Selected Correspondence Peter

Belief

Indeed, and I presume that what you are indicating is that one can then commune with Nature, to feel that one is not, after all, alone but that there is a Higher Power, be it Mother Earth, God, What Is, Love or whatever other name. It is indeed a deep feeling of connectedness and one’s psychological self or ego can diminish and temporarily disappear while one’s psychic self or soul is deeply nourished, vindicated and expanded. These experiences of ‘who we really are’ and of our connectedness to the Whole are so overwhelming as to appear very real, overarchingly convincing and revealing of the true meaning of our existence. These affective experiences are purely personal and ‘self’-centred and are culturally/spiritually influenced such that an Environmentalist feels Mother Earth, a Buddhist feels Buddha in his heart, a Jew feels Jehovah, a spiritual follower feels gratitude to his or her Master or teacher, etc. It is these bodiless, affective-only experiences that are upheld as the ultimate proof for the existence of a God or a Higher Power and have consequently kept Humanity enthralled and entrapped in the belief of a Higher Power in the universe ... and a Greater Meaning for ‘my’ existence.

The spiritual practice of meditation mimics these affective experiences in nature and the practice of closing one’s eyes is specifically designed to eventually eliminate all sensory input from the physical world in order to gain an inner bodiless experience of ‘who’ I really am.

*

I find it significant that you said ‘those who only hear words ... are easily dismissed’ which means that it is impossible to question what is said and also that it doesn’t matter what is said. Belief in such platitudes is exactly why religion has had such a stranglehold over Humanity.

Well, I for one dare to question, for religious/spiritual belief and affectations have wreaked havoc on this planet for far to long to be mindlessly dismissed by such hackneyed clichés.

There is no need to take what I write personally, No. 5, for these words are not for the faithful but for those who have doubts about religion being the answer to Humanity’s woes.

*

Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers treat what they are saying and the energy they are giving out as a mystery – never to be doubted, never to be questioned, never to be unravelled, never to be debunked. If one dares to do so, one is threatened with the withdrawal of the Guru’s love, incurring the wrath of God, and suffering the scorn and anger of the mob. So far, if anyone was dissatisfied, doubting or questioning, they have had no alternative but to shift allegiances in the spiritual world or simply give up and return to the real world of grim reality. There is now a third alternative.

Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers believe that what they are offering and the energy they are giving out is miraculous. Thus, every follower is led to believe that their God or, by proxy their Guru, is responsible for all the astounding life-forms and happenings on this planet and all of the majesty that is evident in the physical universe. Christians believe it is all God’s work, Hindus believe it is all Brahma’s work, Environmentalists believe that this planet itself is a living-entity populated by living spirits, the ancient Greeks believed the heavens were a battle ground for the Gods, Buddhists believe the physical universe is all a dream-like illusion, many even believe that their God will one day wipe out the planet and the universe in an act of vengeance. I could go on, but I think you might have got my gist. I don’t find these fairy stories to be miraculous at all, I find them to be ancient fear-ridden puerile nonsense.

I experience the actual physical universe to be a place of wonder, amazement and marvel. The universe is infinite – there is no outside to it, no other-worlds – and the physical universe is eternal – there was no beginning, there is no end. There was no Creator, there will be no Destroyer. There is no Higher Power, there is no-One in charge.

The actual world is the miracle – to claim it is the work of a higher power is but spirit-ual twaddle. To believe otherwise is to forever shut oneself off from the opportunity of ‘self’-lessly experiencing the perfection and purity of the actual world.

I think this is an Impersonal Fact rather than a personal belief.

Are you implying there is such a thing as a personal fact or a belief that is an impersonal belief? To avoid confusion and aid communication I like to keep to simple dictionary definitions of words.

A fact is a fact, it stands on its own – it is neither personal nor impersonal and it requires neither faith, trust or hope for it to be so.

Beliefs are always personal and are usually said to be real if other people share the same belief. The more people who believe the more real the belief appears to be and is often claimed to be a truth or Truth in spiritual terms. However, even if everyone believes something to be true it doesn’t make it a fact.

Long ago everyone believed the earth was the centre of the cosmos and the sun went around the earth, but now we know it was just a belief based on the limited viewpoint of at the time. It took nearly 400 years for the Pope to finally acknowledge only in the last decade that the Bible was wrong.

Long ago everyone believed that humans were born innocent and corrupted by evil in this world but we now know this was just a belief based on an idea that the world was populated by good and evil spirits. It may well take 400 years for Eastern religion to acknowledge that Mr. Buddha and the other Ancients were wrong.

Surely when one experiences the falling away of all false belief structures and human conditioning and programming it becomes obvious that there are no separate selves in the first place.

Now you are introducing the notion of a false belief. Are you implying there are false beliefs and true beliefs and that your belief is true? To believe means to ‘fervently wish to be true’. The action of believing is to emotionally imagine, or fervently wish, something to be real that is not actual – actual as in tangible, corporeal, material, definitive, present, obvious, evident, current, substantial, physical and palpable. A belief is an assumption, a notion, a proposition, an idea that requires faith, trust or hope to be sustained in the face of doubt, uncertainty and lack of factual evidence. Whereas a fact is a fact, demonstratively evident to all that it is actual and/or that it works.

Many beliefs are masqueraded as ‘truths’ or are merely accepted as facts in lieu of any serious scrutiny, or are protected by the blatant and stubborn refusal to question the facticity of that which is ‘dearly held’ to be true.

As for ‘there are no separate selves in the first place’ you are talking of the spiritual belief that we have a false self who feels separate or thinks itself to be separate (ego in spiritual jargon). The spiritual Truth is that if we dissolve this identity and become our true self who feels unity or oneness or God, or whatever, then that new self lives in a state of Nirvana, Oneness, Wholeness, Unity, Timelessness or whatever. This cunning shift of identity, called Enlightenment, Awakening, Freedom, Liberation, or whatever, is not an elimination of the psychological or psychic identity – nor does it claim to be, if you read any spiritual offerings with a clear eye.

It is an impossibility to engage in a discussion about facts – what works and what doesn’t work and why – with those who fervently believe something to be true and desperately uphold it to be the Truth. But if someone is sufficiently motivated and willing to take stock of their lives and examine what has worked and what hasn’t, then a sensible and dispassionate investigation of facts of spiritual belief is possible.

That’s a fairly clear statement. If you’re not motivated by anything why do you go to all the effort of producing your magazine in order to write sarcastically about your spiritual beliefs and the spiritual beliefs of others? What is your motivation? In my spiritual years I was often suspicious of spiritual beliefs but I was always careful not to indulge in cynicism. I always thought if I got cynical about what I was doing in life I was definitely on the wrong track. But I did play a few tricks and indulged in some harmless rebellion from time to time when the opportunity arose.

I remember after the Ranch I was living in a seaside town that had a small Rajneesh centre. Rooms were available providing various people a chance to offer sessions in past lives, tarot, astrology, psychic readings and other divinations. A friend and I would often look at the notice board, fascinated at the ever-increasing variety on offer. One day we decided, as a prank, to place a fictitious advertisement in the community newsletter offering ‘Capology – the Ancient Tibetan Art of Knee-cap Reading’. It went on to describe that the knees are a critical junction point for the flow of ‘Quong energy’. We also offered half price to pensioners and amputees! We gave the telephone number of the local Concerned Christians, a cult-busting group, which had occasionally given Rajneeshees a hard time. We thought nothing more of it until the editor of the newsletter bailed us up one day to tell us that the Concerned Christians had rung up to complain that they had had so many phone calls, and how come? Which made me think, even then, that people will believe anything.

It just took me a while to admit to the fact that I was as gullible as everyone else.

*

Well, it seems that this conversation has come to an end. I can see that you are a firm believer in, and practitioner of, Eastern religion and philosophy and, as such, are not interested in exploring an alternative. Fair enough. It is good to be full-on into something that makes you ‘happier, less serious, more fun and deeper’, as you said.

For me, my doubts simply accumulated to the point that it felt like I was living a lie and I had to get out. As I said, we are a world apart, which is why any further communication is pointless.

Okay. The statement that you are a firm believer in, and practitioner of, Eastern Religion and philosophy is based on the fact that you are a Sannyasin of Mohan Chandra aka Bhagwan aka Rajneesh aka Osho, and even have taken a Sannyasin name.

You also said –

‘My relationship, as absurd as it might seem to you, is with Osho, not the inner circle or other sannyasins.’

Someone who is a Sannyasin, has a declared relationship with a dead Guru is plainly of a spiritual ilk, despite how loudly he might deny the fact.

A firm believer is one who is loyal despite whatever disagreements and misgivings he might have about the goings on that he perceives to be separate from his faith in the Master. You reaffirmed this single-pointed loyalty well when you said –

‘The religion was unmercifully attacked. Osho was not.’

As for Eastern religious philosophy, your comment on what motivated you to write your magazine –

‘It is just action. I’m also not motivated to breathe, to love, to sleep. Yet these things happen quite uneventfully and without difficulty’

– is but Eastern fatalism, a version of ‘it is all God’s will’.

Your comment in a post entitled ‘Reality’ –

‘Our paradigm of reality allows us to ‘believe’ something is ‘fact’. How do I ‘know’? I don’t. I believe that I’m typing this on my computer and any number of people will support this belief. For all I know this could be the projection of some alien thought form directly into my brain – I don’t ‘believe’ for one minute this is so but it COULD be possible’

– is nothing other than Eastern philosophy whereby what is physical, tangible, palpable and actual is seen as illusionary. Another example of this philosophy is –

‘A fact is an attempt at describing some facet of reality and as such the description is never the thing – it remains abstract’.

Your statements –

‘Can a fact be disassociated from the whole and remain a fact? Can we take a Picasso painting and cut it up into may smaller pieces and then say we have many smaller Picassos or do we just have bits of canvas with paint on them that once were part of a painting?’

– represents pure Buddhist philosophy.

These are all puerile psittacisms that have been bandied around the East for millennia, in one form or another. It is stretching the language a bit to call it philosophy for the highest accolade in the East is to ‘really know that you do not know’, or to ‘truly know the Truth which cannot be spoken’.

I have already speculated a bit in my mail to Vineeto – here is a bit more. We have been engaged, over the last months, in examining and eliminating the beliefs and conditioning labelled as the ‘human constitution’, by asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ As a result of the elimination of this human constitution I no longer (or only very, very occasionally) experience any feelings whatsoever. The necessary disconnections and reconnections in neural patterns have been made in the neo-cortex and the software program has been un-installed. Now we are tackling the more difficult job of erasing the hard disc (and the recycle bin) – of severing the link with the amygdala – the basic instincts, the primal self. I suspect that all one can do is allow that ‘link’ to wither away through disuse and, when sufficient brain cells have died (or neural pathways been disconnected), then this primal self will finally expire.

My favourite description of the process that happens to the old pathways that have been forged since birth, and reinforced constantly since then, is that when new paths are forged with common sense – sometimes painstakingly – the old ones simply atrophy. This is easily attested by the observation – ‘Did I really believe in that once upon a time?’ One can initially feel a fool but it gets really delicious when one cannot remember ‘who’ it was who believed such a nonsense and why. One starts to realize that one is becoming free to such an extent that one is fresh again every moment and that the very act of believing is disappearing. With belief goes imagination, and only that which is actual becomes apparent and obvious.

Earlier this year I was talking to someone who was interested in AF, and the subject got on to ‘real world’ beliefs. I offered up the Endangered Species Theory as one belief worthy of discussion and investigation. He looked at me bewildered as though – ‘what on earth has this to do with Actual Freedom’. I pointed out that, if indeed one blindly believed all current fashionable fear-ridden theories, then one would have a grim view of the world as it is and one would therefore seek an ‘escape’ from the world as-it-is and not a freedom from the Human Condition – two diametrically opposite seekings. I find it telling that those who strongly support and believe these grim doomsday beliefs are most usually those of strong spiritual beliefs. The usual environmental view is of a ‘Mother Earth’ or a spiritual ‘God = Life’ belief, and humans are seen as evil consumers or defilers of Nature, seemingly just by our very being here. All of the spiritual and religious belief-systems have as their core underlying belief the concept that the world as-it-is is a grim place where humans are meant to suffer, and this suffering is only finally relieved upon death. Any belief that the actual physical universe is a grim place has, at its very roots, the animal survival instincts of fear and aggression, but this is overlaid, reinforced and ‘set in stone’ by both Eastern and Western religious beliefs.

I always liked Richard’s description that people desperately put on rose-coloured glasses when looking at the real world, seeking relief in the feelings of gratitude, ‘higher consciousness’, beauty, goodness, love and compassion. In order to do this, they start with a view of the world as-it-is based on wearing grey-coloured glasses – the real world being a fearful place of resentment, ‘unconsciousness’, ugliness, evil, alienation and suffering. The solution is to dare to undertake a process that involves removing both the rose-coloured glasses and the grey-coloured glasses, and to see the actual world for what it is – perfect, pure, sensually abundant, benevolent and delightful. One then sees clearly that one’s social and spiritual / religious conditionings and beliefs actively conspire to paint and perpetuate a grim worldview. One then sets to, with gay abandon, on the path of exploring, investigating, scrutinizing, understanding, and eventually eliminating all that is not factual and actual. The act of doing so eliminates one’s social identity – one wipes one’s slate perfectly clean of all beliefs, morals, ethics and psittacisms. What one then discovers – hidden underneath – is one’s biological heritage – the primitive animal instincts of fear, aggression, nurture and desire.

I was doing a bit of editing in the Glossary the other day and came across some definitions that I thought was particularly pertinent to the discussions on the list. Most of the people I have talked to about Actual Freedom seem to have no idea what constitutes a belief and what constitutes a fact. Often I would enter into a conversation and find that the person had absolutely no idea of the difference between a belief and a fact. They would insist that something was true, the Truth, ‘my’ truth, they ‘felt’ it to be so, it was their understanding, they heard it was so, etc. and that was good enough for them. When I pointed out that other people of different cultures, spiritual or religious leanings, political or social views held differing views and these differences were the source of confusion, confrontation, conflict, persecution and warfare, I was met with bewilderment. Nobody was willing to admit that their own particular cherished views and understandings were beliefs. It is always the same – I’m right and the others are wrong, my God or Guru is the only God or Guru and everyone else has beliefs – not me!

According to the Red Cross over 1 billion people have been directly affected by war or armed conflicts in the last 20 years. ‘Affected by’ includes death, being maimed, tortured, raped, imprisoned, displaced, losing family members, possessions, homes, etc. The vast majority of these wars and armed conflicts are fought over religious, spiritual, tribal, ethical, moral and political beliefs – dearly held and dearly fought over beliefs!

Those people who have been, or continue to be, on the spiritual path are those least likely to actively challenge their beliefs for they have been indoctrinated and taught to value belief over fact and they further hobble themselves with faith, trust, hope and loyalty as well. A potent, and very often, lethal mix.

I dug out a bit from Sir Woger from the Net – the quotes are from Psyche magazine and are Mr. Penrose’s defence of critiques of his book Shadows of the Mind. –

... ‘The whole point of the procedures of mathematical proof is that they instil belief. <snip> This notwithstanding, Chalmers and McCullough argue for an inconsistency of the very notion of a ‘belief system’ (which, as I have pointed out above, simply means a system of procedures for mathematical proof) which can believe in itself (which means that mathematicians actually trust their proof procedures).’...

The very words belief and trust always make me prick up my ears ... but a belief system which can believe in itself?

... ‘Likewise, a self-believing belief system cannot consistently operate if it is allowed to apply itself to unrestricted mathematical systems.’ ...

A ‘self-believing belief system’ is how I would describe a religion.

... ‘My reason for presenting this bit of personal history is that I wanted to demonstrate that even the ‘weak’ form of the G’del argument was already strong enough to turn at least one strong-AI supporter away from computationalism. It was not a question of looking for support for a previously held ‘mystical’ standpoint. (You could not have asked for a more rationalistic atheistic anti-mystic than myself at that time!) But the very force of G’del’s logic was sufficient to turn me from the computational standpoint with regard not only to human mentality, but also to the very workings of the physical universe.’...

Yep, when I ‘found’ Rajneesh – you could not have asked for a more rationalistic atheistic anti-mystic than myself at that time! It seems some people get Religion and mathematicians get G’del.

No, I was simply presenting the facts of the failure of religious and spiritual pursuits to bring an end to human suffering and maliciousness on the planet. This is not about right and wrong but what works and what doesn’t work. For me, the spiritual path didn’t make me happy and harmless, it only gave me the illusion and feeling of being on the ‘right’ path with the ‘Master of Masters’. When I acknowledged that the spiritual wasn’t working for me I was ready to start looking at the facts of why it didn’t work and why Rajneesh’s ‘dream’ had failed and why it never could work.

My intention of talking to you were to report what my experiences were on the spiritual path, and what happened when I stopped believing and started to look at the facts. The discussion has been about fact and belief, not about right and wrong. Right and wrong is a moral judgement, a judgement made on what one believes to be true or feels to be right. It’s the very stuff that religious, ethnic and ethical conflicts and wars are fought over.

After all, you are against Rajneesh.

No, it is nothing personal. There have been about one thousand Enlightened Ones, according to one figure I have read, and all of them were deluded, and all of them promised the un-deliverable. They only have power and authority because people desperately want to believe the fairy stories of an ‘after-life’ and another ‘world’. This belief in the Divine-ness of the God-men is given credence by the feelings of love for Them and the self-gratifying feeling of being a chosen one. The chance for a genuine personal peace and an actual global peace is forfeited on the altars of the God-men – all for a bit of utterly selfish ‘feel-good’.

Given that you are a Sannyasin, and that you are for world peace, you obviously believe in Rajneesh’s ideal that world peace will come when everyone in the world becomes one of ‘his people’. Not Christians, not Buddhists, not Hindus, not Jains, but Sannyasins.

I don’t think so. I am not interested in to convert any one to Sannyasin. It’s just not my business. My wife is not a Sannyasin. My daughter is not a Sannyasin. My girl friend is not a Sannyasin. I am working at the Japanese largest publishing company wearing a Mala which, as you know, is a necklace with a photo of Rajneesh. But nobody cares including me.

It is certainly very clear why you would not kill or die for your faith. It does seem a bit of a weak faith if you don’t care, which makes me wonder what it is that you are so grateful about.

To be grateful to someone because they have shown you ‘a possibility’ seems pretty poor to me. Anyone can peddle a dream, an ideal, a possibility and people will flock and join in. Anyone, be it an Emperor, a Dictator, a Revolutionary, a Faith Healer, a scientist or a Guru. An excellent study known as the Milgram Experiments was conducted which documented this very willingness to believe, and willingness to follow, and I have written about it in the Peace chapter of my journal. But beware – it is a factual study and, as such, will probably give you ‘no space to answer’.

And I have said my disciplehood is different from your definition.

Another of the ploys that fails to impress me. Alan has already posted the dictionary definition of disciplehood. For clarity in communication, can you choose a word (from the dictionary preferably) that more closely defines exactly what you mean?

It doesn’t prevent me from questioning but rather encourages me to question.

This again gets pretty silly. Given that you don’t accept the dictionary definition for the word disciple, maybe before we go further down this blind alley, we could see what you mean by the word question. From the Oxford Dictionary – ‘Question – seek, inquire:

1. What is inquired (about). 1 A sentence worded or expressed in a form such as to elicit information from a person; inquiry. 2 The interrogative statement of a point to be investigated; a problem, a difficulty; a doubt; gen. a matter forming or capable of forming the basis of a problem. Also, a matter or concern depending on or involving a specified condition or thing.

2. The action of inquiring. 3 The stating or investigation of a problem; inquiry into a matter; the expression of some doubt; discussion of a doubtful point. 4 The action of questioning a person; the fact of being questioned; judicial examination; interrogation.’ Oxford Dictionary

Now from the above definition, for you to question you have to have a problem, a difficulty, a doubt, a matter or concern to be inquired into, a doubtful point – and you clearly have none of these prerequisites. You are obviously very happy and proud to be a disciple of a spiritual Master – full stop. Beginning and end of questioning. You have no doubts, no problem, no concern, so there can be no questioning. The very act of being a disciple prevents questioning. Having trust, faith, hope and belief are the antidote to doubt, problems and concern. You already have your answer to your doubt and he is called Rajneesh.

Any questioning of Rajneesh would involve questioning your disciplehood and you have ruled that out of court, so I think I might have saved us both a few KB’s on our monthly bill.

Just as an aside – is your main objection what I say or how I say it? They are two different issues and it does seem to me that the most important thing to you is not what I am saying as you continually say it is ‘not of interest’ to you. But you do keep writing.

Personally I find the wonderful thing about facts is that I am not forced to keep quiet about them – particularly in these days, in this medium and on this list. In the ‘good old days’ I would be forced to recant. Galileo was forced to recant his presenting of facts by fervent believers who felt threatened. A belief is a wobbly thing and needs continual emotional support or passionate defence and propping up. As a comedian said on television the other night if everyone stopped believing in God he wouldn’t exist. Same thing for any belief – once you stop believing it, it vanishes. Whereas a fact is a fact. The problem that everyone finds about stopping believing is that it is a painful business that causes upheaval, for one is actually changing oneself. As I’ve said before, the demolishing of my social identity meant that Peter the man, Peter the lover, Peter the Sannyasin, Peter the good, Peter the right, Peter the proud, they all had to die – bit by bit. But that is ‘who’ I am aiming to be free of, after all. You then eventually get rid of the parasitical entity that gets angry or sad and ruins this only moment that you can experience being alive.

Yes. Merely believing what others say is a bummer of a way to live one’s life – although that is exactly what everyone does.

But to stop believing and to acknowledge the facts is to demolish No 5 the man, No 5 the lover, No 5 the Sannyasin, No 5 the good, No 5 the right, No 5 the proud, etc. – and what would eventually remain is what you are, not ‘who’ you are. For me the challenge of discovering that was too thrilling to let a few wobbles or reactions stop me.

Of course, I know ‘what’ I am – the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood human mortal being, so startlingly obvious in a Pure Consciousness Experience.

What Mr. Rajneesh felt himself to be was an immortal God – hence his statement chiselled in marble, on his tomb, in his mausoleum – ‘Never born, never died’. Would not you agree that a human flesh and blood body is the product of a sperm fertilizing an egg and that when the heart stops beating and the brain ceases working that the body dies – to rot away, if it is not burnt? Is this fact so difficult to acknowledge as a fact? It is of course shocking for it does acknowledge that who you think and feel you are is a walk-in, a parasitical entity that has taken possession of you, the flesh and blood body known as No. 5. But it does explain why the Guru’s message of immortality for the soul is so appealing to the ‘self’. No better offer can be made to an imaginary, ethereal soul than an imaginary ethereal immortality. No wonder people fall in love with Gurus – a Saviour at last!

I’ve done it again – I’ve strung together a few shocking statements aka facts. It’s just that spiritual belief perpetuates human misery and suffering on earth and it is time to expose this nonsense for what it is – puerile nonsense.

I say invariably because a belief is an emotion-backed thought and beliefs are always associated with feelings and emotions.

Which beliefs would be at stake here?

If you read my journal you will find that it is somewhat sequential in that I did not aimlessly set out to expose my spiritual beliefs – the very first thing I did was set myself the task of being able to live with at least one other person in utter peace and harmony which meant that I firstly had to become harmless which in turn meant my happiness increased which in turn meant that I increasingly became good company to my companion.

In the course of paying attention to the times when I was being annoyed or not feeling happy I very often discover that I was defending one of ‘my’ precious beliefs or else I was feeling antagonistic towards someone else because their belief did not accord with ‘my’ belief. In other words the only way I exposed my beliefs was by paying attention to whatever feeling I was having at the moment and tracing it back to a belief I held to be a truth. A simple do-it-yourself process, but, like anything new, it does take some doing at first.

*

I say invariably because a belief is an emotion-backed thought and beliefs are always associated with feelings and emotions. Because of this association the most effective and direct way to differentiate between belief and fact is to become attentive to one’s own feelings. Why am I feeling defensive, why am I feeling annoyed and so on – ... invariably in the early stages of actualism one will find a dearly-held belief.

It is possible to annoy the crap out of somebody – NOT by challenging their beliefs but by constantly misunderstanding and misinterpreting them. If someone tells you they do not believe in UFOs, and you proceed as if they DO believe in UFOs, and if this continues month after month, they’re going to get annoyed with you.

Beliefs are generic to the human condition – they are part and parcel of being a human being. This is what makes talking about beliefs such a sensitive issue for many people – so close to the bone that strong passions are very often aroused. This is why I am wary of talking about beliefs with people in any forum other than the safety of this mailing list. I assume that correspondents who subscribe to this mailing list, and are sincerely interested in becoming free of the human condition, will welcome the opportunity of taking a clear-eyed look at the many and varied beliefs that give credence to the human condition without resort to the rancour and resentment that usually accompany such discussions.

What Vineeto and I discovered is that the way to avoid the usual emotional reactions that invariably accompany any investigation of beliefs is that each of us remembered not to take the issue in question personally but to ‘put the issue on the table in front of us’ … and then sit back and discuss it. By doing this it became clear to us that what we were discussing was not our own personal precious-to-us beliefs but that what we were investigating was what lay on the table – one specific aspect of the human condition.

This simple approach meant that we disempowered the usual instinctual reactions that arise when people discuss their beliefs and by doing so we were able to have a mutual, non-confrontational, discussion about the fallacies, flaws and passions that are inevitably at the core of any belief such that we were able to find the facts of the matter. Once we had found the fact of the matter, the belief deflated along with its associated passions and peace and harmony prevailed yet again. And as we ticked our way through each of our lists the peace and harmony between us became more and more palpable – deflating beliefs is such a delicious thing to do. You are rewarded with a palpable sense of freedom, you get to feel happier and, even more importantly, you get to become a little less harmful.

And it’s not because you’re challenging one of their deeply held beliefs, it’s because you are engaging them in senseless argument by being impervious to what they are telling you, and being so damned arrogant as to think you are in full possession of the facts, so arrogant that you think the other person’s emotional reaction is caused by you being RIGHT about their beliefs! Snap out of it dude. It is tedious, and it goes nowhere.

Beliefs are invariably associated with emotional reactions and I would have thought that this was obvious to any astute observer of the human condition – one only needs to visit an ashram or a church, sit at the feet of, or read the words of a spiritual master, hear a committed environmentalist speak, observe any debate between people who have opposing political views, witness the anger evoked in street demonstrations, become aware oneself of whatever it is that one feels passionately about, and so on. And every night on the television news you will see human beings championing their beliefs and defending their beliefs to the point where they will even kill other human beings whom they think to be wrong or feel deeply hurt because they think their particular beliefs or rights are being neglected, abused or challenged.

*

But then again we have had this conversation before –

Because a belief is an emotion-backed thought it quickly became clear to me that the way to spot one of ‘my’ beliefs was to be aware of the emotion that accompanied my thinking about a topic or an event – am I getting annoyed, am I feeling frustrated, am I avoiding, am I fudging, am I nitpicking, am I having a knee-jerk reaction and so on? This daily practice of being happy and harmless also includes writing on this mailing list because nowhere will one have one’s own beliefs challenged more than on this mailing list.

This comment, and similar ones by No 33, has persuaded me to stick around and use the cognitive dissonance I experience here as a way to investigate my own hidden beliefs and assumptions more closely. Respondent to Peter 28.1.2004

Too fucking right we have!

The point I was making in the previous conversation was that the only way to investigate one’s own ‘hidden beliefs and assumptions’ is to first begin to become attentive to one’s own feelings. I presume your reference to cognitive dissonance meant that you were having trouble understanding this fundamental point which is very understandable – being attentive to how one is feeling, when one is feeling the feeling, is not something that comes naturally or easily, particularly at the beginning – it takes stubborn intent to break the habits of a life-time.

From what you say now, it appears that you have passed the stage of cognitive dissonance but have yet to fully take on board the fact that a belief is an emotion-backed thought and this is where observation of the human condition in action in general is useful, because it serves to remind one that it is, after all, the human condition in action that is the subject of an actualist’s attentiveness and investigation.

I have also heard someone make a similar comment about the lack of historical evidence with regard to the actual existence of a flesh and blood Mr. Buddha and it somewhat jolted me at the time as I found it amazing that two of the major religious faiths in the world could well be founded upon the legendary exploits of completely fictitious characters. That the exploits of these characters are legend and not fact is accepted in some quarters nowadays … but to dare to question that the central characters in theses legends are fictitious creations is heresy writ large.

I don’t know about you but I like it when I come across some information that reveals what I had previously accepted as being true was all of a sudden understood to be not necessarily so. When I started to dare to question the truths that I had accepted as being facts it was scary stuff, sometimes it felt as though ‘my’ whole world was collapsing, as though ‘I’ was being torn apart – but once I got over the initial fears the thrill of discovery took over.

Becoming free of beliefs is such good fun, as is becoming free of the need to believe what others believe.

I have had similar experiences to what ‘jolted’ you, but I might add that most scholars today take the existence of Mr. Jesus as historical fact, not merely legend. The Gospels are generally considered to be historical documents as well, though they are also embellished with legend, folklore, and mythology. You may be familiar with the ‘Jesus Seminar?’ Basically, the scholars in that seminar attempted to separate fact from fiction – of course, even their project is open to dispute, but one gets a general idea of the state of the ‘search for the historical Jesus’ by reading what they produced.

Having said that, I do remember the shock – having been raised a Christian – when I discovered that even the very existence of Jesus was subject to dispute. I’ve heard the same about Mr. Buddha repeated in academic corners, but never cared enough to take the time to sort out the evidence – since it didn’t matter one bit to me at the time as to his historical existence.

Yes. Being able to see the folly of other people’s beliefs is one thing, but daring to question one’s own beliefs is quite another. The world is awash with pundits and sages who seek to lay claim to the moral high ground largely by denigrating the beliefs of others, whilst steadfastly refusing to question their own dearly held beliefs. This futile exercise in grand standing is most definitely not what being an actualist is about – this is hypocrisy, not sincerity.

If one is sincere in wanting to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow, then this sincerity itself demands that one actively questions one’s own beliefs and then takes whatever action one needs to take in order to become free of one’s own beliefs. To put it bluntly, daring to question one’s own beliefs is but the first stage of becoming free of them.

I’ll just give you a brief run through of what I have just said as it related to my personal experience because what I said is not a philosophy that I hold to … it is a down-to-earth description of how to become free of all of the beliefs that sustain the human condition of malice and sorrow.

My first attraction to Eastern spirituality came about by reading the words of an Indian philosophy teacher turned Guru who had much to say about the folly of monotheistic religions and the emptiness of purely materialistic pursuits. I took what he said to be great Wisdom, a sign that he was an all-knowing sage, and I was so besotted by his aura of all-knowingness that I turned a blind eye to the fact that he tolerated no questioning of his teachings by his followers – the demands of faith and loyalty inherent in spiritual belief put paid to that.

Nevertheless one day, not long after his death, I had a clear-eyed glimpse of the fact that I had allowed myself to be suckered into a religious cult – having dismissed religious belief as being silly in my youth, I had fallen for it – hook, line and sinker – in my mid-thirties. Eventually I found that to continue believing what I had been believing, and doing what I had been doing, was no longer an option that I was comfortable with.

Sincerity demanded that I abandon my beliefs, which in turn meant leaving the spiritual group I had belonged to for some 15 years. I then found that by ridding myself of my own religious and spiritual beliefs I could no longer feign being tolerant of the religious and spiritual beliefs of others. Religious and spiritual belief has wrought so much misery and mayhem that to be tolerant of it is an affront to intelligence and to integrity – be it tolerant of other’s beliefs, and more importantly, tolerant of holding to any such beliefs myself.

What this meant in practice was that after I had given up Eastern spirituality, I then had to abandon the ethics and morals that were part and parcel of my Christian conditioning, the ethics and morality that were part and parcel of the geo-theistic beliefs of Environmentalism, the morals and ethics of Puritan health beliefs, the morals and ethics of Pacifism, and so on. The list of beliefs that sustain human malice and sorrow is a formidable one but if one sincerely wants to become free of malice and sorrow then the time and place to start is now, with whatever belief you find you are holding on to right now.

Being no longer tolerant of religious and spiritual belief does mean that I am sensible in my interactions with others. If the discussion turns to the topic of religious and spiritual belief then I simply point out that I am a thorough going actualist – I do not believe in a creator God or Goddess and nor do I believe that there are Good and Evil spirits anywhere permeating the physical actuality of the universe. I am very well aware that human beings are passionate about their beliefs – for I was once passionate about my beliefs – and because of this I am sensibly cautious in what I talk to others about the nature of beliefs in general. People are wont to take offence if they feel their beliefs are being challenged and history has shown that taking offence can very easily turn to seeking retribution and taking vengeance. Which is why I do like talking about these matters from the anonymity of my suburban lounge room on a mailing list which is specifically set up for this very purpose.

So just to recap, being able to see the folly of other people’s beliefs is one thing, but daring to question one’s own beliefs is quite another. If one is sincere in wanting to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow, then this sincerity itself demands that one actively questions one’s own beliefs and then to take whatever action one needs to take in order to become free of one’s own beliefs. It is my experience thus far that sincerity and altruism are the motivational forces of the pure intent required to rid oneself of malice and sorrow.

Will you please tell me, do all completed investigations end with a belief being proven false, or do they sometimes end with an affective feeling simply disappearing?

A completed investigations ends when I recognize that one of ‘my’ precious beliefs is nothing other than one of the plethora of beliefs ‘I’ have either unwittingly imbibed in early childhood, cunningly taken up later in life in order to ingratiate myself into a particular group or accepted it as being a Truth solely because some Big Daddy or Big Mummy figure said it or is supposed to have said it.

In my experience, and my observations of others, there is usually a particularly precious belief that ‘I’ hold so dear that ‘I’ will stubbornly fight to hang on to, rather than relinquish it. There is usually one belief that is so much a part of ‘my’ identity that to relinquish it is to bring up deep feelings such as being irresponsible, being a traitor, a defector, a turncoat, a fool, or whatever.

But if you dare to let go of your most cherished belief, you can then begin to see all your other beliefs for what they are –‘your’ beliefs, an integral part of your social identity. Each time one of these beliefs come to the surface – and you will notice them because you will feel offended if it is brought into question and you will feel smugly justified when it is affirmed by others – you can then investigate the validity and sensibility of holding on to that particular belief. Provided you have set your sights on being happy and harmless, then each time you discover a belief you have a choice – hold on to the belief and remain feeling ‘self’-satisfied or offended, or be happy and harmless.

Pretty soon you get the hang of it and finding beliefs and chucking them out becomes great fun. As the momentum builds you will eventually get to the stage where you stop the very act of believing and you will then start to stand on your own two feet for the first time in your life. Provided you don’t get swept away with aggrandizing feelings at this point, you will find yourself well on the way to becoming free of malice and sorrow.

I wrote a bit about belief in the AF glossary and this may also be worth visiting as a supplement to my answer.

As for the second part of your question – ‘do they sometimes end with an affective feeling simply disappearing?’ – once you have become aware of a feeling such as anger or pride as it is happening, you have in effect brought the feeling out into the open and exposed it for what it is. Then, when it reappears again, you can recognize the emergence of the feeling in its very early stage and this awareness will cause it not to grow and take over.

This is not suppressing the feeling – this is being aware of the feeling, naming the feeling and feeling the feeling, all the while being aware that this is what you are doing – it is a bit like detecting an ember before it grows to become a raging bushfire. When you get to the stage that you only detect the occasional very faint ember such that it never glows brightly, let alone grows into a bushfire, you are virtually free of malice and sorrow – and your own sincerity will be the judge of that.

As you can see I don’t have anything particularly new to say on the subject, but maybe saying it in a different way will have been of use to you. If I haven’t addressed your question satisfactorily, I am only too happy discuss it further – topics such as these are ‘right up my alley’, so to speak.

What belief did you have that kept you feeling attached to being Australian?

The belief that it is good to have a national identity, the belief that it is essential to feel as though I belong somewhere, the belief that I need to feel like some place is home, and so on. When I eventually came to realize that, by and large, these feelings are feelings that other people have told me I should feel – that’s what social conditioning is after all – it was relatively easy to give them up in favour of being an anonymous and autonomous citizen of the world.

To put it another way, I gave up feeling I belonged to one particular national group because of the invidious and aggrandizing feelings associated with holding on to such an identity entailed and I fostered the felicitous feelings associated in feeling myself to be a citizen of the world and seeing and treating all of my fellow human beings for what they are, fellow human beings, and not ‘who’ they are.

And just to say again what can never be said enough – the process of actualism is not about not feeling – in its first stage it is about becoming aware of the invidious and aggrandizing feelings as they occur and actively endorsing the felicitous feelings such that one can be as happy and harmless as possible whilst still being a ‘self’.

Belonging to a family?

I had to look at all the beliefs that have been passed down the generations about how one should feel and shouldn’t feel about being a father, a son, a mother, a daughter, a brother, a sister and so on. It’s probably more accurate to call these the morals and ethics of social conditioning but a particular event happened that caused my whole emotion-backed thinking about the nature of belonging to a family to come crashing down –

‘The last time I met my older son was interesting, as I was able to see quite clearly that here was a young adult with little experience in life, and yet he was so opinionated. He was mostly repeating what he had heard from others and he took it to be true – actual.

Given that some of his opinions and values were really my past beliefs, I was able to see – quite shockingly – that ‘who’ we are consists of nothing more than the opinions and beliefs of others. I thought then of how I had been at that age – trying to make sense of life and grabbing on to anything that seemed to make sense or had appeal. So what ‘I’ as a social identity was made of was nothing more than the opinions and beliefs of others – my father’s and those of my father’s generation, which in turn came from their fathers, and so on, back into the dim dark ages of the cave-men and cave-women. Peter’s Journal People

You say, if by Agapé you mean DIVINE LOVE ... it is wasted on me. I am one of a only a handful of atheists on the planet.

Atheism is also a belief ... you also believe that there is no god just as theist believe that there is a god.

Now, my reply to your note.

I think you are looking for a ‘bet each way’ here. I have met many people who proclaim that they don’t believe in God, but a little digging reveals that they believe there is a ‘something’ – call it what you will – Energy, Source, Truth, Essence, Existence, Mother Earth, Aliens, That, or whatever. God, by whatever name you want to call it, is still a ‘something else’ and people rather have that belief than face the fact that one is alone as an independently functioning and operating human being – one of 5.8 billion who are currently on the planet. And that when I die, that is it ... dead, finished, obliterated, finished, ... compost.

The concept of God is a belief, not a fact.

It does not make any difference

As for it not making any difference, it is my experience that it makes a world of difference ... the difference is that one cannot be a mortal flesh and blood human being living in the actual physical universe if there is a something (ego and soul) that is inside you that is going to live on after physical death.

A real intelligent person would not have any beliefs. He would be a ‘seeker’ and at the same time rely on his own understanding and not believe.

Yes, but you said above that it does not matter whether you believe in God or not ...

You want a ‘bet each way’ ... which is the very thing that prevents us humans beings (as flesh and blood bodies only) from being fully here in the actual world and not seeking some Union or Oneness with the Divine as an escape route.

Just a reply to your observations about us, what we are saying, and how we are saying it.

What doesn’t seem to be understood by Peter and Vineeto is that we all go, and we cannot go otherwise, in our own direction and pace.

On the contrary, I understand this as a common belief, both in the ‘normal’ world and the ‘spiritual’ world. In the normal world it comes in the form of ‘who do you think you are’ or you ‘go with the flow’ or ‘life wasn’t meant to be easy’. In the spiritual world it is enshrined in ‘Existence provides’ It is God’s will’ or WE are all Enlightened, we just don’t know it’ or ‘everything’s perfect anyway ...’

I had it very strongly and I was shocked out of it, firstly the death of my son aged 13, shortly followed by the death of the spiritual master that I followed. I then had a sense of urgency, such that I made becoming free my priority in life – and I wanted to be free, on this earth, in this lifetime. I found it increasingly difficult to believe in an afterlife or a God after the both deaths. I then simply put the ‘foot on the accelerator’ – I gave up waiting for Godot.

But I firmly acknowledge that while the perfection and purity of the actual world is ever-present, under our very noses, it will not be everyone who is interested to discover and experience it.

And fair enough too – we are, after all, becoming freer in a modern society. We now have access to a lot more information about life and, as such, are more free and able to decide for ourselves how we wish to live our lives.

What you are describing is the feeling of ‘coming home’, ‘realizing I am That’, finding my inner peace’, ‘finding God’ etc. The terminology varies between particular religions and spiritual philosophies but all point to an ‘inner’ peace and a ‘communion’ with some form of supreme being or energy. My experiences led me to challenge the belief in a supreme being and an after-life as well as my ‘inner’ experiences and spiritual identity – and this questioning led me inexorably to the actual world of purity and perfection, delight and innocence. And the amazing thing is, it is under my very nose as it were, all ‘I’ – both ego and soul – had to do was get out of the way.

You relate to my experience as a belief. It isn’t a belief for me.

I fully understand. When I was on the spiritual path I had many experiences that re-enforced the feelings I was having of ‘coming home’, of having found ‘peace at last’. And to consider what I was experiencing as a belief was, at the time, inconceivable. It was only when the master died and I really saw that I was in an Eastern Religion, that I began to see that I believed in the Master and His teachings. Exactly as a Buddhist believes in Buddha and his Teachings and exactly as a Christian believes in Jesus and His Teachings. It was not even then a great problem – I could just move on if I wanted to ... but then I realized that the passionate believers are the very ones who fight the religious wars still raging on this planet. Then I started to question what it is that we believed and why we humans need to believe ... I use the word ‘we’ deliberately as I was enquiring into the Human Condition i.e. common to all, not special in ‘me’.

It made it clear what I was questioning, tackling and eliminating. It also avoided me taking it personally and defending ‘my’ existence to ridiculous lengths.

Well I did butt in on your list, and I subscribed because I was told there was some discussion on the list

first problem – you are a believer, don’t believe all you hear

Which is why I checked out the facts of the situation. A fact is a fact, merely to believe anyone or anything blindly is to be gullible.

*

... and Sannyas a world wide religious-social club.

and secretly but obviously you still want to be a part of it, at least virtually.

Hardly! Look I am regarded as traitor, heretic, ungrateful, attention-seeking, guru-like, evil, a blood-sucking pariah, etc. etc. Or I am shunned and ostracized, but all this is to be expected, as I am challenging cherished and dearly held beliefs of Sannyasins. Becoming free is to get free from beliefs; so what anyone else believes about me is of no consequence nor does it affect me. It is good to be free of the need to believe. Give me facts any time. They are a much more sound basis for living as a human being. They allow common sense to operate freely, such that I am now both happy and harmless.

*

... such was my pride

???? pride? what has pride to do with that? and loyalty to whom? your girlfriend? Somebody ever asked you to be loyal, who was it?

At the very core of religion is the belief in the meta-physical ie. another world other than the physical. This world is the world of spirits and Gods, energies and auras, good and bad. Given that these are all things that can only be experienced affectively (by feeling), it takes a good deal of faith, trust and hope to maintain the belief in something which is not physical. Many people who did not believe in Rajneesh saw him as just another Indian Guru and others (like the American Christians) saw him as evil. Belief in someone or something demands loyalty and gratitude, usually demanded unquestioningly.

Along with loyalty and gratitude comes pride, it’s all part of the same package. The man who is loyal to his country is proud of his country, and will die for his country (... or Religion, as at the Ranch).

And did you think about what would be if, for example, some person starts to present him self as Jesus Christ (for the second time amongst us). What is the miracle, which he must perform in order to people start believing in him. In this moment we have a great number of miracle men all around the world. In comparison with them Christ would be nothing but a cheap magician.

From where I see things, as long as he/she has God on their side they can promise anything and people will still believe. Christians still await the second coming. Buddhists await the return of Maitreya, and Rajneeshees for the new man.

Maybe your intentions are sincere, but then how can you expect from the people to just believe you and take you for granted only on the basis of dead words presented somewhere on the Internet?

I said in the afterword to my journal, and here in this mailing list, not to merely believe what I am saying. It is such a poor way to live one’s life on the basis of believing what other people say.

For me, facts and common sense beat belief and feelings any day. If I was running a business and wanted to be successful I would rely on facts and common sense. I simply applied the same sense to being here as a flesh and blood human being and then the magic really began to happen.

For the rest of your discourse, sales pitch, what ever it is... you certainly make being a Sannyasin...no you never said Sannyasin, did you? You make being a Rajneeshee sound repulsive and I guess being one could be! (depending on the dreamer)

Being a follower or believer in Osho is no more or less ‘repulsive’ than believing in any other God or God-man. The major trouble with believing in Gods is that people gather in groups to do it and then fight each other as to whose God is speaking the Truth, who is Right, who is the Best, who is the Only God, and this results in all the religious wars, persecutions, repressions, moralities, superiorities, etc. So my comments are not personally directed at Osho or Sannyasins, but are about the whole spiritual world. It is just that I spent 15 years with Rajneesh, so I know that particular version very well.

*

So you did whatever you did for 15 years... What is the significance of comparing it with some who may have been 25 years or whatever I have been doing?? As I see it, this comparison does not follow logic. What about the millions of people who have never been Rajneeshees or Sannyasins. Do they then become the wise one by your equation and reasoning?

I have told you of my aims in being a Sannyasin, have written of my experiences and now put it out so others can abuse me freely because I have dared to question the Sacred beliefs and Ancient wisdom. I am always curious as to what others are searching for, do they have any aims in life, and if they are searching do they have a time frame or seek specific results and changes in themselves. The other curious thing that happens is because I ‘dare’ to question the existence of God, then I am seen as being either a Guru or a Devil. And this is despite the fact that I firmly state that Gods, Gurus, Devils and Demons dwell only in the passionate domain of human imagination. That it is all a gigantic fairy-tale, only made ‘real’ by the re-telling for millennia.

What do you call yourself then?

No 11, this one, this writer ...

Well I must admit you (sorry the writer) have thrown me (oops ... a personal pronoun) into a quandary. In the interests of keeping us on the same level in that the writer (meaning you) doesn’t think that I am being superior or egotistical, I will adopt your terminology. By the way, does the writer (meaning you ... suppose we call you writer 1 for clarity) adopt the terminology ‘the speaker’ when the writer 1 is speaking to others. Krishnamurti used this terminology while lecturing.

*

So, one who is truly free is one who is not merely pretending, I take it from the first bit. There are about 6,000 religions who all believe that they have the ‘true’ version of Truth, or Liberation, or Freedom.

The operative word is ‘believe’... one who knows has no belief.

So the writer 2 (meaning me) take it that the writer 1 ‘knows’. Maybe the writer 1 can tell the writer 2 what it is that the writer 1 knows. Or is it that it can’t be put into words. It seems that we (writer 1 and writer 2) cannot communicate at all then.

Knowing is such a wooly concept to writer 2.

The truth is such a wooly concept it seems to me.

That’s funny, the writer 2 said that, and yet the writer 1 posted it as though the writer 1 had written it.

I take it then that you believe there is Divine Love, or are you saying that The Divine (God) is a fact. I take it that you are saying you believe in God.

Why would your take it that one who knows would have a belief? It is illogical.

The writer 2 has got it at last .. a sudden realization. Whatever it is that the writer 1 ‘knows’ is a fact and not a belief. And whatever it is that writer 1 knows cannot be put into words ... and therefore the truth (sorry, what the writer 1 knows) cannot possibly be challenged, because it is a fact.

*

A Gnostic is one who claims to have ‘superior knowledge’ of spirit-ual things (Godly matters) and therefore believes in Gods and spirits.

Why do you continue to equate ‘knowledge’ with ‘belief’? Gnosis is not the same as belief at all. Do you know the experience of ‘sex’ or after having had it, do you believe in it?

The writer 2 has got it now as the writer 2 said above. Whatever writer 1 ‘knows’ is a fact and not a belief. It is getting really clear to the writer 2 by now. The writer 1 seems to have a different definition of Gnosis from both the Britannica and the Oxford, but the writer 1 ‘knows’. Maybe the writer 1 should set Britannica and Oxford straight on his knowing.

After your last posts I thought you had disappeared over the proverbial cyber-hill. I like it that you have come back and challenge what I am saying. What Richard, Vineeto and I are proposing is new, radical and preposterous to people – to those in the ‘spiritual’ world and those in the ‘normal world’. To point to a third world – an actual world of perfection and purity, that is ever present, right here, right now. It deserves every challenge and scrutiny.

Challenging one’s belief systems and not believing anything until it is your own personal experience is a worthwhile thing to do.

Agreed. I would only add, after ‘taking care of business’ such as shelter and food, it is the only worthwhile thing to do – if one is to become free of the Human Condition. Anything that stood in the way of my being happy and harmless became my business, my obsession.

I am absolutely tired to press the ‘delete’ button and I am feeling raped the way you go on in pouring Tons of kilobytes down the list; unfortunately I have to download it under Indian line conditions. To me – this is absolutely unwanted and undesired.

Feeling raped, Hey? That’s pretty strong. Most people seem to have similar reactions when they feel that their beliefs, religious ideals or spiritual yearnings are being challenged. The religious wars and conflicts on the planet at the moment are testament to the strength of these reactions. There are numerous laws in many countries that attempt to keep a lid on these ‘feelings’ but, when push comes to shove, they fail with appalling and horrendous consequences for the less powerful.

Although I have the option to avoid the kind of energy that is dominating nowadays the list by unsubscribing, I hope you might become a little bit more sensitive about what is worth sharing and what is only mind-fucking.

I think you have other options to cut out what I say and still stay on the list, but that is up to you. Curiously, I was thinking of abandoning the list but your plaintive cry for ‘sensitivity’ spurred me on. ‘Sensitivity’ is such a mis-used word in spiritual circles in my experience. When meditators become more ‘sensitive’ they usually talk in terms of the market-place being so hard and so tough, and everybody else being so insensitive and unloving. This creates a superiority and separation from others that is both palpable and insidious. What spiritual people really mean by ‘sensitive’ is that they are intolerant of others and other beliefs. This is, of course, a common feeling of all believers of all faiths and is part and parcel of the spiritual and religious worlds. Not that I am a defender of the ‘real’ world. What I write of is a third alternative – an actual down to earth freedom that is eminently liveable in the market place. It requires not retreat, withdrawal, or exclusivity.

I take it by mind-fucking you mean the ability to think, talk, write and make sense of things rather than feel, emote, assume, accept, trust, surrender or have faith. Yes, thinking has such a bad press in the Eastern Religions. I remember as a kid being told don’t think, don’t question, don’t argue ... just do it!!!

Yours sincerely.

Thanks for your note back. At this stage I welcome any feedback. I note that you say you have a mature faith and I don’t doubt it. Most sincere seekers are driven to seek freedom from their own suffering and to find a solution to the appalling universal suffering of Humanity. I found that the tried and true beliefs needed questioning at least, because they haven’t produced the goods – an end to sorrow and malice in human beings. A paltry few rise Above It All to become saints or gurus or Gods, but fat lot of good it does the mere mortals left behind.

So, as you said in your letter, ‘the answers are never entirely what we think they will be’, and what I’m proposing is that they lie 180 degrees in the other direction. Unfortunately for those who believe in a heaven and hell, this direction can appear to be towards hell or evil or madness. But as the Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, the Truth are all nothing but beliefs, ideals, morals and ethics, then perhaps this imaginary hell is only a fantasy as well. Maybe then Human beings can stop needing to worship fictitious gods, following ancient Wisdom that is riddled with good and evil spirits and energies, and fight appalling wars with each other as to which God is the ‘only’ god or whose particular version of the Truth is the ‘only’ truth. Then this appalling scenario of suffering and sacrifice will end and we will come to our senses both figuratively and literally. To realise we are one species on the planet, that there are about 6 billion of us, that we already live in paradise, and begin the task of removing exactly what is in the road of us experiencing this paradise on earth, not in some hoped for after-life.

I found that I had been imbued with a very shonky set of beliefs, that made up ‘who’ I thought I was, and further that I was born with a set of animal instincts – fear, aggression, nurture and desire – that could drive me to revert to animal behaviour at any time. When cornered, or when push came to shove, I would be ready to kill and die for my beliefs and enjoy being malicious even to the point of wanting to kill someone. This realisation was shattering for me, for I realized that the source of malice and sorrow was in me and I was the only one who could rid myself of this alien being inside.

It’s no small thing to realize, as one has identified both the source of the problem and the direction in which the solution to the mystery of life lays. And then off I strolled on a most extra-ordinary journey to freedom as one journeys beyond belief and imagination and discovers the actual, factual, physically delightful universe, here, now as experienced by the senses. Sight, sound, touch, smell, thoughts – all clear and pure and perfect – the breeze on my legs, the bird calling outside, the hands tapping on the keyboard as I write to you. Life was meant to be easy, simple, direct, sensual, delightful and carefree.

Experiencing paradise on earth, here, now, before physical death is possible in my experience. But I’ve got off on one of my raves. I guess what I am saying is: I think it is high time for us all to seriously begin to question the commonly-held belief in the existence of gods, spirits, energies, entities or aliens. The gods, after all, have promised so much and delivered so little! I just gave up waiting for Godot to sort out the mess I was.

So, good luck to you and may you have serendipitous happenings. Thanks again for your note, I do appreciate your response.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust