21.8.2006

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, No 23, 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 –

‘The second premonition came soon after [his sixteenth birthday]. This time is was provoked by a book. Again it was a wave of bewildering joy at perceiving that the Divine can be made manifest on earth. His uncle had borrowed a copy of Periapuranam, the life-stories of the sixty-three Tamil Saints. Venkataraman picked it up and, as he read, was overwhelmed with ecstatic wonder that such faith, such love, such divine fervour was possible, that these had been such beauty in human life. The tales of renunciation leading to Divine Union inspired him with awe and emulation. Something greater than all dreamlands, greater than all ambitions, was here proclaimed and possible, and the revelation thrilled him with blissful gratitude. From this time on the current of awareness which Sri Bhagwan and his devotees designate ‘mediation’ began to awaken him. (…)

This current of awareness, *fostered by continual effort*, grows even stronger and more constant until finally it leads to Self-realization, to sahaja Samadhi, the state in which pure blissful awareness is constant …’ © Arthur Osborne, Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge, Amazon Books, pp16-18 [emphasis added]

Not only does he report of Ramana’s dedication for making the Divine manifest but also of his application of ‘continual effort’.

The second paragraph is not referring to Ramana Maharishi but is meant as a prescription for the seekers.

Do you have any reference of the author stating that he meant this sentence as a prescription for the seekers or is it something that is agreed upon in ‘anyone’s mind’?

Besides, that would still leave the description that the book of the Tamil saints ‘inspired him with awe and emulation’.

I have studied Ramana’s life and been to Tiruvannamallai also and there is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that his enlightenment was effortless and through the grace of the mountain god Arunachala. Whatever that means, it does imply that he did not work hard at it. And as No 60 says (and to which I agree), this in no way has any bearing on someone embarking on the actualist path.

Assuming for the moment that there is no god – a reasonable working hypothesis given that this is the Actual Freedom mailing list – the question that then remains is how did Ramana Maharshi become enlightened?

You just need to agree that enlightenment can happen without effort since many pathological conditions can effect a permanent ASC.

I do know enlightenment from the inside out, so to speak, from several extended spiritual altered states of consciousness I had at the beginning of the actualism process. At that time I made it a point to investigate the very nature of enlightenment, particularly because I wanted to be sure to be able to avoid it in future. From this investigation into the nature of enlightenment itself I know, experientially, that enlightenment does not happen by accident, on its own accord, neither does it happen overnight, nor is it automatically bestowed upon one permanently by some unknown magic or grace nor solely by some unknown pathology. It is the result of a choice made deep down in the centre of one’s being, followed by determination, dedication and persistent re-focussing practice.

In order to be able to live permanently in the spiritual world where ‘I am not the body’, ‘I am That’, ‘I am One with the Divine’ or ‘I am Divine Spirit and not human body’ one needs to deliberately train one’s mind to shift from the material to the spiritual, from the tangible to the ephemeral, from one’s basic survival instinct of the body to a transcendental survival instinct of the soul.

Even then it seems to need that extra ingredient that only very few people manage, as Ken Wilber in Andrew Cohen’s ‘What is Enlightenment’ magazine pointed out in this calculation that only 0.0001 people become enlightened of all those who seriously and sincerely pursue it. A particular social-religious conditioning can certainly be an additional favourable ingredient, so can drugs and/or a propensity for being high-strung or particularly removed from reality.

As for Richard, he is indeed an exception in that he did not aspire to become enlightened – he was aiming for what he had experienced in his four-hour PCE, what he later called ‘Actual Freedom’. Further, Richard was enlightened by virtue of an incomplete ‘self’-immolation, but he was never an enlightened master as he never took on disciples or published any teachings. Being born and raised in a Christian environment he had no knowledge of Eastern mysticism and did not know that what he was living after his transformation was called enlightenment until someone pointed it out to him.

This transformation, however, did not come easy or as if by magic for Richard, the identity – after his four-hour PCE ‘he’ devoted his life to cleansing and purifying himself and to developing Goodness of the highest order.

Richard: … when I began a ‘process’ that was to last for nine months, culminating in my Divine Awakening on that September morning. The ‘process’ was both prosaic and extraordinary: on the one hand I began undoing all the social conditioning that I had been subject to since birth and on the other hand I generated love for all and sundry. I examined all the social traditions and customs etc., one by one, and released myself from their iron grip. I diminished hate and anger and sadness and loneliness by surrendering to and living in love and oneness ... which is the best that a normal human could do by virtue of the socialisation process. I moved in and out of Sacred States of Heavenly Bliss and Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and immersed myself in the entire ‘process’ with dedication and resolution. I adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed Goodness of the highest order. I cleansed and purified myself of all impure thoughts and deeds and worked both hard and industriously in my daily work. I practised honesty and humility in all my interactions with other people and pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order.

I totally believed in and had supreme faith in The Absolute and its ability to bring about the Peace On Earth so long promised. That I was to play the central role in this Divine Plan no longer came as a surprise to me, as I began to realise that I had long yearned to be part of the Salvation Process. Richard, A Brief Personal History

24.8.2006

No 16: Here it seems very clear that you are saying that an actual freedom is only the extinction of the soul and not the extinction of the ego also. That is why I said you don’t understand what an actual freedom from the human condition is.

I personally think dialogue is worthwhile only when both people are open to admitting that they are fallible. Otherwise, after a while, the dialogue becomes like: ‘You made a mistake there.’ ‘No I didn’t.’ ‘Well then explain.’ ‘blah Blah Blah.’ ‘You are still wrong.’ ‘Blah blah blah blah.’ ‘So how does that address the issue.’ ‘Bark bark bark bark.’ And the initial issue under discussion morphs into wonder of wonders, an ego fight.

As you have now just defined my dialogue with you and James as an ego fight (strangely so only on my part) let me remind you how the whole thread (‘Is something wrong with my PCE?’) began –

You wrote to No 106 – (…) ‘It is not important to label the experiences as PCE or not.’ (…) 29.7.2006

I replied to you – ‘I disagree’ and gave my explanation why.

Since then the dialogue has steadily deteriorated away from a discussion about the topic – the usefulness of labelling a pure consciousness experience for a practicing actualist – into a discussion about this being ‘altar worship’, ‘someone’ being ‘doggedly after a state of alleged purity’, from which it became further sidetracked into a discussion about enlightenment supposedly being effortless, and finally that James and Harman are not blind whilst Vineeto is blind, obsessed and just ego-fighting.

If this sidetracking or ego-fighting (as you call it) is indeed the result of being disagreed with as the sequence of events indicates then any further dialogue would be merely a collection of further ammunition for arguments and therefore fruitless. As such I would like to ask you what it is that you want to achieve from a dialogue with me (in which you are not always agreed with) and then we can see if a continuing dialogue about your two emails is conducive and fruitful or not.

2.9.2006

I went back to the original message.

Now, it is clear as daylight in the sentence above that Vineeto is saying that all ‘genuine enlightened persons’ *pursued enlightenment*. She is not saying that ‘all those who wanted to be enlightened’ pursued enlightenment. She is saying something much stronger and it is not a trivial error and to that there were a whole lot of objections and mentions of exceptions.

Yet you have just agreed (‘just fine’) to this sentence of the above paragraph –

‘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.’

… which includes people ‘in the spiritual realm of achievements, become an enlightened master’.

If you agree to that then where is the not so ‘trivial error’ and what exactly is it that you are not agreeing with?

Vineeto, if you cannot sincerely own up to this mistake, your virtual freedom is not worth anything. You might think you are more evolved than others, but I finally now agree with No 60 and others that you are a egoistic foolish follower just like the millions of other followers be they political, religious, cultists or others. I am a fool, but you are no better. You can still admit it and apologize. The opportunity is still there. The only reason why you are not doing it is plain arrogance, nothing else.

How can someone who in your eyes is doing ‘altar worship’ be virtually free or do something to loose their virtual freedom? You already made it clear a few weeks ago that you consider my ‘virtual freedom is not worth anything’ before I even said what you call being a mistake –

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, 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?)’ Re: Is something wrong with my ‘PCE’?, 31.7.2006

Apparently this whole interaction of yours is not about discussing the facts of the matter but jumping onto any opportunity to shoot down Vineeto and her virtual freedom, or is it?

Vineeto: Face it, No 23, there is no such thing as a free lunch – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord – you’d have to work really, really hard if you wanted to achieve it. [endquote]

The first part of the sentence is correct. The third part is also correct. The second part is plain wrong: Enlightenment does happen on its own accord, even to people who are not pursuing it. Just as there are accidental free lunches.

If you could explain this logic to me? You say –

• First part (‘correct’) – there is no such thing as a free lunch

• Second part (‘plain wrong’) – not even enlightenment happens on its own accord

• Third part (‘correct’) – you’d have to work really, really hard if you wanted to achieve it.

If, according to you, it is correct that one has to work really hard to achieve it (‘it’ being enlightenment in this context) and if there is no such thing as a free lunch, then how can it be incorrect to say that it (‘it’ being enlightenment in this context) doesn’t happen on its own accord? You did agree that one has to work really hard to achieve it, didn’t you?

As to pre-empt the obvious rejoinder, I did say that ‘then, when after years of arduous practice they exhaustedly relaxed and gave up control enlightenment happened’.

*

As a general note – the reason why I haven’t responded to this post for several days is not only because my days are presently filled with many other interesting activities such as building an abode, working for money, taking pleasure trips through the marvellous spring weather country side and being engaged in other social activities, it is also because this presentation of your objections is both in bad style and bad taste. If you disagree with what I am saying then why not first determine what I meant by asking for clarification and then state your disagreement in a sensible way and above all, present some factual evidence to substantiate your case.

All this belligerent rhetoric (first assuming as certain that I made a mistake without having proof, claiming that this supposed mistake invalidates virtual freedom which it doesn’t even if it was a mistake, calling me an ‘egoistic foolish follower’, a ‘cultist’, a ‘fool’ and arrogant) is nothing but empty rhetoric aimed at intimidating me and impressing your audience – it hardly deserves the label of having a sensible, let alone harmless, conversation.

You said in a recent post –

‘I am interested in applying the method, the results will show themselves.’ Re: Is something wrong with my ‘PCE’?, 3.8.2006

… so why not lift your game of writing and apply the method before you hit the ‘send’ button – that way not only will my interest in responding to your post rapidly increase but also the results of applying the method will show themselves much faster and more prominent.

As I said to No 37, I am fascinated to see if there was or is a genuine exception to the rule that one has to work for enlightenment just as for any other success in life and you as being born and raised in India (I presume) where enlightenment is part of the culture would be in an excellent position to provide sound evidence for such exceptions if they exist.

It’s your call.

6.9.2006

Vineeto, if you cannot sincerely own up to this mistake, your virtual freedom is not worth anything. You might think you are more evolved than others, but I finally now agree with No 60 and others that you are a egoistic foolish follower just like the millions of other followers be they political, religious, cultists or others. I am a fool, but you are no better. You can still admit it and apologize. The opportunity is still there. The only reason why you are not doing it is plain arrogance, nothing else.

(…)

As a general note – the reason why I haven’t responded to this post for several days is (…) also because this presentation of your objections is both in bad style and bad taste. If you disagree with what I am saying then why not first determine what I meant by asking for clarification and then state your disagreement in a sensible way and above all, present some factual evidence to substantiate your case.

I have no further time to waste on this matter. There are umpteen examples in the history of spirituality to substantiate my claim. Ramana Maharishi and Richard are the obvious ones. Guru Nanak is another.

I have already presented the material on Ramana Maharshi that demonstrates both his dedication for making the Divine manifest and his application of ‘continual effort’. And when I asked you that ‘assuming for the moment that there is no god – a reasonable working hypothesis given that this is the Actual Freedom mailing list – the question that then remains is how did Ramana Maharshi become enlightened?’ all you had to say was

‘In short, pathology can also lead to permanent ASCs called enlightenment.’

So much for the Grace of God, hey?

Richard’s enlightenment is neither obvious nor evidence to your claim at all. To say this you have completely ignore the quote of which I sent to you only two weeks ago of how Richard described his becoming enlightened. As you can see from that description, nowhere does Richard say that the ‘Grace of God’ contributed to his enlightenment, let alone any pathology.

As for all the other ‘umpteen examples’ of enlightenment supposedly evinced by the ‘Grace of God’ – can you tell me which god’s grace is it that bestows enlightenment (aka awakenment) upon Buddhists? And which guru’s grace enabled Siddhartha Gautama’s awakenment to Buddha-hood (aka enlightenment)?

*

(…)

As I said to No 37, I am fascinated to see if there was or is a genuine exception to the rule that one has to work for enlightenment just as for any other success in life and you as being born and raised in India (I presume) where enlightenment is part of the culture would be in an excellent position to provide sound evidence for such exceptions if they exist. It’s your call.

Enlightenment in India and probably elsewhere also is considered a matter of grace, not of effort. The Guru’s or God’s grace is considered far more important than any directed efforts to achieve it. Guru Nanak says in his first psalm: ‘It does not happen by thinking, if you think a million times. It does not happen by doing, unless you are blessed by the Lord.’

Fascination at the fact that one is wrong is a far cry from apologizing to your fellow human beings for being an arrogant person and for refusal to sincerely say, ‘I’m sorry, I was wrong. And I didn’t realize it. There must be still an egoistic streak in me which prevents me from easily acknowledging my faults.’ That would have been the end of the matter.

This is really cute – you want me to publicly apologize for being an arrogant person and admit to an alleged mistake and lo an behold, the mistake I supposedly made was that I don’t believe in the Grace of God making people enlightened.

And not only that – if I don’t admit to this alleged mistake that I don’t believe in the Grace of God making people enlightened then my ‘virtual freedom is not worth anything’.

You do realize, don’t you, that you are writing this thesis on an actual freedom mailing list where we talk about an actual, non-spiritual freedom from the human condition – and that, as evidenced by the pure consciousness experience, God, any god, does not exist in actuality?

I rest my case.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust