|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 22
Hi, Here we go again into the next round of God seeking evidence that actual flesh and blood body bodies exist ... Given that the last post had close to 5800 words I have kept my reply reasonably short this time. * If you need confirmation that what is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable does actually exist, No confirmation is necessary for that which is self-evident. Experience is actual, yes? No, actual is that which is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable and it exists whether you are experiencing it or not. (Actual – Existing in act or fact; real. 2 In action or existence at the time; present, current. Oxford Dictionary). If unobstructed by mental and emotional self-obsession you can sensately-only experience what is actual. – this is what is known as a pure consciousness experience. Very good, then if you will please make evident for me that which is, visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable. To this point evidence of such has not been produced, but is always welcome. Here is some evidence from Mr. Oxford –
In a transparent attempt to fit with your worldview you are continuously re-interpreting the meaning of the words – in this case describing what is actual to mean experience only, not material things. For sens-ible mortals, however, the experience of touching relies on physical receptors of the skin of an actual flesh and blood body touching something and the experience of tasting relies on physical receptors of the tongue and mouth of an actual flesh and blood body tasting something that may taste bitter, sour, sweet or salty. It is a purely cerebral concept to re-define this sensate experience as being devoid of any material form whatsoever. What you are describing is not sensate physical experience but emotional dreaming or Right thinking derived from imbibing too much ancient Eastern and fashionable Western philosophy – being off with the fairies, as we call it in this part of the world. Given that you are on record as saying
there is no point to the conversation when there is not even a common definition, ‘no objective standard’, that you are willing to apply to the meaning of any words that are used. Perhaps you are familiar with the words blather or gibberish – talking without any regard at all for the commonly agreed upon, sensible meaning of words. It makes a mockery of conversation but then again you are on record as saying that posting on mailing lists is merely ‘great sport’ for you. * I am talking about the evidence of pure sensate experience, unobstructed by mental and emotional self-obsession. There is no evidence of a pure sensate experience, it is its own evidence, and it leaves no tracks any-where. AND once this is recognized, even emotional self-obsession, if that is what is chosen, will be no less than pure sensate experience. There will be no more worries about living the life only 99% of the time, or what words must needs be whispered in order to achieve ‘it’. ‘It’ is now, regardless of what now is. It is written: ‘Be where God resides. God is this moment, this moment is this experience, and this experience is you’. Recognize, ‘you’ are never separate from ‘it’, nor in a position to question ‘it’. When it is whispered ‘how am I living this moment of life?’ You are living this moment of life being the question, that is all. The magic is in recognizing that. What has been written is nonsense. In order to ‘be where God resides’ one has to renounce the recognition of what is actual and ‘reside’ in a spirit-ual, imaginary realm only. The concept or belief in God, by whatever name, is a figment of passionate imagination (affective experience) and not a pure sensate experience. God is neither visible nor tangible, he is neither audible nor tangible. All your ‘magic’ experiences of ‘it’ happens in your head and heart only. I think No 28 expressed it very well when he wrote to No 30 –
Given that you experience yourself to be GOD* himself and clearly have demonstrated an investment to stay as this experience, your motives is clear as to why you absolutely insist on only acknowledging experience, or process, or movement, to be real and then deny as ‘wrong thought’ any evidence that there exists something other than, and outside of, your own cerebral and affective experiences. *
Truly? Well then, and by all means, there will be no attempt to become God (by any definition). The behaviour sounds most uncomfortable (as do all dualistic world-views I have heard explained). Thank you. There is no need to resort to denial – ‘there will be no attempt to become God’ is certainly backtracking given you already have declared yourself to be GOD. Vis:
Or are you now recanting that you are GOD? Has ‘omnipotence’ ceased to exist? Have you given up on ‘Infinite Responsibility’? Or are you just playing word-games about not attempting ‘to become god’, because you are ‘not a god, nor the god, nor some god, nor another god’, whilst you ‘understand YOU are God’. But if you were indeed recanting, that would be truly a sign of the recovery of your common sense. As for ‘all dualistic world-views’ – it is you who firstly create a dualistic worldview – spiritual vs. material – and then, in order to free yourself from your own dualistic world-view, you have chosen to become the Creator, the centre and the infinitely-responsible lone inhabitant of your own imaginary world. You have created an imaginary world where no actual flesh and blood bodies exist, only ‘experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ – and yet every word you write is evidence of the flesh and blood fingers that have typed them. Actualism takes the opposite route – the actualism method is designed to eliminate ‘me’ because ‘I’ am both the centre of, and the creator of, ‘my’ separative dualistic world-view. When ‘I’ no longer exist as a psychological or psychic entity then what I am emerges, this-moment-only sensate comprehension of this marvellous actual universe. The physical universe is in fact utterly non-dualistic because it is infinite, eternal and therefore peerless. * 3. There were certain question asked. Those questions did not dismiss the actual flesh and blood, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to dismiss that which is not yet made evident. You can only ask those questions (what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body...’?) if you first dismiss the flesh and blood body as being actual, otherwise there would be no need for such head-banging questions. Not at all Good Friend. The flesh and blood body has been offered as something actual, all evidence is that this is wrong thought. A query was offered to ascertain if there was evidence that substantiated the claim. No-thing was dismissed, some-thing that there is no evidence of was asked to be established. To this point, the evidence requested has in fact not been offered. One might think of it as like questioning the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Someone will come forward and assert its actuality, someone else will ask for the evidence that it is actual. The asking party has not dismissed the existence of the monster, but rather has asked for the evidence that substantiates the claim. One could only be accused of ‘dismissing the actuality of Loch Ness Monster’ after said actuality is established. I do find it really cute that you should compare your actual flesh and blood body with the Loch Ness Monster. It would be more appropriate to compare your imaginary God with the Loch Ness Monster as nobody has ever seen God other than in imaginary visions, nobody has ever heard God other than as voices in their heads and nobody has ever physically shaken hands with God and yet everyone seems to be afraid of, or in love with, a God of some sort or other. Given that it is you who continue to introduce God into the discussion as in ‘be where God resides’ , could you please give evidence that God does in fact exist. Can you establish God as an actuality? Is God and the Loch Ness Monster one and the same thing? By your own logic ‘one could only be accused of ‘dismissing the actuality of <God>, after said actuality is established’. Given that you have spent at least three years denying the actuality of anything and anyone that can be seen, touched, smelt, tasted and heard and that you have come to the unremitting conclusion that ‘all evidence is that this is wrong thought’, perhaps you might like to shift the topic of discussion to new ground – you providing evidence as to the actuality of God. * To this point it can be established that there is no evidence of an actual flesh and blood body that exists as any-thing other than behaviour (substitute; experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc.). That is to say, if the phrase ‘actual flesh and blood body’ is to represent any actuality, it must needs be it represents behaviour. There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’. For you that is. For you no evidence can ever be established because the evidence of sensate experience is considered ‘wrong thought’ according to your definition of right thought and your personal redefinition of the words ‘visible, audible, tangible, tasteable and smellable’ as meaning ‘experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ . From here, on this planet earth, in this actual world of people, things and events, it looks rather ridiculous when you say ‘There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’’. To think that typing is happening with no actual fingers touching the keyboard, reading words on the screen is happening but there are no actual eyes existing, walking is happening but no actual feet that touch an actual ground, swallowing of food is happening but no actual belly exists to receive it and speaking is happening but no actual mouth and tongue exists to make the sound. This fantasy strongly resembles the biblical myth of the burning bush that suddenly started talking to Moses with God’s voice. * You have not understood what I mean by ‘grave danger’. The danger arises because you are not observing your own recipe of becoming absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible as in –
As long as you are subscribed to the Actual Freedom Mailing List there will be ‘thoughts ... social interaction’ etc. come streaming on to your hard drive, questioning point 1 of your recipe ‘One (you) is absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called ‘insert ‘your’ name here’’. The only way to avoid such danger is stop talking to actualists. You are already moving away from being infinitely responsible by laying responsibility for your wellbeing on to me – you are placing a ‘request’ to ‘ providing ... evidence’ in order to ‘alleviate the threat’ . It is you who are making inquiries that question your own absolute and unquestionable infinite responsibility, I am simply pointing out that you are not following point three of your own recipe that you offered to this list as the ‘Recipe for ‘bringing an end to sexual abuse, rape, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, depression, corruption, despair and suicide...’ If you don’t follow your own recipe, how to you expect others to take your teachings seriously? Ahhhh! Very nicely done! Thank you. The recipe will in fact need some revision. Not only will the recipe need some revision but also the imagined result of
following that Should you become really fed up maintaining the illusion of being GOD, and
not waste your time playing word-games, there is always the possibility to discover the actual world with actual people
and actual things. As Richard said in his definition of Until you are able to compare the magical experience ‘to be the sensations, as distinct from being an ‘I’ inside perceiving the world outside’ with your God-magic of ‘living this moment of life being the question, that is all’ you will never know what you are missing. There is far, far more to being alive on this planet than imagining oneself to ‘be where God resides’.
What has been written is nonsense. In order to ‘be where God resides’ one has to renounce the recognition of what is actual and ‘reside’ in a spirit-ual, imaginary realm only. Not at all Good Friend. No imagination at all is required or ordered, including the imagining a flesh and blood body that exists as other than behaviour. Further, no-thing has to be re-nounced. When the fact of the matter is recognized, there is no-thing to renounce nor to lose in imagined suicides. No-thing to sacrifice, grow out off, shed, dis-entangle from, rise above, transcend, or otherwise separate from. Actuality is, regardless of what it is being, even the experience of being a separate individual, or the imagining of a body that exists a some-thing other than behaviour. How can you say ‘when the fact of the matter is recognized’ – you have never recognized the fact of matter – for you matter does not exist in fact but only as movement, experience, action and behaviour. You explain this again in your letter further below –
By your own philosophy there can be no matter of fact, only ‘movement of fact’, ‘behaviour or fact’, ‘process of fact’ ... in other words ‘no objective standard’ as in
You have fallen into your own word-game trap. Perhaps you will now need to add ‘there is no fact of the matter’ to your seemingly endless list of denials of actuality. As for ‘no-thing to renounce nor to lose in imagined suicides’ –
this typical ‘I am not the body’ Eastern philosophy was the basis of the Zen Buddhists avid support for the Japanese
army’s appalling This entire conversation has been reviewed for any material that was offered and in fact represented proof of the flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour. Those items which were determined to be wrong thought were carefully reviewed. See the Are we in agreement that as a matter of fact, that to maintain the belief that there is an actual flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour, or existing as the cause of behaviour, is an effort in a particular faith, and that that particular faith is established without any evidence of a actual flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour, or existing as the cause of behaviour? No, we are not in agreement. To merely establish a personal philosophy that considers behaviour, movement, process the only fact does not make it a fact. To merely establish a personal philosophy based on Eastern spirit-ual teachings that considers sensory evidence of matter a belief does not make matter non-existent. Simply repeating the same argumentation and ignoring the evidence of your own physical senses does not make your personal philosophy a fact. It only demonstrates the endless capacity for denial evident in all Eastern philosophy – in fact, a little clear-eyed reading of their teachings will reveal that denial is the very basis of all Eastern ‘right’ thinking. If there is no agreement, perhaps the conversation would benefit from a summary of any facts presented that are felt to establish a actual flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour, or existing as the cause of behaviour? Thank you! If you deny sensory evidence of a flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour than that is your personal problem. I do not pose philosophical restrictions on my sensory perception of the physical world around me. Being ‘in your head,’ as it is sometimes called, is to remain forever locked out of the sensual enjoyment and unfettered appreciation of the actual world we flesh and blood bodies live in. Actualism is 180 degrees opposite to your philosophy because it is about the very things you deny the existence of. If in fact there is any evidence of why the words ‘visible, audible, tangible, tasteable and smellable’ should represent any-thing other than experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ please do present it. I did present the evidence of the common agreement of the words visible, audible, tangible, tasteable and smellable meaning the things that one sees, hear, touches, tastes and smell at the beginning of the last post, which you ignored. Vis –
Simply repeating the same question by ignoring the evidence smacks of silly schoolyard word-games. What you do with common agreed upon meanings of words that don’t fit your personal philosophy is entirely your business. If you believe tasting food is only an ‘experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ then try giving up eating the stuff that is commonly called food for a year or two and then report back as to whether it matters or not whether there is matter or not. * From here, on this planet earth, in this actual world of people, things and events, it looks rather ridiculous when you say ‘There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’’ . To think that typing is happening with no actual fingers touching the keyboard, reading words on the screen is happening but there are no actual eyes existing, walking is happening but no actual feet that touch an actual ground, swallowing of food is happening but no actual belly exists to receive it and speaking is happening but no actual mouth and tongue exists to make the sound. This fantasy strongly resembles the biblical myth of the burning bush that suddenly started talking to Moses with God’s voice. Yes, it may in fact look rather ridiculous, however, and in fact, it is true that ‘There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’’ , ... No No. 22, it is neither true nor a fact but it is nought but Eastern philosophy presented as your personal philosophy. Nowhere have you given evidence that in fact ‘there is no-thing existing other than movement’ and when Richard asked you a relevant question to explain your philosophy in regards to non-moving bodies (‘to watch a dead frog on the road (or any road-kill) is to experience ... what?’ ), you did not reply and cunningly changed the topic. He also asked a second question that demonstrated where your plagiarized philosophy lacks consistency, and you never answered –
...and to this point Good Friend, there has been no evidence presented that would make it remotely sensible to maintain any world view or faith that believed other than that fact. With a deep and happily extended Respect, perhaps some attention would be given to the attachment to the belief system that requires denial of the fact? Given that you are presenting a personal philosophy that ‘may in fact look rather ridiculous’ to anyone with a little common sense, it is in fact up to you to present evidence of your conviction that no-thing but movement exists, just as it is up to you to present evidence of the existence of the God which you introduced as ‘Be where God resides’. I am waiting for you considered response. Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
