|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 71
Given that in your post to No 66 you made an allegation – ‘is it perchance to make sure you are not doing anything non-actualist (sic) when you partake of new-age foods?’ – and when queried about it you passed it off as being tongue-in-cheek humour and suggest to No 66 that ‘your sense of humour has certainly gone fishing’, why then did you take my post to No 58, ‘an allegation (albeit a humorous one)’, so seriously as to allege that it demonstrates my prejudices? Have you heard of the saying ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’? I make no bones about the fact that I find No 66’s looking for affirmation for his food habits reprehensible. My tongue-in-cheek comment about the non-actualist diet was just that, it was not an allegation by any stretch of imagination. At the risk of being accused of having lost my sense of humour – in what way is a ‘no bones’ public comment that you find a fellow human being’s behaviour reprehensible a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ non-allegation?
My email (as evinced by the subject: No 66’s food is fine with Daddy) was not about his diet per se, but about his seeking approval from others for his behaviour. Considering that you sign your posts with the title ‘Peace on Earth in This Lifetime as This Flesh and Blood Body’, have you ever wondered why it is that you felt to publicly and unsolicitedly reprehend a fellow human being in a forum like this? Have you not understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’– and as such what other people choose to do with their lives is entirely their business? For me the practice of actualism meant that I began to become attentive to and aware of my own feelings and my own behaviour and become vitally interested in how I felt, what I felt and why I felt it whenever my feelings interfered with my being happy and harmless. I knew that the investigation into myself had to be experiential if it was to bring any tangible results – thinking about feelings and emotions removed from down-to-earth personal experience would have kept me at a surface level and would have prevented me from penetrating into the very nature of my psyche. So the first thing for me to learn was to stop repressing and ignoring my feelings, to stop fighting my feelings and to stop feeding and expressing my feelings and instead allow myself to attentively experience my feelings … all the while making sure that I kept my mouth shut and my hands in my pockets, in order that I wouldn’t do or say something I’d have to regret or feel remorseful about later on. The next stage was to make sense of my thoughts and feelings as I became aware of them. Of course, in order to make any sense out of why I was having the feeling, I needed to get back to feeling at least reasonably good again by recognizing that it is patently silly to waste this moment of being alive by being righteous or bored or frustrated or worried or gloomy. Then when I was back to being able to think clearly, the real job begins, which is finding out what got me into this particular mess in the first place and how I can avoid falling into the same trap next time around. Then I could begin to discern what was going on – not in the usual terms of right and wrong, good and bad, virtuous and reprehensible, but in more pragmatic down-to-earth terms of what exactly was the feeling I was feeling – am I feeling sad, am I feeling angry, am I feeling bored, am I feeling scared and so on. It was not an easy thing to do at first but persistence combined with intent eventually enabled me to acknowledge and label the feeling I was having while the feeling was running. I soon became aware that my social and instinctual identity thrives on gloomy and antagonistic feelings as well as on loving and compassionate feelings and I am now more and more able to choose to nip the arising feelings in the bud before they can interfere with my feeling excellent.
To No 66: Two things come to mind that might be relevant. One is something I wrote to Alan way back in 1999 –
You mean otherwise you would not be inclined to be happy and harmless, unless you set yourself up as a virtually free person who has to adhere to certain expectations. Sounds pretty contrived to me. Where in the above paragraph did I say that otherwise I ‘would not be inclined to be happy and harmless, unless you set yourself up as a virtually free person’? If I had not been inclined to be happy and harmless I would not have started the actualism process at all, nor would I have participated in the AF Trust, nor would I have written on the AF mailing list. Did you not read what I wrote further down in my post to No 66? –
This is what I mean by the word integrity –
Let me give you a real-world example what I mean when I talk about ‘lifting of the bar on the wide and wondrous path to Freedom’ – A person watches people climbing the top of Mount Everest and is greatly inspired by their achievement. Wouldn’t this person first find out everything there is to find out in written documents and video reports about mountain climbing in general and climbing the highest mountain on earth in particular in order to establish if that is what he/she wants to do with their life? And if they then decide that they still want to do it, wouldn’t they then buy some climbing gear and go out on the weekends and practice a bit of mountain climbing in the near-by area. Then, when they find out that they still have the burning intent to climb Mount Everest, would they not eventually lift the bar and decide to devote their life to becoming a first-rate mountain climber in order to succeed in such an ambitious and challenging enterprise? And wouldn’t it make sense to then practice mountain climbing as much as possible while slowly increasing the level of difficulty upon their increasing skills? Now if this person chooses to tell others that they have developed an expertise in their chosen field of endeavour, does that suddenly turn their sincere enterprise into something contrived? Well, the process of changing oneself to becoming increasingly free from the ingrained habits, pitfalls and insidiousness of the human condition works in a similar manner – after having managed my bad-mood-habits I found it relatively easy to be happy when I was by myself, I then stepped up the pace and focussed on becoming happy and innocuous in my living with Peter, and with the confidence of having succeeded in living with one person in peace and harmony, I proceeded by applying attentiveness to my interactions with other people, and upon managing to live peacefully in my day-to-day activities with people (also known as a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow) I then had sufficient confidence to dare to expose myself to even more challenging situations such as the often adversary climate of internet mailing lists, and so on. I cannot possibly see how you see anything ‘contrived’ in this procedure. I notice something in the conversation between Vineeto and No 66. There is a camaraderie as in between I am already there but you are trying to be me, good. This is what camaraderie can mean –
The only synonym for camaraderie that comes close to what is actually happening is ‘fellowship’, or better still ‘fellowship regard’. All I did in my post to No 66 was share my experiences with a fellow human being about becoming virtually free from malice and sorrow, just as I have shared my experiences with you only two days ago about investigating the feelings that prevent one from being happy and harmless. The only difference is that Aaron appreciates this sharing due to his interest in the topic whereas you seem intent on putting your own ‘spin’ on things based solely upon your own feelings. Or from No 66’s side, hey shucks you are there, I am getting there mommy, say cheese. You already made your feelings unambiguously clear that you find No 66’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’ –
Repeating a feeling does not turn it into a fact – your insistence only indicates that you have not yet understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’– and as such what other people choose to do with their lives is entirely their business. It is all quite pathetic, this hierarchy business. If you had understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’ – and that *your freedom is in your hands and your hands alone*, then you would also comprehend that a hierarchy is only possible if your freedom is constrained by or is dependant upon someone else and whilst you may feel this to be the case a little research and some clear thinking about the matter will reveal that this is not the case. You know in Vipassana (as taught by Goenka), there are stages of seekers. And everybody is trying to attain the recognition as an advanced seeker from everybody else while in the meanwhile forgetting what the whole hoopla was about in the beginning (to be free from suffering and desire). Ah, I see now where your notion of hierarchy in actualism comes from. If you see similarities between the procedure of Vipassana, a Buddhist meditation technique devised to achieve an *imaginary* state of nirvana, and the method of actualism to become *actually* free from malice and sorrow then it is no wonder that you see actualism in terms of hierarchy and it is no wonder that you keep ignoring the fact that actualism is about autonomy, the very antithesis of the hierarchy that is inherent in all spiritual belief.
To No 66: Two things come to mind that might be relevant. One is something I wrote to Alan way back in 1999 –
You mean otherwise you would not be inclined to be happy and harmless, unless you set yourself up as a virtually free person who has to adhere to certain expectations. Sounds pretty contrived to me. (…) Let me give you a real-world example what I mean when I talk about ‘lifting of the bar on the wide and wondrous path to Freedom’ – <snip example> Well, the process of changing oneself to becoming increasingly free from the ingrained habits, pitfalls and insidiousness of the human condition works in a similar manner – after having managed my bad-mood-habits I found it relatively easy to be happy when I was by myself, I then stepped up the pace and focussed on becoming happy and innocuous in my living with Peter, and with the confidence of having succeeded in living with one person in peace and harmony, I proceeded by applying attentiveness to my interactions with other people, and upon managing to live peacefully in my day-to-day activities with people (also known as a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow) I then had sufficient confidence to dare to expose myself to even more challenging situations such as the often adversary climate of internet mailing lists, and so on. I cannot possibly see how you see anything ‘contrived’ in this procedure. Now that you clarify it, no, it does not seem as contrived. I am pleased that this is cleared up now. But the initial statement of yours gave the impression that once a person declared himself to be a virtually free person, he was bound (by his integrity, and by the standard he set for himself and others expected of him) to remain happy. Now that was a contrived way to remain happy. As if one puts one up on a pedestal and then is trying hard not to have a fall from grace. It seemed unnatural (as in effort-ful and based on extraneous considerations than to be just happy and harmless). Given that what I wrote to Alan was a description of what I actually did, and not what I contrived to do, would it then be more accurate to say that you ‘had the impression’ rather than that I ‘gave the impression’? In short, can you see that it is your impression and your assessment of your impression you are talking about? * I notice something in the conversation between Vineeto and No 66. There is a camaraderie as in between I am already there but you are trying to be me, good. This is what camaraderie can mean –
The only synonym for camaraderie that comes close to what is actually happening is ‘fellowship’, or better still ‘fellowship regard’. All I did in my post to No 66 was share my experiences with a fellow human being about becoming virtually free from malice and sorrow, just as I have shared my experiences with you only two days ago about investigating the feelings that prevent one from being happy and harmless. The only difference is that No 66 appreciates this sharing due to his interest in the topic whereas you seem intent on putting your own ‘spin’ on things based solely upon your own feelings. Oh, so his appreciation is due to his ‘interest in the topic’ whereas my criticism is ‘due to my feelings’? Whether or not No 66 appreciated my comments is beside the point – all I did was share my experiences. No 66’s reaction is his business and all I did was notice that he was appreciative. In exactly the same way, your reaction is your business – unless you, as you did, choose to make your reaction public, and then it is only reasonable that the nature of your reaction be open to scrutiny. Here are some examples of what I meant by ‘putting your own ‘spin’ on things based solely upon your own feelings’ –
All of the above comments indicate an affective reaction as to the motives and intentions of others, based not on the actual words said but on impressions gained from reading their words. Whereas a practical interest in actualism implies that one has understood that the only person I can change, and need to change, is ‘me’. Could it be the other way, that his appreciation is due to his feelings and my criticism is due to my interest in the topic? As I said, No 66’s reaction to my sharing my experience is his business and only you can answer as to whether or not your recent criticisms of No 66, myself and Richard have anything to do with the topic, the topic being actualizing peace on earth, and that means doing all you can do to eliminate both malice and sorrow in all of your interactions with your fellow human beings. If one is interested, must one always clap and appreciate? This is what I mean when I said ‘No 66 appreciates this sharing due to his interest in the topic’ (note that ‘clapping’ is not part of the definition) –
Can’t criticism be another expression of interest? There is a world of difference in criticism expressed by unsolicitedly putting other people down based on reading between the lines of actually written or spoken words as opposed to an interest in how to become free from malice and sorrow oneself for the benefit of this body and every body. Maybe this is an apt moment to point out that actualism is neither a (therapeutic) group-dynamical process nor a purely subjective process as to what people gathered here want to keep or change, or throw out about the process nor is it a demographic exercise about how many people within the human condition feel about the style of the reports. When I met Richard and realized after weeks of establishing a prima facie case that what Richard was talking about was a new paradigm – an actual freedom from the human condition, something no spiritual teacher had ever talked about, let alone had any experience of – I wanted to learn from him as much as I could. As such I knew and acknowledged that I was not at all equal to him in that I was an apprentice who wanted to learn something that Richard knew by his lived experience day by day. I was ignorant of the topic and was attentive to what Richard had to say because he knew what ‘he’ as an identity had done in order to become free from the human condition. I also knew myself well enough to realize that I was handicapped, stymied and bound by the human condition and driven by the instinctual passions whereas Richard clearly wasn’t. As such I knew that I was easily prone to misunderstandings in my conversations with Richard, prone to emotional misinterpretations, to instinctual knee-jerk reactions, cognitive dissonance, blind spots, cunningness, and that ultimately I was fearful to be exposed as ‘me’. But I was determined to nevertheless become free from these handicaps and from the human condition in total and therefore I knew that all these expressions of ‘me’ resisting and fighting ‘my’ diminishment and ‘my’ demise needed to be neither expressed nor repressed but clearly looked at if I were to become free of them – I also knew that any notions of wanting Richard to change in order to suit ‘my’ whims, or any notions of criticizing his style, his facial expression, his choice of words, his body-posture, his preferences and predilections was really only a distraction and a diversion from ‘me’ doing what was necessary – changing the only person I can change and needed to change – ‘me’. Given that I was frustrated with the results of 17 years of spiritual search and eager to become free from being driven by malice and sorrow, it was not at all hard to do. In short, after I satisfied myself that Richard is indeed free from the instinctual passions and their resultant feelings/ imaginations I stopped wasting my time and this opportunity in defending the human condition which is ‘me’, and got on with the business of learning from him as much as I could about the practical business of how to become free myself. And I still do. Just for an example, when No 60 mentioned a long time ago that he was questioning the canonical question to ask oneself each moment again, his criticism was born of his intense interest to be successful in his quest to be happy. I don’t know whether it has occurred to you or not but an interest in being happy is at best an interest in freedom from sorrow, not an interest in freedom from malice, and as such has nothing to do with an interest in becoming free from the human condition in toto. There is far, far more to actualism than feeling happy. * Or from No 66’s side, hey shucks you are there, I am getting there mommy, say cheese. You already made your feelings unambiguously clear that you find No 66’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’ –
Repeating a feeling does not turn it into a fact – your insistence only indicates that you have not yet understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’– and as such what other people choose to do with their lives is entirely their business. I understand. I wonder if you do as your following query indicates that this is not the case. So why then create the AF website, eh? In what way is the creation of the AF website for the purpose of passing on information about how to become actually free of both malice and sorrow to anyone regardless of their age, gender or cultural upbringing, regardless of where they are currently living on the planet, free of charge and free of any duty or obligation whatsoever, a contradiction to the statement that ‘what other people choose to do with their lives is entirely their business’? You are happy, so why not keep quiet? The reason why I have put time, effort and money into co-creating and maintaining the AF website is because of fellowship regard. I like to share my experiences about becoming virtually free from the human condition, something that has not been written about anywhere in the world other than on the AF website. In short, I do not take lightly the fortuitous opportunity of not only being able to actualize peace on earth but also of being able to share it free of charge with any of my fellow human beings who may also be as interested as I am in becoming free from the human condition in toto. Precisely because communication is what we are all doing here. This mailing list is expressly set up to exchange notes and ideas and judgments and one’s experiences in one’s quest to be happy in a non-spiritual way. This is the stated purpose of what this mailing list is set up for from the welcome message to this list –
The ‘quest to be happy in a non-spiritual way’ is markedly different to an actual freedom from malice and sorrow and maybe, just maybe, the ‘quest to be happy in a non-spiritual way’ as opposed to the intent to be happy and harmless is what causes a good deal of the controversy on this list including the recent feeding frenzy. There is an expression in English which goes – ‘I want my cake but I want to eat it too’ which could well be translated into ‘I want to be free of ‘me’, but I want to be ‘me’ too’. If every time I criticise another person on this list, the defense sounds like Mind your own business, you can only change yourself, then this list would have just become a vehicle for AF propaganda, not a genuine discussion in which all parties are open to change and criticism. Several points for clarification –
* It is all quite pathetic, this hierarchy business. If you had understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’– and that *your freedom is in your hands and your hands alone*, then you would also comprehend that a hierarchy is only possible if your freedom is constrained by or is dependant upon someone else and whilst you may feel this to be the case a little research and some clear thinking about the matter will reveal that this is not the case. You know in Vipassana (as taught by Goenka), there are stages of seekers. And everybody is trying to attain the recognition as an advanced seeker from everybody else while in the meanwhile forgetting what the whole hoopla was about in the beginning (to be free from suffering and desire). Ah, I see now where your notion of hierarchy in actualism comes from. No. The above is an example only. My notion of hierarchy in actualism does not ‘come from’ Vipassana. Vipassana meditators are also driven by competition to out-race each other and get a venerating label. That is just another instance of a hierarchy. When you say as an example ‘meditators are *also* driven’ do you mean actualists are driven like Vipassana meditators – because that’s what ‘an example’ means?
And when you say ‘*another* instance of a hierarchy’ do you mean there is hierarchy in actualism just as there is a hierarchy in Vipassana? If that is what you mean then you are imagining something to exist based solely on your previous experience of spiritualism that does not exist in fact. Actualism is a completely new paradigm and as with any new paradigm, it’s a waste of time trying to see it with old eyes/ understand it based on old preconceived ideas, previous moral and ethical values and prior social conditioning. * If you see similarities between the procedure of Vipassana, a Buddhist meditation technique devised to achieve an *imaginary* state of nirvana, and the method of actualism to become *actually* free from malice and sorrow … If I may interject? I am only talking of the hierarchy aspect of the Vipassana meditation (in the Goenka sect) and not of its procedure to become happy. You are welcome to interject but just because you see a parallel based on your past experience doesn’t mean there is a hierarchy in the way you see it operating in the spiritual dog-eat-dog world. What exists is pragmatic, varying levels of expertise – the expertise of the contributors to this mailing list based on their practical experiences with actualism as well as the expertise of those who are either virtually free or actually free of the human condition of the human condition. * … then it is no wonder that you see actualism in terms of hierarchy and it is no wonder that you keep ignoring the fact that actualism is about autonomy, the very antithesis of the hierarchy that is inherent in all spiritual belief. Let me tell you that even in Vipassana, each seeker is told in no uncertain terms that ‘you, and only you, can achieve your salvation, no Guru, no messiah can effect it’. Autonomy is the hallmark of most Buddhist meditation techniques where the meditation teacher is only there as a guide, not as a giver of liberation. But even there, as people start practicing, the normal competitiveness/ rat-race/ medal-gathering that we witness all about in the real world starts to evince itself. The autonomy you talk of in ‘most Buddhist meditation techniques’ is only established after the disciple has taken on board the goal, the direction and the method from the words of the late Mr. Buddha or one of his representatives/ interpreters an imaginary state of nirvana whereas you can easily verify Richard’s reports of an actual freedom *by your own experience* in a pure consciousness experience. The hierarchy you are referring to when you say – ‘it is all quite
pathetic, this hierarchy business’ – is clearly In fact, by incrementally becoming free from my social identity and by diminishing the grip of the instinctual passions have on me I was able to stand on my own feet for the first time in my life. The second reason why in actualism there is no hierarchy ‘with respect to authority or dominance’ is because the basic prerequisite for such hierarchy is an affective power that people hold over other people. Richard, having no affective faculty, is incapable of holding power over anybody. As such all notions of an affective hierarchy are presumptions generated by the identity of those who choose to correspond with him. In short, they invent a hierarchy ‘with respect to authority or dominance’ and then proceed to rile against it. Richard’s
To No 106: – (…) It is not important to label the experiences as PCE or not. (…) I disagree. If you want to become actually free from the human condition then it is vital to accurately ‘label the experiences as PCE or not’ because a pure consciousness experience is my touch stone and my guiding light, so to speak, so as to know what I want, which direction I am heading and what I need to do to achieve my goal. A PCE is the one and only experience that makes me aware of and allows me to experience the actual world that lies hidden beneath the elaborate, confusing and ever-changing chimera created by the identity inside this body and a PCE is the one and only experience that can clearly guide me towards an actual freedom from the human condition. Besides, unless one is able to accurately label a PCE as such and an altered state of consciousness as a non-PCE one will remain dependant on the words and experiences of others and can never be free from this dependency and the resulting resentment of such external authority.
… a pure consciousness experience is my touch stone and my guiding light, so to speak, so as to know what I want, which direction I am heading and what I need to do to achieve my goal. A PCE is the one and only experience that makes me aware of and allows me to experience the actual world that lies hidden beneath the elaborate, confusing and ever-changing chimera created by the identity inside this body and a PCE is the one and only experience that can clearly guide me towards an actual freedom from the human condition. (Note: Am I the only one who recognizes in the above passage traits bordering on altar worship?) What you snipped from the above quote is the essential qualifier that puts the above sentences of mine into perspective –
In other words, a PCE is an important touchstone only for a person who wants to become actually free from the human condition. In this respect both your words ‘altar’ and ‘worship’ are ridiculously inappropriate classifications for my qualified statement about the function and importance a PCE has for an actualist. ‘Altar’ and ‘worship’ describe the spiritual place and the religious action of a believer in something ephemeral, whilst a PCE is an actual experience which makes me independent of having to believe anyone’s words – a PCE allows me to experience for myself that the identity-free actual world in fact exists. In contrast you say that you are interested in feeling carefree and joyous but you don’t mention that you are interested in becoming actually free from the human condition. Vis –
As such, to accurately label any of your experiences as a PCE, an ASC or any other type of experience would not be important for you in order to achieve your stated aim. Besides, have you noticed that there is a remarkable difference between *feeling* harmless and actually being harmless?
(…) In other words, a PCE is an important touchstone only for a person who wants to become actually free from the human condition. In this respect both your words ‘altar’ and ‘worship’ are ridiculously inappropriate classifications for my qualified statement about the function and importance a PCE has for an actualist. ‘Altar’ and ‘worship’ are describing the spiritual place and the religious action of a believer in something ephemeral, whilst a PCE is an actual experience which makes me independent of having to believe anyone’s words – a PCE allows me to experience for myself that the identity-free actual world in fact exists. Is constantly labelling your experiences as PCE or non-PCE, and then feeling let-down when you find out your experience wasn’t what you thought it was, a freeing attitude or is it another way for ‘I’ to take refuge in a egoistic pursuit? First, my point was not about ‘constantly labelling’ experiences as PCE or not but about having a precise and clear experience of what becoming actually free from the human condition is about in order to avoid being steered by imagination and belief. Secondly, if you are ‘feeling let-down when you find out your experience wasn’t what you thought it was’ then this feeling is caused by ‘what you thought it was’, i.e. your expectation, and not by the fact it is useful to have a clear definition of a PCE as a guide. Thirdly, a PCE itself can never be ‘another way for ‘I’ to take refuge in a egoistic pursuit’ because in a PCE the ‘I’ am in abeyance, allowing this body to have a rare glimpse into the silliness of all egoistic pursuit. ‘I’ can later turn chasing PCEs into an egoistic pursuit but it is a rather pointless exercise as ‘I’ can never have a PCE. I think, in general, to form a goal out of an idea is dangerous. Isn’t a thought formulated as a general suggestion itself an idea? Personally, when I had a pure consciousness experience, then Richard’s experiential report of an actual freedom ceased being an idea only and became an experienced actuality, albeit temporary. If someone has had a PCE, he doesn’t need to ask, the extreme clarity of perception and total absence of any self obviate any questioning, if someone hasn’t had it, a PCE is just a word and more often than not (probably always, but I’m not sure, will have to check), when someone asks whether what he had was just a PCE, it is not. Yes. However, as this thread showed, the fact that No 106 asked about his experiences allowed others to comment on the topic, which apparently helped No 106 to gain some more clarity on the issue. Now maybe the person goes back and re-evaluates his technique and his intent, but I think when someone is doggedly after a state of alleged purity (it is another’s experience till now for him, isn’t it? This PCE that he is running after), it is a non-spontaneous and stressful state. To be ‘doggedly after a state of alleged purity’ is not the same issue as having ‘an important touchstone’ for one’s process of becoming actually free from the human condition, or is it? Besides, why do you call a pure consciousness experience ‘a state of alleged purity’? * In contrast you say that you are interested in feeling carefree and joyous but you don’t mention that you are interested in becoming actually free from the human condition. Vis –
I am interested in applying the method, the results will show themselves. I don’t push myself to have a PCE. It will happen when I am whittled down enough, when I am joyous most of the time. So a PCE is not my direct goal, the application of the method, with investigation into myself, is. Didn’t you just say that ‘I think, in general, to form a goal out of an idea is dangerous’? Why then are you ‘interested in applying the method’ following an idea of what the results could be? How to you determine that you are not plotting your course in the wrong direction? * As such, to accurately label any of your experiences as a PCE, an ASC or any other type of experience would not be important for you in order to achieve your stated aim. Thinking about it some more, I think I am wrong in saying that labelling of an experience as PCE/ASC is counterproductive. My real objection (if I investigate it deeper) was to have to depend on someone else to achieve a personal goal (in this case, to verify one’s own experiences as pure or impure). It is my experience that generally when I have a genuine PCE then I know that I have one, whilst when I am in doubt then it is either an excellence experience or in earlier years was an ASC. Having said that however, given the vast variety of spiritual and drug-induced experiences and given the present novelty of an actual freedom to human experience, it can often be helpful and clarifying for someone new to actualism to discuss their experiences with other actualists. In any case, you don’t have to rely on anyone to verify your own experience as a PCE or a non-PCE – your own sincerity and integrity is the best and safest gauge to determine when your experience is a ‘self’-less one. I seem to have an instinctual aversion to this. An interesting choice of words – isn’t it the instinctual passions that are under the microscope for an actualist? * Besides, have you noticed that there is a remarkable difference between *feeling* harmless and actually being harmless? Yes. But how else would one ‘know’ that one is being ‘actually harmless’ if not by feeling (or sensing/ perceiving/ experiencing) one’s current state? My use of the taboo word ‘feeling’ in the sentence above was in the sense of self-awareness of one’s state. Or is it that you have a deeper objection to one’s own assessment of one’s states and what you really mean is: ‘there is a remarkable difference between what you experience/ sense/feel/ are-aware-of as happiness and harmlessness and actually being happy and harmless? First, let me emphasize (because I made this mistake myself) that neither the word ‘feeling’ nor the act of feeling something is ‘taboo’ when you practice actualism – on the contrary, the method of actualism is, as Richard says, ‘a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once’. In other words, on cannot become aware of and examine one’s feelings when one considers them to be ‘taboo’. The reason I said that there is a remarkable difference between *feeling* harmless and actually being harmless is because it is easy to assess one’s happiness by checking if I am feeling happy whereas many people may feel themselves to be harmless when they are not experiencing feelings of aggression or anger against somebody. Yet they are nevertheless causing harm via their thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions, something that all human beings are prone to do unless they become fully aware of their instinctual passions *before* these translate into vibes and/or actions. It was about a year into my process of actualism when I became aware of how much my outlook on the world and on people had changed in that my cloak of myopic ‘self’-centredness began to lift and I no longer saw the world only ‘my’ way and my judgments and actions no longer revolved around ‘my’ interests, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ ideas, ‘my’ ideals, ‘my’ fears, ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ aversions. Consequently I have learnt to judge harmlessness by the amount of parity and consideration I apply to others whom I come in contact with, both at work and at play, and not by merely feeling myself to be harmless.
During my process of actualism there was a time when I watched the biography of many people who made it to being famous enough to have a biography report made about them. I wanted to find out what exactly it is that made people successful in what they wanted to achieve in life, be it a gold medal in an Olympic sport or the winner of the Tour de France, be it a successful business entrepreneur or a famous dancer or painter, be it a well-known architect or a renowned author or inventor or, in the spiritual realm of achievements, become an enlightened master. What all these people had in common was a burning passion to be successful at their chosen field of interest and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach their goal. No 23: This shows that likely you have not (yet) understood what a spiritual master is. I take it then that you have not read Mohan Rajneesh’s autobiography ‘The Golden Childhood’ or any other autobiography or biography from a genuine enlightened person? They all describe, without exception that they were pursuing enlightenment like all get-out for many years with a strict discipline of mediation, fasting, yoga and other spiritual disciplines and then, when after years of arduous practice they exhaustedly relaxed and gave up control enlightenment happened. Face it, Johan, there is no such thing as a free lunch – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord – you’ll have to work really, really hard for it. No 60: Without exception? I thought someone would have commented by now but it appears to have escaped everyone’s notice. Vineeto, surely there is the glaring exception of Richard? Is that an oversight on your part, or has Richard since had cause to doubt that what he knew in those 11 years was enlightenment? I agree. There are many many examples of enlightened masters (including Ramana Maharishi) who did not pursue enlightenment, but it came to them, unasked. Now PCEs do happen of their own accord, but as far as I can see, actual freedom as a persistent state takes hard (but enjoyable) work. Are you saying that you agree that enlightenment needs no effort? Arthur Osborne, an ardent devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi and particularly well known as the Founder Editor of the Mountain Path, the spiritual journal of Sri Ramanasramam, as well as the Editor of ‘The collected works of Ramana Maharshi’ and ‘Author of Teachings of Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words’ wrote in his biography of Ramana Maharshi –
Not only does he report of Ramana’s dedication for making the Divine manifest but also of his application of ‘continual effort’.
No 107: You write that ‘there is nothing other than this actual, physical universe’. If that is the case, and I’m not arguing otherwise, then what does the word ‘physical’ mean? The actual universe is the world we experience. We do not know its ultimate nature. Please exclude me from your ‘we do not know’. A pure consciousness experience easily reveals the universe’s ‘ultimate nature’ because when the ‘self’ in toto is absent, then the purity, splendour and perfection of this material physical universe is readily apparent as its ultimate nature. And what makes you believe that what you experience in a PCE reveals the ‘ultimate nature’ of the universe? It is like saying: ‘See that luscious green apple? That is its ultimate nature.’ When there is no ‘self’, there are no beliefs, only actuality. What do you mean by ‘ultimate nature’? And in what way does the PCE put the stamp of ‘ultimate nature’ on the experience of the universe? It is ‘ultimate’ as in ‘that’s it, full stop, no ‘self’-centred comment’ – in other words no ‘self’ generates ‘my’ judgements, beliefs, opinions, interpretations, imagination and emotions about what it is that these eyes, ears, this skin, nose, mouth perceive. In my opinion, just as is the norm in spirituality, when you experience the purity, splendour and perfection in a PCE, you are so completely satisfied and dazzled that you think ‘ultimate nature’ of the universe has been revealed to you, all questions are over. The meaning of life has been made clear, etc. etc. Ok. You are aware, are you, that your opinion is the result of ‘you’ having an opinion? And just so we are clear, purity (unmediated clarity of sensations which includes seeing blind nature having people kill each other in millions), splendour (the unadorned vibrancy of sensations which includes seeing a man covered with warts from asbestos laden groundwater) and perfection (the inherent faultlessness of it all which includes reading about an earthquake killing thousands in their sleep) is the ‘ultimate nature’ of the universe? Yes. Or am I missing something and the ‘ultimate nature’ that you experience does not include the above examples. Yes, what you are missing is the absence of resentment about life in this universe and what it entails. That said, for me it was the deep concern about the suffering of other people and about the horrendous things people do to each other on a daily basis that gave me the urge to really do something about the human condition. I could see that I am unable change other people, I cannot change how other people are living their lives and I cannot stop people from killing themselves and/or other people. What I can do, however, is that I can stop inflicting my sorrow and my malice on other people and by doing so there is one less person perpetuating the so far endless suffering in the world. * No 107: ... you write of changing the brain’s programming. Use the nervous system to change the nervous system? How could I know such an event occurred? The human brain is not only capable of being aware of its functioning, it is
also capable of being aware of being aware, aka apperception. In this regard you might find the answers to No 107: I went to the referenced site, but the issues discussed were regarding the ‘I’ and ‘me’ (ego, self and identity) and not about how one would know that one’s nervous system has actually changed. Can you explain? The way one knows that one’s nervous system has actually changed is by apperception – the ability of the brain of being aware of its own awareness. Bullshit. I have moments of apperceptiveness throughout the day and I am under no illusions that my nervous system has ‘actually changed’. As you say in the paragraph below that ‘as of now I am not having a PCE’ you would be experiencing moments of attentiveness throughout the day rather than apperceptiveness (apperceptiveness is ‘self’-less). What makes you conclude this fantastic statement? When the change happens one knows – even enlightened people know the exact moment when they have become irrevocably deluded whilst self-realized people talk about it being an ongoing process and many even say that there is no such thing as enlightenment. * No 107: You describe Actual Freedom as ‘a third alternative viewpoint to materialism and spiritualism’. I understand how Actual Freedom is not spiritualism, but how is it not materialism? Ha, most people have difficulty understanding how actualism is not the same
as spiritualism. The short reply to your question is that actualism is the direct experiencing that matter is not merely
passive, the experience of which is entirely absent and in fact unknown to materialism, hence the dichotomy of
materialism/spiritualism. You will find more detailed explanations I have read a lot on the AF website about the statement ‘matter is not merely passive’ but I fail to see anything in it beyond the obvious fact that matter can be classified differently as inanimate (only subject to change by the environment), organic, active and aware (the four stages of matter: inert, alive, conscious and self-aware). In what way does a PCE reveal that more clearly than while not in a PCE I fail to understand. As of now I am not having a PCE, I am aware that I am alive, my fingers are typing on the keyboard, I am perceiving the characters on the screen, my heart is beating. I am not really thrilled at these simple facts. Or am I missing something great about this statement? Yes, the complete and utter absence of resentment about being alive, about being born, about being here on this planet, with natural disasters, pain, disease, old age and death being facts of life. When I first became aware, really aware, about the enormous resentment I had about being here, all the little and big ‘buts’ that I normally came up with when complaining about life on this wonderful planet, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I was astounded that this overall seemingly all-encompassing feeling about each and everything I encountered had such a simple label. When I applied its label it turned into something about which I was able to make a choice – to feel resentment or not to feel resentment. It really is as simple as that. At that moment when I dropped all of my resentment in one go, just for this moment in time, it was as if a veil opened and I could see the world as it actually is, in all its beneficial splendour – with the sole exception of passionate human beings fighting and killing each other … and the only thing I can do about it is stop being driven by my own instinctual passions and stop being part of humanity altogether. Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
