V – List AF Correspondent # 23

Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List

Correspondent No 23

Topics covered

An ASC is not something that is conducive to becoming actually free from the human condition, the proof of the pudding so far is that I live in a virtual freedom of malice and sorrow, early humans worshipped many gods, I have neither respect for nor tolerance of ‘God by any name’ * ‘having an observer’ is a dissociated spiritual worldview, the more I understand the numerous aspects of the human condition as they operate in me as ‘me’ the easier I can recognize them as being universal to all human beings, examples of what is part and parcel of the human condition * experiential description * the story about my name is very simple, Rajneesh’s original name, what you call a ‘Buddha field’ has no existence outside of the minds and hearts of spiritual disciples * Actual Freedom has nothing at all to do with the meditation practices as taught in the East, actual intimacy is not a ‘LOVERS-relationship’ as described by M. Rajneesh * Indian poetic language * translation of the name Rajneesh, ascribing male or female qualities to inanimate objects such as moons or planets etc is known as animism, ‘creative apperception’ is an oxymoron

29.12.2003

Hi,

Or if one tries to induce a PCE as a deliberate repeat of a serendipitous event, ‘I’ want to remain on the stage in order to posses the experience as ‘my’ own.

No 60 – This is true I guess, but what it felt like was not exactly a conscious desire to possess it as my own (though I do see the potential for that happening), but rather a desire to play around with it aesthetically, like a kid with a kaleidoscope. I suppose one can desire to ‘possess’ something for two different motives, either as a way of empowering and glorifying one’s ego, or as a way of entertaining oneself. I think the latter is probably what made this PCE into an ASC. (But I can accept that the self is very cunning indeed).

‘A way of entertaining oneself’ implies that being here is experienced as needing some more entertainment, …

No 60 – No, not exactly ‘needing’ entertainment, rather delighting in possibilities that were not there before.

Good point, I see entertainment is lightly interpreted in negative connotation; i.e. ‘merely’ entertainment. Perhaps, Vineeto it would have been more accurate to say [‘A way of entertaining oneself’ could imply that being here (incidentally on a particular time <i.e. 6.46 ‘o clock> at a particular location) is experienced as ‘needing’ some more entertainment] Also incidentally that’s just to head off any accusations of speaking in a too fundamental tone.

If you reread the thread of my conversation with No 60 then you will see that my comment about ‘needing entertainment’ was made in regards to a comparison between a PCE and an ASC. In a pure consciousness experience there is neither the desire nor the necessity to improve the existing perfection with any kind of entertainment.

If making such a clear distinction between a ‘self’-less experience and an altered state is considered ‘fundamental’ by you then as a self-appointed moderator I suggest to read the Welcome Message again because this mailing list is set up –

‘… to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition.’ from the Welcome Message to the AF mailing list

As you might recall from previous discussions, an altered state of consciousness is not something that is conducive to becoming actually free from the human condition.

… which is an assessment that ‘I’ make because there is no role for ‘me’ to play in the stunning clarity and sensuous delight of being right here in this moment in time.

As to [because there is no role for ‘me’ to play <snip> in this moment in time.] I notice when I read this ‘me’ that I find myself not able to experience that ‘me’ as self referent, hence I must conclude that the alleged ‘me’ is meant to refer to the hmm… fleshbloodbody Vineeto.

Could it really be in all your years of participating on this list that it has escaped your attention that I follow the sensible convention of putting the identity pronoun (‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ and so on) in little quotes when I refer to the identity inside this body so as to avoid confusion? In long form the sentence would read as follows –

… which is an assessment that I, the identity, makes because there is no role for me, the identity, to play in the stunning clarity and sensuous delight of being right here in this moment in time.

I wonder did you write this in a PCE?

There is no need to be in a PCE to report that ‘I’ as an identity have no role to play in the stunning clarity and sensuous delight of being right here in this moment in time – it is a clear recognition of fact that I gained from numerous PCEs and something I will never be able to ever forget.

The more I paid attention to how I experience this moment of being alive the more I began to learn about how cunning ‘I’ am, how many ways and reasons ‘I’ invent and present in order for ‘me’ to stay in existence.

Indeed as mentioned cunningly making the inference and hence become the claimer of a particular stream of thinking.

Which ‘inference’ and which ‘claimer’ of which ‘particular stream of thinking’? If you want me to make sense of your comment you will need to be more explicit.

Often it would take me days to discover that I had once again fallen for ‘my’ tricks, that I had believed ‘my’ reasoning as to why ‘I’ needed to run the show.

As to [had once again fallen for ‘my’ tricks] I’d be most interested to hear a more detailed report of these tricks.

You will find many descriptions of how I dismantled ‘my’ tricks in my early correspondences with Alan.

Another possibility is to begin to experientially discover the tricks of your own cunning identity by applying the method of actualism because identities are remarkably similar in cunningness when it comes to ‘self’-survival.

The question as to whether an actual freedom from the human condition ‘is actually possible for all people’ can only be answered on an individual basis because to achieve this freedom requires that an individual makes it the most important thing in his or her own life. Thus far I have met or have corresponded with very few people who are interested in doing so. If, however, you want empirical proof that an actual freedom does not require ‘a biological configuration unique to Richard’ then you will have to wait until a second, or third, person becomes actually free from the human condition. Personally, I didn’t want to waste my time waiting for that, I’ll rather be part of the proof.

Well, it is said that the ‘proof’ is in the pudding to wit… can we have the pudding and eat it too? Incidentally while writing this I see indeed a (albeit not to clear) pink pudding in my minds eye.

The proof of the pudding so far is that I live in a virtual freedom of malice and sorrow in complete harmony with my fellow human beings. Another remarkable aspect is that on the path to becoming actually free, you can have virtual freedom (the pudding) and enjoy (eat) it too.

The pink could be due to imaginary artificial food-colouring.

By the way, I think this is the very reason that human beings have invented a God by whatever name who then plays the role of someone who not only comprehends everything – is omniscient – but who is also capable of controlling it all – is omnipotent.

Nevertheless that invention seems to me quite an accomplishment for a primitive brain. In an earlier post I mentioned that I find this ‘invention’ quite puzzling; i.e. someone must have got that notion of the need to explain ‘being’ by projecting an agency as creator/ cause for the first time.

The reason why I said that human beings invented a God by whatever name who then plays the role of someone who is omniscient and omnipotent is because this almost universally upheld belief fulfils a fundamental need common to all human beings inflicted with the instinctual survival passions – the need to believe that someone, or something is in control of this vast universe. To be a human being in the grip of one’s instinctual passions is often a frightening if not terrifying experience.

So… Contrary to what is, as I understand mostly taken for granted, I do not think that the early god-belief (as a creator) is merely based on the superstitious nature of human-animal life.

Early humans did not believe in one God, they worshipped many gods – their Gods were ‘spirits’, personifications of nature phenomena. The inhabitants of the Greek/Roman heaven or the old Egyptian Gods are a good example. Most primitive tribes I have heard of have mythical tales of creation, sometimes the marriage of Sun and Moon or the Thunder God mating with the Earth Goddess or the Fertility Goddess giving birth all by herself or some other fairy tale. Out of this conglomerate of spirits emerged a hierarchy in the Heavens and in some cultures one God won the battle and became the only God for a particular area.

Iow. the primary god-belief may well have been based on awe rather than that it is being based on fear.

The word ‘awe’ is generally used to express an overwhelming feeling and when you look at the dictionary definition, there is not much difference between awe and fear.

Awe – 1 Terror, dread. 2 Reverential fear or wonder. 3 Power to inspire reverential fear or wonder. Oxford Dictionary

When you then take a closer look at religious scriptures of various old cultures such as the Old Testament or the Hindu Scriptures, you will find many references of ‘reverential fear’ towards their God backed up by tales of terror and dread if one fails to do so.

No 60 – Absolutely, a psyche was present, and if the presence of psyche makes it an ASC, then that’s what it was. But as I said to No 23, the psychic ‘entity’ seemed less like an ‘entity’ and more like a plastic medium in which events unfold. Not a personal thing at all, but also not a ‘divine’ thing either.

Yep, it only goes to show that people who don’t believe in God can have far-out Altered States of Consciousness as easily as a spiritualists can.

Do you still find it necessary to discriminate spiritualists?

My comment was in relation to No 60’s assertion that his experience was ‘pure’ without ‘a ‘divine’ thing’ and because ASCs are generally associated with spiritual experiences.

As for finding it ‘necessary to discriminate’ – If you mean discriminate as in –

‘1 Distinct, distinguished. 2 Marked by discrimination or discernment; making careful or exact distinctions.’ Oxford Dictionary

– then yes, in my conversations with people I certainly discriminate between the various spiritual beliefs they hold, be it animism, geo-theism, pantheism, agnosticism, the different versions of monotheism or the numerous teachings of Eastern Mysticism because it always aids clarity in communication. I found that discriminating my own beliefs in detail helped was essential in the process of uncovering and dismantling my beliefs and superstitions.

If you ask if I discriminate against spiritualists – then no. I know that holding prejudices, grudges, biases, umbrages, annoyances, irritations or resentments is part and parcel of the human condition and only when one practices actualism with the aim to become happy and harmless can this crippling condition change.

Also as there are as many ‘gods’ as there are believers the term God seems to me to have become a too broad generalisation.

Generally people know quite well what I mean when I use the term God in a conversation. I can’t see the point of your comment in the context of my conversation with No 60 unless you are implying that I need to narrow my definition of God to suit your particular belief in order for you to understand what I am saying.

To explain in the end it is experience what counts, be that experience with, or without an experiencer if God by any name is present in that experience I respect it as part of human experience at large.

I wonder in what way you see your respect for an experience where ‘God by any name is present’ contributing to any clarity on a mailing list set up ‘to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition’?

Personally I have neither respect for nor tolerance of ‘God by any name’ because I know beyond doubt that any experience where ‘God by any name is present’ is by its very nature an experience of delusion. I like people and I don’t want to confirm and strengthen their psittacotic condition by paying respect to it.

31.1.2004

From your and also Peters general responses I have a fair impression that when you refer to the Big picture of the human condition that in comparison with for instance Richard’s understanding of it, your’s and his are perhaps only different when it comes down to scale.

One experimental viewpoint when using a computer program analogy merely has a different ‘zoomfactor than another’s. So applied that to the human condition the closer one watches the more detailed the picture becomes observable.

Judging by the responses Richard gives on this mailing list to correspondents regarding numerous areas of the human condition, less detail is not the distinguishing factor between his description of the human condition and mine. He writes from outside of the human condition because he is free of it whereas I cannot 100% rely on the accuracy of my understanding because I am not yet totally free of it. But when it comes to describing in detail the process of how to become free from the human condition my description about my experiences can be more detailed and more relevant that Richard’s descriptions because they happened more recently.

In that respect descriptions from other practicing actualists of their experiences with the process of becoming free from the human condition are even more recent and possibly more relevant for those who are contemplating beginning to practice the method of actualism.

Or to use a space analogy you may have an observer located on Venus Peter has one on Mars and Richard is looking from Pluto at Planet earth. Incidentally when I refer to the human condition I refer as it is now and hence is experienced by me as to be living on that condition as it is now.

I understand what you are trying to say but ‘having an observer’ is a dissociated, spiritual worldview and as such the analogy is not applicable to actualism – I never sat on the fence and ‘observed’ the human condition in others as the spiritual teachings would have us do – I learnt what I leant first-hand by the ongoing process of being attentive as to how ‘I’ functioned and operated. Secondly I am deliciously aware that I am living on planet Earth, and far more so than in the days when I practiced dissociation by trying not to be here and when I believed that the more significant part of my life would start after I became fully dissociated from being here or after I had died.

It would be more accurate to say that the more I understand the numerous aspects of the human condition as they operate in me as ‘me’ the easier I can recognize them as being universal to all human beings because the human condition – as the name suggests – applies to every human being. And the more I recognize the human condition in me – and each time opt for being less obsessed with ‘my’ ‘self’-preserving feelings – the more the bigger picture, i.e. the interests of my fellow human beings, comes into view and this then allows me to be considerate of others and as a consequence I become more happy and in peace.

As for Richard – because he has lived entirely free from the human condition for more than a decade and has far more experience in talking to people than I do, he has the added advantage of more easily and precisely recognizing and more clearly exposing the human condition.

As you become more and more observant as to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and you find that are not happy then you can become aware of the human condition in action in you. In this process you may for instance discover that it is part and parcel of the human condition

to want to deny and repress one’s bad emotions,
to automatically block out information that possibly destroys the image one has of oneself or questions the truths one holds,
to mechanically blame the other first – be it the government, the system, one’s parents, one’s upbringing, etc. – for unwanted feelings and inconvenient situations,
to choose to remain aloof and agnostic instead of challenging one’s own convictions,
to create a diversion so as to avoid certain topics when one’s pet beliefs are at stake,
to attack or retreat when one feels threatened even though there is no physical threat happening,

and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from.

That’s why nobody else can weaken or eliminate the human condition for you. The only way this ‘self’-preserving stronghold can be broken is via one’s own intent to become harmless and happy combined with the stubborn determination to do whatever is necessary to reach this goal.

2.2.2004

to want to deny and repress one’s bad emotions,
to automatically block out information that possibly destroys the image one has of oneself or questions the truths one holds,
to mechanically blame the other first – be it the government, the system, one’s parents, one’s upbringing, etc. – for unwanted feelings and inconvenient situations,
to choose to remain aloof and agnostic instead of challenging one’s own convictions,
to create a diversion so as to avoid certain topics when one’s pet beliefs are at stake,
to attack or retreat when one feels threatened even though there is no physical threat happening,

and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from.

I’d say one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition.

Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’ – they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions, chiefly those of fear and aggression. A mere intellectual comment on these easily observable aspects of the human condition, notwithstanding that it is off the mark, also defeats the possibility that this experiential description could act as a guide for what you might uncover should you begin to observe your own emotions, passions and beliefs and convictions in action.

17.2.2004

You commented on my letter to No 60 –

To No 60: Practicing the actualism method will only make sense if one decides to want to become free from the instinctual passions that give rise to malice and sorrow. If one dares to do this one will come to experientially understand human nature for oneself rather than having to rely on the traditional morally and ethically encumbered views of human nature such as those proposed by evolutionary psychologists or philosophers of consciousness studies. Re: Experiential Investigation, 14.2.2004

Last time I asked you If you did write this during a PCE you answered that that was not the case. The sincerity in answering is appreciated. Nevertheless… It seems a bit dubious to proclaim oneself to be the proof of the pudding (be it pink artificially coloured or not) while not actually walking the walk. It smells (the above at least) like bullshit… It is a bit like saying when being asked: do you have a bank account with 180.000 dollars on it and you say no I have not I’m actually flat broke but last week/ month/ year I had.

I have never made any secret of the fact that I am not actually free. However, to me a virtual freedom from the human condition, living happily and in harmony with my fellow human beings for 99% of the time is ‘walking the walk’ to the maximum extent possible in this moment of time. As someone who has always been interested in peace on earth, to do anything less would be plainly hypocritical.

You see Vineeto that kind of stuff and also that you still use your Sannyas name

I have explained before both to you and another correspondent why I use the name Vineeto –

Hi Vineeto, (is that still your Sannyas name? No offence meant I was given the name <name deleted>. My so-called spiritual backgrounds are roughly the teachings of Mr. Krishnamurti and BSR). We have met on a short occasion in Byron I call it the No 12 incident.

Yes, Vineeto was my name in Sannyas days and I have decided to keep it for various practical reasons, one being that my original German name is difficult to pronounce in English and I now live in an English speaking country. Vineeto, List AF, No 23, 14.6.2001

*

The story about my name is very simple. When I first became a disciple of Rajneesh in 1980, I was told to keep my Christian name together with the typical Hindu prefix – it was the practice at the time because there were so many new disciples initiated every evening that new Indian names were only given on special request. Two years later, when I visited the Ranch in Oregon, USA, many Americans and English-speaking nationalities had trouble pronouncing my German name – so I went along with the fashion and asked for an Indian name – Vineeto. Living in Australia, the difficulty for people pronouncing my Christian name has not changed and I decided to keep the Indian name for practical reasons, even after extricating myself from the devotional relationship with Mr. Rajneesh and his religion. A name is but a name, and it makes no difference if it originates in the Christian tradition or in the Hindu tradition. Vineeto, List AF, No 12, 30.7.2000

... and keep on referring to Osho as Mohan or plain Rajneesh however never using his Full name (that he referred to himself during the period that no doubt you got your name Vineeto) which read Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, casts a shadow on what I would call your hmmm... authority in these matters.

Rajneesh’s original name was in fact Chandra Mohan. When he began to become famous he added the name Rajneesh (king of the night) and also gave himself the title ‘Archarya’ (teacher) which he later changed to ‘Bhagwan’ (God). ‘Shree’ is also just a title meaning ‘Sir’ or ‘Reverend’. In his final year Rajneesh had a period in which he called himself Maitreya (imagining himself being a vessel for a reincarnating Siddhartha Gautama) and after he dropped this idea he allowed his disciples to call him ‘Osho’ which is merely a reverential title gleaned from Japanese spiritual tradition. When I freed myself from my feelings of loyalty and devotion to Rajneesh I also stopped using the reverential terms that his disciples use.

As for my ‘authority in these matters’ – I draw my expertise on matters of spirituality from having freed myself from all spiritual beliefs after being deeply entrenched in the practice of this certain brand of spirituality. One has to be free from a belief in order to understand it in its totality and thus be able to talk about it with authority.

You also made comment on a post I sent to you recently –

to want to deny and repress one’s bad emotions,
to automatically block out information that possibly destroys the image one has of oneself or questions the truths one holds,
to mechanically blame the other first – be it the government, the system, one’s parents, one’s upbringing, etc. – for unwanted feelings and inconvenient situations,
to choose to remain aloof and agnostic instead of challenging one’s own convictions,
to create a diversion so as to avoid certain topics when one’s pet beliefs are at stake,
to attack or retreat when one feels threatened even though there is no physical threat happening,

and so on – in short, one discovers that the human condition is inherently ‘self’-preserving, comparable to an invincible fully armoured castle with only small peepholes to look out from. Vineeto to No 23, 31.1.2004

As to [to create a diversion so as to avoid certain topics when one’s pet beliefs are at stake] ‘nless you would be willing to answer the question: what is the meaning of the name Vineeto? like i.e. Prem Prabat means (the dawn of love). Iow. to disclose this information I have asked for (albeit only once and quite a while ago)

This is what I said when you first asked this question –

So just out of curiosity what was your German maiden name? ^note as I have made it perfectly clear in previous writings to Richard that I have no intentions nor do I have any interest to invade in private matters so if you consider this as to be an irrelevant question it will be fully respected as entirely your own business whether to disclose it or not , yet as Peter has disclosed his former Sannyas name and even explained the silly poetic meaning of it, so just to poke a bit of fun of Spirituality I wonder what it is that Vineeto meant, mine was silence and I was very proud of it. ^

I do consider these issues as irrelevant to this list and nothing to do with the business of becoming free from the human condition and, as such, I prefer to leave it at that. Whatever meaning Rajneesh gave to the name Vineeto is of no concern to me today. I simply decided that it was easier to keep using the name by which everyone has come to know me rather than revert to a name that my parents gave me which is more difficult to pronounce in English. Re Fellow human beings, 24.8.2002

To be precise it was not Rajneesh who gave out names at the time I was received the name but one of his disciples, and insider’s rumour had it that he just randomly picked his way through a list of Indian names. So you see, once I began to question my spiritual beliefs and saw through the whole charade of the guru business any ‘special’ meaning of the name disappeared along with my dependency, loyalty and gullibility.

[Your complete response to me as well the responses you have given to No 60 I will consider to be indeed a diversion of the issue I have brought up [Has it ever occurred to you that Richard perhaps after all has mistaken correlation with causation?] Nevertheless I’ll rephrase [Has it ever occurred to you that you perhaps after all could have mistaken correlation with causation?] If the answer would be yes then this could have serious consequences.

The answer is no. And I have, by my own investigations, experientially discovered that the cause of my unhappiness and my antagonism is none other than ‘me’.

Because that would definitely be a sign that you are willing to admit that you could be wrong in this.

It is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong. For me it was a matter of acknowledging that what I was doing before didn’t work in that it I was neither happy nor harmless. By deciding to become an actualist I discovered that what Richard did to become free of malice and sorrow does work – not as a hit and miss, all-or-nothing affair but as an incremental improvement both in the sensuous enjoyment of being here and in being able to live harmoniously with my fellow human beings.

Also it would put under discussion the assumption (as it still is nothing more then that to me) that the occurrence of an ongoing PCE indeed is a result from this amygdala event and not of the fact that you people are strongly affected by a Buddha field that is generated in Byron.

What you call a ‘Buddha field’ has no existence outside of the minds and hearts of spiritual disciples. Nowadays Byron Bay ‘Buddha field’ mainly consists of Rajneeshees defending their belief against attacks from other spiritual/religious believers while squabbling amongst themselves for positions on the spiritual ladder, or preying on the gullible for their own material gains– and it’s all on display in the local newspapers.

Well I have put it very nicely and I will sent it in rich text as well as in plain text and we’ll see how it goes. As far as I’m concerned all the gooses are out now and the pigeons too.

PS. I have been considering the option to sent it to your private maladdress, but I have rejected that option as I no longer see the need for that kind of suppositious behaviour.

I appreciate that.

You also may have noticed that I have sent a humaniversity link such as to make clear were I come from and what my current position is.

Yes, I noticed.

13.3.2004

To No 60: Over the years that I have been on this list, for quite some time I have always had my reserves to the enormous implications that Richard’s claim has, yet regardless of the verifiability of that he for sure is a vip. i=(intelligent). Being myself not one of the most stupid people in fact some sort of genius, I have always been open to consider the impossible. That’s why I have persistently practiced AF (albeit adjusted the method in my own way). Taking stock of what that has resulted in, I come to a conclusion that probably before I ever came in touch with AF – I already had reached a plateau of relative happy and harmlessness.

By and by when I started to write on this list I became a pusher of Actualism, and the method, because I sincerely believed that the sequence might affect other brains and produce a hmm chain reaction, and that PCEs would start to happen as outbreaks.

So… before I came in touch with actualism I was a sannyasin and although I have tried to made a 180 degree turn I have never done so apparently for me I set course when I decided to join the sannyasin-club, and became a meditator and that’s basically how I look at the sequence: a high-tech meditation technique (meditation on the fly if you wish) and perhaps for some a lifesaver. There’s no other way for me than meditation not that I even would want to and it is an ongoing process.

Although you say that you ‘have persistently practiced AF (albeit adjusted the method in my own way)’ it nevertheless seems to have persistently escaped your attention that Actual Freedom has nothing at all to do with the meditation practices as taught in the East. You only need to compare the actualism method with what Rajneesh describes as meditation to recognize that they are 180 degrees opposite. Here is what Mohan Rajneesh, or Osho as you prefer to call him, says about meditation –

‘Meditation is nothing but the method of discovering that positive aspect of nothingness, the positive quality of it. Meditation means dropping the content of the mind very consciously, knowing that you are dropping it. And when you have dropped everything, suddenly you realize that everything has disappeared but you ARE and your are more full than ever because all those things, all that junk that you have been carrying all along was simply taking your space. Now the whole space, the whole sky is available, and your heart can ope its petals. <…> Nothingness is spaciousness, and to be spacious means to be vast. The moment you feel nothingness in its positive quality you feel vastness, you feel infinity. You don’t see any limit anywhere, you are unlimited. Even the sky is not the limit! That experience makes you enlightened. That experience makes you full of light, life, love, so full that you start overflowing, that sharing is now possible. Only a mediator can be a lover.’ [emphasis added] Mohan Rajneesh, Guida Spirituale, Ch 1, Q 1

And

‘You have to go beyond your thoughts. And religion knows only one method – there are different names, but the method is one: it is watchfulness, it is witnessing. You simply watch your thoughts, with no judgment, no condemnation, no appreciation – utterly aloof, you just see the process of thoughts passing on the screen of your mind. As your watcher becomes stronger, thoughts become less – in the same proportion. <…> The moment you are one hundred percent a watcher, the mind becomes empty. This whole process is known as meditation. As you pass through the thoughts, you will come to the second layer, which is inside you – of feelings, of your heart, which is more subtle. But by now, your watcher is capable even of watching your moods, your sentiments, your emotions, your feelings – howsoever subtle they may be. And the same method works in the same way as it worked with the thoughts: soon there will be no sentiments, no feelings, no moods. You have gone beyond the mind, and the heart. Now there is utter silence, nothing moves. This is your being, this is you. The taste of your being is truth. The beauty of your being is the beauty of existence.’ [emphasis added] Mohan Rajneesh, The Hidden Splendour, Ch 8, Q 1

And

‘That’s my method of meditation. <…> it is simply sitting silently, witnessing the thoughts passing before you. Just witnessing – not interfering, not even judging, because the moment you judge you have lost the pure witness. The moment you say this is good, this is bad, you have already jumped into the thought process. It takes a little time to create a gap between the witness and the mind. Once the gap is there, you are in for a great surprise: you are not the mind, you are the witness, a watcher. This process of watching is the very alchemy of real religion, because as you become more and more deeply rooted in witness, thoughts start disappearing. A moment comes when there is no thought at all. You are, but the mind is utterly empty. That is the moment of enlightenment. That is the moment when for the first time you become unconditioned, sane, a really free human being.’ [emphasis added] Mohan Rajneesh, The Last Testament, Vol 1, Ch 1

In contrast, here is a description from Richard of the actualism method, written only a day before your wrote this post –

In the actualism process, as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel well, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time.

If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on) then with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception) ... and apperception reveals that there is only this actual world/universe. [emphasis added] Richard, re: ‘Me’ is false, 10.3.2004

In short, your ‘adjustment’ of ‘the method in my own way’ is nothing but a continuation of Rajneesh’s method, it ain’t actualism at all.

So... I wonder what has happened to Vineeto and Peter, did meditation not work for them?

Mediation did not work for me because by practicing meditation for many years I became more and more insular, more and more aloof, more and more detached and thus more and more dissociated from what was actually going on.

Meditation did not work for me because I never could quite loose track of what I really wanted from life, which is living in peace here on earth, in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are and not, as I found I was as a spiritualist, being aloof, empty-minded, removed and dissociated from being here.

The sensate-only experiencing of actuality in a PCE was the final proof that meditation did not, and never could, deliver the goods.

I remember a long time ago listening to a Bhagwan-tape, he mentioned two path’s to attain fulfilment, the one being Meditation the other a LOVERS-relationship. I guess that is Peter’s and Vineeto’s and likely Richards path though they will probably deny it that’s fine and it is not important anyway. My own alternative for Love is friendship, not too exclusive though.

Your guess is so way off track that I wonder if you have read anything at all in these years you have been on this mailing list, let alone dared to take it in. This is what Peter has written in his journal about the process he underwent when he investigated his feelings of love for me (that was in 1997) –

Over the next few days something continued to nag me. Why was it that this relationship seemed to be going off the rails? Why were there increasingly misunderstandings, petty conflicts and difficulties? Why was I becoming more and more obsessed about what Vineeto was doing when we weren’t together, and what she was thinking about when we were together? Over the next days I contemplated on what was wrong and suddenly it dawned on me that I was battling her and trying to force my opinions on her. Further, I realised that I had been jealous, possessive, demanding and obsessive with her. And, most appallingly, I saw how when the impossible demands of love are not fulfilled then it can all so quickly turn to disappointment, resentment and eventually hate. It had got to the stage where it was obvious to me that unless I changed my behaviour this relationship was heading exactly the same way as all my previous ones – doomed to failure. This was my last chance and I was watching it wilt away ... and I was actively causing it to happen. At this point I wasn’t interested so much in why I was acting this way, I realised I had to stop!

Armed with the conviction of the blindingly obvious, I confronted Vineeto with the news. I told her I was simply going to stop battling her and acting the way I had been. I remember her response as somewhat bewildered and unbelieving, but then again I knew that at least I had to stop the torment in me. What happened in the ensuing week was quite remarkable. I found that the strength of my intention made me able to completely drop this destructive behaviour. Somehow I knew this was the only course of action I could take to make this relationship work and I knew it was my last chance. If I was going to beat this thing I had to do it now!

A wonderful calmness came over me; no longer was I thinking about Vineeto when we were apart, and when I was with her I was no longer suspicious, doubtful, impatient or moody. I began to accept her as she was. I was no longer driven to change her. This then brought a corresponding ease in myself for I was able just to be me. After all, the only person I can change is me and I was working on exactly that. In the end I had to assume that Vineeto was with me because she wanted to be with me, as simple as that. And I was with her because I wanted to, as simple as that – no conditions other than our agreement to look at anything in the way.

A week later we both realised that a dramatic change had occurred. A certain excitement seemed to be missing, a passion and bond in our lives. It was quite tangible, and a sense of loss overwhelmed us. It dawned on me what had actually happened. Despite my intentions I had fallen in love about three weeks after we met and had been in love for about six weeks until I had called a halt to the battle. I hadn’t recognised at the time that this behaviour of mine was really love in operation; I only saw it in the end as behaviour on my part that was destroying my enjoyment of being with Vineeto. So this was love, this set of emotions and behaviour: a practical demonstration in our lives, not just a theoretical concept. There was a fear arising in me that by changing my behaviour towards her I could risk losing her, but at least I would not be acting in a way that was destructive to my happiness or hers.

As we sat down to talk about what had happened we both had tears in our eyes. I knew that for me whatever had changed was irreversible. I could not go back, nor did I want to, nor could I pretend. As for Vineeto, she wasn’t any longer with a man who responded in the normal way, a man no longer in ‘love’. This was definitely not the usual male response I had in the past when I would repress or deny my feelings. Indeed, it was because I had experienced them so strongly and understood them so well that I was not prepared to tolerate their destructive powers any longer. In refusing to allow the feelings of love to ruin the peace and harmony with her they actually wilted and eventually died. Peter’s Journal, Love

I have given a similarly detailed report about tackling love and leaving it behind in order to allow actual intimacy become apparent (that was also in 1997) –

My traditional response to the feeling of being trapped had been that the man should give me his love and reassurance. But the way to the intimacy that I had already experienced and wanted to have with Peter all the time, was that I had to question, examine and eliminate the notorious bunch of feelings called love. Peter’s description of our adventure into freedom and intimacy is certainly not just a male point of view. Did he love me enough or not, or did I love him enough or not, was not the question – I discovered that love was not the solution but the problem itself!

The answer again lay 180 degrees in the opposite direction to what I had come to know up to now. I had expected or assumed someone was to love my ‘grotty self’, when even I could not stand those parts of me! A person who ‘loves me’ is supposed to accept all those ‘quirks of my personality’, which no intelligent human being would be able to put up with without blind nature’s intoxication known as ‘being in love’. And for years I had tried the same with the men I had ‘loved’, without success or happiness, let alone lasting intimacy. Intimacy can only happen when there is no emotion, no feeling or projection in the way between us. So, one of the first things that we discovered to be in the way of actual intimacy were the feelings of love – that sweet syrup that was usually poured over the spiky, malicious, miserable ‘self’, which I was most of the time! A Bit of Vineeto

And here is just one example of what Richard has said about the path of a ‘LOVERS-relationship’ –

It is well-known that the war between the sexes is a power-battle. It is kept alive by the woman’s identification with Love as being the Ultimate and by the man’s identification with Authority as being the Ultimate. Both the power of Love and Authority vie for supremacy ... Love has its intrinsic Authority and Authority has its intrinsic Love. Both provide the illusion of security so desperately sought for by billions of people throughout the ages. Whenever we trip over an issue of man-woman differences and find ourselves falling back into our gender identities we notice, while looking at each other over a gulf of separation, a marked lack of equity and mutual intimacy between us. Then again, in our long periods of mutual intimacy, we experience that neither Authority nor Love plays any role. Can we contemplate a life together where intimacy and equity are paramount? Wherein the power of Love and Authority become irrelevant? Any Authority precludes equity ... and therefore intimacy. Any Love precludes intimacy ... and therefore equity.

It all stems from separation. There is a separation of male and female from each other by gender identification as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ – two distinct social identities – leading to a localised discontent and resentment, causing the battle between the sexes. Then there is the separative ‘I’ or ‘me’ – a psychological and psychic identity – forever alienated from one’s body and from the world of people things and events, leading to a generalised discontent and resentment, causing wars between tribal groups. Richard’s Journal, Article 2, The Mystique of Sex was a Challenge to be Met

Here is another –

Please, do not confuse what I am talking of, which is an actual intimacy, with True intimacy. True intimacy lies in the delusory nature of Love Agapé, with its Divine Bliss. One can become lost in the Eternal Mystery, the Great Unknown. Beguiled and bewitched by the promise of Glory and Glamour and Glitz, one has every reason to be afraid ... one will have fallen under a Divine spell, intoxicated by The Sublime. Actual intimacy is innocence personified; a self-less experience characterised by blitheness and gaiety because of the marked lack of separation. There is no distance, psychologically speaking, between me and these birds, these flowers, these trees ... and between me and you. Actual intimacy has nothing to do with love ... love is a bridge between two separate social identities, creating the illusion of intimacy. And Love – Love Agapé or Divine Love – gives one a feeling of Oneness, a feeling of Unity ... an intuitive sense of ‘Being’. Then we are back to ‘being’ again, this time ‘Being’ with a capital to denote Divinity. ‘Being’, in whatever form, is the root-cause of all the ills of humankind. Richard’s Journal, Article 8, Community Spirit Seems to be Dead on the Ground, (People hope that love will cure the desperate loneliness caused by separation.)

It would aid the accuracy of your guesses if you made the effort to become a little bit more informed. Actualists are always upfront in what they are on about if you care to read what we have to say, which only begs the question as to why you waste your time writing to this mailing list when you have already ‘reached a plateau of relative happy and harmlessness’ by practicing meditation and state that ‘there’s no other way for me than meditation’.

20.3.2004

Vineeto you have translated Rajneesh as ‘king of the night’ According to the source of information that I have the translation reads ‘full moon’ I’m only mentioning it, because I know that actualists like to be accurate in providing information, so... I wonder if you are willing to make an amendment, should indeed appear that your translation comes from a dubious source and may be considered inaccurate in this matter.

The Indian language can be interpreted in many ways because it is often used poetically. Incidentally the full moon is considered the king of the night.

27.3.2004

The Indian language can be interpreted in many ways because it is often used poetically. Incidentally the full moon is considered the king of the night.

Ok, the full moon is by some /many considered the king of the night.

My sources, which you consider to be apparently ‘dubious’ and ‘inaccurate’, are both Chandra Mohan himself (aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh aka Osho) and various Indian dictionaries. Vis –

‘This morning I was telling you about the time when the queen of Bhopal visited our village, which was part of her state, and she invited us to be her guests at her annul celebration. When she was in our village she asked my Nani, ‘Why do you call the boy Raja?’ Raja means ‘King’, and in that state, the title of Raja was of course reserved for the owner of the state. … Naturally she asked my grandmother ‘Why do you call this boy of yours Raja?’ You will be surprised to know that it was really illegal in that state to give the name Raja to anybody. My grandmother laughed and said ‘He is the king of my heart, …’ This incident happened when I was eight, and after just on year we had left that state forever… but she never stopped calling me Raja. I change my name, just because Raja – ‘the king’ – seemed so snobbish and I didn’t like to be laughed at by everybody in school …’ [emphasis added] Rajneesh, Glimpses of a Golden Childhood, Ch 12

And …

‘There is one sannyasin, I have given her the name Nisha. ‘Nisha’ means the night. … I have given it to her knowingly because of her fear – her fear of darkness, her fear of passivity, her fear of relaxation, her fear of surrender. That is all indicated in the word ‘night’, nisha.’ [emphasis added] Rajneesh, Come Follow Me, Vol 4, Ch. 10

The spelling of ‘Neesh’ or ‘Nish’ varies according to the transcription from Indian to Western alphabet, and ‘-a’ is the female ending for the word. Further, some of his disciples addressed him as such –

‘Beloved Osho, King of the Night, It seems that Zen monks, poets, and masters were almost as moonstruck as we are …’ [emphasis added] from Zen: The Solitary Bird, Cuckoo of the Forest, Ch. 4

This is what Indian dictionaries have to say –

Hindi: raajaa – ‘king’, ‘monarch’, ‘sovereign’, master’ http://www.wordanywhere.com/cgi-bin/fetch.pl

Urdu: raja – 1 one who holds sway, regent, governor, ruler, king: rajavart (ja+av), s.m. A kind of diamond or other gem (=raj-patt, q.v.): rajawali or rajawali, vulg. raja ‘oli (ja+av), s.f. Line of kings, royal dynasty or genealogy, royal house 2 To cause to rule; to keep (one) in princely state, or in ease and comfort: raj rajna, v.n. To rule (=raj karna); to live like a prince: raj karna, v.n. To exercise rule or sway, to rule, reign, govern. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/platts/

Hindi: nish – ‘night’ http://www.wordanywhere.com/cgi-bin/fetch.pl

Sanskrit: nishaa = Night http://www.alkhemy.com/sanskrit/dict/dictall.txt

This poetic aspect as to the meaning/purpose of names (aka labels) to me exactly just that, special poetic aspect of what the poetic meaning of yur hmm ie a sanscrit? name, like Vineeto is/would be/could be, some how has my intrest. It is not to pry into yur private life, yet more as a matter of hey!? what would her name mean, like mine for instance means silence (quite poetic).

Ha, nice try, No 23. If you are looking for Indian poetry, there is plenty available on the Internet and in the fairytales of the 350 or so books of Chandra Mohan Rajneesh.

So… I take it that your reference to the meaning of the word Rajneesh has been your own chosen reinterpretation of the primary meaning of the word hence the translation sequence would have been <Rajneesh><value> Literally full moon><value> poetic/symbolic attribution>

No, I gave you the literal translation. The ‘poetic/symbolic attribution’ applies to ‘full moon’, maybe linking it to his first name Chandra – vis:

chan.dra – Name for the Moon http://www.alkhemy.com/sanskrit/dict/dictall.txt

moon – (a) cha.ndra (b) chandramA (c) shashi http://www.wordanywhere.com/cgi-bin/fetch.pl

full – (a) bharA huA (b) bharA pUrA (c) pUrA (d) pUrNa http://www.wordanywhere.com/cgi-bin/fetch.pl

Besides, arguing about the correct translation of the acquired name of an Indian philosophy teacher turned guru who has been dead for almost 15 years on a mailing list that is outspokenly non-spiritual seems to me like serving mustard after the meal has long been eaten, as the Dutch say – in other words, wrong time, wrong place. In all the years you have been posting to this mailing list you persist in wanting to engage in dialogue with anyone about any subject other than the pivotal subject of this mailing list – bringing an irrevocable, as in actual, end to human malice and sorrow.

I found it a bit odd that ... the full moon is by some /many considered as a female symbolic/ poetically attribution to her/it/him. I.e. Sting refers to it as ‘sister moon’ On the other hand John Lennon has explicitly used ‘MR. moonlight’ in one of his songs I think it was on the album ‘Beatles for sale’. Nevertheless to me the sun symbolizes a male symbol and the moon is female symbol, and just so I realize that I always found that there was something odd about that song ‘MR. moonlight’, now I understand that Lennon had perhaps an Indian interpretation of the moon. However in my experience the moon is female poetically/ metaphorically/ symbolically speaking. I.e. ‘the man on the moon’ in that context she (the moon) is like balancing male (the man) and female symbolism as perfectly opposite qualities like positive or negative. Now I could imagine through reconstructing the [the man on the moon] sequence into [the woman on the moon] and then attribute a male symbolic value to that planet moon, however somehow I find the [man on the moon]-polarity as the one most making sense, perhaps even it would be more appropriate to say [men on the moon] because, men on the moon is neither a myth nor fantasy but a fact whereas [woman (let alone women) on the moon] yet is still future speculation.

Ascribing male or female qualities to inanimate objects such as moons or planets, ships or cars, houses or plants, is known as animism and is the direct result of vivid affective imagination – it has nothing to do with fact.

Animism – belief in spiritual beings who are concerned with human affairs and capable of intervening in them – a belief pervasive among most tribal or primitive peoples. Animistic beliefs were first competently surveyed by Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in the late 19^th century.

Tylor wrote his great work, Primitive Culture (1871), in order to prove that religion began in animism. In his view, animism is the attribution of a soul or spirit to living things and inanimate objects. In full-blown animism nothing is really inanimate; everything is alive with spirit, active or not. Further, Tylor observed, every individual is regarded as being endowed not only with a life-spirit but also with a phantom, such as appears to others in dreams or visions. Both life and phantom are perceived to be separable from the body: the life as able to go away and leave it insensible or dead, and the phantom as appearing to people at a distance. The second step taken by Tylor’s ‘ancient savage philosophers’ was to combine the life and the phantom and thus arrive at ‘that well-known conception which may be described as an apparitional soul, a ghost-soul.’ Tylor argued that in further steps of reasoning it was thought that the ghost-soul was able to enter into, possess, and act in animals, plants, and objects (e.g., weapons, clothing, food).

Tylor felt that religion had its origin in early man’s attribution of a soul like his own to every sort of living being and physical object around him. Religion is man’s establishment of a relationship between himself and the spirits that he felt ‘possessed, pervaded, crowded’ all nature. … The term animism, as it survives in contemporary anthropological usage, denotes not a single creed or doctrine but rather a view of the world consistent with a certain range of religious beliefs and practices, many of which may survive in more complex and hierarchical religions. [emphasis added] Encyclopaedia Britannica

And …

World-soul – soul ascribed to the physical universe, on the analogy of the soul ascribed to human beings and other living organisms. This concept of a spiritual principle, intelligence, or mind present in the world's body received its Classical Western expression in the writings of Plato (5th century BC) and Plotinus (3rd century AD). It may be related to the common archaic notion of the ensoulment of all things (see animism). A possible Eastern analogue may be seen in the Indian notion of atman (q.v.), the supreme cosmic Self. [emphasis added] Encyclopaedia Britannica

As such, wondering if the moon was male or female falls in the same category as philosophizing if angels had balls or breasts.

Ps. As you most often, I have noticed, sign of with cheers, I wonder if you are aware that that could be interpreted as a hmm some kind of toast, if so you would mean it be to be like that then then, what is it that you drink?

Cheers is meant as a toast to the magnificence of life and an invitation to cheer about the amazingly wondrous fact of being alive as a flesh-and-blood human being.

As you also must have noticed, over the years I have tried to contribute to some atmosphere on what I used to call the virtual coffee table, later that became the Hotel of California (No 60/No 63’s tongue in cheek reference to this list) and then later also the Chelsey Hotel (my TICR). As per today the Carlton Square hotel is also available. And last but not least the {PASOC} has been re-labelled as creative (-;|;-)<*>;-)|(-; apperception.

Given that ‘PASOC’ is the acronym for ‘pure altered state of consciousness’, a term you coined for No 60’s ‘Interesting Experience’ from December 11, 2003, by his description a state in which both psyche and imagination were fully intact, your phrase ‘creative apperception’ is an oxymoron – an incongruous self-contradictory rhetorical figure of speech. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself, a faculty which only becomes apparent when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul are absent, whereas the creativity you refer to happens when ego and soul are ‘creatively’ stimulated by imagination and affective feelings.

It appears that your reinterpretation of the word apperception as an imaginative/ affective faculty originates from the same misunderstanding which lets you believe that actualism is ‘a high-tech meditation technique (meditation on the fly if yu wish)’. The Problem with How, 11.3.2004

Have you ever contemplated as to the fundamentally different meaning of the words ‘spiritual’ and ‘non-spiritual’?

Footnote:

1.) Here are just two links to Indian poetry that I found accidentally while scouring the net for dictionaries: http://www.ebazm.com/books.htm and http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/hindipoets.html

Actualism Homepage

This Correspondence Continued

Actual Freedom List Index

Vineeto’s Writings and Correspondence

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless