|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence How to Become Free from the Human Condition
No. 94 to Richard: I’m a chicken-shit too. Richard: Here is what that colloquial expression can mean:
I will draw your attention to the following:
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 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? No 68 to No 28(R), 28.12.2005
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. This is how I’m grokking it now: Experiencing myself / thinking of myself as an entity who *has*feelings is indicative of being in a mildly dissociative state. The ‘normal’ state is mildly dissociative, right? From that mildly dissociated state, feelings are something that happen, something that I react to. The dissociated ‘I’ is indeed quite powerless to reach in and change the feeling substrate because that ‘I’ is insubstantial; it is a cluster of images/ ideals/ identifying tokens etc, whereas feelings (although not actual) constitute the real, organic, living ‘being’ itself. So a mildly dissociated person trying to change an underlying feeling state is roughly analogous to a shadow trying to exert physical force upon a real-world object. And because I am identified with the one who is trying to exert this force, and because this force is quite ineffectual, it generates frustration, and eventually exasperation and anger. (I could, and did for a while, get relief from this frustration by being further dissociated, less inclined to try to change anything, more inclined to just happily accept whatever must be). But if I understand that I am this whole package, the whole feeling being, as opposed to identifying with just the fragment of self who is assumed to have feelings, then choosing the way I feel is equivalent to simply OPTING TO BE A DIFFERENT WAY at this moment in time. And that is a different ball-game altogether. That is do-able. That is easy! Instead of paying attention to feelings, trying to somehow induce (or allow or facilitate) felicitous ones and avoid other ones, I can just choose to BE different in the way I approach the living of this moment. IOW, feeling-as-‘me’ and ‘me’-as-feeling are not passive and helpless like they are in a dissociative state. A feeling being isn’t powerless to influence itself, but a dissociated fragment thereof is quite powerless. In practical terms this insight is only about 40 minutes old, so I’m not totally sure about all the details ... and I hope I’ve expressed it in a way that is comprehensible. I would appreciate some feedback here because if this is roughly how it works, and it seems to be so far, it would explain a lot. Any comments welcome. 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. No 37 to No 60, 31.10.2005
No 32: (...) The ‘way’ forward is in-between the good and the bad passions, in a word: felicity. 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. Why? Why? Why have such a principle/ concept blocking you? 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). 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. 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 ... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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... No 33 to No 60, 26.9.2005
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. * 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... 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’*), No 47 to No 60, 27.5.2005 *) No 33 to No 60: You probably hate the VF guys more than the fascists... you think it is the ultimate cunningness of the identity... Yes, I do think that ... and worse.
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. 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. Maybe this will help clarify:
2.1. To ‘whole heartedly agree’ one must:
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? No 47 to No 60, 27.9.2005
What is the difference between ‘nipping it in the bud’, and suppressing a feeling? As I understand it, in suppressing you use control/ will/ force/ aggression based on no/partial/intellectual understanding of the feeling. You try to change the course of the feeling recognizing its harm (or for whatever reasons) using control/will/force/aggression. What are the advantages? One can stop the crisis. What are the disadvantages? It doesn’t end the matter fully and still all is a mystery. Though this can be called nipping it in the bud too, in actualist terms (feel free to correct, anybody): happens really after an experiential understanding – by fully feeling the feeling without controls (in a safe setting) and seeing where it will take one. How does one do it? I don’t recall it doing it myself... though I have experienced a lot of feelings fully... I see that such an understanding takes the momentum off the feeling when it re-occurs. The understand allows one to change the course of the feeling by seeing its futility, seeing where it will take one and what ensues. I think one undergoes a change of heart/mind at the moment of feeling rather than forcefully changing it. Force might have its use too as one is dealing with ‘instinctual forces’ here and actualism being a practical business, focuses on workability rather than on morals and concepts. But the point is that suppression is using force primarily whereas actualist method is to use experiential understanding (feeling completely) primarily. Another point is that, actualism is not about ‘don’t feel’ but rather ‘feel fully’ and study it. No 75 to No 79, 16.4.2005
If Richard is living this experience 24 h/day, well, he lives on another planet altogether. … 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. And what happens? 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 :) ). No 75 to No 32, 12.5.2005
If I recall correctly, didn’t you once write that it is an ‘all or nothing’ affair for you in regards to actualism. If that is still the case, then I can see why you are (still) in this psychological dilemma – this psychic knot – because as I wrote to you last time ‘a difference in degree is not a difference in kind’. That’s right, it has been an ‘all or nothing’ affair for me. I’ve been striving to get to the stage where I can put ‘my’ head in the guillotine and get it over with. I’ve been trying to get there as quickly as possible, largely by brute force of will, and the results have been less than stunning as you know. That ‘brute force of will’ you write about can be an awesome thing when sincerity and altruism play a role. But without these two, it is mostly governed by ‘No 60’ the arrogant, ‘No 60’ the impatient and ‘No 60’ the put most of my effort into the wrong place and then continue to berate myself -and possibly others- because of unfulfilled affective expectations. Here is a small, down to earth, example (best read when naïve) –
I attribute this partly to some native arrogance, partly to impatience, and partly my failure to recognise that self-sacrificING and self-sacrifice are indeed a difference in degree, not in kind. Consequently I have underestimated ‘virtual freedom’ (both in its potential quality as a way of living, and in its importance as an intermediate step). You have hit the nail on the head! Yet remember that a realization is not an actualization. If actualism is fundamentally sound, the difference between virtual and actual freedom is also a difference in degree, not in kind. Right? A caterpillar has a jolly good time – but can he fly? No 47 to No 60
May I ask ... what have you been doing when asking yourself HAIETMOBA? Looking outward, remembering how perception is in a PCE and trying to prolong apperception as much as possible, then investigating feelings if (and when) they prevent this ... or have you been directing your attention toward your feelings first, on the understanding that apperception would arise naturally from their cessation? Other people? The reason why this is important to me is because (as some of you might remember) I have had zero success practising the method as I thought it was prescribed here. Paying exclusive attention to my feelings has had really lousy results for me. Instead of causing feelings to dissipate, it was like holding a microphone to an amplifier, creating a screeching, howling feedback loop out of virtually nothing. After that I stopped doing it ‘by the book’ (as I understood it). But maybe I can do it ‘by the book’ after all. I thought I’d give you some feedback from my own experience. I’ve tried various ways of ‘focussing’ my awareness as the actualist method – everything from trying to keep my attention on this moment and not thinking about the past or future, to making a conscious mental note of each thing I am perceiving or feeling. I’ve wondered whether or not the constant memory of a PCE is essential, tried focussing on sensations, etc. – but they all seem to be distracting to some extent. I am currently having better success with just letting my attention ‘rest’ – as ‘low as it can go’ within my psyche. I used to watch every arising feeling and try to pick it apart, etc – but now I find that I have investigated almost everything – and I already know where those investigations lead. The only thing has been offering some success now has been to ‘feel my way through it’ – and by that, I don’t mean ‘feel my way to the answer’ – rather, instead of getting caught up in an intellectual investigation or trying to figure out what the ‘truth’ is about whatever I’m investigating, I prefer to let my attention ‘sink into’ whatever I am feeling and just notice how my attention gets bounced around. As I understand it – pure intent is the rudder that keeps me going on the right track – it is the sheer will not to give up no matter what – come what may. In my experience, it is this willingness to dive ever deeper and deeper into one’s own psyche that begins to dissolve it – the times when I feel that I am making significant progress are those times when there is a noticeable lack of depth to my psyche – in other words, the basement has surfaced and the normal duality of the psyche isn’t as present. To be ‘normal’ is to constantly be on the lookout for the negative aspects of the mind and to control them by avoidance and repression. The actualism method allows those to surface and be looked at matter-of-factly. So – to sum up, in my experience – it’s not really a question of focussing on feelings or sensations – it is rather allowing feelings to take center stage for as long as they need to be there, until they dissipate and allow a greater sensitivity to emerge. No 37 to No 60
If you don’t mind can you tell me exactly how you have gone about trying to eliminate the instinctual passions? 1) I’m attentive to my emotions throughout the day. By fully feeling them without any intention of either ‘holding onto’ them or ‘getting rid’ of them they naturally dissipate. If I have the chance (which is often not the case when at work or when my attention is engaged in some other complex behaviour) I will do some investigating into what triggered the emotion, why that triggered it, usually leading to the uncovering of some belief, moral or want (such as the want for approval, security, or control). Sometimes, I’ll ask myself, would I rather have this (belief, want) or would I rather be free? Choosing freedom is the sensible choice, in my book. I do look into what part of my identity is being threatened, challenged or supported/enhanced, though I am not as effective yet in this part of the process. 2) I try to block out some time in the evening to sit down and fully feel some emotions that came up during the day that I did not have time to attend to fully at the time. I go over the event, feel the feeling, and after I come to a point that I ‘feel good’ (i.e. the feeling has dissipated) I then go through the investigation that I described above. This is basically ‘actualism’ as far as I can see. There may be some personal idiosyncrasies of course. It seems to me that P, V, and R all used different questions, and came to different insights at different times in their journey. Sure there is a commonality there, but idiosyncrasies are there too. No one is alike 100% Therefore everyone’s experience is somewhat different, even in a virtual freedom. As far as an Actual Freedom, well that is three times removed from my experience (and R is the first perhaps, so we don’t even know if its repeatable-we certainly don’t know if its repeatable for any and everyone). No 66 to No 16
I have found more success in running the question in a wordless approach towards each moment, experiencing it without trying to distort it observing how I try to push certain thoughts and feelings away or reel others in. If one spends too much time verbalizing, thinking, analyzing, etc. – then what is there is often distorted, or one becomes distracted. Ok. I have not as I said yet started actualism, just being attentive for a short period of time etc., just trying to get a hang of this process, but let me tell you, I am never ‘here’! Some talk in the head, internal dialogue/wandering is going on, has it slowed down for you by now? In my experience, actualism is not about ‘being here’. You are already here, and there is no other place or time to be but here and now. It’s not so much that being ‘normal’ means to ‘not be here’ – rather, it is to not be paying complete attention – it is to let much of what is happening in awareness slip under the rug, between the gaps, etc. I’m not sure that the inner chatter you refer to has ‘slowed down’ for me sometimes it does, though there always seems to be something running in the background. Much of it has lost its force though. * So – when the question is running for me, it’s more like an immediate recognition of a feeling, sensation, thought or whatever is up for my attention – with an immediate awareness that works to gently dismantle any cause of suffering or unhappiness. Do provide some live life eg! And you are saying you just turn the Attention, i.e. are attentive to the feeling running and that attention stops that and hence u get back out of that wandering, that habitual reactionary process and back to feeling good? or you try to catch it back to the belief, emotion, say to yourself oh ho there we go again, this is that instinctual thing in action and plus coupled with the attention it then stops? There are at least 2 modes that I distinguish.
As an example of what I am referring to, let’s take fantasizing during sex. Fantasizing about other women while having sex with my partner used to occur quite frequently for me, as I’ve heard it does for other men as well. I carried out an investigation about sex and emotional intimacy that comprised much of my first year or so of actualism. After those issues have been dealt with and seen clearly, then the desire to fantasize might only visit me in an attenuated fashion, then I can look into it and easily dispense with it. What dispenses with it? Overriding pure intent – which is the relentless, unyielding intent to unravel the human condition and live at peace with myself and others. Also, the realization that the experience is SO much better without the fantasizing. It’s not that I made fantasizing a moral issue – rather it was a mal-adaptation, like an addiction. Which brings me to the following point. The human condition and its components can be likened to an addiction. Just like an addicted person may have a difficult time ridding themselves of the addiction at first – their intent to be free is the overriding factor for success, with success happening gradually, incrementally, not all or nothing. Eventually, addictions lessen their strength until one is either virtually free of it or actually free – the same goes for the human condition. Respondent No 37, (R, Peter, Vineeto, any other actualist can also answer) this belief thing, I can understand, meaning, if I am sad or in any other state other than feeling or for that even feeling good and if I notice that and see that its due to some belief, that very seeing of that belief is the release. I mean I see that it’s just a belief I have been holding, social conditioning and I drop it. That sadness or that feeling goes. But lets say it’s a state due to instinctual passion, then how does it work? My attention notices the instinct in operation, say I am irritated or angry or lusty and leave it at that. Here I can’t see the falseness of a belief or social conditioning like above, right? I just attend to the human condition and recognise it as that and leave it and move on? I used to get caught up in the very same questions. Possibly what I provided above will provide hints, but to actually find out for yourself, you will need to do it for yourself. What I discovered is that won’t happen until you fully commit yourself to peace-on-earth. One cannot merely dabble with actualism or test the waters first – in order to reap benefits, you must commit yourself with your whole ‘being.’ Nothing less will do the trick. No 37 to No 72
I’ve asked a few times how to investigate the right way. Now I would like to ask, how can you tell that someone is doing the investigating incorrectly? This is how I handled similar questions in my own experience – I have known that I have been investigating ‘incorrectly’ retrospectively a lot of the times... but I have come to senses seeing how a feeling operates repetitively – how it operates locally blocking the sensible questioning – how it strengthens beliefs that block investigation – how it really doesn’t want to end in spite of its painful reality – how it is hypocritical in the sense that whilst projecting as if it wants happiness, how it wants/works for the opposite etc. How could a person be investigating incorrectly when they hit a seemingly unsurpassable wall during their questioning and cannot trigger happiness? I asked myself: what is the feeling behind the question? If I think about a hypothetical situation and fear it so badly, I look at the fear behind it and see how fear works in clinging to anything and doesn’t let it go – in spite of the thinking and common sense one tries to inject – making it a big issue whilst growing in intensity and wandering without giving a focus... I ask myself how many times have I done this before... I try to see how similar feelings have paralyzed me in the past... I try to see if it has any obvious bearing on how I grew up... I ask myself if I am truly interested in solving the impasse or I just create impasses for ‘my’ survival – as in continuing to the feel that way forever instead of solving the problem and moving on to feel happy & harmless? Such questioning has helped me in dissolving these imaginary walls... as with operation of common sense and attentiveness, I have seen such feelings weakening and letting more of common sense and attentiveness to work... as if building a positive feedback cycle… more and more energy becoming available for sane functioning and having fun. No 33 to No 48
What a relief not be doing so – having a clear intent to be happy and harmless, it is now possible to live without controlling oneself – I am not talking about expressing, but about ‘not repressing/ suppressing’. I remember having had a similar feeling myself and it was a very palpable sense of freedom. This is how I described it soon after – ‘I knew that the trouble lay in the psychological entity – that bundle of beliefs and instincts that I was born with, and that was passed on to me by other equally malicious and sorrowful members of the tribe. Handed on well-meaningly of course, but this passing-on is just a perpetuation of the ancient and primitive ways. Realising this, I was able to firmly identify this entity as not me, but an intruder. I had always tried to avoid Richard’s astute comment that ‘a mature adult is really lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning’. But once I could identify the source of all the trouble, this ‘mature adult’ entity inside me, I knew it would only be a matter of time before it disappeared. I had the ‘bugger by the throat’ was how I put it at the time. It became a process of re-wiring my brain – untangling the beliefs to replace the crazed and muddled circuitry with facts and common sense. ‘Silly and sensible’ replaced ‘right and wrong’, ‘good and bad’. An ease and calmness began to pervade everything, as I no longer had to keep up an effort to maintain appearances or fulfil any expectations of society or God. I remember being so relieved at not having to maintain an identity any more – it had been such a load for so long! Now there was simply no room for God in my life, no need for any authority of any sort – in short no need to believe in anything at all – no need to ‘fervently wish something to be true’, despite the facts to the contrary.’ Peter’s Journal God And to think all this came about as a consequence of deciding that I would make being happy and harmless the most important thing in my life. In hindsight, I hadn’t eliminated my social identity at this stage because whilst one’s identity has two aspects – instinctual and social – they are intermeshed such that they form one entity, but rather what happened was that ‘I’ gave myself a new job to do. No longer was ‘I’ involved in the confusing and fearful business of being the controller, ‘I’ now was busy with being aware of how I was experiencing this moment of being alive with the aim of being as happy and as harmless as possible. Hence the palpable sense of freedom from having to be perpetually on guard was replaced by the thrilling business of being attentive to how I was experiencing being here in this moment of time. I don’t know if this makes sense to you at this stage but I would be interested in your comments if you feel like replying. Yes it makes sense now... ‘I’ am trying to busy myself with the moment and avoid all the excuses to fritter away this second. ‘I’ am not extinct, but have taken upon a new job which has a good instantaneous as well as long term pay :). Probably fuelled by your comment above, recently I discovered that though I thought I was practicing actualism, I had distorted it a bit. Instead of staying and enjoying the moment, I was involved in a search and destroy mission, so I would go hunt for memories with bad feelings and try to dissect them. This resulted in missing out on the moment and as a methodology a failure – as I could never enjoy the moment and the pile that needs to be investigated was growing without resolution. But now I have my priority right and when I cannot enjoy the moment due to the emotion, I investigate in order to get back to enjoying the now. No 33 to Peter
There’s not much practical actualism action going on this list right now, hmm? well, I’ve had a few experiences I’ll put out there. I recently remembered a PCE, which was helpful because before this I could only go on how much practical sense actualism made, and take other’s word for it that this grand experience was possible. Thus I was unable to connect with ‘pure intent’ and unable to have a marker to compare various other experiences by. The distinct quality in the experience for me was not having to look into my surroundings – no piercing awareness of it was necessary, because, as I have heard described before, there was absolutely no distance between what I saw and my eyes. The experience occurred during a boring lecture, in a bland, almost empty lecture-hall, and it all made no difference because all I saw was fascinating. I have no recollection of other sensory experiences, hearing, feeling, and such though, and I do not have a distinct memory of what type of thoughts were occurring, or whether ‘I’ was there. But nevertheless, it was good enough for me. An item I noticed in practicing the method was how long it’s taken me to get a hold of how the method actually works. I recently heard someone on the list describe the method as incredibly simple, and I do agree the more I find out how it works. My experience is that I interpreted the words and descriptions of the method in as many possible ways as I could without comprehending the simplicity of the method. I came up with all these explanations and method ‘add-ons’ that would help me – it seems all they did was postpone discoveries. For example I would try to tackle entire instincts at a time- either aggression, nurture, desire, or fear. or I would try to tack-on other psychology bits and pieces and such. and try to uproot the conditioning that way. A lot of it was me thinking the method was too simple, and not enough, and that I needed to find my own way through it all. I recently noticed that sometimes, I have even turned actualism into another layer of my identity – all it did in these cases was keep me from investigating. I would notice a particular problem and before I could go into it I would say ‘I’ve gone over this before, I’m an actualist, and thus it should be gone’ and go on feeling bad about failure, or ignore the feeling, or whatever traditional escape I came up with. However, I don’t that if I had just stuck to the words in the presentation of the method from the very beginning if it would have helped. The words apparently just did not click with practicality as they do now – but I needed the experiences of taking the method the wrong way, and the ensuing frustration, to understand bit by bit what the method was about. It requires that I be able to experientially know what the words are talking about, and as they made sense at the first read, I didn’t ‘understand’ them in this necessary sense. Just recently I have been able to identify what was going on in with my identity and then I saw the particular bit of social conditioning around the issue and was able to say ‘that is ridiculous’. before I could examine the whole thing, but was unable to let go of it, for whatever reason. It all ends up being remarkably similar to how it is described on the website
on
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):
Here are my proposals (for myself) to fix it:
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:
AND...
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. No 37 to No 60, 17.5.2005
Two things:
When I am feeling bad, let’s just say it isn’t productive at all. 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? 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. 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. No 75 to No 37, 17.5.2005
After ‘my’ ignorance (real world affective bliss) came to an end (mid-teen years)… my ‘innermost ‘being’’ thought it a good idea to try to end my physical most being. ‘Therapy’ helped me cope with these intentions; later, ‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ helped me overcome and, sometimes, feed off of them (euphoria); afterwards, my previous understanding, and (self) misguided practice, of ‘actualism’ helped not but to aggravate/aggrandize and depress ‘me’, in and out, for over a year; today, I no longer have the motivating factor that made the ‘to be or not to be’ option available, nor the solutions that made it bearable. I do consider this ‘a deep and permanent change’ from my standards. No 47 to No 60, 18.5.2005
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 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. What does one do when one feels bad? 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. How much of study is required? 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. 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? 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. Is the amount of work that is needed inversely proportional to the amount of pure intent to be happy and harmless? Again, personally I wouldn’t ‘quantify’ pure intent. And is it inversely proportionally to one’s grip on the method? Possibly how much one has gotten the ‘hang of it.’ 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? 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. No 37 to No 30, 26.5.2005
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. 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. No 37 to No 60, 27.5.2005
I have described this before, but here’s the basic pattern again: * Start out feeling fine. * Start asking myself How Am I Experiencing ...(etc) * This immediately brings on a slight downturn in my mood. The reason? If I’m feeling good, feeling happy, having my attention drawn to the fact that I’m feeling happy makes this happiness less pure, less carefree and more self-conscious. It reminds me of being a kid on a Sunday afternoon, having fun kicking a football around or something, and then coming to realise that the shadows are lengthening, it’s late afternoon and the weekend’s nearly over. The first reaction is a slight sinking feeling. After that, it’s possible to get momentarily lost in the game again, but the consciousness of enjoying oneself destroys the naturalness and innocence of that enjoyment. This is very close to the feeling I get when I first start asking myself ‘How am I experiencing ...’ . If I am already feeling happy, the purity of this happiness is lost, a level of self-consciousness is added, and then it becomes like a fucking Exercise-In-Being-Happy (which is, of course, no longer happiness). After that, the answer to the question ‘How ...?’ is somewhat less felicitous than it was last time I asked it. This in turn causes another degradation of mood. Over the next hour or so, this process continues in a slow downward spiral which gains momentum (‘as failure after failure multiplies exponentially, a screeching howl of feedback commences’), exacerbated by not being able to answer questions like: ‘why is this happening?’ and ‘why is a method designed to help me be happy and harmless having the opposite effect?’ So ... that’s what happens if I started out feeling good. If I start out feeling not so good, there is some (brief) benefit. Becoming aware that I’m feeling not so good, and pinpointing the cause, momentarily allows me to dispel the bad feeling. However ... that only gets me to the stage where the cycle described above can begin. Perhaps this offers some insight into why I think the method sucks? You are the best judge and only you can change this behaviour... as No 66 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:
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. No 75 to No 60, 16.5.2005
;-) IOW, the method causes it. 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 :)]. No 75 to No 60, 16.5.2005a
G’day No 75. 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 ;-) 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:
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. No 33, 12.7.2005
Has anyone in all these years experienced a deep and permanent change in their innermost ‘being’? Anyone apart from Richard? 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 66’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. No 75 to No 60, 15.5.2005
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 71/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? 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? 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. I have benefited from conversing with Richard DESPITE his conversational style, not because of it. 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. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile for him and Vineeto to at least enquire if their conversational style is not at all harmless and pleasant. 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? We are all mature enough not to get worked up when our belief systems are challenged. 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. 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. 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. 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. We are dealing with psychological problem here. If you deny taking the medicine... then how can you blame the medicine? No 32 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... 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... 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. (...) 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? 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. 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. 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? No 33 to No 71 29.5.2005 Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust |
