The only method I systematically apply, and ever needed to apply, is to keep asking whether I want to hold onto the particular feelings that come with being a believer or whether ‘I’ could afford to drop the belief in question in exchange for being more happy and convivial. (…)

And yet I had a method of inquiry – the questions that followed the method of attentiveness were merely common sense, the application of sensual observation combined with the experience of what works and what doesn’t work in regard to my aim.

How could a list of my questions help you discover what you believe?

*

I started with the aim of living with Peter in unconditional peace and harmony (which soon expanded to being unconditionally happy and harmless) and applied the method of being attentive to this moment of being alive.

Putting this attentiveness into a list my line of questioning would look something like this – with the proviso that when I notice that I am feeling hurt or peevish or irritated the first thing to do is to get back to feeling good – (…)

I also knew that I could only be happy (and stop being annoyed at the person who said ‘this’) if I replaced the belief in question with facts and given my intent to do so the next line of action became obvious.

OK.

And another specific example –

And a third specific example –

*

Often I discovered another layer of belief/ conditioning underneath the first belief which needed further probing into my psyche.

The investigation only needs to be as deep as the belief goes, in other words, once you reach a sensately verifiable fact that replaces the belief then the beliefs disappear and with it all the feelings that propped it up.

*

(…) Along with abandoning beliefs and the related fickle good and bad emotions I also made some practical changes in my life so as to have more free time (in exchange for having less goods, less social status) and less social engagements.

Personally, my reason for not wasting time with activities that hold no interest for me is that I have more free time to do something that pleases me such as a pursuing a hobby or to do nothing when it pleases me such as gazing out the window and enjoying the sights, sounds, possibly smells and movements of my immediate surroundings.

I have found that by living in virtual freedom I have shifted my whole focus and emphasis from solving emotional problems and debunking beliefs to sensually and sensately enjoying ‘wee-things’, as Billy Connolly said, the everyday things that life consists of – breakfast, rain, typing, coffee, walking, shopping, talking, sex, shower, watching TV and going to bed at night-time. And maybe half an hour of the day was spent pondering about ‘fear, death and deep matters’ of ‘me’. And thus the perspective changes, the focus changes from the imaginary to the actual, from the dramatic to the ordinary, from serious introspection to delightful hedonism – gay abandon, as Peter calls it. So it has been literally a turning away from giving importance to the ‘metaphysical’ to focussing on the actuality of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. And what a delight that is, each moment again, just to be alive, breathing and listening, tasting and seeing, smelling and touching. And then you get to do things on top of it – sheer delight. 26.3.1999

You said it in your letter to No 14 – dare I say virtual freedom. Yes, Virtual Freedom is a daring. Once you decide and declare to yourself and others that you are living in Virtual Freedom, you can’t slip back into not having a perfect day. You have to live up to your own standards. You pull yourself up on your boot strings. What a great tool! It’s another ‘lifting of the bar ‘on the wide and wondrous path to Freedom. 2.5.1999

(…) For me, Virtual Freedom includes being happy and harmless 99% of the time and having the pure intent to leave the ‘self’ behind permanently, to ‘self’-immolate. Implicit in Virtual Freedom for me is that there is no backdoor, no return possible into the normal or spiritual world where everybody lives. From here, the anti-chamber to ‘being no more’, the only jump possible is into an Actual Freedom. Virtual Freedom is living in peace and harmony with Peter without the slightest quarrel ever and being in peace with my fellow human beings. This is only possible because I have investigated all the components of my social identity, be they gender, culture, race, nationality, profession, belief, religion, peer-group, etc. including their particular values of right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. Leaving the social identity behind is the first and most essential step before one can begin to inquire about the instinctual passions that lie beneath our social conditioning. 21.2.2000

A training course in ‘doing nothing really well’ includes examining various shades of boredom, resignation, avoidance, feelings of redundancy and meaninglessness – doing bugger all day after day (apart from the obvious task of making a living) and sensately enjoying the simple fact of being alive for no other reason than being alive. To discover that I am already here anyway and that I don’t need to do anything to justify and prove my existence is not just the adventurous practice of whittling away the unwanted bits of ‘me’, it is ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ as the complete redundancy of ‘me’ altogether. 11.1.2001

For me, the very activity of constant attentiveness flushes out previously obscure objections to being here and sometimes this process can bring instinctual passions to the foreground. It is not ‘oblivion’ I am looking forward to but an ever increasing sensuous awareness and the sensate enjoyment of being here, less and less interrupted by the automatic affective interpretations that are the very attribute of the human condition. 28.3.2002

At my stage of the process the job now is to remember to stop the once essential but now redundant habit of rummaging around in my psyche in order to regurgitate issues that I have already explored, resolved and understood so as to get on with being happy and harmless as soon and as uninterruptedly as possible. Strangely enough that leaves ‘me’ increasingly with nothing to do, which in itself sometimes stirs the uncomfortable feeling of being redundant – a sure sign that my efforts of actively diminishing ‘me’ have had tangible effect. 12.2.2003

Particularly in the first year of practicing actualism I noticed a significant change in my physical well-being as my psychosomatic symptoms disappeared one after the other. As I incrementally abandoned my fears and beliefs about all sorts of quackery, pseudo-medicine and fashionable health-scares, and even more importantly as stress disappeared out of my life, I am definitely a healthier person with a vital interest in life and the universe. 11.9.2004

Nowadays I feel excellent almost all the time, i.e. the ‘noise’ of ‘me’ is no longer interfering with me being happy. However, the presence of my ‘self’ is noticeable enough for me to know that the virtual freedom I enjoy is not the end of the path. The stillness that is always here and that becomes apparent when ‘I’ temporarily disappear in a PCE is bait enough to entice me to go all the way. 23.3.2005

26.1.2006

I found some correspondences where I have described how I experienced life in the last few years and dated them for your convenience. <snipped>

Two things come to mind that might be relevant. One is something I wrote to Alan way back in 1999 –

When I took up actualism there was no one to compare my own progress with on the wide and wondrous path because Irene had already made her turn-around and Richard’s path to an actual freedom led through enlightenment and I therefore had to forge my own path and go by my own assessment. What I had as a guide, however, was the comparison to the time before I started to apply actualism, before I made it my goal in life to clean myself up as much as humanly possible so as to facilitate an actual freedom from the human condition. And this comparison became more and more startling as the months went by until the time came when I could no longer even imagine how people manage to insist on perpetuating the emotional and actual turmoil that is called ‘normal life’ when there is such an easy-to-follow alternative on offer. Nowadays I often think I am normal while everyone else is busy being mad.

In other words, at some stage, based on my comparison to life before actualism I made Virtual Freedom my standard and I was then bound by my own integrity and supported by my intent not to slip back into not having a perfect day. Or, to use one of my mixed metaphors Peter finds so confusing – once you lift the bar you have something to hang your hat on.

The other thing that comes to mind is that after cottoning onto my bad-mood-habits I found it relatively easy to be happy when I was by myself, at home, or in nature. What was not so easy was to maintain this happiness when I was interacting with other people, be it sorting out male-female issues and/or spiritual beliefs with Peter, being stuck in traffic, being challenged at work or feeling confronted/ lost/ bored on social occasions. Interactions with people brought up a plethora of real challenges to my beliefs, my convictions, my habits, my gregarian/ territorial/ aggressive/ defensive instincts, my prejudices, my pride, my worries and fears, my taboos and emotional hurts and so on. Sometimes an irritation over a small thing, such as a high-pitched voice, a screaming child or a driver cutting in on me proved to be but the tip of the iceberg of deep-seated emotions that were there for the investigating. I found that nothing is too small to investigate, particularly when it happens repeatedly – being emotionally upset, no matter how trivial it might seem, is always an indication that ‘I’ am throwing the spanner in the works.

Writing to the mailing list was a particular challenge to ‘not let the buggers get me down’ given that putting me down was often their sole intent in communicating. But my aim was to become un-irritable, to become aware of all the things that caused me to become angry, peeved, sad, down on myself, iffy, doubting or outright hopeless. I found discovering how I tick and keeping my innocuity in an often adversary climate more exciting than climbing Mount Everest or bungee-jumping … to make peace-on-earth one’s number one priority is not only the best meaning ‘I’ can give to my life, it is also highly challenging and extremely rewarding.

9.6.2006

Ah, No. 66, yet again attracted to the age-old spiritual methods, even though disguised in a new frock?

When I typed ‘AGFLAP’ into Google and it came up with the label for the method you described – the ‘Sedona method’ – I had to laugh. Sedona is the spiritual Mecca of New Mexico and amongst other things is/has been the residence for a large group of Rajneesh’s ‘Inner Circle’ from where they have been holding court teaching their ‘privileged’ version of going in and letting go, a technique which was in many aspects identical to the above described method.

But one does not need to know all this to find out that the ‘Sedona Method’ is spiritual through and through – just look at this explanation of ‘How It Works’ from their site –

‘We hold on to our feelings and forget that we are holding on to them. It’s even in our language. When we feel angry or sad, we don’t usually say, ‘I feel angry,’ or, ‘I feel sad.’ We say, ‘I am angry,’ or, ‘I am sad.’ *Without realizing it, we are misidentifying that we are the feeling*. Often, we believe a feeling is holding on to us. This is not true… we are always in control and just don’t know it. (...) As you master the process of releasing, you will discover that even your deepest feelings are just on the surface. *At the core you are empty, silent, and at peace* – not in the pain and darkness that most of us would assume.’ How It Works A Sample Releasing Process, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

Whereas in actualism I acknowledge that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and only when ‘I’ am gone in my totality can the always already existing peace of the actual world become apparent.

This is how the ‘Sedona Method’ is advertised –

‘The Sedona Method will show you how to *master* your emotions, thereby mastering how you think and act.’ How The Sedona Method® Can Help Me, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

Whereas in actualism I incrementally abandon both the good *and* the bad feelings in order that I can be what I am – a flesh-and-blood body only.

The testimony of a happy customer finally confirms that the ‘Sedona Method’ is nothing but the plain old dissociation technique –

‘I am more able to say yes to my feelings, especially negative ones. Before, I used to feel very guilty when I observed negative ones coming up. *I was those feelings. Now I am the watcher – they are not me*. I have been feeling much happier with myself without having to be perfect.’ Sedona Method® Testimonials, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

Seeing that you recommend this method as being possibly ‘helpful’ for ‘someone on the board’, I wonder what it is that motivates you to recommend a dissociation technique on this actual freedom board – and why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’ instead of endeavouring to live in the actual world of the senses is a mystery to me.

10.6.2006

In another method (one of the few others which correctly identifies emotions and not thoughts as the central cause of suffering) they have a interesting insight. It is the experience of the method’s founder that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’. Specifically, the want for approval, control, and security/ survival/ safety (there is another want, which I think is an extension of this third want, the want to be separate, but I’m not as clear about this one). I often can see one of these wants behind my emotions as well. Perhaps someone on the board might find this helpful or not. I am curious how this jells with others experience. Interestingly, in this method the non-suffering feelings are CAP – courageousness, acceptance, and peace. The ultimate goal is imperturbability. Apparently, this man achieved this by paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all (the basic method can be summed up as 1) become aware of the feeling, 2)feel the feeling, 3)identify the feeling, 4)relax into the feeling, 5)until the feeling releases). I found it interesting where he wrote that after living in bliss for some time continually, he saw that was still ‘imperfect’ and he dissolved that to a even deeper (and more restful) peace.

Ah, No. 66, yet again attracted to the age-old spiritual methods, even though disguised in a new frock?

I’m not going to deny that their sometimes is a ‘attraction’ towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods. I find some of them interesting and I am open to learning whatever I can from other people and their discoveries.

Personally, I had to spend quite some time investigating and reflecting in order to fully understand the radicality of an actual freedom from the human condition as opposed to the imagined spiritual freedom I had pursued before. Once I did understand however, that an actual freedom is down-to-earth, factual and pertains to this actual tangible world and is indeed a freedom for this flesh-and-blood body while a spiritual freedom is achieved by and for the imaginary spirit ‘being’ occupying this flesh-and-blood body, it was blindingly obvious that nothing short of totally freeing this flesh-and-blood body from the imaginary spirit ‘being’ would do. I knew then once and for all that there is simply no point in fiddling with the imaginary spirit ‘being’ in order for the imaginary spirit ‘being’ to have a feeling of freedom whilst the actual flesh-and-blood body remains in the same clasp of the imaginary spirit ‘being’ as ever.

As such the methods I had learnt before and the techniques offered within the human condition no longer held any attraction as I clearly recognized them as moving deckchairs on the Titanic, so to speak, while leaving the core problem, ‘me’, untouched.

*

When I typed ‘AGFLAP’ into Google and the it came up with the label for the method you described – the ‘Sedona Method’ – I had to laugh. Sedona is the spiritual Mecca of New Mexico and amongst other things is/has been the residence for a large group of Rajneesh’s ‘Inner Circle’ from where they have been holding court teaching their ‘privileged’ version of going in and letting go, a technique which was in many aspects identical to the above described method.

Rajneesh was a ‘master’ of promoting a wide selection of methods so that is not too surprising.

If you are suggesting that Rajneesh promoted a wide selection of both spiritual and non-spiritual methods then it may clarify the issue to contemplate if he would have promoted the actualism method without alteration.

Fact is that Rajneesh took whatever method he came across, such as emotional release therapy and human growth movements and turned them into tools for dissociation (such as ‘I am not my feelings, I am not my body’) as the sole method towards enlightenment. I remember my admiration for this mastery of adaptation at the time when I participated in those emotional release and awareness groups and as I listened to him talking about Western therapy as a tool for becoming enlightened.

*

But one does not need to know all this to find out that the ‘Sedona Method’ is spiritual through and through – just look at this explanation of ‘How It Works’ from their site –

‘We hold on to our feelings and forget that we are holding on to them. It’s even in our language. When we feel angry or sad, we don’t usually say, ‘I feel angry,’ or, ‘I feel sad.’ We say, ‘I am angry,’ or, ‘I am sad.’ *Without realizing it, we are misidentifying that we are the feeling*. Often, we believe a feeling is holding on to us. This is not true… we are always in control and just don’t know it. (...) As you master the process of releasing, you will discover that even your deepest feelings are just on the surface. *At the core you are empty, silent, and at peace* – not in the pain and darkness that most of us would assume.’ How It Works A Sample Releasing Process, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

I do remember reading that sometime and of course it did remind me of how ‘The Release Technique’ is different from actualism.

Not just different – 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

*

Whereas in actualism I acknowledge that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and only when ‘I’ am gone in my totality can the always already existing peace of the actual world become apparent.

Yes, I do understand that.

If you understand that then why the attraction to ‘the Release Technique’ which states that ‘we are misidentifying that we are the feeling’?

*

This is how the ‘Sedona Method’ is advertised –

‘The Sedona Method will show you how to *master* your emotions, thereby mastering how you think and act.’ How The Sedona Method® Can Help Me, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

I see the key word ‘master’ here. However, from literature I have read, it seems to suggest that ‘Lester Levinson’ was continually at peace, which does sound more than mere ‘mastery’. It should be kept in mind that the presentation of the Sedona method for everyday folk/business people and the ‘end goal’ of what Lester pointed too are somewhat different.

Do you realize how much information you have to ignore/ put aside/ interpret in order to still consider ‘the Release Technique’ a non-spiritual method? As for ‘the ‘end goal’ of what Lester pointed too are somewhat different’, this is how you introduced the method –

The ultimate goal is imperturbability. Apparently, this man achieved this by paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all … Wants, Wed 7/06/2006 8:46 AM

*

Whereas in actualism I incrementally abandon both the good *and* the bad feelings in order that I can be what I am – a flesh-and-blood body only.

Yes.

Do you also understand that by ‘paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all’ Lester Levinson focuses towards the core of his ‘being’ which is ‘empty, silent, and at peace’, something which is markedly different to an actual freedom from the empty, silent, and peaceful ‘being’ itself?

*

The testimony of a happy customer finally confirms that the ‘Sedona Method’ is nothing but the plain old dissociation technique –

‘I am more able to say yes to my feelings, especially negative ones. Before, I used to feel very guilty when I observed negative ones coming up. *I was those feelings. Now I am the watcher – they are not me*. I have been feeling much happier with myself without having to be perfect.’ Sedona Method® Testimonials, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

Indeed, though they try to ‘minimize’ the spiritual aspect of the method, it is still there. Since, at its basic level it is a method of ‘releasing’ emotions, a more secular person may take it just as that: an emotional release method.

Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not found in any of the common dictionaries?

*

Seeing that you recommend this method as being possibly ‘helpful’ for ‘someone on the board’, …

No, that is not what I meant. I was only referring to the insight about the ‘three wants’ (Which you have oddly failed to address at all. This is all the more strange considering I even labelled ‘wants’ as the subject header.

The reason I did not address ‘the three wants’ themselves is because in order to understand the nature of an insight one needs to look at where it is coming from and what it is aiming for, which I did.

Is it any wonder at all to you why someone-anyone-could come across with the impression that you, Peter, and Richard sometimes answer questions in a way that appears underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative?).

Addendum: To halt any misunderstanding. I’m not making an accusation here. Just a question. Also, please disregard Richard’s and Peter’s name being put in there. I will just stick to the present post (not willing to go through old posts).

To stick to the present post – what you call ‘underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative’ is me filling in the information that you had (cunningly?) left out – the label and origin of the method, the message behind it from its founder, its final aim and a report of someone practicing the method (‘I am a watcher’) and then I pointed out how the Sedona method radically differs from the actualism method. How else can you assess the effects and results of a method/an insight unless you look at it in its entirety?

I thought the insight about most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety, to be possibly helpful to someone’s self-understanding.

Ha, I can agree insofar that to understand how one’s ‘want/ desire’ for ‘imperturbability’ can easily lead to accepting a dissociation-technique as being non-spiritual is vitally important in order to avoid the Rock of Enlightenment.

*

… I wonder what it is that motivates you to recommend a dissociation technique on this actual freedom board …

LOL! What!? I specifically did not even mention the name of this method (and gave no links either)

Look, just removing the street sign ‘Honolulu’ is not going to change that the road is actually going to Honolulu and not mentioning the name of this method is equally not going to change where this method is heading to – denial, detachment, dissociation and ultimately delusion. In other words, when you are ‘open to learning whatever I can from other people and their discoveries’, as you say above, while blithely ignoring the context of their discoveries – where they are coming from and where they are heading to and why – then you will only end up more confused than before.

[I specifically did not even mention the name of this method (and gave no links either)] just so this flaming cowpie of an accusation would not be drummed up. I almost just wrote about the ‘wants’, but I thought everyone would understand what I was writing better if I can the ‘context’ of the method.

I did not accuse you of anything, I was merely calling a spade by its proper name with the intention to inform you of the whole picture and possibly warn you and/or others of the trap of dissociation that is the basis of so many fashionable new-age techniques.

As for how ‘most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety’ – you might be curious as to which ‘want’ was responsible for interpreting my post as a ‘flaming cowpie of an accusation’.

To put in a practical plug for the actualism method, once I discover/recognize what causes my upset about what somebody said or did, be it want/desire or fear, irritability or an urge to defend a pet belief or self-image, I can simply drop those feelings because I see the silliness of something, anything, spoiling this moment of being alive – as opposed to, as Mr. Levinson makes us believe, because ‘at the core you are empty, silent and at peace’.

*

… – and why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’ instead of endeavouring to live in the actual world of the senses is a mystery to me.

As well it should, since nowhere, and I do mean ‘nowhere’ do I mention that I’m searching for any of the above.

So you saying ‘the ultimate goal is imperturbability’ did not reflect your own goal? Why then did you mention as a matter of interest (‘interestingly’), in detail, how another man achieved this ultimate goal?

What is a mystery to me, is how on earth you could jump from reading me describe a method (and singling out one aspect of it that seemed insightful) to imagining that I’m a practitioner of it.

I imagined nothing, I said –

‘why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’’.

If your goal is not ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ why mention as a matter of interest (‘interestingly’), in detail, how another man achieved this ultimate goal?

The problem with ‘singling out one aspect of it that seemed insightful’ is that you have to deny and ignore the context of this insight, in this case that ‘at the core you are empty, silent and at peace’. As such, the insight of Mr. Levinson ‘that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’’ is nothing but a rehash of the four Noble Truths, the essence of Buddhism –

1. Life is fundamentally disappointment and suffering;

2. suffering is a result of one’s desires for pleasure, power, and continued existence;

3. in order to stop disappointment and suffering one must stop desiring; and

4. the way to stop desiring and thus suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path – right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right awareness, and right concentration.

Whereas actualism acknowledges the fact that all feelings and emotions are the result of the instinctual animal survival passions which form themselves into a feeling ‘being’ and recognizes the fact that unless this ‘being’ voluntarily dies, emotions and feelings will continue to arise.

My goal is still a virtual freedom. That all being said, is it possible that ‘I’m’ wasting time thinking about things like the Sedona method. Absolutely. The journey continues …

Does this possibility become more distinct and obvious when you put the Sedona Method in its rightful context?

Personally, in order to become free from the lure of spiritual beliefs I had to learn how to recognize and thus avoid the traps of spiritualism in its myriad forms and deceptive disguises … and believe you me, spiritualists are everywhere, even under the bed! … that is, until you drag them out and pop them like helium balloons.

18.6.2006

In another method (one of the few others which correctly identifies emotions and not thoughts as the central cause of suffering) they have a interesting insight. It is the experience of the method’s founder that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’. Specifically, the want for approval, control, and security/ survival/ safety (there is another want, which I think is an extension of this third want, the want to be separate, but I’m not as clear about this one). I often can see one of these wants behind my emotions as well. Perhaps someone on the board might find this helpful or not. I am curious how this jells with others experience. Interestingly, in this method the non-suffering feelings are CAP – courageousness, acceptance, and peace. The ultimate goal is imperturbability. Apparently, this man achieved this by paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all (the basic method can be summed up as 1) become aware of the feeling, 2)feel the feeling, 3)identify the feeling, 4)relax into the feeling, 5)until the feeling releases). I found it interesting where he wrote that after living in bliss for some time continually, he saw that was still ‘imperfect’ and he dissolved that to a even deeper (and more restful) peace.

Ah, No. 66, yet again attracted to the age-old spiritual methods, even though disguised in a new frock?

I’m not going to deny that their sometimes is a ‘attraction’ towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods. I find some of them interesting and I am open to learning whatever I can from other people and their discoveries.

Personally, I had to spend quite some time investigating and reflecting in order to fully understand the radicality of an actual freedom from the human condition as opposed to the imagined spiritual freedom I had pursued before. (…) I knew then once and for all that there is simply no point in fiddling with the imaginary spirit ‘being’ in order for the imaginary spirit ‘being’ to have a feeling of freedom whilst the actual flesh-and-blood body remains in the same clasp of the imaginary spirit ‘being’ as ever.

Likewise, I do not wish to just fiddle with my ‘self.’ Anything I learn about the human condition is with the intent to use it toward the ending of ‘me’. This is not to say that everything in fact works out toward that end (if it did I’d likely be virtually free already).

On the one hand you say that you ‘do not wish to just fiddle with my ‘self’’ while on the other hand you say that you sometimes have ‘a ‘attraction’ towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods’. Just so that there is no confusion – ‘emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods’ are a sure-fire way of fiddling with one’s ‘self’.

*

As such the methods I had learnt before and the techniques offered within the human condition held no longer any attraction as I clearly recognized them as moving deckchairs on the Titanic, so to speak, while leaving the core problem, ‘me’, untouched.

In the end, without the pure intent of actualism, all other methods will fail to end or nearly end (virtual freedom) the self. Where we differ is I think it is possible that aspects of other people’s work can be helpful in minimizing the self (but ending it actually or virtually). This very well might be a waste of time on my part. However, if I learn something, perhaps it will be worthwhile. It is at the least interesting and sometimes ‘fun’.

Given that the real goal of any spiritual practice is to uncover/ strengthen/ realize the ‘real me’, the Higher Self, the ‘silent core’ or God by any other name, it is impossible that any ‘aspects of other people’s work can be helpful in minimizing the self’.

*

Sedona is the spiritual Mecca of New Mexico and amongst other things is/has been the residence for a large group of Rajneesh’s ‘Inner Circle’ from where they have been holding court teaching their ‘privileged’ version of going in and letting go, a technique which was in many aspects identical to the above described method.

Rajneesh was a ‘master’ of promoting a wide selection of methods so that is not too surprising.

If you are suggesting that Rajneesh promoted a wide selection of both spiritual and non-spiritual methods then it may clarify the issue to contemplate if he would have promoted the actualism method without alteration.

No he would not, as it directly contradicts his belief of a spiritual world.

Do you agree then that anything promoted by Rajneesh or derived from his teachings is indeed spiritual in nature?

*

Whereas in actualism I acknowledge that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and only when ‘I’ am gone in my totality can the always already existing peace of the actual world become apparent.

Yes, I do understand that.

If you understand that then why the attraction to ‘the Release Technique’ which states that ‘we are misidentifying that we are the feeling’?

I have to admit something is triggered within me when you ask this to the point question. I feel ‘uneasy’, a bit of anxiety.

Direct questions are the only way to inquire into a murky issue, a belief or a specific emotional reaction. They can make one feel uneasy because ‘I’ am about to be exposed and any exposure to the bright light of awareness is going to weaken ‘me’ … which is the very aim of applying the actualism method in the first place.

Why? 1) Dissatisfaction with the pace the actualism method has proceeded (true it has worked more than anything else, but the elusive virtual freedom is still not there).

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it ‘dissatisfaction with the pace I have proceeded with the actualism method’, whereby one of the reason this pace is dissatisfactory is because you keep being attracted/ distracted/ diverted ‘towards emotional releasing /clearing/ integrating methods’?

2) Thinking that perhaps there is some flaw or lack of method to the actualism method and therefore I can perhaps speed things up by taking something from another method and use it towards the goal of becoming virtually free.

Again, taking the notoriously cunning and ‘self’-preserving nature of one’s identity into account, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that ‘perhaps there is some flaw or lack in the way I am using the actualism method’?

*

This is how the ‘Sedona Method’ is advertised –

‘The Sedona Method will show you how to *master* your emotions, thereby mastering how you think and act.’ How The Sedona Method® Can Help Me, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

I see the key word ‘master’ here. However, from literature I have read, it seems to suggest that ‘Lester Levinson’ was continually at peace, which does sound more than mere ‘mastery’. It should be kept in mind that the presentation of the Sedona method for everyday folk/business people and the ‘end goal’ of what Lester pointed too are somewhat different.

Do you realize how much information you have to ignore/ put aside/ interpret in order to still consider ‘the Release Technique’ a non-spiritual method?

Yes, if you take it ‘in context’ it is ‘spiritual’. I was exploring if certain parts of it could be ‘coopted’ towards the goal of a virtual freedom.

Why would you hoodwink yourself into thinking that a spiritual method (to keep it in its context) could possibly be able to help deliver a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow when freedom from malice and sorrow as this body in this lifetime has never been on the agenda of spiritualists? Their aim lies in aggrandizing the ‘self’/ realizing the ‘Self’ instead of becoming free from one’s ‘self’ in toto.

*

Whereas in actualism I incrementally abandon both the good *and* the bad feelings in order that I can be what I am – a flesh-and-blood body only.

Yes.

Do you also understand that by ‘paying constant attention to his feelings and releasing them all’ Lester Levinson focuses towards the core of his ‘being’ which is ‘empty, silent, and at peace’ and which is markedly different to an actual freedom from the empty, silent, and peaceful ‘being’ itself?

Yes, the key problem with all these spiritual methods is they all seem to be blind of the delight in sensuousness. I have not lost sight of this. Without attentiveness leading to sensuousness, any actualist is indeed just fiddling with himself.

More to the point, the key problem with all spiritual methods is that they teach to disengage, disassociate and finally dissociate from being here in this place at this moment as this flesh-and-blood body and encourage you to be someone else, somewhere else. By their very nature, all spiritual methods point towards the opposite direction of becoming actually free from ‘me’.

*

The testimony of a happy customer finally confirms that the ‘Sedona Method’ is nothing but the plain old dissociation technique –

‘I am more able to say yes to my feelings, especially negative ones. Before, I used to feel very guilty when I observed negative ones coming up. *I was those feelings. Now I am the watcher – they are not me*. I have been feeling much happier with myself without having to be perfect.’ Sedona Method® Testimonials, http://www-sedonamethod.com/ [emphasis added]

Indeed, though they try to ‘minimize’ the spiritual aspect of the method, it is still there. Since, at its basic level it is a method of ‘releasing’ emotions, a more secular person may take it just as that: an emotional release method.

Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not found in any of the common dictionaries?

Ha, I’ve seen this one before. :)

The reason I asked you this trick question is because you were willing to forego/ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe that there is something secular in the Sedona method.

Besides, what is the point in ‘releasing’ emotions only to have them return at the next occasion when you can instead find the trigger and the underlying reason why you got emotional in the first place and be done with it once and for all?

*

Seeing that you recommend this method as being possibly ‘helpful’ for ‘someone on the board’, …

No, that is not what I meant. I was only referring to the insight about the ‘three wants’ (Which you have oddly failed to address at all. This is all the more strange considering I even labelled ‘wants’ as the subject header.

The reason I did not address ‘the three wants’ themselves is because in order to understand the nature of an insight one needs to look at where it is coming from and what it is aiming for, which I did.

I understand that this is how you proceed. You do have a intent/ purpose/ agenda when you write and you do consistently stick to it. At times this can appear to be underhanded, but that does not make it so.

No, it is the other way around – I have an intent/ purpose/ agenda as to what I want to do with my life and my writing reflects this single-pointedness. I also have plenty of expertise in exposing spiritualist beliefs and practices from having had/used them myself and from becoming free from them myself and I can smell a dead rat from miles away. Isn’t labelling/ exposing a spiritual belief or practice for what it really is the very opposite of being ‘underhanded’? – particularly as I am writing on a mailing list specifically set up for the purpose of sharing experiences of how to become free from spiritual beliefs and from the human condition.

Your are promoting actualism. That is how it seems to me.

There are several meanings to the word ‘promoting’ whereby this is what it usually means when used in this context –

Promote – publicize (a product); advertise the merits of (a commodity). Oxford Talking Dictionary

Actualism has no need of having its merits advertised because it works in practice. However, given that my sharing the experience of becoming virtually free seems to be mere promoting to you, you speak from the position of a potential and skeptical customer rather than a committed boots-and-all actualist, n’est ce pas?

I have no problem with that.

Why then do you call what I write as appearing ‘to be underhanded’?

underhanded – adjective: deceitful, devious, crafty, cunning, scheming, sneaky, furtive, secret, clandestine, surreptitious, covert, dishonest, dishonourable, unethical, immoral, unscrupulous, fraudulent, dirty, unfair, treacherous, double-dealing, below the belt, two-timing; crooked. Oxford Thesaurus

*

Is it any wonder at all to you why someone-anyone-could come across with the impression that you, Peter, and Richard sometimes answer questions in a way that appears underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative?).

Addendum: To halt any misunderstanding. I’m not making an accusation here. Just a question. Also, please disregard Richard’s and Peter’s name being put in there. I will just stick to the present post (not willing to go through old posts).

To stick to the present post – what you call ‘underhanded/ cunning/ manipulative’ is me filling in the information that you had (cunningly?) left out –

If it was ‘cunning’ on my part it was subconsciously so. I was not attempting to judge/explore a ‘whole’ method, but merely a part of one.

And it does not seem cunning to you to insist on exploring only part of the Sedona method, thereby ignoring its origin (Buddhism), its technique (disassociation as in ‘I am not my feelings, I am the watcher’) and its ultimate goal (imperturbability for at the core of my ‘being’ I am empty, silent and at peace) in order to maintain the belief that an aspect of the method may be useful for becoming virtually free from the human condition?

I am not suggesting you were trying to deceive someone else but you sure have succeeded in deceiving yourself.

*

… the label and origin of the method, the message behind it from its founder, its final aim and a report of someone practicing the method (‘I am a watcher’) and then I pointed out how the Sedona method radically differs from the actualism method. How else can you assess the effects and results of a method/an insight unless you look at it in its entirety?

While I do see your point, it seems to me that a ‘part’ of a method could be useful even while the goal or other parts are unsatisfactory.

No, for the simple reason that none of the methods and techniques promoted anywhere in the world is concerned about becoming free from malice and sorrow let alone concerned with the total elimination of ‘self’, both ego and soul.

*

I thought the insight about most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety, to be possibly helpful to someone’s self-understanding.

Ha, I can agree insofar that an understanding how one’s ‘want/ desire’ for ‘imperturbability’ can easily lead to accepting a dissociation-technique as being non-spiritual is vitally important in order to avoid the Rock of Enlightenment.

Yes, this is a worthwhile clarification. While I don’t think I could ever be satisfied with the ‘Rock’ I remain open to the possibility of a ‘diversion’. This is worth some more consideration on my part.

The question I ask myself in similar situations is what issue am I trying to avoid with such diversion?

*

As for how ‘most of our emotions coming from the want/ desire for approval, control, or security/ safety’ – you might be curious as to which ‘want’ was responsible for interpreting my post as a ‘flaming cowpie of an accusation’.

As I was not intentionally promoting a method nor adopting their goal, what else is your ‘I wonder what it is that motivates you to recommend a dissociation technique on this actual freedom board – why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’’? Ok, if this is not a accusation, then it is at least incorrect. No?

You may not have been aware of the intention, but the fact is that you were introducing a spiritual method as ‘a interesting insight’, you were expressing your interest in their definition of the non-suffering feelings and you were describing their ‘ultimate goal’, ‘imperturbability’, complete with specific instructions as to how this goal has been achieved with the expressed purpose that someone ‘might find this helpful or not’. If this is not an endorsement, then I don’t know what is.

*

… – and why you yourself search for ‘imperturbability’ and ‘a even deeper (and more restful) peace’ at the core of your ‘being’ instead of endeavouring to live in the actual world of the senses is a mystery to me.

As well it should, since nowhere, and I do mean ‘nowhere’ do I mention that I’m searching for any of the above.

So you saying ‘the ultimate goal is imperturbability’ did not reflect your own goal?

Yes, that is what I’m saying.

Ok, if you say so. It was not obvious from your initial post because nowhere, and I do mean ‘nowhere’, did you mention that you were *not* searching for any of the above.

*

Why then did you mention as a matter of interest (‘interestingly’), in detail, how another man achieved this ultimate goal?

I was sitting at a computer, in good spirits, and it seemed worth writing not only for the passing of information, but because I thought that something might ‘pop up’ and indeed something has. I was curious about others experience with the ‘wants’ and I went ahead and gave a minimal context to the method.

The reason why this rehash of a Buddhistic method is such codswallop is because if one’s aim is to become free from the human condition then it makes no sense whatsoever to adopt the stance that desire is the cause of all suffering emotions. Remove/ dissociate from the desire for freedom from malice and sorrow and what you are left with is a defeatist’s peace similar to the Advaita Vedantist ‘do-nothing-change-nothing-just-drop-desire-approach. Without a passionate desire for an actual freedom there simply would be no reason to get off one’s bum and actually and practically do something about one’s malice and sorrow.

*

The problem with ‘singling out one aspect of it that seemed insightful’ is that you have to deny and ignore the context of this insight, in this case that ‘at the core you are empty, silent and at peace’. As such, the insight of Mr. Levinson ‘that all or nearly all of the main suffering emotions (AGFLAP – anger, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride) have behind them a ‘want’’ is nothing but a rehash of the four Noble Truths, the essence of Buddhism –

1. Life is fundamentally disappointment and suffering;
2. suffering is a result of one’s desires for pleasure, power, and continued existence;
3. in order to stop disappointment and suffering one must stop desiring; and
4. the way to stop desiring and thus suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path – right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right awareness, and right concentration.

:) That is interesting as I now recall a Buddhist saying that the Sedona method is like a modern western form of Buddhism.

And yet it did not ring any warning bells at all?

*

My goal is still a virtual freedom. That all being said, is it possible that ‘I’m’ wasting time thinking about things like the Sedona method. Absolutely. The journey continues …

Does this possibility become more distinct and obvious when you put the Sedona Method in its rightful context?

At the very least I’m likely ‘stalling’ my progression to a virtual freedom. It also occurs to me that ‘searching’ and ‘experimenting with techniques’ has been a habit of mine for many years now, and that it may be about time to say ‘enough is enough’.

Only you can know when ‘enough is enough’ but I know from my own experience that I had to burn the bridges to all of humanity’s tried and failed solutions in order to prevent me from dithering and in order to muster the courage to move into unknown territory – and my whole process of actualism has by and large been unknown territory and still is as far as the ultimate step is concerned.

*

Personally, in order to become free from the lure of spiritual beliefs I had to learn how to recognize and thus avoid the traps of spiritualism in its myriad forms and deceptive disguises…

The actualist insight that one is spiritual at some level until a actual freedom comes to mind.

This is just another diversion tactic. Here is what you are referring to –

Peter: In my case I don’t have any spiritual beliefs left due to my own intent to expose my spiritual beliefs but I do acknowledge that ‘I’ am a spirit-like being and will remain so until ‘self’-immolation occurs. Unless I am having a PCE, ‘I’ experience myself as being inside this body, looking out at the outside world through the body’s eyes, hearing through the ears, smelling smells through the nose and so on. There is no question of my not believing ‘I’ am a spirit being – sincere observation reveals that ‘I’ am a non-material entity’. Peter, List AF, No. 60d, 7.4.2004

The fact that an actualist acknowledges that they remain a spirit-like ‘being’ until ‘self’-immolation does not mean that they retain their spiritual beliefs or keep being attracted to new spiritual beliefs or techniques. It is part and parcel of the early process of actualism to expose all of one’s spiritual beliefs, be they from one’s original conditioning or accumulated later in life. Only then will it become obvious that any psychological, therapeutic, psychoanalytical and/or mind-control techniques are from within the human condition, intending to shift bits of ‘self’ from here to there and simply cannot, and want not, offer a solution to becoming free from the ‘self’ completely.

*

… and believe you me, spiritualists are everywhere, even under the bed! … that is, until you drag them out and pop them like helium balloons.

One more thing: recently I have been getting to know a girl and she is rather religious.

Ha … not just under the bed, in the bed.

I have felt the ‘pull’ toward my previous faith even though it is not something I would seriously consider (I look at the pull to spiritualism as a disease. Like a AAer’s pull to drink). So, even now, I lie in bed alone, yet sleeping with a ‘red in my bed’ as well.

The point is that I needed to be interested, very interested, in my ‘pull’ towards spiritualism in order to find out all the hooks and loops that tied me to these beliefs. To merely chastise spiritualism as a disease or treat it as a bad habit wouldn’t do, I had to thoroughly understand how ‘I’ tick and why in order to see through the enormous con that spiritualism is – and the worst thing is that everyone is in on it, by the very nature of the human condition.

It is not a little thing to do.

Thanks for the replies

You are welcome.

Actualism Homepage

Vineeto’s Writings and Correspondence

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust