|
Selected Correspondence Vineeto Affective Very true. Have no problem with that – just Richard’s claims of uniqueness. If you had no problem with actualism being brand new in human history you would not object to Richard being the pioneer of this brand new discovery. What you really are saying is that you think actualism is not brand new because you compare it to the Tried and Failed spiritual methods of Byron Katie and Zen teachers, therefore to you Richard’s discovery is not unique. It is interesting that thus far only those who are well and truly disenchanted with all religious and spiritual teachings – and that includes Buddhism and Zen – have been able to discover the transparently palpable difference between practicing dissociation and the elimination of both one’s social identity and one’s instinctual ‘being’ that allows the actual world to become apparent. I am currently investigating Actualism and using the methods. There is only one method in actualism. If you think that actualism has any similarity to Byron Katie’s four questions or to Zen Buddhist teachings then you need to further investigate in order to discover the genuine actualism method. To give you a hint, the actualism method has an inherent non-spiritual and down-to-earth intent – to become happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. There is nothing other-worldly, nothing self-aggrandizing, nothing nihilistic, nothing negative, nothing dissociative and nothing self-centred about that intent. I’m also finding Byron Katie’s four questions (The Work www.thework.org) to be an excellent means of disengaging from all sorts of thoughts, stories and beliefs. Using feelings as a guide, you can investigate the stories you’ve attached to. Investigation uncouples complex intertwined stories and feelings. The mutual induction between story and feeling unlocks and they dissolve naturally. I read her website and the interview with Sunny Massad the first time you
mentioned her. Her method is very similar to other methods of Eastern spirituality – one is to disengage, i.e.
dissociate from one’s ‘stories’ or projections in order to become one’s true Self, which she calls ‘total love’
or being Whereas actualism is paying exclusive attention to the business of being here in this physical universe in this only moment I can experience.
Seeing that you are not yet ‘done on this list’ and have not yet moved on to ‘more fruitful avenues’ but stayed to post more allegations about actualists, I thought I would make a comment on your last post to No 58 – To No 58: I guess you realise this already – the Actualists are approaching you as if they are dealing with an ‘alien parasite’. You’ve witnessed their fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine. They don’t tolerate dissent or doubt and barely acknowledge your positive statements. They are applying their methods on you in quite a mechanical way – not that I think you’re in any danger of falling for their pea and shell tricks. They have to expend this kind of energy in debate because it’s what they do to keep their own ‘entity’ at bay. It’s a reflection of the internal pressures they are applying on themselves. I think all they have succeeded in doing is to downsize their ‘entity’ and teach it to survive by camouflaging itself... as an Actualist! How cunning is that? Survival is it’s game after all. If you treat yourself as a cunning alien parasite then that’s what you’ll get. It’s why I think the actualist method is ultimately futile because the entity will adapt by ‘shape shifting’ just enough to let the ‘host’ feel ‘actually free’. Consciousness is the tip of a very large unconscious iceberg – who really knows what kind of resources the entity has to draw on in its quest to survive? I begin to understand now why you have been unable to follow my explanations, and those of other actualists, about the nature of actualism – in all probability you were too busy looking at the faults of actualists instead of investigating what feelings you have that prevent you from wanting to understand something new to human history. Here’s a suggestion – not long ago you had said that you find Byron Katie’s four self-investigative questions an excellent means of disengaging from one’s beliefs –
Your above allegations against actualists are an excellent opportunity to apply Byron Katie’s method in order to find out about your feelings against actualism, which persistently prevent you from understanding what is really on offer here. Let me quote Byron Katie’s website for clarification as to how she intended her method to be used –
If you find her method to be excellent then I can only presume that if you ‘look inside rather than outside’ as far as your allegations are concerned you might find inside a ‘fanatical ‘debating’ style and rigorous adherence to doctrine’, a non-tolerance to ‘dissident or doubt’ , an application of your ‘methods … in quite a mechanical way’. You might even find that you ‘have to expend this kind of energy in debate … to keep [your] own ‘entity’ at bay’ and that you are cunningly ‘camouflaging’ your ‘entity’ because you are convinced that ‘the entity will adapt by ‘shape shifting’ just enough to let the ‘host’ feel ‘actually free’’. Applying the technique called ‘turnaround’ you may even discover that your ‘consciousness is the tip of a very large unconscious iceberg’ and maybe learn more about ‘what kind of resources the entity has to draw on in its quest to survive’. Disengagement is certainly not what actualism is about, but hey, if you find it to be the way to go then it would seem wise to practice the method you do endorse instead of hanging round on a mailing list whose method you consider ‘ultimately futile’ for you. Excellent opportunity, indeed. Of course I’m sure you already realise that since I am reasonably intelligent and perceptive this has already occurred to me. I have indeed made such investigations for myself. However, I do realise that you are making a point for your readers. No, the point I was making was in response to your outburst of unsubstantiated allegations. You had said that you endorsed Byron Katie’s teachings to ‘look inside rather than outside’ and I assumed, apparently wrongly, that if you applied her teachings with sincerity you would no longer have the need to make emotionally-charged unsubstantiated allegations against your fellow mailing list members. What your readers need to know (in case they did not realise this from your post) is that the Work as outlined by Byron Katie (www.thework.org) is a tool for self investigation. It’s common for beginners to think that the Work is something you use to simply make your beliefs, thoughts and feelings wrong. It’s also common to see people use the Work as a rhetorical tool to ‘turn around’ the argument and attempt to discredit their opponent with a barely concealed suggestion of hypocrisy. It’s a favourite sport of some to play the ‘mirror game’ which degenerates to ‘I know you are but what am I?’ This is not what the Work is about. The Work does not invalidate concepts – it simply allows you to examine the effect they have on you. According to your explanation the investigation of one’s concepts is merely for the purpose of ‘self’-knowledge, to see ‘the effect’ your concepts have on you and not for the purpose of seeing their harmful effect on others. As such my suggestion to apply Byron Katie’s method to ‘look inside rather than outside’ was misinformed in that her teaching doesn’t include the intent to become harmless and happy and as such her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth. Despite the ‘spiritual’ scare tag placed on Byron Katie by the Actualists, she doesn’t tell you where your investigations should take you, she doesn’t tell you that you will end up being enlightened or ‘spiritual’. The agenda you blend with the Work is your business. The other day an acquaintance told me that she was learning life-skills from Byron Katie and quoted an example of her newly acquired wisdom – ‘There are my things, there are your things and there are God’s things and one should always keep them apart.’ And you try to tell me that Byron Katie is not spiritual. Until you prove to me that God is physical matter I will continue to call Him/Her/It a non-physical spirit and any teaching that mentions God a teaching ‘pertaining to a spirit’, i.e. a spiritual teaching. I chose to use the Work without knowing where it would take me. And yet you have just made it clear that you already know where ‘the Work’ is not going to take you –
Personally I never placed any such conditions on my self-investigations otherwise I would never have questioned, let alone become free of my vainglorious spiritual beliefs. I started using the Work some time after using the actualist method and found that it works in very well with ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Of course, you can use the sentence ‘how am I experiencing myself being alive’ for any purpose of your own choosing but in actualism this sentence is used with the sole intent of becoming harmless and happy – otherwise it is not actualism. Will this bring an actual freedom? Of course not. Byron Katie’s intent of ‘self’-knowledge is equivalent to ‘God’-knowledge and an actual freedom is freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow … and spiritual beliefs are a major component of human malice and sorrow. Not only do spiritual beliefs feed off human malice and sorrow and by doing so actively perpetuate human malice and sorrow, spiritual beliefs only exist and only continue to exist because human beings insist on remaining passionate and imaginative beings. Which is why only the ending of being a ‘being’ will bring an actual freedom from the human condition in toto.
In other words, you want actual freedom to be just another version of spiritualism à la Robert Linssen, Byron Katie and John Wren Lewis and you make no secret about being adversarial to Richard and others for stating the fact that actualism isn’t spiritualism. * If you find her [Byron Katie’s] method to be excellent then I can only presume that if you ‘look inside rather than outside’ as far as your allegations are concerned <snip> Excellent opportunity, indeed. Of course I’m sure you already realise that since I am reasonably intelligent and perceptive this has already occurred to me. I have indeed made such investigations for myself. However, I do realise that you are making a point for your readers. No, the point I was making was in response to your outburst of unsubstantiated allegations. You had said that you endorsed Byron Katie’s teachings to ‘look inside rather than outside’ and I assumed, apparently wrongly, that if you applied her teachings with sincerity you would no longer have the need to make emotionally-charged unsubstantiated allegations against your fellow mailing list members. Well Vineeto this is where the wonderful variety of human experience defeats you again. Amazingly, not everyone investigates the same way or arrives at the same conclusions you do. Does it gall you to realise that even sincere seekers arrive at conclusions that differ from your mono take on life? There’s a whole ecology of ideas out there. Many paradoxes abound. I’m not of the school that says investigation must emasculate a vigorous response to the world around me, hence my vigorous response to actualists and their ‘entity hunting’ debating style. Since I started talking to and writing to people about actualism I have experienced that others have a different agenda to their search than I do. Contrary to your allegation this doesn’t ‘gall’ me at all because it is your life you are living but I am certainly amazed how few people are sincerely interested in doing something about their own feelings of malice and sorrow while ever proclaiming that it is the fault of others that there is no peace amongst human beings. And I certainly wonder why you even write on this mailing list – except perhaps for the gratification of being adversarial – as you made it yet again clear that learning how to become less antagonistic towards others is not on your agenda –
But then again, being a woman I never had the problem of feeling emasculated when I began to get rid of my malice. I certainly felt insecure, threatened, powerless and scared at times when I began to take apart the various aspects of my social identity that caused me to feel aggressive towards and resentful about others but because living in harmony with people was more important I stubbornly proceeded despite my initial apprehensions. * What your readers need to know (in case they did not realise this from your post) is that the Work as outlined by Byron Katie (www.thework.org) is a tool for self investigation. It’s common for beginners to think that the Work is something you use to simply make your beliefs, thoughts and feelings wrong. It’s also common to see people use the Work as a rhetorical tool to ‘turn around’ the argument and attempt to discredit their opponent with a barely concealed suggestion of hypocrisy. It’s a favourite sport of some to play the ‘mirror game’ which degenerates to ‘I know you are but what am I?’ This is not what the Work is about. The Work does not invalidate concepts – it simply allows you to examine the effect they have on you. According to your explanation the investigation of one’s concepts is merely for the purpose of ‘self’-knowledge, to see ‘the effect’ your concepts have on you and not for the purpose of seeing their harmful effect on others. As such my suggestion to apply Byron Katie’s method to ‘look inside rather than outside’ was misinformed in that her teaching doesn’t include the intent to become harmless and happy and as such her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth. Yes, you would say that. You have an interesting discursive logic that pulls conclusions from your own agenda. You lock down what I say and let your imagination runaway. No, this is neither logic nor imagination but common sense based on my own extensive experience with the traditional practice of ‘self’-knowledge’ and ‘self’-investigation, both from years of doing new-age therapy groups and spiritual techniques. I know that investigating one’s ‘inside’ for the purpose of acquiring of ‘self’-knowledge is purely ‘self’-serving, i.e. it is done for the purpose of becoming more ‘self’-assured, more ‘self’-confident, more powerful and more holy than others. Whereas when I investigate my beliefs, feelings and emotions with the intent of being less antagonistic towards others and toward myself, I inevitably diminished my identity because the identity thrives on maintaining ‘a vigorous response to the world’ at large. My self investigation has at times revealed things that have benefited my family and friends. I’m a kinder, less angry person these days as a result. You will find many people who agree with your goal to be kinder towards those you consider your kin – a goal which tends to exclude those who are not. Actualism is not about playing favourites as to whom you want to treat kindly and whom you do not. Whenever I have a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience I only see fellow human beings, not friends and strangers, family and outsiders. Nowadays I experience myself as a human being amongst other fellow human beings, not belonging to any kith or kin. Coming from my direct experience, I cannot agree with your ridiculous conclusion that ‘her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth’. How the hell would you know anyway, given your lack of direct experience with the Work? As I said, I have ample experience with the practice of acquiring ‘self’-knowledge’ from years of spiritual therapy which included methods like Byron Katie’s ‘look inside rather than outside’. I also have the contrasting experience of a PCE when one is not being a ‘self’ and I have my experience of years of living in virtual freedom from malice and sorrow. By this comparison I know that any self investigation without the explicit aim of becoming harmless and happy is inevitably ‘self’-empowering and ‘self’-aggrandizing although I would not have understood, let alone admitted to it, in my spiritual years. Maybe it is easier to understand when I say that in spiritual practice one’s ego-self might receive some bashing but one’s soul-self will always emerge closer to God or to the ‘divine nature’ and thus grander than ever. I can already hear your predictable reply. Go ahead and assert your your self-perceived monopoly on the truth... When you imagine what I am going to say and then ridicule your own assumption you have very little chance of hearing what I am actually saying let alone learn something new. In this case you would be better off shifting this conversation to your shaving mirror – it would save me having to make predictable replies, you could make them up yourself. Incidentally there is no such thing as a ‘self-perceived monopoly on the truth’ because truth is always subjective – everyone has his or her personal truth or Truth – whereas when I write I draw on my experience and present factual evidence and common sense. * Despite the ‘spiritual’ scare tag placed on Byron Katie by the Actualists, she doesn’t tell you where your investigations should take you, she doesn’t tell you that you will end up being enlightened or ‘spiritual’. The agenda you blend with the Work is your business. The other day an acquaintance told me that she was learning life-skills from Byron Katie and quoted an example of her newly acquired wisdom – ‘There are my things, there are your things and there are God’s things and one should always keep them apart.’ And you try to tell me that Byron Katie is not spiritual. Until you prove to me that God is physical matter I will continue to call Him/Her/It a non-physical spirit and any teaching that mentions God a teaching ‘pertaining to a spirit’, i.e. a spiritual teaching. I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual. If you ‘don’t give a toss’ then why do you make the comment that actualists are placing a ‘spiritual’ scare tag’ on Byron Katie? Either her teachings are spiritual or they are not. Which is it? Are you deliberately misunderstanding again? Or are you dyslexic? No I ma nto dsylexic. Why do you ask? Where have I tried to assert that Byron Katie is not spiritual? Here –
And here again –
I know you have acknowledged that ‘I’m a contrary guy at times’ but it would seem that your ‘vigorous response to actualists’ is based solely on maintaining a ‘vigorous response’, regardless of the facts of the matter. Perhaps somewhere in your next ‘vigorous response’ to me you could make it patently clear as to whether you are arguing that Byron Katie is spiritual or that she is not spiritual otherwise I am left with the impression that you are writing to me solely for the sake of disagreeing with me. The Work is definitely not spiritual – it’s a method for self investigation. Has it ever occurred to you that the method is only as good as the goal one wants to achieve with using the method? And you made it clear what you use Byron Katie’s method for –
In my spiritual years I thought that self-investigation was for the purpose of becoming more humble – the aim being to enhance my good emotions and sublimate and transcend my bad emotions. I believed that this work would diminish my ego so as to bring me closer to the Divine, and I strongly believed that if I could succeed in surrendering to the Divine I would solve the problems that my ego caused. Only when I met Richard and learnt about an actual freedom from the human condition did I realize that I had been following the fashion of concentrating on only one aspect of the problem, my ego, yet completely ignoring the major aspect of the problem, my soul. By only investigating the unwanted parts of my self I had empowered the cherished parts of my self – and thus only aggravated the problem of being a ‘soul-self’, an instinctually driven identity. In short, if the aim is not ‘self’-immolation it is inevitably ‘self’-aggrandizement and ‘Self’-empowerment. The whole God concept is so loaded up with preconceptions. Yes, ‘the whole God concept’ is pure fantasy, all of it, from beginning to end. I prefer the term ‘nature’ or ‘universe’ in which case physical matter would be a significant subset contained within ‘God’. ‘Physical matter … a significant subset contained within ‘God’’ is still a concept ‘pertaining to a spirit’, i.e. a spiritual, whereas actualism is utterly, completely, absolutely, totally, without exception non-spiritual. God by whatever name and by whatever preference is a spiritual fairytale invented and kept alive by passionate minds and contumacious souls. In other words there is no such thing as an actual physical God. To believe that the physical universe is Divine is subscribing to Pantheism –
This physical universe is experienced as far, far more extraordinary when stripped of the veneer of being relegated to ‘a significant subset contained within ‘God’’. * I chose to use the Work without knowing where it would take me. And yet you have just made it clear that you already know where ‘the Work’ is not going to take you –
Personally I never placed any such conditions on my self-investigations otherwise I would never have questioned, let alone become free of my vainglorious spiritual beliefs. Just to amuse me with your surrealist logic – Sorry, no amusement – I don’t use much logic, certainly not ‘surrealist logic’. Logic is the domain of men in ivory towers who theorize, philosophize and rationalize about their concepts and most the time their musings have nothing to do with reality, let alone actuality. I much prefer common sense; it is far more reliable, accurate and also far more practical and beneficial. – could you depict, in your own words, the particular ‘preconception’ that you are perceiving in my words? I think you said it very clearly yourself –
And –
According to your own words ‘the Work’ doesn’t invalidate your beliefs, thoughts, feelings and concepts. Whereas in actualism I questioned and investigated all of my beliefs, I took apart all aspects of my social identity and I inquired into all of my good and bad feelings because I have realized that my beliefs and my good and bad feelings keep my identity in place and prevent me from being happy and harmless. There is a diametrical difference between actualism and Byron Katie’s methodology, not only in goal but also in technique. * I started using the Work some time after using the actualist method and found that it works in very well with ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Of course, you can use the sentence ‘how am I experiencing myself being alive’ for any purpose of your own choosing but in actualism this sentence is used with the sole intent of becoming harmless and happy – otherwise it is not actualism. Good. I wouldn’t want to be mistaken in the street as a narrow minded actualist. Sorry for the tautology – I meant actualist. If your flip-flopping about the nature of Byron Katie’s work is an example of being open-minded then I am more than glad to have given up the belief that one needs to remain open-minded. I found that all that was required for me to be sensible was to simply acknowledge the facts of the matter – regardless of whatever feelings and beliefs I may have originally had about the matter. And yes, for those who want to keep all their options open, actualism can appear to be narrow-minded – it does away with all spiritual beliefs for a start. For me, I felt I had nothing left to lose after I had trodden the spiritual path for 17 years and found it lacking in the most essential thing I wanted from life – to live with a man and with all of my fellow human beings in peace and harmony. I know it is not everyone’s cup of tea and that you sneer at having such an aim as being ‘narrow-minded’ but for me it’s the very best. * Will this bring an actual freedom? Of course not. Byron Katie’s intent of ‘self’-knowledge is equivalent to ‘God’-knowledge and an actual freedom is freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow … and spiritual beliefs are a major component of human malice and sorrow. Not only do spiritual beliefs feed off human malice and sorrow and by doing so actively perpetuate human malice and sorrow, spiritual beliefs only exist and only continue to exist because human beings insist on remaining passionate and imaginative beings. Which is why only the ending of being a ‘being’ will bring an actual freedom from the human condition in toto. Thankfully, Byron Katie’s intent is not mine. Given that you seem somewhat flexible as to whether Byron Katie’s teachings are spiritual or non-spiritual I wonder how you can judge her intent as not being the same as yours? Unless I missed it, I don’t recall you saying what your intent in your process of self-investigation is other than ‘I chose to use the Work without knowing where it would take me’ which seems to indicate that you have no intent at all.
Coming from my direct experience, I cannot agree with your ridiculous conclusion that ‘her method is purely ‘self’-serving and utterly useless for bringing about peace-on-earth’. How the hell would you know anyway, given your lack of direct experience with the Work? As I said, I have ample experience with the practice of acquiring ‘self’-knowledge’ from years of spiritual therapy which included methods like Byron Katie’s ‘look inside rather than outside’. I also have the contrasting experience of a PCE when one is not being a ‘self’ and I have my experience of years of living in virtual freedom from malice and sorrow. By this comparison I know that any self investigation without the explicit aim of becoming harmless and happy is inevitably ‘self’-empowering and ‘self’-aggrandizing although I would not have understood, let alone admitted to it, in my spiritual years. Maybe it is easier to understand when I say that in spiritual practice one’s ego-self might receive some bashing but one’s soul-self will always emerge closer to God or to the ‘divine nature’ and thus grander than ever. <snip> I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual. If you ‘don’t give a toss’ then why do you make the comment that actualists are placing a ‘spiritual’ scare tag’ on Byron Katie? Either her teachings are spiritual or they are not. Which is it? Byron Katie can be as spiritual as you like and I don’t give a toss. I’m not making Byron Katie spiritual – by her own words she declares herself to be spiritual. It was you who made a very clear statement that she is not spiritual and that you believe she has attained actual freedom.
One of the main thrusts of your argument that Richard is not the first to be free from the human condition in toto was that others, Byron Katie included, had also attained an actual freedom. Yet when it was made clear that her method of self-investigation is diametrically opposite both in intent and in practice to the actualism method then suddenly is not important at all that she is spiritual and you toss it aside as irrelevant – ‘I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual’. You made the claim she ‘attained actual freedom’ – a freedom that includes freedom from spiritual belief and calenture – and now you are busy fudging the issue and/or attempting to avoid it. Given that you yourself maintain the pantheistic belief that –
… you are not likely to want to clearly distinguish between what is spiritual and what isn’t because pantheists are renowned for having a vested interest in keeping the distinction between spiritual and non-spiritual blurred. Many Pantheists think of themselves as being non-spiritual because they have turned their back on formal organized religions such as Christianity and they choose to remain unaware of the fact that they have only landed themselves in a more nebulous but no less virulent religious belief system. * The Work itself isn’t. Here are the four questions for the Work: 1. Is it true? 2. Can you be absolutely sure it’s true? 3. How do you react when you think that thought (believe that belief etc)? 4. Who or what would you be without the thought or belief? Turn it around. Where is the spiritual component in this? What you have done is taken Byron Katie’s method and stripped it of all of its spiritual and religious intent and presented that as proof that the Work itself is not spiritual, which only means that you take snippets from here and there in order to fit your pantheistic all-inclusive agenda. You separate the milk from the yoghurt, so to speak, in separating Byron Katie’s God-hood from her method that came to her in her God-hood so that other people can become as free as she perceives her God-hood to be. If you strip the context and the intent of the method you are using, I am wondering when you use Byron Katie’s technique from which direction you ‘turn it around’ and into which direction you ‘turn it around’ and what’s the purpose of this effort. * Where have I tried to assert that Byron Katie is not spiritual? Here –
And here again –
I know you have acknowledged that ‘I’m a contrary guy at times’ but it would seem that your ‘vigorous response to actualists’ is based solely on maintaining a ‘vigorous response’, regardless of the facts of the matter. Perhaps somewhere in your next ‘vigorous response’ to me you could make it patently clear as to whether you are arguing that Byron Katie is spiritual or that she is not spiritual otherwise I am left with the impression that you are writing to me solely for the sake of disagreeing with me. That’s your best shot? That’s really lame. I’ve just re-read your quotes and I still cannot see where I have said that Byron Katie is not spiritual. Anyone else see it? I can’t. I look forward to more language abuse from Vineeto. Being an actualist means never being in error, apparently. Perhaps, Vineeto, you can prove my cynicism about you wrong and just admit a small error of misunderstanding on your part. So when you say Byron Katie ‘says that she offers a method for freedom. She doesn’t say that it is spiritual salvation’ and ‘BK just uses different language to you’, does this not mean that you are trying to assert that Byron Katie is not spiritual? You might have noticed that I did ask you to clarify the matter for me by answering a simple question –
You have chosen to pass over this question in this post and you now accuse me of language abuse and suggest that I have to prove your cynicism wrong by admitting my ‘small error of understanding’. Firstly, if you are cynical of me then that is your business and secondly, if you will provide me with a clear answer to my question then my ‘small error of misunderstanding’ will be cleared up. In other words, I was asking for clarity, you continue to fudge the issue and continue to be adversarial. Just to clarify, in those quotes I was suggesting that it was unimportant as to whether BK is getting all spiritual and fuzzy on us or not. I was, however, asserting that the Work itself is not spiritual (it’s just four questions and a turnaround) and I will add right now that you can combine the Work with any agenda or intent you care to, spiritual or not. Let me introduce to you some direct quotes from Byron Katie herself about her method in which she makes it unequivocally clear that her method is about Love and God and Truth and nothing else –
And just a last one because it is so explicit –
Her teachings are a true expression of the Pantheism that has become the religious flavour of the decade –
To get all tizzy about BK’s spirituality is probably a bit like refusing to drive a VW Beetle because Hitler had a hand with the design. You can get all ‘principled’ if you like but you can admire the design and engineering without loving Hitler and becoming a Nazi. Automotive engineers designed the VW Beetle and Hitler only approved the finished design, which he then ordered to have built as a cheap people’s car. Your comparison is utterly flawed because Hitler did not have ‘a hand with the design’ whereas Byron Katie’s method came solely as a result of her own state of dissociation –
In other words, there was no separation between her method and her altered state of consciousness – the method came as a result of her being in an altered state and she makes it clear that her method is designed specifically to enable others to reach the same state. * I found that all that was required for me to be sensible was to simply acknowledge the facts of the matter – regardless of whatever feelings and beliefs I may have originally had about the matter. That’s so banal. ‘Oh of course slap forehead. I should have been looking at the facts of the matter!’ Wow that’s revolutionary. What till the world hears about that one! Hey, everyone, try this! Check the ‘facts of the matter’ and get over it! Gee, no one else but an actualist looks at the ‘facts of the matter’, right? Vineeto, let me break this to you gently ... there are people in the world who are every bit as sincere as you are about checking ‘the facts of the matter’ regardless of how they feel and who are sincerely willing to relinquish beliefs and preconception in order to do so. Many of those people are scientific in outlook and realise that all beliefs are contingent – those of us who don’t realise this are blinkered by unconscious choice. So far your statements ‘I don’t give a toss whether Byron Katie is spiritual. The Work itself isn’t’ prove the opposite – you were not only disinterested to ‘check the facts of the matter’ for yourself but when ‘the facts of the matter’ were presented to you, you then responded with denial, duckshoving, cynicism and sarcasm. It would be a pity to let the facts of the matter stand in the way of a good belief, hey? As for being ‘blinkered by unconscious choice’ – once I realized that my ‘unconscious choice’ prevented me from living happily and in peace with others I decided to un-earth and disempower the unconscious parts of my psyche in order to be able to start making conscious and sensible choices. There is no other secret to making the unconscious conscious but the determination and pure intent to do so in order that one can become both harmless and happy, the rest is application and diligence. * The Work is definitely not spiritual – it’s a method for self investigation. Has it ever occurred to you that the method is only as good as the goal one wants to achieve with using the method? <snip> In short, if the aim is not ‘self’-immolation it is inevitably ‘self’-aggrandizement and ‘Self’-empowerment. Ah, yes. Goals are good for achieving desired outcomes like building empires and manipulating the masses but in some matters, including self investigation, I prefer to let the investigation and curiosity direct the outcome. Preconceptions are so boring. The goals in actualism have nothing to do with ‘building empires and manipulating the masses’ – I wonder if you read anything at all on the AF website as your cynical fantasy is running wild again. To have the goal to get rid of malice and sorrow is indispensable for the ‘desired outcome’ of being happy and harmless because unless I have the deliberate and altruistic intent to actively tackle the human condition within me, I am forever at the mercy of the genetically encoded forces of nature – the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. What you call ‘so boring’ is nothing other than the intent to change the ancient and genetically imprinted heritage of human nature. * There is a diametrical difference between actualism and Byron Katie’s methodology, not only in goal but also in technique. Yes, there is a difference there. Actualists like to ‘take apart’ and destroy their concepts. I am pleased that at last you recognize differences between your favourite teachers and actualism because in my experience such acknowledgements can lead to a clear-eyed understanding of what actualism is on about. But it is not that actualists ‘destroy’ their concepts for no reason or purpose – my beliefs and emotions are questioned whenever they stand in the way of me being happy and harmless. The intent comes first and the investigation of beliefs and feelings only happens as a consequence of this intent. In other words, I know what I want – an actual freedom from the human condition of malice and sorrow – and then I do whatever it takes to reach my goal. To investigate without the goal to become actually free from ‘self’ is purely ‘self’-serving. Tell me – how does one take apart a thought or belief? Do you mock it and call it ‘silly’ to make it go away? Does this wipe the program clear? The computer analogy only goes so far with the mind. Attempts to banish thoughts are ultimately futile. Actualism is not about banishing thoughts at all – actualism is about becoming free of the instinctual passions that are the source of all of human malice and sorrow. And you again deliberately ignore the most important part of the method of actualism – pure intent. For someone for whom ‘preconceptions are so boring’ pure intent does not even enter the picture of self-investigation and consequently taking apart one’s beliefs will appear ‘futile’. When you have the intent to become free from your insidious good and bad feelings in order to experience the felicitous feelings each moment again, then the investigation into your beliefs and feelings has a purpose and a direction and as such will show incremental success. I prefer the Byron Katie model – examine your thoughts and beliefs deeply enough and they will unravel naturally. Gentle observation does the trick. That’s been my experience. Does what trick? What is the purpose of ‘unravelling’ your thoughts and beliefs? What is it you achieve and how do you know that you achieved something if you have no preconceptions and no goal, let alone a benchmark against which to measure your success? As for ‘gentle observation’ and without ‘preconceptions’ at that – I think the description of the human condition on Richard’s homepage speaks for itself –
Byron Katie never went ‘deep-sea diving’ herself, she grabbed for the tender passions as soon as there was a chance and blew them up all out of proportion such that she now perceives herself to be God personified, and not only herself but ‘everything and everyone’ as well. There is far, far more to becoming free from the human condition in toto than an intent-less ‘gentle observation’.
Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
