This is part and parcel of not being ‘self’-centred and without any ‘self’ whatsoever, and one is therefore benevolent, equitable and considerate. The more one is virtually happy and virtually harmless, the more intimacy with fellow human beings and the world around you is possible. When pure intent is dedicatory in place (“as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else”), then you can be “fully transparent without” and be more and more confidently harmless. Until this happens it is still advisable to take into account that you, and everyone else, is a feeling being with whatever this entails. Maybe you had already implied all that when you wrote the above paragraph. I am just being careful remembering ‘Vineeto’s’ own experiences when ‘her’ confidence in having successfully dismantled some of ‘her’ social identity sometimes translated into impulsive actions, which were anything but beneficial … ‘oops’. * VINEETO: ‘Vineeto’ also discovered in ‘her’ quest of becoming factually/ actually harmless, that ”it wasn’t enough to investigate and disempower the ‘bad’ emotions and their related conditioning but even more so the ‘good’ emotions. Each ‘good’ feeling has a dark twin underpinning it. ROY: It’s very interesting that you say that because the other day
I had exactly a situation in my life in which I realized that I should investigate good feelings too. I thought I
wouldn’t need to care too much about what is positive, but in fact I need to investigate any disturbing feeling
(positive and negative). The situation was that I happened to do something very positive both in my community and at
work without even trying and without selfish motivations. It just happened that I had to handle these situations and I
handled them very well. And so I was praised and with that came a great feeling of belonging and worthiness. Later
however I did something stupid and turns out that it was caused by the inflated ego from earlier. Whenever I let my
ego become bigger it ends up affecting my behaviors later on in a negative way. So basically I have to investigate
both positive and negative feelings. VINEETO: That is great discovery you made. However, there is far more to the “negative” side of ‘good’ feelings than inflation of the ego. By calling ‘good’ feelings (such as love and compassion) “what is positive” you may have missed the issue of what ‘good’ feelings and their dark twin are. The reason for the long quote from Richard at the end of my last post was to give you some material to contemplate when you have the time and inclination. ‘Good’ feelings are just as passionate as ‘bad’ feelings, arising from the same instinctual passions, ‘me’ at the core of my being, and hence equally rotten at the core.
Cheers Vineeto
CHRONO: The feelings then returned but the resentment then had morphed from being pointed towards others to me. Anger that I went along with others. There’s also this “realization” in the periphery of disbelief that then I would have to face the fact that life is indeed easy and that’s an entirely new direction. I had been listening to ‘others’ so gullibly and dutifully self-castigated. This feeling has now eased off and there’s a sort of “simmering” happening. If this is the case what vested interested is there in harbouring these feelings? Or why would I want to be these feelings? VINEETO: Ha, that’s a good one, realising that doing it the hard way was a waste of time, and who would be willing to abandon the hard work of years of one’s life just because something easier and more fun came along! I am confident that this won’t stop you, though it’s still “simmering” … CHRONO: Another very interesting thing that I’ve noted in my reflection is how I
had not been taking into account of what it means to be harmless. In this correspondence VINEETO: Indeed, this is an excellent find. This doctrine of “‘put others before oneself’ type” is all pervasive, and a harmful flow-on effect from all the unliveable religious teachings – be it the Eastern ‘ahimsa’/ pacifism or the Christian “turn the other cheek”. It is truly a dogma to be rid of as soon as possible. Interestingly enough, it was the last of the pillars of enlightenment which Richard dismantled on his journey to an actual freedom –
Cheers Vineeto
CHRONO: Continuing on from my reflection, the initial feeling of this ‘put others before oneself’ type of operating seems to be guilt. I experienced it first as an anxiety and a ‘scan’ of how others view me. I sometimes experience a glimpse of what’s underneath it. This fits in with harmlessness and how I want others to accept me before I will feel good continuously. My experience is that it’s actually very easy to feel good once this is out of the picture. This feeling of guilt and anxiety I experience creates a helplessness (victim). By being this victim, I am wanting the other to antidotally respond with loving or compassionate feelings. With that, I will feel accepted and thus let myself feel good. To contemplate feeling good forever without the permission of ‘others’ feels callous. Another interesting related aspect that I’ve noted is that when you’re in love, you automatically put the other before yourself. It’s the nature of love so now it makes sense why it’s advocated by the enlightened people. VINEETO: Hi Chrono, This is an excellent reporting of the various aspects of ‘me’ standing in the way of feeling good. Yesterday I watched the ‘Virtual Freedom’ video again and Peter reminded me of something I had almost forgotten – how hard it was at first to allow himself to be happy and harmless. What was one of the two main objections that he would have to go against the whole thrust of human ‘wisdom’, that one is not allowed to be happy. I suspect at least part of your “feeling of guilt and anxiety” is arising out of that overall stipulation to not fall ‘out of line’, generated by everyone’s vibes and psychic currents. Hence your reaction so far has been to dutifully feel “guilt and anxiety” and the various consequential feelings, if you aim for “feeling good forever without the permission”. Fortunately, even though it sometimes feels like an unsurmountable barrier, the facts are that 1. you can change yourself unilaterally (and only pay lip service when necessary) – in other words, you neither need permission nor allies in this game how happy and harmless can I feel, and 2. the affective felicitous and innocuous vibes are contagious (just like the malicious and sorrowful vibes are), and they are more contagious the more you confidently allow yourself to be that way. CHRONO: Once I saw that all it was, was guilt, I had an experience and seeing of what’s underneath. Underneath the guilt and resentment is unbridled aggression. I wrote above about how I feel angry at others for not accepting me and in turn to feel good. But this made me more aware of the anger underneath in myself. I usually am considered a ‘chill guy’ but all of that anger and aggression is right there. I started thinking up all of the times that I do feel it and it’s actually quite a bit. It’s all under the guise of “Righteous” anger or indignation. Anger that’s acceptable by society. You can be angry when something unfair happens. One example that people may overlook but surely experience is when you are driving. There are many incidents of road rage that happen, but often people only see those people as out of control and not themselves as well. I also get angry at other drivers (e.g. if someone is going very slow). This is all considered okay because the other driver choosing to go slow or doing whatever is “not okay” (unacceptable). Often driving in traffic, you can see these aspects of yourself. This aggression felt like a huge beast waiting inside a cave. It’s only the fear of the ‘many’ which keeps it in check. Weirdly, when someone does end up acting out their aggression, it’s an unmentioned expectation that they feel guilty about it. So I must be pre-emptively feeling it so that it never happens. But as I looked around, this same beast was in everyone. It was no different. This burden was being carried by everyone. VINEETO: Indeed, wanting to be happy when everyone else prefers to follow the dictum to be sad or bad is not the only reason for feeling guilty. And as you found out, blaming others for feeling angry or not liked is pointless and only aggravates feeling bad. Everyone is inflicted by the same instinctual passions, hence no need to feel either guilty or resentful. The very fact that you have the sincere intent to do something about your aggression, and know a way to do that effectively, is already a eminent position to appreciate. Here is how feeling being ‘Vineeto’ described ‘her’ own discoveries –
CHRONO: There were only superficial differences and no one was special. Not even a ‘chill guy’ like me . I feel this aggression more intensely when I think about the ‘unfairness’ in the world. When I watch the news, it does not make sense and I just play out a scenario in my head of how whoever I think is responsible (usually the “upper” class) gets punished severely. It’s truly a never-ending cycle. But now I experienced myself as responsible as well. Seeing all this makes it easier to sift through the facts as that pull towards how I should think or approach life based on if it feels ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’ has greatly lessened. But even further to that, my intent to feel good come what may now can stand on its own. Because when I saw that others were also keeping at bay this same unbridled aggression, it became more clear that no one actually knows what they are doing. Previously I wrote that others seem to know something that I don’t. Now there’s no reason to go along with that feeling as it seems silly. It’s very fascinating how all of these feelings come together and feed each other. Many of them also seem to be weaker now. Especially the negative ones that I was feeling with my partner where I felt like I had to be anxiously grasping. I’m able to allow her more to be in her own space and I meet her from where I am if that makes any sense. VINEETO: It is really amazing how dealing with one issue, anger, and aiming to be harmless, has such beneficial results on being able to play together rather than the automatic hide, defence and attack-mode. It is quite magically and remarkably enjoyable and buoyant. CHRONO: I’m reflecting on time now as I inevitably always
come back to this and it seems very related to feeling good. The words that ‘this moment is the only moment of
being alive’ seem to really stand out more. There’s an automatic sensuousness and feeling good that accompanies
this seeing. It’s like how could I forget that this is my only moment of being alive?! Sometimes when I see it, it’s
like waking up from a dream from everything prior. Everything prior doesn’t exist. There’s a great significance
to this occurrence. Maybe I can rephrase my question then to ‘how can I fully enjoy and appreciate this moment of
being alive forever?’ . I think ‘oh yes everyone knows this’, but I am seeing more nowadays that everyone
does not see that this is the only moment of being alive. When I tell my partner or friends something like ‘isn’t
it interesting that it’s always this moment?’, they often almost dismiss it and not realize the full import of
it. Just the other day I was noticing this moment more and more and ‘pushed the envelope’ a little further. It’s
so wonderful that this is the only moment of being alive, so precious, that I simply don’t know how to describe it.
I had to take a step back from this further seeing after that because I had tears in my eyes. What would take me to
‘push the envelope’ more? VINEETO: Ha, and once you are back to feeling good and understood more of which dominant feeling was the trigger and how you tick, then there is room for sensuousness and remembering to appreciate this moment of being alive … and to be like that forever no longer seems impossible. What would it take to ‘push the envelope’ more? – more of the same, looking sincerely at the obstacles and then enjoy more and appreciate more being alive, in this only moment you can experience, now. CHRONO: Ah! Something else I was reflecting about and I forgot
to write down. To be happy and harmless seems to be related to caring. This in turn is related to vibes and psychic
currents. Stay tuned! VINEETO: It’s wonderful to hear you say this. This sentence from Richard from many years ago may sound familiar to you –
Cheers Vineeto
SONYA: I remember that delight and happiness was amping up, growing and growing.
I was just having a great time! VINEETO: Isn’t it amazing what can happen when “delight and happiness” is“amping up, growing and growing”! So when you wonder what best to do, it is to be happy and harmless, and when it’s not only based on special events but just bubbling up because it’s such a joy to simply be alive, even better. Here is Richard talking about being harmless – and it’s not at all anything to do with being ‘unselfish’ –
There is more practical information in this correspondence if you want to read it to the end. So, enjoy, and give your enjoyment the tick of approval (appreciate). Cheers Vineeto
VINEETO to Chrono: I also found ‘Vineeto’s’ correspondence with Tarin on being harmless
instead of merely feeling harmless useful. ED: Hi Vineeto, I was wondering if you could help me understand
this a bit better as I don’t see a difference between feeling harmless and being harmless. VINEETO: Hi Ed, The trouble with taking one’s feelings as arbiter of what is going on is that feelings are not only entirely self-centric by nature, and as such biased, but also utterly unreliable as to the facts of the matter. That’s why Richard keeps emphasising that one needs to be ruthlessly honest with oneself – ‘I’, the identity, is not only lost, lonely and frightened but also very, very cunning. ‘I’, the identity, do not want to change the status quo. ‘You’ may be feeling harmless (because that is what ‘you’ want to be) but overlooking all the instances where your feelings, words and action are not harmless. If you are honest and sincere (in accord with the fact), then you check your feeling of being harmless if you are in fact being harmless. ‘Vineeto’ explained some of it in the paragraph you quoted –
This recorded incident demonstrates how ‘Vineeto’ discovered the difference in practice –
Here is more from ‘her’ exploration into being harmless –
Here is what Richard had to say about being harmless –
There is more in that correspondence if you are interested.
Are you really saying that all the above qualities are covered by the term “feeling harmless”? ED: Feeling-being Vineeto is pointing out that some people consider the absence of aggression and anger to be adequate enough to classify themselves as feeling harmless – while overlooking other thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions. VINEETO: Yes, here is what else ‘she’ said about how she approached ‘her’ aim of being more and more harmless –
ED: Whereas being harmless would mean the absence of not only the anger and aggression, but also any other instinctually-driven feelings that often fly under the radar or even appear as “good” such as love. VINEETO:
In other words, putting the bar so high that you won’t be harmless until you are actually free, you (inadvertently?) stymie yourself from the start – or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless. ED: Am I following correctly? VINEETO: Being harmless also means to look at the practical consequences of your feelings, vibes, words and actions. I am not writing about theoretical philosophy but about changing oneself radically, experientially to become virtually harmless. Cheers Vineeto
ED:
Heads up – I think you used ‘harmless’ when you meant harmful. “I first sought to stop any of my harmless [edit-harmful] actions or verbal expressions of harm towards other people.” VINEETO: Hi Ed, I appreciate you pointing out the mistake, undiscovered for decades – I have now corrected it on the website. *
VINEETO: Are you really saying that all the above qualities are covered by the term “feeling harmless”? ED: Yes – exactly. “Harmless” is defined by the qualities Richard listed. What is the difference between feeling and being? I don’t understand why “feeling harmless” would not include the above qualities but “being harmless” would. I’m trying to understand how the two are being distinguished. Could you describe the qualities of being harmless vs feeling harmless, and point out where feeling harmless falls short? The following quote seems to clarify things more for me: VINEETO: Being harmless also means to look at the practical consequences of your feelings, vibes, words and actions. ED: I’m trying to understand the distinction between the two: being harmless vs feeling harmless. It seems what’s being pointed out is that being/ becoming harmless is a more encompassing affair than feeling harmless. That one doesn’t just consider how one feels, but also considers how those feelings effect their thoughts, actions, and other people. (And takes it beyond consideration into an actualization). Is that it? That feeling harmless only takes into consideration how one feels? VINEETO: Yes, “feeling harmless only takes into consideration how one feels”, not what is factually the case. If your arbiter (your feelings) consider it good enough when you merely feel harmless no matter if this is factually the case, that you are practically being harmless, then a lot of harmfulness flies under the radar, so to speak. As Kuba said a few days ago –
* VINEETO: In other words, putting the bar so high that you won’t be harmless until you are actually free, you (inadvertently?) stymie yourself from the start – or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless. ED: The bar isn’t set by me – the PCE makes it clear what it means to be actually harmless. But I can become virtually harmless – as in free of malice. And thus far in my experience, I’ve only had success in becoming virtually harmless bit-by-bit and have found no success in giant leaps. The only things that have appeared to be giant leaps were mere realizations that were exciting to me. Any meaningful change has had to be actualized bit-by-bit. I have not succeeded with giant leaps to skip-ahead and I personally wouldn’t recommend counting on them. Becoming more a bit more harmless is only ever a small step away from where I’m at any given moment and much more realistic than a giant leap to become a lot more harmless. VINEETO: Yes, actualising bit-by-bit is the way it works – you change yourself slowly to a more happy and more harmless person and notice the increasingly finer nuances where there is a diminution in feeling good or when there are occasions where you felt harmless but nevertheless thoughtlessly caused ripples in people’s life. ED: I think part of my confusion in this matter stemmed from me considering “feeling” and “being” in a different context – such as how they are used here:
VINEETO: I don’t understand how this quote from Richard causes confusion about the difference between feeling harmless (as a subjective feeling) and being harmless (as an objective reality)? Even though, whilst you are a feeling ‘being’ until you are actually free, you can nevertheless aim to become increasingly harmless until you are virtually without malice. A practical example might help. Look, if you wanted to employ a driver for your company, would you choose one who feels that they are a good and careful driver or choose the one who demonstrates that they are a good and careful driver? * VINEETO: … or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless. ED: Well don’t forget also feeling happy; which in conjunction means to be as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible while remaining a ‘self.’ The innocuity and felicity that ensues is a different quality than my reactive feelings that depend on conditions. But I think my issue is I’m failing to grasp the difference between merely feeling happy and
harmless and being happy and harmless. Is merely feeling happy and harmless not enough because it’s a temporary
affair, just aimed at feeling that way momentarily but not a fundamental change? Whereas becoming happy and harmless
is something more involved, changing one’s very being? VINEETO: There, you wrote it yourself “to be as free from malice and sorrow
as humanely possible”, not just to feel as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible. As I said at
the beginning, feelings are not reliable arbiters of what is factual, whereas when you are being sincere, your own
sincerity aims for “being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity” Cheers Vineeto
KUBA: Hi Vineeto, VINEETO to Syd: What would be radical – radically different from how you operated most of your life – is to leave/ quit ‘the philosophy and planning department’ and naïvely experimentally and experientially explore the world of people and events, with the sincere intent firmly in mind to be harmless and happy as much as humanly possible. I put ‘harmless’ first, because for many it is the more difficult aspect of an actualist’s sincere intent.
(Btw, sincere, as used on the website, does not mean ‘true to your feelings’ but true to facts and actuality –
and feelings are not facts). KUBA: This is very simple and yet so important, I am certainly taking note of this for myself. Of course the words happy and harmless as presented on the AFT website do not refer to separate items, it is one package of felicity and innocuity. However it is so easy (I have done it myself) to turn actualism into a pursuit of ‘my’ happiness, which in practice means cunningly pursuing and reinforcing the good feelings and conveniently ignoring their opposite bad feelings. In fact I can observe this bias in myself, that the word harmless can almost become like an addition that comes after happy, an after-thought let’s say. And of course when approaching it that way ‘I’ only spin round and round in self-centred circles. Also I notice in myself that often it took exactly that commitment to harmlessness in order to give up some long held and dear aspect of ‘me’, otherwise if it is just for ‘me’ then ‘I’ might as well remain the same! It is the recognition of what ‘I’ am doing by remaining as ‘I’ am which can break the cycle and this requires that ‘my’ horizon expands past just ‘me’. So it is useful to turn this around and ask myself am ‘I’ first of all being harmless? And interestingly enough happiness comes rather easily when ‘I’ am being harmless to begin with, harmlessness provides a stable platform for ongoing happiness. But the most important part of this, I think, is that the commitment to harmlessness requires that ‘my’ self-centredness progressively diminishes, which means that ‘I’ am then ready to radically change. VINEETO: Hi Kuba, I appreciate that you more and more can understand the role that being harmless plays in the overall pursuit of whittling down ‘me’ as in becoming less and less ‘self’-centric which is the instinctive norm of being. For me it was the main concern and last question after I became newly free if I was really being harmless in all I did, including all the ramifications and consequences for others in what I said or did. You put it well when you said “this requires that ‘my’ horizon expands past just ‘me’”. KUBA: This reminds me of something you wrote a while back
(paraphrasing) that it is a shame that the recent generation of actualists does not share the same sincere commitment
for peace on earth. I remember I took that as a bit of an insult, like “what do you mean!? I am an actualist
after all”. And yet it is true that harmlessness has been an afterthought! VINEETO: I could not find where I had mentioned it but I can refer you to where Richard wrote about it – and repeated it as a tool-tip in several other of his correspondences – starting with –
It's best to read the rest in the original because it has several tool-tips attached. Historically you can say that my parents’ and my own generation were deeply shocked by the
devastation of the world-wide war that had just finished, and my own generation had to see with shock-and-horror the
ongoing threat of the mutual assured destruction [MAD] of the cold war eventuate into an even bigger hot war.
Personally, I was so affected by this looming threat so much that I decided to not bring any children into this then
terrifying world. I later veered off into the spiritual search for inner peace and got sold on Rajneesh’s idea of
the New Man. (see Peter’s Journal Regarding the following generations, despite many minor wars constantly happening, Europe and the US remained overall little affected. Perhaps because of this apparent ‘peace’ – more of an ongoing armistice or truce – people turned to other concern, and fascinatingly one of the generations (X maybe) has now been called the ‘me’-generation – seeming only concerned with themselves, their rights, their self-image and their safe-space. Of course, because this is a generalisation, it is not the case for everyone, but in the context of (not) being vitally interested in peace on earth, as an overarching desire in one’s life, history had an influence on all. So each has to find their own overarching motivation to want to become actually free from the
grip the instinctual passions and the ‘self’-centric identity have on their lives and others. Each needs to find
their motivation to dare to come out of their (apparent) safe cave or ‘self’-involvement and eventually develop/
discover a care for a larger circle than themselves. The very nature of an actual freedom (self-immolation) is such
that ‘I’ cannot do it for ‘myself’ only. And when Richard says “And to dare to care is to care to
dare” What it means, when written out, that one needs daring/ courage to allow “that ‘my’ horizon expands past just ‘me’” as you so aptly put it, and starts deeply caring for one’s fellow humans as well, because they feel like I-as-an-identity feel, they require the same basics for living like I-as-an-identity do, they have the same or similar troubles I-as-an-identity have, they suffer from war and deprivation as I-as-an-identity would do, and so on. It does take daring to care. And, of course, this is an affective caring because it is felt and experienced by feeling beings – it cannot be otherwise until one is actually free (or in a PCE or close to becoming actually free). To want to put off daring to care until one has a PCE or is close to becoming actually free would be utterly silly and delaying one’s destiny forever. And only then, when I care enough, do I dare to consider a commitment so radical, it has never being dared before Richard – a commitment to whittle away at the whole of the identity to the point that agreeing to ‘my’ demise remains the only sensible thing to do. KUBA: I guess it can be said that ‘Geoffrey’ and ‘Srinath’
dared to care. I do remember Srinath mentioned to me a while back that this was one of the last puzzle pieces that
clicked for ‘him’ before self-immolation – caring. VINEETO: They certainly did. I have deep respect, admiration and appreciation for both of their daring and caring, and then the daring arising out of their caring. You will find that the second part of Srinath’s
correspondence with Richard Cheers Vineeto
SYD: Vineeto, thank you for ‘spell[ing] out’ (it is straightforward for me to understand). I see a misunderstanding regarding ‘harmlessness’. It is obvious to me that it is impossible to
be feeling good if I’m also not harmless. Per Richard, “The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers
to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice (just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the
absence of sorrow).” Furthermore VINEETO: That is certainly a pleasant surprise. Even though you mentioned that you “see
the sensibility in everything” of what I said
SYD: So, in my understanding, the difference between ‘feeling good’ and ‘felicity & innocuity’ lies in the intensity à la Richard’s ‘bester’ characterization or ‘uplevelling’. Ergo, my compass of feeling good naturally involves, felicity-thus-innocuity and happiness-thus-happiness. Finally, sincerely knowing how I am, each and every moment (see the two ‘Bonus’ quotes here VINEETO: I see that even though you said above that “being happy & harmless are […] inseparable” you still say that “I personally put happiness before harmlessness” and “felicity-thus-innocuity” in that sequential order, and you confirmed it in your most resent post on harmlessness –
It seems that your statement that both are “inseparable” is merely paying lip-service at present. For instance, if in a situation you have to choose between not creating harm even though it might impinge on your happiness, you would choose harmlessness over personal happiness? Given it has been your “priority no. 1” all these years there is a good chance that being harmless will only be a choice if it suits your happiness. That is where putting everything on a “it doesn’t really matter” basis is of vital significance. Of course, the way I understand harmlessness is that it includes considering the wider context and ramifications one’s words and actions for the people involved. However, if you look at the sequencing issue in a less logically/ mathematically way but more how you experience yourself (with ever more fine-tuning of your affective attentiveness for both categories) then you might eventually discover that when you are even feeling a smidgen of maliciousness, (righteous) anger, indignation, or similar feelings, you cannot call yourself being genuinely happy. In a sincere assessment of the experience of happiness and of harmlessness, there is no sequence, they are one and the same. Hence the actualism method means diminishing the impact and influence of one single package of the instinctual passions and gradually reducing both malice and sorrow. Any attempt in separating them is and prioritising one over the other means ‘I’ create an excuse to prefer one to the other and thus corrupt the meaning of both happiness (as in including narcissistic, hedonistic or ‘self’-centric happiness) and harmlessness (for instance dutiful, morally superior, pacifistic behaviour adjustments, or that one sometimes needs aggression to survive), with the result that it perverts the actualism method so that ‘I’ can remain in control. Since you have re-introduced the ‘Harmlessness’ thread today, and I found a clarifying post
from Claudiu SYD: So, obviously, I know that absence-of-malice is nothing to do with morality at all. VINEETO: Good. That means nothing prevents you now from paying attention to be more considerate, respectful, amicable and inclusive of the consequences of your actions on other people, in order that genuine happiness can flourish. It’s fun. * VINEETO: What you are still to experientially comprehend is that for Geoffrey
SYD: Yes. This is at the forefront of my mind, above all else. VINEETO: Most people do require a sincere commitment at the start because it not always
makes sense at the beginning to give up sorrow and malice. There are obstacles like old habits and attitudes (such as
apparent your correspondence with Andrew Geoffrey himself recommended such a commitment when asked –
* SYD: Okay, so sincerity = staying true to the facts. I get it. That’s enough for me for now. VINEETO: For your compass to ever change its needle from your present ‘point North’ (your affectively perceived facts) you will need to comprehend, with the whole of your ‘being’, that ‘I’ am the problem, ‘I’ stand in the way of peace-on-earth and in the way of actuality becoming apparent – only then will you see the sense in doing whatever you can to act with a self-less inclination rather than in a ‘self’-enhancing way. SYD: Here, are you enticing me to self-immolate, like, today? Because I don’t think I’m ready yet. As you know, I’m not yet fully ready to give up on (some) ‘good’ feelings (even though the compulsion has started weakening). This needs some more looking into, and thus time, if I’m to comprehend “with the whole of [my] ‘being’”. VINEETO: No, that was not my intention. You snipped out the explanatory quote from Richard with the words “self-less inclination” – perhaps the reference was too subtle for you.
To spell it out – I suggested, as before, to put everything on a preference basis. SYD: You also wrote that my comment on “a quality of
‘innocence’” is a “theoretical contemplation”, but this is not true as I did not
describe it outside of an ongoing experience of such quality (the straightforwardness of acknowledging the facts of
the matter). But again, I need time to comprehensively look into all these feelings standing in the way. The compass
is still stuck on some ‘good’ feelings (and thus ‘bad’ feelings, cf. Richard on ‘addiction’ to James).
Presently, I’m applying dollops of sincerity (including experiencing how “I” am those feelings), along
with the intent to be genuinely happy (à la the ‘happiness’ aspect; VINEETO: To start with the first sentence of your previous post –
Can you see that you wrote ‘innocence’ in scare-quotes and then equated it (“by definition”) with being sincere? There would be no need for Richard to use a different word, if innocence and sincerity were the
same, wouldn’t there? And there would be no need for you to put the word in scare-quotes, as one puts ‘I’ in
scare quotes to refer to the purity-corrupting identity, if you weren’t somewhat aware, somewhere in the back of
your mind, that you are indeed perverting and cheapening the meaning of the purity of innocence, thereby brushing
aside what Richard said – “innocence is entirely new to human history”. It is pertinent to understand that innocence does not, and never has, “by definition naturally [existed] in being sincere”? In your tendency to make descriptions of an actual freedom your own as an identity, sincerity goes out the window. For emphasis – ‘you’ can never ever enter actuality where nothing dirty can get in. What ‘you’ presently do instead is diminish it, cheapen it, corrupt it, in order that it may be possible for ‘you’ to achieve it. For actuality to become apparent ‘you’ will have to disappear, and there will never ever be innocence either in scare-quotes or “by definition” for ‘you’ – the instinctual-passional entity which is rotten to the core. It would be advisable to develop some sensitivity and nuanced way of thinking and acting, taking note of the differences in the words and the reason why Richard was so particularly careful in his descriptions. Such sensitivity as in general consideration, tact and delicacy, respect, discernment (outside your accustomed, automatically ‘self’-centric way of thinking) can stand you in good stead on the way to becoming more harmless. I like to make one more point while on the subject of sensitivity, consideration and respect – when you copy a 1000+ word text from Geoffrey and publish it on the forum for everyone’s benefit, please do not alter the text and manipulate the first impression for people by yellow-highlighting your own personal preference. It is neither considerate nor respectful to both Geoffrey and the readers. If you post a quote because you have a personal insight or comment, write it underneath. It’s akin to selling someone a second-hand book with the text already underlined by the previous owner, interfering with the reader gaining a first clean impression now influenced by the preferences of the previous owner. This is even more important with a report from an actually free person to maintain the purity of the original reporting from the actual world, which is generally not experienced by feeling beings and therefore can give them valuable insight when they read it with their whole ‘being’ which allows the possibility that this could happen –
SYD: This ‘innocence’ is not a feeling (as in, “Whoa, look at me, I’m such an innocent angel”) or a moral-feel-good-ism, but a simple matter-of-fact quality of how “I” can approach everything perceived or felt. VINEETO: The word ‘sincere’ will do just fine for this experience – genuine
sincerity is void of ego-enhancing pride else it is not sincerity. The word ‘sincere’ will do just fine for this
experience – genuine sincerity is void of ego-enhancing pride else it is not sincerity. It is also genuine
attentiveness as defined in Richard’s above quoted article. SYD: ‘I’ am also naturally cunning, however, so allowing
this quality naturally involves recognizing and ceasing all those should-nots, can-nots, will-nots, etc. inasmuch as
they mask the simple facts of the situation. VINEETO: Exactly. It involves all the tricks ‘I’ get up to in order so that ‘you’ can remain in situ. Therefore I made you aware that when you put innocence in scare quotes it is a watering-down process, perverting the purity of the meaning of innocence (as in “entirely new to human history”). * SYD: Also, the ‘bind’ makes sense for instinctual passions.
It worked for panic, back in December. Neither repressing nor expressing (of which there are innumerable cunning
forms) works with any instinctual passion, to weaken them.
VINEETO: Just to make it clear, actualism is not a materialistic, therapeutically ‘self’-healing technique. SYD: I’ve read the whole sequence from July 13 2004 to July 15
2004a and still I’m unable to comprehend how neither repressing nor expressing strong passions (via, for instance,
the innumerable cunning expressions thereof) can be considered materialistic or therapeutic. VINEETO: When I wrote this I was under the misapprehension, which you clarified at the beginning of this post, that harmlessness was not yet part of your intent, having labelled it ‘moralistic’. Without the sincere intent to apply the actualism method as intended (feeling good being both happy and harmless), just picking some techniques from it would only be a materialistic, therapeutically ‘self’-healing technique. Cheers Vineeto
SYD: To this, I’ll add that ‘harmlessness’ can only seem like
morality (at least, it has been to me) – and Kiman also brought this up above – only if considered from a
position of not having already established happiness as no. 1 priority. Without happiness, considerations of
harmlessness can easily devolve into moral forcing (at least, it has always for me). CLAUDIU: I want to add to what Vineeto wrote In practice, as they are both different ways to describe the same “motion”, there is no intrinsic sequence like you say here. SYD: When I’m happy (i.e., not miserable), there is now an
“of course” to “yea, I’d want the same for others too” … and here both happiness
and harmlessness (two different aspects of the same thing) ‘reinforce’ one another. CLAUDIU: The way you describe that “of course” as the wishing well for the other indicates to me that you have indeed started to experientially touch on what the harmlessness aspect of happiness and harmlessness refers to. So here’s the key: as actualism is experiential, the entire point of reading the words and learning the jargon, as it were, is to establish proper referents for all of the words (referent=that which is referred to by a word). The only possible way to do this is, of course, by experiencing that thing being described, genuinely experiencing it, and then connecting the word to that experience. And, of course, being sincere about, from then on, using that word only to refer to that and only when it actually is being experienced. Now that you know what “harmlessness” refers to, consider that, if one is being sorrowful and sad then, by putting harmlessness, by considering the harmlessness aspect and committing to harmlessness as in that particular part of the equation, that also will lead to that person recognizing that them being sorrowful is harmful (in how it affects others) and thus minimizing that sorrow to get back to feeling good. As a general rule of thumb I find that if what’s taking away from enjoying and appreciating is a malicious type of feeling or passion, then appealing to the happiness aspect of it functions to get me back to enjoying and appreciating. This is because I can see that me being malicious is not enjoying and appreciating. Conversely if what’s taking away from feeling good is a sorrowful self-defeating self-abusing type of thing, then what works to get me out of it is to focus on the harmlessness aspect. I see that I’m not the only person in the world and that this not only negatively affects me, it also negatively affects others as well as how I interact with them and the best I can do in the world, etc. That then makes the insight more receivable that it’s silly to feel sorrowful and sensible to get back to enjoying and appreciating. The reason I go into all this detail is to explain that the entry point is not asymmetrical, of happiness first and harmlessness as an add-on. It is symmetrical. You can also start with harmlessness first and then happiness as the “free bonus”, as it were. Practically they’re both entry points into the same thing, which is that it is to describe two aspects of what is the closest to affective imitation to pure intent. Pure intent is just one thing, and it has the qualities of an intrinsic joy and appreciation of being alive, together with the benevolence that is a quality of this actually existing universe. To further remove the “moralizing” aspect of tripping up what harmlessness is,
consider the passage where Richard talks about happily harmlessly punching somebody when the situation calls for it
( Finally I’ll just add that, from personal experience, feeling harmless, in the way of using
the word to properly refer to what it means in the context of actualism, feels really, really good and is just
wonderfully delightful. As such there’s no doubt as to exactly why now it promotes a more salubrious, ongoing and
continuous enjoyment and appreciation of being alive.
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual
Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
