|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 23
You wrote in your letter to No 60 – As Vineeto lately asked me why I was wasting my time on this list, I have given it some thought. This is what I actually said –
It would imply that I have ‘wasted’ over 4 years with reading her posts among others and writing and responding to an x-number of participants. What you ‘imply’ from what you imagined I said is a long shot from what I actually said and therefore whatever evaluations you make of your activities on this list over the past 4 years is entirely up to you. But I like it that you are thinking about why it is that you are subscribed to this list – I found that taking time out and reflecting upon what one is doing with one’s time is one of the most valuable things that one can do in life. On the other hand Vineeto I think is not entirely stupid, neither I think that she is merely responding in a challenging manner, but also in her own way may care about you/me persons and does not want you to waste time let alone be put at risk. I did indeed wonder why you keep writing on this non-spiritual list as being interested in actualism and being a supporter of Mohan Rajneesh are ultimately incompatible activities. Most people, apart from those who stay to nag, whinge and whine, simply move on when they realize that actualism is incompatible with their current belief system. Let me assure you that the word Crazy in this context is a very serious state of being and the loony bin is not the place you want to go. This ‘being the first free of the human condition’ is something that a brain particularly a brain that has been exposed to mind altering substances could well have some difficulties to process appropriately. Am I understanding you right that you say that you are attracted to actualism but find it presently too risky (too crazy) to take on board? If so, I can understand your concerns very well as I had a short period where I was genuinely afraid of going mad myself. The only thing that helped me to overcome my fear was to have straightforward to-the-point discussions with the two only actualists at the time, Peter and Richard, about the nature of the human condition, about the all-pervasiveness of the instinctual survival passions, about the cunning of my ‘self’ and about the delusion of spiritualism. It then dawned on me that what they were saying made sense – in other words that what they were saying was simple, sensible, straight-forward, matter of fact and down-to-earth. There is nothing intrinsically ‘crazy’ about actualism at all. And yet to the rest of humanity – those who are considered sane – what actualists are saying seems crazy, megalomaniacal, outrageous, heretical, iconoclastic, and even insane. To put it in a nutshell, I realized that those who proposed that the only way to bring an actual end to human malice and sorrow was to become happy and harmless were considered to be insane by those ‘sane’ people who were content to remain malicious and sorrowful. This realization was an intellectual understanding only and I still wavered between either side about the issue of what it is to be sane – to be hundred percent certain I needed an experiential understanding. This determination to get to the bottom of the matter finally resolved the issue of sanity and insanity when my ‘self’ temporarily disappeared and I had a pure consciousness experience. In fact it was my burning desire to know for sure who was right and who was crazy that brought my inquiry to a peak and caused the bubble of ‘me’ to temporarily burst. This particular pure consciousness experience confirmed without doubt that an actual freedom from the human condition (the extinction of both ego and soul) is the only salubrious solution to bringing an end to my malice and my sorrow. As for ‘a brain that has been exposed to mind
altering substances could well have some difficulties to process appropriately’ it may be appropriate to
carefully read
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
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. 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. Oh, and how is saying [they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions] so different from saying [one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition.]? Because they are two different things entirely. Whilst cognitive dissonance can result when one is in the grip of instinctual passions, cognitive dissonance can easily be overcome by rekindling one’s naïve curiosity to understand, explore and try something new. There is obviously a dare in doing so but daring to do something new is always thrilling. I.o.w. why is it that you accredit my statement with being ‘A mere intellectual statement that summarizes’ I called it an ‘intellectual statement that summarizes’ because you said ‘one could summarize …’ and because your summarization was not correct. If you had summarized the behaviour patterns 1-6 because you understood, acknowledged and experienced them as aspects of your own psyche then you would know for yourself that only point 2 describes cognitive dissonance. And even flatly ignore the fact that [to automatically block out information that possibly destroys the image one has of oneself or questions the truths one holds] Is a feature of ‘cognitive dissonance’? I did not ignore this fact. I responded to your statement ‘one could summarize 1-6 …’ which indicated that you regarded all the points ‘as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance’. I’d say [Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’] can be considered to be a dubious negation. Perhaps you care to re-evaluate the meaning of the phrase [resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance.] Iow. Perhaps you might find that your’s [Items 1-6 are not ‘a result of cognitive dissonance’] has a touch of disqualification to it. Not only did my answer have ‘a touch of disqualification to it’ in that I disqualified your statement ‘one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance’, I clearly stated that your peremptory summary was incorrect based on my own hands-on experience of the human condition in action.
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
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. 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. A mere intellectual statement that summarizes them also defeats the possibility that this experiential description could act as a guide for what you might uncover when you begin to observe your own emotions and beliefs in action. Oh, and how is saying [they can all be sheeted home to the instinctual survival passions] so different from saying [one could summarize 1-6 as resistance as a result of cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the human condition.]? Because they are two different things entirely. Whilst cognitive dissonance can result when one is in the grip of instinctual passions, cognitive dissonance can easily be overcome by rekindling one’s naïve curiosity to understand, explore and try something new. There is obviously a dare in doing so but daring to do something new is always thrilling. No… that is not the experience of cognitive dissonance as I mean to refer to as such, yet I’ll refrase [one could/might summarize (given certain conditions) items acdef as resistance (possibly as a result of cognitive dissonance) can be experienced as part and parcel of the human condition.] ^note item b is a description of that condition hence *not* a result of.^ Yes, ‘one could/might summarize (…) items acdef as resistance’, ‘possibly as a result of cognitive dissonance’ – but this does not mean that this ‘resistance’ is necessarily a result of cognitive dissonance at all. For instance, when one becomes aware of the human condition in action in oneself and reacts by wanting to deny and repress one’s bad emotions, there can be various reasons for doing so, such as particular moral and ethical values or societal taboos, and very often people are quite conscious about their denial or repression of their bad emotions, i.e. often there is no cognitive dissonance operating at all.
You commented on my letter to No 60 – Vineeto – In my first major pure consciousness experience I clearly understood that ‘me’ in my totality is preventing actuality from becoming apparent and as a consequence I did not spend much time defending the various beliefs, convictions, opinions or outlooks I held – I was more interested in finding out in what way Richard experiences life and in what way actuality is different to the normal day reality that I inevitably again experienced once my PCE ended. Incidentally I am reminded of something I wrote to Mark once about deliberately facilitating the death of ‘me’ –
It seems that you are anticipating with excitement on the hmm moment that the fat lady will start to sing. I'm sure when it happens you will give a detailed report of what it is to live in Actual Freedom and how the transition happened. Somehow I find it difficult to not accredit your anticipation on this future event to a somewhat crippled imaginative faculty. Whatever you are reading into this quote, it is pertinent to remember that it was written in 1999, about 13 months after I began to practice actualism. At that time, of course, there was quite some imagination happening about the day when the fat lady sings. Today I simply know that it is inevitable that one day the last of ‘me’ will have to disappear just like much of who ‘I’ used to feel and think ‘I’ was has already disappeared. An inevitability does not need much imagination. As to: [The whole path to actual freedom, the whole process of dismantling the ‘self’ I could call one bargain after the other.] I well could say: [The whole path of (not to) neo-virtualism, the whole process of dismantling the ‘selves’ is one bargain after the other.] thus as to: [What you perceive as the ‘selfish purpose of their own’] that indeed is my perception of actualists and even more so it is indeed the ‘selfish purpose of any neo-virtualist the difference is that a neo-virtualist has neither any need nor reason to deny that: [The game/work of dismantling the ‘selves’ is a ‘selfish purpose of their own.]’ From the many posts you have written on the subject of what you call ‘neo-virtualism’ it is apparent that ‘neo-virtualism’ is just another name for remaining who you are.
No 73 – I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘Body’ – <snip> Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks... But then again, maybe not? I practiced Vipassana daily for many years including several retreats led by Goenka-trained Vipassana teachers but I only understood what Vipassana and all of the spiritual practices were really about after I had several pure consciousness experiences. When the ‘self’ is temporarily absent it is very easy to recognize all the silly things one does in order to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic, as I used to call it – to rearrange one’s ‘self’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on and Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve this ‘rearrangement’. Vipassana is not flawed because some teachers are quacks – it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core. If I may I ask respectfully, Vineeto as you seem to claim expertise/authority in the Vipassana-field. Have you ever been a leader of a Vipassana-group if so, when did you lead that group? How many times did you lead that group? Where was the location how many people participated? Who were you assistants/co-workers? In my spiritual years I have assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups although I have never lead or wanted to lead a group myself. However, one does not need to lead a Vipassana group in order to have expertise in the field. All it takes is to know and understand the theory and to have practiced it sufficiently so as to understand how it works in practice. The other expertise I have is that I have the insight not only of an ex-spiritualist but, more far significantly, the insight of the self-delusionary nature of all things spiritual that only a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience can provide. In a PCE, when the believer is temporarily absent, one has the unique opportunity to fully understand that all beliefs are ‘self’-generated and as such non-actual. This is how I described it at the time –
I practiced Vipassana daily for many years including several retreats led by Goenka-trained Vipassana teachers but I only understood what Vipassana and all of the spiritual practices were really about after I had several pure consciousness experiences. When the ‘self’ is temporarily absent it is very easy to recognize all the silly things one does in order to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic, as I used to call it – to rearrange one’s ‘self’ from normal ‘self’ to ‘true self’ to ‘higher self’ to ego-less ‘self’ and so on and Vipassana is but one of many spiritual practices designed to achieve this ‘rearrangement’. (…) Vipassana is not flawed because some teachers are quacks – it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core. If I may I ask respectfully, Vineeto as you seem to claim expertise/authority in the Vipassana-field. Have you ever been a leader of a Vipassana-group if so, when did you lead that group? How many times did you lead that group? Where was the location how many people participated? Who were you assistants/co-workers? In my spiritual years I have assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups although I have never lead or wanted to lead a group myself. I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage. No, it was in my spiritual years, well before I had even heard of the possibility of an actual freedom – the discovery of which now makes enlightenment redundant. * However, one does not need to lead a Vipassana group in order to have expertise in the field. However me thinks, one who does lead a Vipassana group needs to have that authority though. As I explicitly stated that I never lead or wanted to lead such a group, I wonder what relevance this statement has with the issue at hand? Now, that authority being that self-assigned or having been assigned this authority by somebody who has the authority to do, that I think is a matter of relevance, however not in this case, as you have only claimed to be a Vipassana expert. There are two meanings to the word ‘authority’ and the one that causes all the troubles is the one connected with power. (The power of the authority to enforce obedience; the power of the authority to enforce moral or legal judgements; the power of the authority to command or give the final decision; the power of the authority to control; the power of the authority of a governing body; the power of an authoritative holy book; the power of the authority to inspire belief and so on). The second – less used – meaning is: an expert on a particular subject. Apparently, as in your use of the word ‘only’, you consider authority given by someone else to be of greater value than expertise due to someone’s substantial practical experience and insight into the matter. Perhaps I can put it this way – there are those who teach others what hey have leaned form others and there are those who set about finding out whether what they have learnt from others works or not. What I am reporting is my experience in the practice of Vipassana – it is not meant to be a philosophical debunking nor a learned dissertation on the subject. As such my report would be better regarded as a bit of heresy from one who has delved into Eastern religion and is now a whistle blower. On the other hand as No 73 has suggested that [Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks...] this would imply if – that has been the case, those quacks (i.e. teaching a new age variant from the Poona-kitchen) indeed lacked the authority to teach Vipassana and thus you may have been as well assisting people who where not qualified (aka unauthorized/certified) to teach Vipassana as well as practicing it in a way that it was not intended to be practiced. Consequently the results will likely not have been satisfactory. So… after all there may be some relevance to that case with respect to the aspect of authorization/certification. It is somewhat as if I hear you say that you have done your theory and have also practiced and more or less have learned how to drive a car, but blaming the car for not going where you want to go. Just to go by that analogy, imagine somebody practicing (Vipassana as taught to instruct by Osho and this was designed to come to arrive at a certain kind of understanding what genuine enlightenment means). Now, as that understanding seems to not have happened for you hence there are three possibilities the technique was wrong the teacher was not adequate. Vipassana was not your thing. It is one thing to bash/demonise a teacher/guru, to do that to an entire category/program is another thing. I.e. suppose the car is i.e. a <whatever brand> then by my dimlogical reasoning when I take in account your [it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core] would you then conclude that the whole <whatever brand> car industry is rotten to the core? I gave the specific information that the Vipassana teachers were Goenka-trained – I knew them quite well because I worked in the same department. As you keep suggesting that this may not be the case, could you tell me if you have any factual information to the contrary before you fabricate more conjectures and draw any further conclusions based upon these conjectures? * All it takes is to know and understand the theory and to have practiced it sufficiently so as to understand how it works in practice. The other expertise I have is that I have the insight not only of an ex-spiritualist but, more far significantly, the insight of the self-delusionary nature of all things spiritual that only a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience can provide. In a PCE, when the believer is temporarily absent, one has the unique opportunity to fully understand that all beliefs are ‘self’-generated and as such non-actual. So… Are you implying that this institution also includes the Vipassana teachers as well as their techniques? or is [it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core] Intended to function as a metaphor (perhaps a somewhat hyperbolic expression) in which the part [whole institution of spiritual enlightenment] refers to anything that is not in accordance with the actualist doctrine? So… My question to you is (bear in mind I’m speaking in a metaphoric manner: Do you think that the whole institution of Vipassana stinks? I am asking this because something that is rotten usually spreads a not so pleasant odour. Given that you have been a participant on the Actual Freedom mailing list for nigh on four years now, what part of the sentence ‘it is the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment that is rotten to the core’ do you not understand? If indeed such is the case then naturally your allegation to the Goenka organization needs to be somewhat more substantiated (others then having been displeased/dissatisfied as to expected achievement of benefits) in order to prove that indeed the Goenka-institution ‘stinks’ (again still metaphorically speaking). I have no specific allegations against the ‘Goenka organization’ nor any other particular spiritual organization for that matter other than that they have all failed to manifest peace on earth, despite the fact that millions upon millions of devotees have diligently practiced the teachings for thousands upon thousands of years. When I sat down and contemplated the extent of this litany of failure as well as drew upon my own experiences as to the reasons for this failure (whilst temporarily setting aside my own beliefs about the subject) it one day suddenly dawned upon me that the whole institution of spiritual enlightenment is rotten to the core, a description of which I posted in my last post (in the section you snipped). This is what is called having an
In my spiritual years I have assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups although I have never lead or wanted to lead a group myself. I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage. No, it was in my spiritual years, well before I had even heard of the possibility of an actual freedom – the discovery of which now makes enlightenment redundant. So as to: [Have you ever been a leader of a Vipassana-group?] You have in your spiritual years assisted leaders in several Vipassana groups but you have never been a leader of any groups. So... might one say that this assisting leaders in several Vipassana groups was during your pre pre-virtualfree-period as it seems to be reasonable to consider your spiritual years as a period in your life, that preceded your virtualfee stage and that there was thus a period in your life that not so much preceded the stage of virtual-freedom but was more a preparation of becoming virtual free (reaching the state of virtual freedom), nevertheless i find no difference in pre-virtualfree-stage and my spiritual years. Could it perhaps be that you have found my conclusion [I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage] to be somewhat premature and had perhaps you preferred to have it phrased in the form of a question? The years of spiritual search preceded my coming across actualism but there is no causal connection between my having been on a spiritual search and being virtually free from the human condition. On the contrary, being virtually free from the human condition is the result of abandoning all of the spiritual beliefs I had taken on my spiritual years. Becoming free of spiritual belief was only the start because being virtually free of the human condition is also the result of abandoning my beliefs about humanistic psychology and social education that I had acquired in my years at university. Further it is the result of abandoning my social conditioning as a women’s lib promoter and a female member of society, of abandoning my cultural conditioning as a middle-class German, of abandoning my professional conditioning as a social worker in a drug addiction clinic, of abandoning my religious conditioning as a Roman Catholic, and so on. None of the above-described conditioning (which includes my conditioning as a Rajneesh disciple) was ‘a preparation of becoming virtual free’ as you propose – it was all baggage that I had to leave behind. To say that you ‘find no difference in pre-virtualfree-stage and my spiritual years’ only points to your persistence in ignoring the fact that becoming free from the human condition is about abandoning one’s beliefs, as opposed to redefining them, reshuffling them, refurbishing them and relishing them.
The years of spiritual search preceded my coming across actualism but there is no causal connection between my having been on a spiritual search and being virtually free from the human condition. On the contrary, being virtually free from the human condition is the result of abandoning all of the spiritual beliefs I had taken on my spiritual years. Becoming free of spiritual belief was only the start because being virtually free of the human condition is also the result of abandoning my beliefs about humanistic psychology and social education that I had acquired in my years at university. Further it is the result of abandoning my social conditioning as a women’s lib promoter and a female member of society, of abandoning my cultural conditioning as a middle-class German, of abandoning my professional conditioning as a social worker in a drug addiction clinic, of abandoning my religious conditioning as a Roman Catholic, and so on. None of the above-described conditioning (which includes my conditioning as a Rajneesh disciple) was ‘a preparation of becoming virtual free’ as you propose – it was all baggage that I had to leave behind. To say that you ‘find no difference in pre-virtualfree-stage and my spiritual years’ only points to your persistence in ignoring the fact that becoming free from the human condition is about abandoning one’s beliefs, as opposed to redefining them, reshuffling them, refurbishing them and relishing them. I have never suggested that either you have re-defined any some or none of your beliefs, nor have I suggested that you have not have re-defined any some or none of your beliefs. In fact I have not even mentioned the word beliefs in that context which you refer to. It seems that you find in my saying that I noticed that the period of your involvement with Goenka training(s) was during your spiritual years and hence must have preceded your Virtual-free stage, that in writing that I have suggested that there was any causal connection between you having been on a spiritual search and becoming virtual free of the human condition. Nevertheless that is not the case, I have merely used the word preceding as in i.e. the letter K precedes the letter L in an ordinary western alphabetic order, thus if one would substitute the letter K for ‘the time/period of Vineeto’s spiritual years’ and the letter L for the time/period of Vineeto’s Virtual free stage (aka the waiting stage for the fat lady to finish her singing). So…it seems that we have a minor misunderstanding here as such it looks as if your conclusion that because of the fact that I ‘find no difference in your pre-virtual free-stage and your spiritual years’ that you seem to think that I do not recognize/acknowledge a Virtual freedom as an entirely new event in human history, …(snip). This is what you originally said, in the bit you snipped –
What I explained to you was that the spiritual path is not ‘a preparation of becoming virtually free’ but that the spiritual path is nothing other than a diversion, a distraction, an avoidance, an aberration, a wandering down a well-trodden path, a self-indulgence and a mindless following of others. Before you dig yourself even deeper into a quagmire of contradiction and denial you have also the option of admitting that your conjecture was only a conjecture that turned out to be entirely non-factual.
First of all I like to say that I have decided to drop both of the terms Neo-virtualism as well as neo-actualism. (...) and will neither refer to myself as a neo- actualist nor neo-virtualist but rather a student and practicioner of dimlogicism. For the sake of clarity it is certainly sensible to abandon both terms ‘neo-virtualism as well as neo-actualism’ (whatever they mean) but why you would want to practice ‘dimlogicism’ when you have the opportunity on offer to increase your clarity and intelligence by incrementally becoming free from the human condition has me beat. * What I explained to you was that the spiritual path is not ‘a preparation of becoming virtually free’ but that the spiritual path is nothing other than a diversion, a distraction, an avoidance, an aberration, a wandering down a well-trodden path, a self-indulgence and a mindless following of others. Before you dig yourself even deeper into a quagmire of contradiction and denial you have also the option of admitting that your conjecture was only a conjecture that turned out to be entirely non-factual. So… in fact you tell me that I have digged myself into a quagmire of contradiction, that seems least to say to be somewhat presumptuous and thus the question is have I digged myself into a quagmire of contradiction and denial? At this point it seems to be up to me to discover/explore/examine the previous post which gave rise to your warning. So… lets analyse this and find out if... Indeed I have made a conjecture that was only a conjecture that turned out to be entirely non-factual.
If I may interject before you go on with your but. Have you perhaps missed the question mark? Never mind, that can happen to the best, I’ll repeat it for your convenience. Could it perhaps be that you have found my conclusion [I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage] to be somewhat premature and had perhaps you preferred to have it phrased in the form of a question? What I responded to was the statement you made in the paragraph above the one you just quoted, which was a clear statement –
It was this presumption of yours, ‘but was more a preparation of becoming virtual free’, which was neither an option nor had a question mark to it, that I clarified by saying –
The question mark you thought I missed was asked only in the succeeding paragraph and clearly only refers to ‘[I see, that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage]’ and not to the statement above. Vis –
Me thinks that I have given you here some fair options to answer the question straight, never mind I’ll have them spelled out; again for your convenience. Option one Yes/no/perhaps I found your conclusion [that was in your pre-virtualfree-stage] premature. And Yes/no/perhaps I had preferred to have it phrased in the form of a question. If you read again (below) what I have written to you in the two previous post you will see that I did answer your question straight (twice). To wit –
As to: [there is no causal connection between my having been on a spiritual search and being virtually free from the human condition.] Well this lack of causal connection may well be so in your case. My conjecture that you were involved with Vipassana trainings in your pre-pre-virtualfree-stage, however was not a speculation that there was any causal connection between your pre-pre-virtualfree-stage and your discovery of a virtual freedom. so… As for the quagmire of contradiction and denial,I fail to see it. Do you really mean to say that your conjecture that ‘there was thus a period in your life that not so much preceded the stage of virtual-freedom but was more a preparation of becoming virtual free’,(16.11.2004) ‘was not a speculation that there was any causal connection between your pre-pre-virtualfree-stage and your discovery of a virtual freedom’? If you cannot see that Either way, there is no point in pursuing this matter any further.
Or perhaps check in with Vineeto’s and hence become a supporter of condemnation of all Spiritual institutions (that includes also the so-called kind-hearted spiritualists for any info about that check in with Bob). Based on the assumption that all of them are rotten to the core. Iow. charged with corruption. That surely is not a small thing and it has a bit of a taste of rhetorical innuendo least to speak. Now considering that this implies that every spiritualist is corrupt. You have taken my statement, put your personal spin on it and then run with it. This was my original statement –
You then take ‘the whole institution of enlightenment’ to mean ‘every spiritualist’ and bingo, yet another falsehood is fabricated, in this case that ‘every spiritualist’ is ‘charged with corruption’. Before you take your misconception any further in
My personal experience with Godmen, and Mohan Rajneesh in particular, confirms Richard’s statement. Once I saw through and freed myself from my feelings of master-disciple loyalty the sickness of the institution of enlightenment became more and more obvious. Living in Rajneesh’s ashram I have experienced the corruption and deceit of the institution of enlightenment first hand, heard the promises of freedom and equality that never came true, witnessed the narcissism masquerading as Divine Love and diligently tried to live the unliveable teachings. I have seen his girlfriend become driven to desperation and depression, I have known the many women who felt honoured to fellate him while he publicly denied that it happened and pretended to be beyond it all. I have seen the power play amongst his followers in order to curry his favour and seen the richest disciples rise to the top of the favour list first. There is nothing good I can say about the institution of enlightenment – it is sick to the core.
Some people will no doubt feel, and say, that you will unfairly leave them ‘in the lurch’. As you know actualism is something you can only do for yourself and by yourself, which means that you don’t need the agreement of others in order to becoming a practicing actualist. Indeed some might even stop in their tracks and reconsider when they see
tangible results but going by my experience I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. As a rule of thumb, what I learnt from practicing actualism is that whenever I became passionate about an issue, a situation, something someone said or did, some piece of information on TV or such like, I knew for certain that one of my dearly-held emotion-backed thoughts was being touched … I guess that could be the root of the expression ‘being touchy’. Could one say that the expression ‘dearly-held emotion-backed thoughts’, is more or less synonymous/ analogue with ‘thoughts/id’s that I love to have’? Or passionately love-to-have and passionately love-to-keep having … and if you want to get to the heart of the matter – desperately don’t-want-to-give-up. I.o.w. i.e. if I am ‘being touchy’ do I then experience some form and to some degree metathesiophobia? Not necessarily. What it means is that you are feeling ‘touchy’, as in easily moved to anger; apt to take offence on slight cause; irascible, irritable, tetchy, easily ignited. Whether or not you want to become free of those feelings, i.e. whether or not you want to radically change is a different matter. The first step in actualism is to get a moment-to-moment awareness of how you are and what you are feeling up and running. Then you are free to decide whether or not you want to have these feelings in your life and only then will you come across metathesiophobia.
Irene: ‘Well-executed lyrics learnt by rote … Assuming that the content is an accurate representation of what is on the website, taking into a account that you (Vineeto) were there at the described event. It seems to be reasonable that you present your own version of that event. to make sure that you confirm indeed that the above is an accurate quote from the Af-website. If indeed this is the case then it can be said that this quote contains some rather serious accusation made by Irene. So… my first question is: Is the mentioned part indeed an accurate quote from the Af-website?
Well… let me ask it differently, Have you yourself Vineeto actually heard Irene literally saying the following words: [‘Well-executed lyrics learnt by rote’]. No, I received them as a letter to the Actual Freedom Mailing list on Sun 29/11/1998 12:29 AM AEST. If you answer that affirmative, then I think that it is reasonable to assume that the entire story on that page in which there is a mentioning of a meeting of persons, not necessarily is a fabrication/lie/concoction but an exact quote by Irene? Just because Irene wrote those words (literally) on a public mailing list does not mean that her report of the above mentioned event is a truthful/ accurate/ factual account of what actually happened. ^note it though needs to be taken into account that even if it were an exact quote the entire story is not necessarily *not* a fabrication/ lie/ concoction ^ I can understand why No 58 made it a point because if – Irene is right then I presume that the three of you Peter, Vineeto, Richard well can be wrong in their general assertion as to what is the human condition. What you choose to presume is entirely your business but as I was present at the actual event, I will keep my own counsel on the matter. As to your presumption of the ‘general assertion as to what is the human condition’ there is no need to take anybody’s word for it – a little ongoing attentiveness and a generous dollop of self-honesty will reveal the human condition to you in all its perversity and obsolete senselessness.
Be well Vineeto I suppose you know the drill left/right and so on so lets go 0,1,2 ACTION. This kind of racist comment (referring to something that happened more than 60 years ago) is a good example of how war between nationalistic tribes is kept alive over generations.
Footnote: 1) To Richard – Hopefully you’ll
understand that your’s truly is not setting the stage for yet another lets-see-if-we-can-nail-Richard-or-give him-a
beat-up-game, but rather I’m looking for new ways to explore this medium as way to have a nice fellow-being-cyber- tête-à-tête,
as an alternative for i.e. having a talk while each one is blowing the steam of a cappuccino or enjoying a straight
espresso each one of course paying for his own consumption. R:amagdylada,
22.1.2005 Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
