RESPONDENT No. 25: If Richard is living this experience 24 h/day, well, he lives on another planet altogether.

RESPONDENT No. 30: … another universe... called ‘actual world’ :).

I was thinking about the ‘real world’ yesterday... looks like there are a lot of entry points (feelings and instincts) to it but hardly an exit... it appears to me that the ‘real world’ is not contained in ‘actual world’ because then the outside of ‘real world’ will be actual world... I think ‘real world’ is totally a different dimension (albeit imaginary fuelled by instincts, emotions and beliefs) emulating ‘actual world’ in the sense that it has no outside too...

So I said – I refuse to enter the ‘real world’ (I don’t know what kind of world I am in now :) ) since ‘exit’ is difficult/impossible. I would say that this was ‘nipping the feelings in the bud’ realizing where it leads me to.

RESPONDENT No. 25: And what happens?

RESPONDENT No. 30: No more wasting of time in the variations of same ol’ same ol’.

I have actually started progressing... pure contemplation is not at an arm’s length now.

Life has become excellent... less of sorrow and malice (I should admit, still I get them in some new forms, malice particularly, and it is not clear till I get out of the fangs of it; for instance I felt an urge to shoot No 53-like mails to the list and thanks to no express/no suppress mode and put in the bind technique of actualism, I have finally de-toxicated myself of it :) ). 12.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 60: Has anyone in all these years experienced a deep and permanent change in their innermost ‘being’? Anyone apart from Richard?

RESPONDENT No. 30: I know that you wouldn’t think these words have any integrity... but I shall go ahead.

If I say that the method worked from day 1 I would be lying. But I wasn’t practising continually, as it is suggested. I had so many beliefs, negative feelings, conceptual wanking (No. 68’s term) which came in the way of asking this simple question.

Nothing worked. I got sick of asking this question. I tried this and that. I slipped into all kinds of imaginary realms. Fundamentally nothing changed. You know all that.

I think I got the hang of it recently and there is ‘success after success’ now. You are right in saying that the ‘process’ involves a lot of individualized negotiations, reasonings with the ‘me’... behind the simplicity of the method lies a lot of stuff one does which can depend so much on the individual. But more one sticks to the prototype of the method, by simply asking and going into the feelings... I think the better one off... this is clear to me in the hindsight. The exploration is not unlike Dante’s inferno. Many things could happen to many people at many stages... but Virgil goes all the way.

Still I get a glimpse of the ‘me’ which tells me that there has not been any fundamental change... this is looking from inside as a feeling.

However it is very clear that

a) most of my negative traits have totally been eradicated... this is not a feeling... it hasn’t returned... it is like seeing that what one had in one’s childhood is simply not there now.

b) even those that are there have been minimised to such an extent that they are not a threat; I have understood the importance of exposing oneself to oneself totally... I don’t object to that anymore.

On the lighter side, my question: Those who have self-immolated, please raise their hands. 15.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 60: I have described this before, but here’s the basic pattern again:

RESPONDENT No. 30: You are the best judge and only you can change this behaviour... as No. 68 says you need to break this barrier and you will be able to proceed… however, since anybody who does this for a while becomes automatically an expert on the ‘human condition’... I can try to throw some stuff I think appropriate... you need to verify and see if it helps:

1. What lies behind the frustration? is it fear of what you believe might happen if you continue? Is the self throwing a tantrum fearing at the loss? You have many a times hinted how you will have to lose all the sympathetic connections as the ultimate event... are you afraid of that? Or do you hate the method, the authority? Do you think you are second hand if you practise somebody’s handed out method?

2. Do a cost benefit analysis of feeling frustrated; what has it done for you? it has made you not proceed; it has made you complain, stuck; what worth does that feeling have? Does it make sense to feel this way? What would be involved in never feeling this feeling again in your life? Why does it become sticky? Why is the feeling important for No. 60 the identity? What is involved in keeping the method not working?

3. How much of what you know about actualism is beliefs and how much is personally validated?

4. How much of all this is connected to the history of interactions you had with actualists like Peter and Vineeto and the rest?

Finally it is you who is producing the negative feeling... can you change it or you don’t have any control over it? Is it so extremely powerful that you are struck by its venom and are paralyzed? Crucial point to understand is that YOU change irrevocably by practising this stuff; you invoke the change, you desire the change and you make the change happen. Do you want this? etc. etc.

I can type rest of the day along these lines. 16.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 60: ;-) IOW, the method causes it.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Did some more thinking about it... is it because that realizing that the good feelings have dark underbelly and the attentiveness discovers the transient nature of it and the work not done? And the ‘me’ doesn’t like the bright light? It screams – ‘leave me alone, I want to enjoy life’?

You can leave all of it alone and enjoy life if you can really do that; but I think the good has bad underneath it; if there was no problem to start with, all of this would not be needed. I concur with the real world expert No 58 that all this has become a poison – one can no more unconsciously do what one used to before; however one can solve this dilemma using sensible approach; take it on board fully...

‘I am going to find out all that is involved, however shocking that maybe, I am going to use all sincerity, I am going to be careful, I am not going to deny anymore’; the catch is that one is not an impartial observer who can do all this; one is very much deep down in it; wallowing in negative feelings makes the investigation (and living) very difficult; so, being practical, I would like to put an end to feeling unhappy; I will get out of the mud to get a good look at the mud; I will try to become happy and view unhappiness from that vantage point; paradoxically more one is free of it, more one knows about it; acting and seeing are not entirely disconnected; if the same feeling repeats (as it is biologically wired, it will), I ask myself – ‘do I know all about this feeling?

Is it worthwhile to go into it again? Is there anything gained in continuing this feeling even for a second more? What is the result if a) I get out of it b) get into it?’; I take a look at the feeling, use sensible thought and decide; still it may linger; strengthen the sense; go into it and ask the same stuff; I learn ways of dealing with it; the feeling becomes less and less powerful; after a while sense prevails; the ‘me’ has umpteen tricks up its sleeve; ‘I’ am not what the ‘self-image’ makes me believe; ‘I’ am much more; ‘I’ am not only what I think to be; ‘I’ am much more – ‘I’ am the feelings; they are not evolved in this lifetime; ‘I’ didn’t personally make all that ‘I’ am; ‘I’ was born that way; the genetic code is found to have something like 85,000 programs; all those programs are ‘me’; ‘I’ want to go by the program, not against it; ‘I’ want to enrich myself, by the instinctual game; why would I practise something like actualism?

‘I’ don’t get anything – ‘I’ lose stuff; but a little sense tells ‘me’ that though ‘I’ lose my valued possessions, it becomes increasingly easy and happy as long as ‘I’ live; so ‘I’ can do this stuff as to live peacefully – like the rocket that propels itself by shedding stuff [once you reach the orbit, it is all effortless :)]. 16.5.2005a

RESPONDENT No. 60: G’day No 30. Thanks for a thoughtful response. These (and your other recent message) are all very penetrating observations and questions. You have identified a lot of the (very real) obstacles to success. However, these problems are not the main problem I have with the method; these are additional ones ;-)

RESPONDENT No. 30: If that is the case, maybe you can eliminate those so that the main problem becomes visible ;).

I noticed in myself that the self is wayward... it wants to do what it wants to do... it wants no doubt of its convictions... doubt your ultimate conviction and see the hiss of the snake! All this attentiveness threatens the self of its unaccountable wilful freedom.

See how a corrupt official resists and resents accounting and accountability... a guy who does perfect job doesn’t have any problem with that (maybe some extra work that’s all). Without actualism, there are only two solutions:

RESPONDENT No. 27 to No. 60: I’ve been thinking over the past few days about what you are reporting as your experience with the actualism method.

It is interesting that since the time I’ve started practicing actualism – I’ve been of two minds...

One that knows and experiences that it works to whittle down the identity, whereas the second aspect has been that I’ve noticed that I often feel miserable using the method. This has been confusing, to say the least.

I have spent the last year or two trying to figure out where I am ‘doing it correctly’ and where I am not.

Mostly, the improvements in my life have been that I now know quite well how to get along with other people by keeping my hands in my pockets, etc. I can spot exactly when I am about to be malicious and pretty much stop it in its tracks. Such changes in behavior have yielded genuinely positive results.

The negative aspect has been very similar to what I understand that you are reporting – getting frustrated at asking and answering the question, or extending out the miserable feelings that I might normally repress or dissociate from. It gets to the point sometimes where asking HAIETMOBA gets to be a drag.

Another way of putting it is that I ‘understand’ the human condition quite well (by personal experience) – I am also very motivated to end it in myself, but I don’t feel that I’m even close to being ‘virtually free.’

I think I may have put my finger on the reason this is happening – which is why I’m writing you this email.

Up until this point, I thought maybe the reason that I wasn’t progressing further was that I wasn’t ‘digging enough’ or practicing diligently enough, etc. I now don’t think that is the case.

Here is my educated guesstimate (for your consideration in your personal experience):

There are two problems with the way I have practiced HAIETMOBA (up to now):

1) It is distracting when I need to focus on other things – it takes away awareness that is needed for whatever it is I am doing.

2) It’s frustrating, painful, etc to investigate while I am feeling bad or miserable.

Here are my proposals (for myself) to fix it:

1) Only dig in (investigate in depth) to how I am experiencing this moment of being alive when I am feeling good or better, and when my mind isn’t occupied with other things.

2) When I don’t feel like investigating my emotions – then don’t – rather, find something I want to do to have some fun – get back to feeling good before continuing investigation.

So, the premise of this is that feeling good is a key to success – the ‘springboard.’ What I have noticed is that feeling the ‘bad’ feelings feels quite different when one is feeling good as opposed to when they are the only thing going on the stage at the time. When I am generally feeling good, the bad feelings don’t get the better of me, and the exploration is fun. When I am feeling bad, let’s just say it isn’t productive at all.

Anyway, I’ll let you know how it goes – and I offer these thoughts simply as something for you to consider. It does find some corroboration in some things Vineeto has written about investigating emotions (and Richard has written some similar things as well):

Taken from: ../actualism/vineeto/selected-writings/investigatefeelings.htm

Vineeto: ‘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.’

AND...

Vineeto: ‘Sometimes I found that I had to do something physical such as go for a walk or work in the garden in order to break free of being consumed by a particular intensive feeling.’

What strikes me as funny is that I have put this method on myself partly as a punishment of sorts – something I had to endure in order to become free of the human condition – which is entirely contrary to the fact that actualism is supposed to be all about having fun. 17.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 68 to No. 27: Two things:

1. For me to ‘investigate’ the emotions while feeling ‘shitty’ is a most futile effort. To fully feel them without the whole ‘tracing’ investigation helps. The bright light of attentiveness will lesson them. Or going for a walk by some trees is possible and paying exclusive attention to my visual field is a good bet too. Later on, when feeling better is when I do my ‘investigation’.

2. Its not for nothing that Peter stresses the importance of Richard’s invaluable tech of ‘pushing oneself to the front of one’s eyes’ as being a key. This is of far more importance than what most seem to realize. Though, one has to figure it out on one’s own. Its something you can do all the time, unlike ‘investigating’ which requires both the energy and a at least neutral mood. I gave this a gun ho try repeatedly in April and I experienced a wonderful month, with one day being a ‘virtually free day’. I had a ‘virtually free day’ yesterday as well. While, I’m certainly not virtually free as of yet, I can now say I know what a full day of virtual freedom would be like. And that’s pretty cool. I don’t have to ‘try to make myself happy’, but rather just look out softly through these eyes, and let as much of my ‘self’ go as is possible ‘at that moment’. I suppose this may sound kind of ‘silly’, stupid, and even naive. Ah, precisely. 17.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 27: When I am feeling bad, let’s just say it isn’t productive at all.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Feeling bad gets into the way of investigating, as you say. But then isn’t the method all about finding the source and eradicating the feeling? Isn’t feeling bad contain the clue to what belief, moral, principle, instinct lies behind it?

RESPONDENT No. 27: Yes, feeling badly contains the very information to investigate – but I am finding that it is not very effective to investigate while feeling bad overall. I have to be in a general context of feeling good in order to make significant headway against the ‘bad’ feelings.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Whichever works best; but do you have the discipline to come back and address the problem once you feel good? Or something else turns up and therefore much of it never gets addressed?

I struggled quite sometime to find out what was behind the bad feeling; I would get lost in theories and images and expressions; I had to experiment a lot, waste a lot of time before I could see the simplicity. I tried not using words to describe the feeling, and then using words… the problem being that one really doesn’t want to expose oneself; what worked for me is some kind of self-talk: negotiating with the ‘me’ to try to pump in some sense. For some time I said – no control, suffer the consequences of the ‘me’; that exposed it to some extent. It took years to arrive at the simple sensibility of happiness/harmlessness (not that it should!). ‘Me’ is in the way of everything... ‘me’ is such an entangled mess. 17.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 27: I have practiced actualism for several years now, with some mixed results. What I have discovered is that the reason for the ‘mixed’ results is that I wasn’t dealing effectively with the ‘bad’ emotions – so you’re questions are right up my alley.

First – I would refer you to Richard’s article ‘This moment of being alive’ located here.

The reason I refer you to that article is that from my experience, there is a period of reading as much as one can of what is being offered at the actualism website, then there is an experimenting and discovering for oneself what is what – but the important part is making the method your own. In other words, something that you want to do – that is fun and thrilling, that you can vouch for – for yourself – not just because someone else is telling you that it works. If you find it to be a chore, then you might as well forget about it (until you are feeling better anyway). These are the conclusions I had finally come to on my own, then I went back and read the article ‘This moment of being alive’ and found Richard to be saying exactly what I had discovered in my own experience.

What I had discovered is that when one is in the grip of feeling badly, it is virtually impossible to be sensible. Then, if you begin to worry about how you are going to get back on track, then that is not being sensible either. So, my strategy is to begin with ‘feeling good’ (by which I mean feeling felicitous) – that is where things get started. From there, doing the actualist method can be delightful and thrilling and one can get the hang of it – experiencing the ‘success’ the actualists speak of. There is a difference between feeling a bad feeling when one is generally feeling good and feeling a bad feeling when one is generally feeling bad – feeling a ‘bad’ feeling while one is generally feeling good is an apt moment for investigation, when one can ‘nip it in the bud’ – not so much when feeling bad has ‘taken over’ the stage. Note that I am not saying NOT to be attentive when you are feeling bad generally – it is still important not to express or repress – but analyzing or investigating while one is feeling bad generally has had negative results for me.

Consciousness seems in some ways to be like an amplifier or feedback mechanism – if you are generally feeling bad, then you will feel bad about feeling bad when you become aware of it. Whereas, if you are generally feeling good, then becoming aware of feeling good typically brings appreciation.

RESPONDENT No. 30: What does one do when one feels bad?

RESPONDENT No. 27: By ‘feels bad’ – I understand you to be asking about generally feeling bad... Keep one’s hands in one’s pockets, get up off one’s behind and do something that makes you feel better.

RESPONDENT No. 30: How much of study is required?

RESPONDENT No. 27: If one is feeling badly – none or very little, though you can remain attentive. If you are generally feeling good, then just enough to get back to feeling generally good again.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Just the right amount to get back into feeling happy and harmless once again? if one has 100% intent can one just look at the feeling and get back to being happy and harmless instantaneously?

RESPONDENT No. 27: I haven’t found that ‘100% intent’ has much to do with it. This conjures up notions of determination, or fighting against some big enemy, etc. You either want to be happy and harmless or you don’t – I don’t see a point in assigning percentages.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Is the amount of work that is needed inversely proportional to the amount of pure intent to be happy and harmless?

RESPONDENT No. 27: Again, personally I wouldn’t ‘quantify’ pure intent.

RESPONDENT No. 30: And is it inversely proportionally to one’s grip on the method?

RESPONDENT No. 27: Possibly how much one has gotten the ‘hang of it.’

RESPONDENT No. 30: When I look into the feeling – there is the cause of the feeling and there is the effect of the feeling and there is no clear boundary in between... at least in the beginning. The effect (the expression and evolution) of the feeling dominates the cause. One may feel irritated because his boss said something about him and might discharge that irritation on his child’s undone homework thinking that it is the cause. I guess more attentiveness reveals the actual cause. But is there always a cause? How about when one deals with instincts? Is there a cause or trigger?

RESPONDENT No. 27: I find that it works best just to keep it simple. When you are feeling a ‘bad’ feeling, there isn’t much mystery to it – you may have to dig into it sometimes, but needn’t be any sweating over whether you have gotten it correct, whether it is the real cause or whether you are fooling yourself, etc – it is easy to get caught up in worrying whether one is doing it correctly, etc – which is all counter productive. 26.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 60: If I’m feeling less than good, practising the method can be useful ... which I can understand that easily enough, it’s no mystery. However, if I’m feeling good, this is where I seem to be configured rather differently from other people. If I’m feeling good to start with, the HAIETMOBA routine very soon diminishes whatever good feelings I’m experiencing (by corrupting the naturalness/effortlessness/ease of the moment with self-consciousness and the complications introduced by having an agenda). And then begins the feedback loop that I’ve written about before. Nothing could be less felicitous than that.

RESPONDENT No. 27: To me, concluding that you are ‘configured rather differently from other people’ sounds like a cop out – it’s a fake answer – one that no sensible person could be satisfied with.

My best suggestion is to look at whatever feeling is coupled with asking the question of HAIETMOBA and your answer probably isn’t far away. I also went through a phase where I tried to blame ‘the method’ for making me feel bad, but then I realized that all it was doing was showing me what is already there – it was easy enough for me to decide that there is no way that I want to go on with ignoring all the bad stuff that is revealed by the actualist method.

Bottom line: the problem isn’t the method – the problem is the ‘stuff’ that it brings up. 27.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 60: I reckon felicity is absolutely fine and dandy when it occurs spontaneously as a result of living ... but I can’t shake the impression that *generating* felicity (along with policing oneself in an effort to minimise malice/sorrow) is yet another cover-up of the fundamental activity of suffering that is being normal.

*

RESPONDENT No. 60: I can conceive of identity folding up and dying in a crisis of self-understanding, but I cannot conceive of it melting away in felicity and innocuity...

RESPONDENT No. 59: In my experience, ‘generating felicity’ of the genuine kind can only ever happen ‘spontaneously’ … and ‘I’ (as an identity) have tried, and strived for it, but to no avail; as it then would just be ‘yet another cover-up of the fundamental activity of suffering that is being normal’.

At most, ‘I’ can wholeheartedly agree to how silly ‘I’ experience life – ‘I’ have hurt too many people in my life to keep on defending what obviously does not, and cannot, deserve to be defended- and then ‘spontaneity’ does its thing.

When this happens ‘I’ (as an identity) start ‘folding up and dying in a crisis of self-understanding’, ‘dying’ (still) being gradual of course, although a ‘crisis of self-understanding’ can be akin to an experiential orgasm (with a fear of not being left the same). Usually, regardless of whether a PCE occurs or not, I am left in an ambience of ‘felicity and innocuity’ that varies in length of time and quality.

‘I’ (as an identity) realize how silly it is to try and be something I’m not, ‘felicitous and innocuous’, so ‘I’ stop policing my ‘self’ in order to avoid the bad side, wholly experience the bad side without trying to express it (‘I’ do have a choice as to whether ‘I’ can directly/ indirectly hurt others, or not) and get out of the way as soon as possible so that the spontaneous purity of the stillness of this ever fresh moment can do its thing.

Then, and only then, does one not want to slap Richard silly but rather join him when he proclaims: Ain’t life grand!

Yours truly (who has reportedly achieved something ‘worse’ than the ‘ultimate cunningness of the identity’. 27.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 30: I don’t ask such personal questions as the ones I asked to No. 60 to any person outside this list (I may gently point out this or that if I see some reception/value) – No. 60 has shown interest in actualism in understanding... so I want to communicate what I see knowing that it is harsh. if he says no... I don’t want all this... I want comfy chat with lot of good will and nice time... that is a different story (this is just an example). what No. 74/No. 60 may want is that: why can’t Richard (if not Peter /Vineeto) say what they say in a non-confrontational, friendly, sugar-coated, euphemistic, gentle, saving-other’s-face, etc. style?

RESPONDENT No. 74: If most posts by actualists end up in a reaction by the reader which sounds like: ‘Go fuck off then. I don’t want to participate in this convoluted dialogue anymore,’ shouldn’t it be enquired if there be a more gentle way of conversing with others so as to bring out each other’s belief systems?

RESPONDENT No. 30: I have thought about it. The fact is this:

a) Richard /Peter /Vineeto have gone through a process of digging and they know/see some stuff others don’t see/don’t want to see.

b) You can hide the fact and be nice about asking them: can you consider this possibility? Maybe this? etc. Or they can state the fact etc. They’re claiming to be/ knowing stuff/ being an expert is causing negative reactions.

Knowing that others will read anything in whatever I say, the best I can do is to get rid of all the ulterior motives/ malice in me and then correspond the way I see fit (the things learnt/the things one learns influences the style etc.). if somebody takes it the way that was not intended, I can say that I didn’t intend that. but if nobody believes what am I to do? R/P/V clearly say, openly say, that they have eliminated (minimised?) all the malice/ sorrow. I now consider that more than its opposite and hence I am able to see what they are saying. I can hide this and be in other’s good books or make other people think that I have become a strong believer. see, I have no control on what will be the reaction in the receivers mind.

RESPONDENT No. 74: I have benefited from conversing with Richard DESPITE his conversational style, not because of it.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Ok; I have benefited from both. Now I don’t think style and content are really different. Content: go straight to the fact. Style: the same. Don’t waste time in unnecessary, logical, twists etc.

RESPONDENT No. 74: Wouldn’t it be worthwhile for him and Vineeto to at least enquire if their conversational style is not at all harmless and pleasant.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Malice if there can come through any style. I have found malice in me in some sophisticated sarcastic comments which might not even reach the audience. In fact all my past mails to this list I see malicious intentions with cross messages (I will plant a hidden hurtful message to another person in a different mail... which might go unnoticed… or a sufficiently excited correspondent may catch it).

And if there is no malice, there isn’t anything to seep out. Each person in his wisdom chooses the style, the matter, the topic to respond to etc. One writes something with a certain intention to have a desired effect... namely communication and understanding. If the other doesn’t get it and interprets with all the hidden emotional meanings, what can one do? Keep repeating that I didn’t intend that... this... etc.. After all if one is so interested in eliminating the malice and sorrow (which is the goal), then is one not ready to go beyond the style and go for the thing?

RESPONDENT No. 74: We are all mature enough not to get worked up when our belief systems are challenged.

RESPONDENT No. 30: That wasn’t true with ‘me’ and I don’t think that is the case. If somebody snatches a purse from somebody, that person will attack... if you hold something dearly, that is the response. Beliefs are dear to one.

RESPONDENT No. 74: But an acknowledgement of this sincerity is lacking and whenever we point out that an actualist position might be actually wrong, one is accused of not being sincere enough. In other words, it is a given that the method is 100% right and admits no scepticism.

RESPONDENT No. 30: If one is not ready to apply the method, one cannot blame the method. I am not defending the method... but No. 60 has not shown readiness in tracing the root cause for his ‘tantrum’ despite many questions from Richard. And that tells me that he has to go little further deep before he can disown the method.

RESPONDENT No. 74: For example, No. 60’s having trouble with the method. Analogously, the medicine is tasting bitter. What actualists have been advising him is to take more of the same medicine instead of trying to find out if the medicine can indeed be tailored to his peculiar troubles.

RESPONDENT No. 30: We are dealing with psychological problem here. If you deny taking the medicine... then how can you blame the medicine? No. 25 cannot blame the method because of his admittance that he has been more interested in understanding than the method as such.

No. 60 though he has claimed using the method and indeed it must be true that he must have asked the question, he has some major obstacles to solve before he can claim 100% application. Take 2 days in one’s life and just see how much of the percentage one has actually applied. of course, No. 60 says that he gets into this feedback loop and there it ends. He may have to stay with the bad feeling without trying to escape, with trying to control, without trying to express, without trying to blame actualism, without amplifying saying that ‘there it goes’... totally... before he can crack it. If he says that... Am I so stupid that I haven’t tried all this? My response is that: more... and more...

RESPONDENT No. 74: The HAIETMOBA is a big static boulder. Can’t there be alternate ways of exploring oneself? Say, post-mortems of an event, being consciously sensual at times, and so on...

RESPONDENT No. 30: I think intellectual understanding, sensuality etc. are great but nothing like practising the method itself because one is dealing with what is preventing that which is already there.

(...)

RESPONDENT No. 74: A related question: Knowing that in the real world, people get hurt psychologically, would trying to avoid hurting them psychologically be benevolence or perpetuating their selves?

RESPONDENT No. 30: I think one can practise politeness, develop strategies for better living. but unless one eliminates ‘malice’ from oneself totally, any strategy will become a tool in the hands of ‘me’ and malice will seep out eventually no matter how polite one is.

RESPONDENT No. 74: I have seen a few enlightened masters who are insensitive to normal human suffering because they see it as of the sufferer’s own making.

RESPONDENT No. 30: If one truly understands that any emotional comfort that one can give another can be only a reprieve and needs constant maintenance and can become impossible soon by ‘me’ (or even without ‘me’) – one sees the limitation of any such action. if I see that the person will suffer anyway, I don’t do that which is done normally. Permanent happiness can only be achieved by oneself, by one’s own understanding and efforts. And as the enlightened master (or anybody for that matter) can take the other to where they are... a person who is in actual freedom desires that kind of freedom for another. Because he sees that it is the best for another… not some pacifier which might work for the next half hour.

I am in India now. I see that roads are in bad condition here. It is common knowledge that these contractors that get government money for laying the roads do a bad job... they don’t want permanent solution because then they won’t have jobs... they put bad roads and soon they have more contract. So they use bad quality tar etc. which won’t last for a complete year in these kinds of rains. Are we ready for the perfect solution? What will ‘I’ do when there is no problem, nothing to complain about, there is no effort needed? Won’t ‘I’ go out of job? 29.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 30: No. 60 has not shown readiness in tracing the root cause for his ‘tantrum’ despite many questions from Richard.

RESPONDENT No. 60: Excuse me for interjecting, but that is neither fair nor true. I am, of course, aware that Richard was giving a practical demonstration of how the method works in practice ... i.e. what happened between [one date] and [another date] to trigger the loss of felicitous feelings? In the course of daily life, lots of things can and do happen to cause or diminish felicitous feelings ...

RESPONDENT No. 30: If you do not find the root cause/ trigger of what has caused the loss of felicitous feeling, then the method has not been given its full chance.

I had this experience yesterday: I suddenly found myself amidst deep sorrow which I had described before. it was growing taking various shapes, calling all those instances that I had erred, guilt ridden, feeling other person’s sorrow, blaming how cold I had been to ‘No. 60’ in my mails, fearing an attack from ‘No. 60’ and ‘No. 53’ etc. I was once again in the midst of some seemingly unresolvable situation.

Then I said, no matter what I am going to exactly practise actualism method. I am going to recollect the last moment I felt good, and trace the trigger. I couldn’t do it. amazing amount of resistance. I hated the method. I didn’t want to go ahead. I wanted to watch the growing sorrow instead. But I said, I have to do it. No other choice. It took me 10 minutes or so and finally I was convinced that I had to find out the trigger.

And the trigger I found. I wasn’t convinced ... it was a lot of trial and error search ... but I found it all right. I couldn’t have found it from watching the evolution of the feelings ... it was totally different. It was a total surprise. Then I finally understood actualism method. You keep finding the triggers to feeling bad and replace them with sense and disable them ... you do it with common sense by feeling good as soon as possible. As long as you do not do this, you will be triggered again and again and again and you will experience the same old in different forms due to the same reasons.

So, actualism method does exactly what is required: not more, not less.

I am more and more surprised that in spite of my participation and claiming various things all along, I hadn’t put the method into practise 100%. I talk more, contradict myself a lot. But I am glad that things are dropping.

I read Vineeto’s mail and followed the conversation she pointed to that I had with Richard... if only I had understood all those a while ago, I would have saved all these turmoil.

RESPONDENT No. 60: But here is the key point, the one that almost every respondent seems to have overlooked ... the reaction I have described occurs independently of those events and independently of my current attitude toward actualism/ actualists. I am not bullshitting about this.

RESPONDENT No. 30: It is possible. I thought I experienced briefly what you describe as feedback loop. Then I said: why am I doing this? Why should I feel bad because of this question? Why should I avoid the light of awareness? Why should I throw a tantrum? Is it not clear that unless I find out every moment and again what is going on, good/bad, I can never progress? Isn’t it the darkness where the dark side flourishes? Talking to myself thus, I was finally able to see sense and stopped my tantrum.

RESPONDENT No. 60: I could be having a great day, could be on fine terms with actualists, could be very enthusiastic about actualism ... yet when I start asking myself ‘How ....?’ ... inevitably before very long, without anything necessarily having happened other than beginning to ask the question and become self-consciously seeking to maintain felicitous feelings, the feedback loop sets in exactly as I have described it.

I’ve said this repeatedly: the problem I had with the method was unrelated to any and all problems that the method revealed, and unrelated to any and all events that arose in daily life. It itself created a problem that is not otherwise present.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Fair. But then it is ‘you’ who is creating the problem and you have to find out why. The method may or may not deliver the goods... but if you have a ‘reaction’ to that method, it is your reaction only. It is true for any method... not just actualism. Any reaction is yours. And any affective reaction, doubly so.

RESPONDENT No. 60: In any case, the mystery is solved now ... and the matter is over and done with. I just find it extraordinary that you would consider these responses: From Vineeto: ‘... ... ... ...’

RESPONDENT No. 30: I think Vineeto’s mails are simply great... Peter has a certain flavour (no nonsense... no dilly dallying) and Vineeto gives practical stuff more, Richard with his extensive research and economy... etc.

RESPONDENT No. 60: From Peter: ‘If all else fails, read the instructions.’

RESPONDENT No. 30: Amicus No. 60 – magis amica veritas. Your mails are/were very interesting. You write well. You are an interesting person. You have friendliness, certain amount of exploratory nature... etc. But I think you have believed in the writings more than you should. I think you have taken certain stuff from the writings without validation.

I think your wisdom is a mixture of your experience with some projections that concur with actualism. Therefore there are a lot of falsities in it. You may not like what I am saying, but if necessary we can go into this. My case is the same... I do not deny it.

So I say: Peter is right... you need little more reading.

RESPONDENT No. 60: From Richard: ‘I have no intention whatsoever of even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation, as to why you have what you characterise as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method, let alone doing so.’

RESPONDENT No. 30: Finally it is a do it yourself business. Richard in his wisdom might consider leaving ‘me’ to figure out its tricks for itself. Richard has somewhere encouraged the practising actualists to write so that this kind of exploration is documented and people can relate to – otherwise they will be lost due to fallibility of memory.

It is more or less clear for me that nobody has clearly understood actualism and put fully into practise except Richard, Alan, Peter, Vineeto, Gary ... their writing clearly demonstrates that to me...

No. 68 seems to be doing a good job but I am not sure if has had the taste of passions, No. 25 has a great understanding of the stuff but I am not sure if he is moving vertically or horizontally :) ... as for me, I have a long way to go but I have my engine started and I have started enjoying the scenery :). No. 27 has got a great intellectual grip as well, he has put them in practise as well, but maybe he is not giving it 100% ... No. 4, I am not sure if he has cracked the stuff. This is what I have concluded from my study of the mails.

RESPONDENT No. 60: ... As ‘100% sense’ in responding to the problem I described, or that you would consider them to be telling it like it is, telling the plain truth, giving one’s fellow human being the bitter medicine he needs, or other macho nonsense.

RESPONDENT No. 30: I don’t think they are like Gurdjieff giving the ‘bitter pill’ or a ‘zen blow’... they are simply stating the facts.

Sometimes No. 60 ... you may not be able to see ‘No. 60’ ... but ‘No. 60’ may be visible to others in the form of various things you write. It will be for you too, if for some strange weird desire you do post mortem of your mails.

*

RESPONDENT No. 30: And that tells me that he has to go little further deep before he can disown the method.

RESPONDENT No. 60: Disowned it already chum, and life is better already. Feel like I’ve cast off a straightjacket.

RESPONDENT No. 30: I have disowned the method/actualism more than once ... and I felt a great relief. but then, I realized that I had merely lost the beliefs ... believing in actualism is not practising actualism. 31.5.2005

RESPONDENT No. 30: I came up with this association (a silly problem I had faced for a long time, probably still to some extent):

Suppose you are driving to a destination. Autopilot suffices most of the time... but if there are too many road signs and too many detours or construction work or changing traffic patterns – little more alertness helps. Sometimes you are on a familiar route and you don’t even realize that you are automatically doing a lot of familiar stuff like taking the exit, left turns, u-turns (particularly if you are dreaming or thinking about something else). Sometimes I have found myself in unfamiliar surroundings by making a mistake (taking a first left instead of second left unknowingly). What do you do? One thing is to ask people around to find the destination. Sometimes different people come up with different routes based on their knowledge. Sometimes their directions are not that clear. But if you can figure out the earliest point where you got lost and you can find your way back to that spot, you can start following your map once again. First realize that I am lost, stop driving in the direction, try to spot the earliest point from which I lost track, go there and continue. And also if I can correct the automatic habit that led to this mistake it will help. 12.7.2005

RESPONDENT No. 00: <snip> The thing is a lot of the time thoughts come onto my head about my life and reality and I find myself trying to ignore them, to stop thinking about it, for fear of being overcome by them, of going back to that near-breakdown state I was in before. I’ve also read how some people have had a glimpse of reality and decided it wasn’t for them and I wonder if I’m going to be one of these people. I have other problems on my mind as well, I’ve been unemployed for about 15 months now, due to my anxiety, I’m living alone and I guess I’m unsure of my future, whether to go back to university or not. I don’t have any clear career in mind, I guess my mind has been on my anxiety and now other stuff over the last few years. I also have health issues, I have diabetes and some other problems. I guess I’m unsure what to do, just wondering would you have any advice?

RESPONDENT No. 30: I have used cognitive therapy myself and definitely feeling good is a great book which initially helped me a lot. Though it is founded on the opposite of actualism – thoughts create feelings. The thought distortions can be effectively categorized and exposed for their falsity. But these methods took me to only a certain point and nothing like putting actualism method as prescribed has really worked like anything. Actualism method as suggested with all the common-sensical stuff (intent, naiveté, happy and harmless, commitment, integrity) if practised fully should lead one straight to all this stuff, in my opinion. 16.7.2005

RESPONDENT No. 25: (...) The ‘way’ forward is in-between the good and the bad passions, in a word: felicity.

RESPONDENT No. 60: You see, this is where I have a problem with the practice of actualism as it’s recommended. I know that’s the way it’s recommended, but it just does not ring true for me. I would say that the destination is felicity, certainly. But not the way.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Why? Why? Why have such a principle/ concept blocking you?

RESPONDENT No. 60: I can conceive of identity folding up and dying in a crisis of self-understanding, but I cannot conceive of it melting away in felicity and innocuity (no matter how nice that sounds in theory, it just seems like bullshit to me. But if you say that is true in your personal experience, I would not doubt you, and I would think again).

RESPONDENT No. 30: After struggling with this for a lot of time, I do get it and practise this very well. The reason is: it makes no sense to suffer and all the positive emotions do have a negative underbelly, and felicity seems to be the most neutral and enjoyable without side effects. Having seen this logic clearly, I opt for felicity. And having opted (A choice! Not a natural course of events) it becomes more possible for me to experience these since I have to experience something! But if you block yourself from this kind of reasoning, I don’t see that you will experience this imitated peace because it isn’t natural for the identity to be not excited.

RESPONDENT No. 60: But AFAICT, the core of ‘me’ is suffering activity – and anything ‘I’ try to do about it (short of folding up and fucking off) is just more of the same – just like this old nutter tells it. (Aside: He’s the ultimate proof that enlightenment is what Richard says it is; in the beginning he was so lucid; within a couple of decades he’s thoroughly possessed by the Redeemer/ Saviour/ Avatar. Clean out of his mind): http://www.adidam.org/museum/adi_da/dhome.htm?go=1972/understanding_1.htm %3Ftext%3Dmuseum :). I reckon felicity is absolutely fine and dandy when it occurs spontaneously as a result of living ...

RESPONDENT No. 30: I think that may not happen... it appears to me at least. This is an ideal picture that doesn’t take into account the pre-programmed malice and sorrow.

RESPONDENT No. 60: But I can’t shake the impression that generating felicity (along with policing oneself in an effort to minimise malice/sorrow) is yet another cover-up of the fundamental activity of suffering that is being normal.

RESPONDENT No. 30: It is a practical approach... not a cover-up. Not a cover-up because everybody knows that it is not ultimate and they all know that it is still an imitation... but only that it is a million times better than the turmoil.

RESPONDENT No. 60: I think the only real case one can have against it is that it may not lead to the actual freedom – not only that it will not lead, but it will actively block. However there is no proof for that yet. For me it has no energy, no drive to do something. It’s toothless. Innocuous. Which is fine as an end state but not as a means of getting something done. That’s how I see it anyway. Still learning though.

RESPONDENT No. 30: With this kind of seeing, surely you can’t honestly try it. You probably hate the VF guys more than the fascists... you think it is the ultimate cunningness of the identity... 26.9.2005

RESPONDENT No. 59: In my experience, ‘generating felicity’ of the genuine kind can only ever happen ‘spontaneously’ … and ‘I’ (as an identity) have tried, and strived for it, but to no avail; as it then would just be ‘yet another cover-up of the fundamental activity of suffering that is being normal’. At most, ‘I’ can wholeheartedly agree to how silly ‘I’ experience life – ‘I’ have hurt too many people in my life to keep on defending what obviously does not, and cannot, deserve to be defended- and then ‘spontaneity’ does its thing.

RESPONDENT No. 60: I’m interested (and relieved) to hear you say that ‘you’ (as an identity) have tried, and strived to generate felicitous feelings, but to no avail; as it then would just be yet another cover-up of the fundamental activity of suffering that is being normal. Seldom have I heard an actualist say this before (as far as I can remember) – especially an actualist of long standing. And since it is my most immediate, reliably and repeatable (thus satisfying the scientific method, hehe) experience of using the actualist method, I’ve wondered what the hell is the deal. If other people can supposedly dissolve the pervasive bad feelings of ‘being’ just by bringing them into the ‘bright light of awareness’, and if they can supposedly activate the felicitous feelings right from the get-go just by intending to be happy and harmless, why not ‘me’? But then, in light of all the other evidence that they’re wanking themselves and bullshitting the world ... it is not a mystery.

RESPONDENT No. 59: Maybe this will help clarify:

1. ‘I’ am angry.

2 ‘I’ can wholeheartedly agree (2.1) to how silly ‘I’ experience life (in this case being ‘angry’).

3. ‘Spontaneity’ does its thing and ‘felicitous feelings’ commence.

2.1. To ‘whole heartedly agree’ one must:

• understand what just happened.

• when it happened.

• why/how it happened.

Note: all of the above will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to honestly answer if one justifies such ‘anger’ (even if, especially if, the ‘anger’ is justifiable).

Then, if one can remember a ‘PCE’ or an experience of excellence, one will (3.) spontaneously see the absurdity of having had such a feeling and the ‘felicitous feelings’ will arrive as something entirely independent of ‘me’ as an identity.

If one cannot remember a ‘PCE’ or an experience of excellence one will at least have better understood the situation and, if contemplated upon sufficiently, gained the capacity to nip it in the bud before it happens again; if that’s what one wants, of course. Because sometimes I would voluntarily replicate the situation and not nip it in the bud so that I could ‘let out some steam’ so to speak.

Therefore ‘I’, the identity, did not generate the ‘felicitous feelings’… what ‘I’ did was prepare the ground so that felicitousness could flower.

‘I’ am after all as ugly as sin, or as beautiful as love, so how on earth could ‘I’ ever generate something as mundane/ordinary as a delightful sensate experience? 27.9.2005

RESPONDENT No. 60: Richard, you are right. I am wrong. This is one of those occasions when I am happy to be an ass. I am my feelings, my feelings are me. And most importantly: yes, I can choose how I feel.

RESPONDENT No. 27: This sounds about right to me. Also, I’ve been wondering why ‘practicing actualism’ hasn’t changed me fundamentally for a while now – such as, where’s virtual freedom – why do I understand so much more about the human condition, yet am not personally yet happy and harmless?

How long does it take? Well, I think this post contains the essential answer. What I now understand is that actualism is the moment-by-moment saying ‘YES’ to life regardless of what ‘I’ feel or think. Up to this point, I have been investigating, being attentive and such with less than desired results. Now, I see that putting ‘pure intent’ into practice is to opt ‘each moment again’ to be attentive and elect to be happy and harmless – as such it is not intellectual at all.

Essentially, it is the stubborn will to be as happy and harmless as humanly possibly regardless of what happens – that eventually results in an actual freedom. Previously, I often wondered whether some thought, idea, belief, etc really was ‘silly’ and how I could know that it is silly. Now, I see that judging anything that causes suffering, such as beliefs, feelings, etc. as ‘silly’ is one and the same mental disposition – aka, ‘pure intent’ that is the unqualified ‘YES’ to life and will to be happy and harmless – no matter what. So – thanks, No 60. That is the last piece of the puzzle for me. 31.10.2005

RESPONDENT No. 94 to Richard: I’m a chicken-shit too.

RICHARD: Here is what that colloquial expression can mean:

• ‘chicken-shit (slang, chiefly N. Amer.): n. a coward; nonsense, lies; adj. cowardly; dishonest’. (Oxford Dictionary).

I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘In amazement of your huge cohones ...

• [Richard]: ‘Presuming that you are referring to a Mexican colloquialism for bravado – cojones – it may be apposite to point out that, as there is no fear whatsoever here in this actual world there is, consequently, neither cowardice nor its antidotal courage.

It is all so easy here’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf28a.htm#27Mar04).

RESPONDENT No. 28: It’s so sweet to know that I am still being quoted after all these years. What it has to do with the subject at hand eludes me. And you still have big ones.

Sincerely, Number 28

RESPONDENT No. 68: Have you ever actually gone back and reread your correspondence with Richard?

Recently I printed out mine and reread it carefully. It was stunning how many times I clearly did not understand what he was saying fully or how many times I simply did not ‘conclude’ a query but rather left certain aspects of it very ‘loose’ and ‘untied’. All in all, I can only think of a few correspondences that were really something ‘worth’ the writer being proud of. All in all most correspondences were a very telling display of human ignorance/ stupidity, pride/ ego, and generally rather ‘pathetic’ (in the literal meaning of the word). Of which I by no mean exempting my own ‘dialog’ with Richard. Nonetheless, my ‘dialogs’ were important in my exploration and were very valuable in my journey to increasing peacefulness.

One interesting thing that is often brought up is the pooh poohing of ‘haietmoba’ as a ‘verbal device’ when Richard has on various occasions pointed out the fact that it is attentiveness of one’s experience/ feelings alone that is key. Once one has made attentiveness a habit one need never ask mentally ‘haietm’ again. For the most part, ‘haietm’ is important insofar that it helps one to initially differentiate between Buddhist/ Eastern ‘mindfulness’/ self-observation and attentiveness. This is something I somehow made very complex and confusing where now (very much contrary to No. 60’s experience) it is very simple and easy. I do agree that if one is going around repeating ‘haietmoba’ in one’s head all day that would indeed be rather crazy-making.

Of course, that’s obviously not what Richard is recommending. Is this not obvious to everyone else? 28.12.2005

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good. (…)

Surely there is nothing, but nothing, which can ever sensibly justify having one’s intelligence being run by feelings?

RESPONDENT No. 68: The actualism method is basically noticing non-felicitous feelings, and asking what caused this feeling? And to keep digging until one finds the root cause. Eventually this even goes past beliefs and into the instinctual passions. As I have progressively dismantled my beliefs, EE happen more and more where a good part of many days is spent in a virtual freedom. As the EE varies in purity to almost a ASC to almost a PCE, I now have a working knowledge of ‘where I’m headed’ and now I can for the most part induce a EE per Peter’s report of your suggestion about vision. I call it paying attention or being aware to my full visual field as that works well. However, these days that has become basically habitual and happens of its own often.

It is easy … and very … very simple. Pure intent to be happy (i.e. non-sorrowful) and harmless (i.e. non-malicious) is indeed what completely separates actualism from non-dualism as sorrow and malice are indeed kept alive by compassion, love, empathy and the whole lot of ‘positive’ emotions.

This is indeed the thrill of a lifetime and the building momentum for me at this point is not merely exciting, but breathtaking. 5.1.2006

RESPONDENT No. 97 (P/V): I have read it and I will read it again, thanks. Just to clarify, though: I am not asking whether HAIETMOBA is an avoidance technique. I’m asking whether the specific advice to ‘come to your senses’ means ‘focus on your senses’ and thus avoid emotions, as Vineeto seemed to say in that quote. Thus, I also wondered about the differences/ similarities between the advice to ‘come to one’s senses’ and asking HAIETMOBA.

Thanks for the responses.

RESPONDENT No. 108: I think ‘coming to one’s senses’ is what happens when one asks HAIETMOBA, and is a different meaning than ‘focus on your senses’. I think ‘focus on your senses’ (and thus avoid emotions) is like trying to ignore the condition that one is in that is keeping one from the senses, whereas HAIETMOBA? brings one back to the senses by investigating what is keeping one from the senses – the instinctual/ emotional/ affective responses that are occurring. 14.4.2006

RESPONDENT No. 68 to No. 97 (P/V): No 97, Per the article in summary: attentiveness (which the ‘how am I’ question is merely a device to activate) leads to sensuousness (i.e. ‘coming to one’s senses’) and the two lead to apperceptiveness (i.e. a PCE).

Practically speaking, you pay attention to how you’re feeling. If you’re feeling good you get back to sensuousness. If not you label the feeling, figure out when and why it started and get back to feeling good ASAP.

Later, after you feel better you can do an in-depth exploration of what beliefs are involves (i.e. a more detailed investigation).

Coming to one’s senses is not avoidance if you fully acknowledge (by fully feeling/ experiencing and labelling the feelings) the feelings first. After that your goal is to get back to enjoying this moment, ASAP. Attentiveness and sensuousness are the preventative and curative measures for all the ills of the psyche. No 68 to No 97, 14.4.2006

RESPONDENT No. 68 to No. 105: Ah … confusion over the method again. Even though the AF method is extremely simple, I admit to having the same type of questions as No 92 for over a year.

I would simply offer this:

The actualism method as a watchfulness/ attentiveness method

1) Become aware of your feelings and label the feelings.

2) Find out the ‘trigger’ (i.e. the thought or event that occasioned the un-felicitous feeling).

3) Get back to feeling felicitous (I find that fully feeling whatever feeling is still present will naturally dissolve/ minimize/ integrate the feeling. After that I may step beyond feeling good to feeling excellent by paying exclusive attention to my senses-particularly my vision. Sometimes going for a walk, sitting on the patio, looking at the trees, etc is helpful to feel good [i.e. felicitous] again. Simply having a sense of humour in seeing the ‘silliness’ of letting anything ruin this moment can work like a charm, but I have found this to be consistently true only recently as my innocence/naivety has been rekindled).

The investigative aspect of the actualism method

4) only after feeling the feeling, finding the trigger, and getting back to feeling good will a thorough investigation bear fruit consistently (not that it will always fail, as even in football a Hail Mary will occasionally ‘connect’). It is here when feeling good or excellent that you will constructively investigation the who, when, where, why, how, and what for. You can search and find the underlying reasons why certain events, people, and thoughts upset you so. You can find the core beliefs, the way your identity gets threatened etc. A superficial reading will lead one to confuse #2 (a simple, ‘oh I started feeling bad when my wife gave me a dirty look’) with this #4 which might reveal ‘I don’t like that look, it reminds me of my mother. I hate when women try to control me … etc’.

To be fair, even Vineeto says that eventually one may investigate right while the feeling is going on, but in my experience this is only true when one has ‘simplified’ the self to the point where one can think calmly and without agitation in the midst of the feeling (i.e. in my experience this means that just noticing that your not feeling felicitous, automatically tones down the feeling to a workable intensity). So, this is likely not relevant until one has had a good amount of experience in the actualism process. 26.5.2006

Actualism Homepage