RESPONDENT: I do have some questions regarding my current activities. I know you once worked two years with drug addicts and saw that you couldn’t help them. Would you go back to working with them now – if you had the chance?

VINEETO: When I left social work because I realized that had nothing to offer, I went to the East and immersed myself in spiritual therapy groups in order to find some answers. I then worked for about three years as a helper and administrator with group leaders and came to observe that therapists didn’t have an answer to their own problems in life, let alone for others. As an instance, the person who lead the most popular relationship groups had more trouble with his personal relationships than most other people I knew.

I also learnt a lot about power, reverence, subserviency and dependency, both front stage and back stage, as it operates in the therapist-client business. When I came across actualism, this was invaluable experience as it made immediate sense that anybody who wants to change themselves can only do so out of their own intent, by themselves and for themselves. Only when I change myself out of my own intent can I be autonomous.

RESPONDENT: I ask this because I am teaching people who are bordering on poverty and some basically see life as something terrible, even the young ones, and this fuels their malice and so consequently there are victims … well you know how it goes.

VINEETO: You put your finger on the nub of the issue. The strange thing is that most people who have enough money to live comfortably also ‘see life as something terrible’. The feeling of resentment as in ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ and ‘I don’t want to be here’ is something that is common to the human condition – whatever class, race or nation people are coming from and whatever age-group they are in. The persistent stranglehold that religious and spiritual pursuits and teachings have over humankind – all of which are predicated on the promise of some kind of an afterlife – is potent evidence of the basic resentment that human beings feel at having to be here.

RESPONDENT: All this is really helping me to understand the human condition, and wanting to be completely free from it, but I see no solution I can offer to ameliorate their present condition … one thing I have noticed though is that they are taken aback at my refusal to get angry and blame them when they become mischievous.

RESPONDENT: They don’t yet know what to make of me ... but I do wish I could teach them something more than just English.

VINEETO: Yes, I can understand your wish very well. When I meet clients for bookkeeping I sometimes drop a few sentences of common sense into the conversation when they tell me about the big and little problems of their lives, but irregardless of whether they agree with the common sense or not, there is little sign of them wanting to actually change to ameliorate their situation.

You are already offering them the best there is – an ongoing genuine demonstration that one can be happy and harmless in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are and live in peace and harmony with one’s fellow human beings.

RESPONDENT: Well that’s it for now. Feeling happy and harmless,

VINEETO: It is a pleasure to hear from you. I thoroughly enjoy your posts and your humour, namely when you said – ‘Ha! Try bonding with an Actualist.’ Isn’t it so much more gratifying to stand on one’s own two feet?

On the subject of my ‘relationship’ with my partner, the matter gets a bit stickier. Since my need to affiliate with other human beings in groups has greatly lessened, to the point of almost being totally absent, I have wondered at times if I transferred these feelings on to my partner and whether I am clinging to her to get these self-same needs met. I do enjoy our being together, and I look forward to our weekends and holidays together, even our simple presence together in the evening when the day is done is very enjoyable. To be honest: I do find myself clinging to her at times with feelings of ‘love’ and affection. Yet I can say that for every moment in which there is this feeling of love and affection, there are counterpoised moments when the invidious passions are in evidence: resentment, peevishness, annoyance. In short, malice. It increases my feeling that you cannot have the positive, loving emotions without having the whole instinctual package. At least, that’s the way I think of it at this point. In other words, the entire package needs to be deleted.

So, I guess where this leaves me is to say that I think the closest thing I have to a ‘normal relationship’ is my relationship with my partner. It is here that the instinctual passions of nurture and desire occur most clearly and cleanly, compared to my other everyday ‘relationships’. To sum this all up: it seems to me that a ‘relationship’ is about sharing joy and sorrow, sharing the complete pathos and movement of human emotion and human feeling. If one is freeing oneself from the Human Condition, does one need or desire relationships then? In an actual intimacy, is there any ‘relationship’ with the other that one is relating to? Is there any ‘connection’ at all, or is this entirely absent? These are just a couple of the questions that occur.

You say that you ‘think the closest thing I have to a ‘normal relationship’ is my relationship with my partner’ and this coincides with my own experience. When I still had an affective relationship with Peter, I could observe, identify and whittle away all the subtle emotions and feelings that never the less occurred long after we both had recognized that love was not the answer to a peaceful living together. The cozy-good feelings of ‘being connected’, the feeling of belonging, feeling safe and protected from the alien world and not being alone were to persist much longer than the easy to recognize failure of the dream of romantic love. Also I discovered I could quite easily and quickly recognize and nip in the bud the negative emotions of relating such as anger and complaints when they occurred but it took a keen and persistent awareness not to repeat falling into the trap of the sweet rose-coloured moods of connectedness.

As a fact, I have been on my own all my life, however, the marked difference used to be that sometimes I felt lonely, insecure or even abandoned by my parents, friends or partners and sometimes, but more rarely, I felt excited, adventurous and thrilled by the feeling of freedom of not being bound by any relationship. These days I would rather say that ‘I am being on my own’ because I am no longer suffering the feelings and emotions that the world ‘alone’ usually conveys.

In terms of living together with Peter, I am on my own in that I take care of myself – my job, my finances, my clothes and my health – and I spend my time doing what I like to do. Then I have the added bonus of doing things with Peter together that we both enjoy, i.e. cooking food, playing in the garden, going for a walk, having a chat, watching TV and enjoying delicious sumptuous sex. I can simply be me, what I am, without feelings or vibes, hopes or fears and without any image or a social identity to be maintained. In my understanding that does not really fit into the category of having a relationship because a relationship is usually based on emotional components such as expectation, obligation, hope, love, worry, duty, loyalty, fear of loss, resentment or feeling responsible for the other’s feelings.

In other words, in a relationship one social and instinctual identity attempts to relate to the other’s social and instinctual identity and both parties are mutually dependent on the other for maintaining their identity, negotiating their individuality and battling their loneliness because a human being only has an identity in relation to other people. A personality is only better than or lesser than, more needy or less needy, stronger or weaker in relation to – i.e. relative to – other personalities. You are hundred percent spot on when you say that ‘the entire package’, both the good and the bad emotions in a relationship, ‘needs to be deleted’.

Last week I met a friend whom I had not seen for seven years and this meeting gave me an opportunity to observe in what way my relating to people has changed since I took up actualism. It was a very enjoyable meeting and a pleasant surprise, contrary to some meetings with other former friends, as we were able to find lots of things in common to talk about despite the fact that I have abandoned my spiritual beliefs and loyalties. It was all made easier by her own discontentment with the outcome of her own spiritual search and her interest in what solutions I have found.

What had changed for me since I had seen her last was that I experienced none of the emotional aspirations that are usually inevitable ingredients to a friendship. In fact, I was aware that I easily responded each moment to what was happening – be it her curiosity or bewilderment, a silent appreciation of our surroundings, a chat about food or living in Australia, her future plans or who she met yesterday. I told her as much about how I live now as she asked to know but felt no need to demand her attention or interest. I was simply me, I did not have an image, beliefs or precious feelings to promote or to defend and I did not feel any emotional bonds, fears and obligations interfering with meeting a fellow human being.

VINEETO: So it looks as though now you want to continue our discussion that ended so abruptly on the Actual Freedom mailing list about exactly the same issue – emotion-backed belief in the spiritual teachings of an Authority versus drawing on the obvious expertise of a fellow human being who was Enlightened, emerged from the delusion to discover something far superior to Enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: I guess the main point you are trying to make is the difference in belief in the spiritual teachings of an Authority and drawing on the expertise of a fellow human being who was Enlightened, emerged from the delusion to discover something far superior to Enlightenment.

However, there are some major flaws in this statement:

1. Someone who claims to be the only one who has ever lived to have achieved the state of actual freedom and is the only one who is right can hardly be considered just another fellow human being.
2. You have assumed that I am a believer in the spiritual teachings of an Authority and that I am seeking Enlightenment. This is not true.

VINEETO:

1. I would be interested to learn about someone else who is permanently living in the state of actual freedom. As for being a fellow human being – so far I have only met people who are busy assessing others as friend or foe, follower or heretic. Only someone without identity can meet other people simply as fellow human beings, as is evidenced by the fact that you consider Richard as something other than a fellow human being.
2. If you say that you are not a believer and not seeking enlightenment, then that must be true for you. However, I will make my own judgements based upon what you write.

* (...)

RESPONDENT: Actually I do understand it and I have experienced it. The main problem I have with it is you have made it into an ‘ism’ which makes you the authority and essentially has shut almost everyone off from benefiting from it.

VINEETO: The outstanding feature of actualism, which sets it apart from every spiritual/ religious/ mystical teaching, is that there is only one ultimate guide and authority and that is one’s own pure consciousness experience of the actual world. A PCE is the glimpse one gets into the purity of the actual world, and PCEs have given me the insights, realizations and knowledge about my ‘self’ and about the way to explore and eliminate my ‘self’. Reporting about my own process may look like a belief and an ‘ism’ to you, unless you can verify my statements with your own pure consciousness experiences.

The moment somebody has expertise, new knowledge or makes a unique breakthrough in any field, there is a predictable emotional reaction – a propensity to follow or fight, appreciate or denigrate that is common to all human interaction and a major contributing factor to the ongoing battles and disputes. It is the emotional reaction to expertise that creates the problem, not the expertise itself.

Without emotional reaction I can assess and ascertain the facts presented and draw on the expertise of a fellow human being without losing my dignity or surrendering my independence. Then it is always me who decides what is useful information for my aim – the total eradication of my malice and sorrow – and what may, or may not, be applicable for this process.

Personally, I had to dig deep into my psyche in order to explore the root cause of the reoccurring problems that I had with authority figures in my life, which spoiled my relationship with every person I met, particularly with men. For me it was a stunning surprise to find that my belief in a higher Authority – God by any other name – was underpinning my emotional reliance and sticky dependency on authority, which inevitably resulted in feelings of gratitude and resentment. I had thought that my belief in the god of the religions had been left behind long ago for I had been involved in a spiritual search and not a formal religion, but I was surprised to find that the belief in a higher force had survived. This belief was that the Universe will take care of me but will also judge me one day if I don’t live according to the ‘universal laws’.

Acknowledging, then questioning and ultimately eradicating this passionate imagination or ‘instinctual knowing’ left me with the shocking realization that I am entirely on my own, without guard or guide. It also gave me the freedom to decide for myself what is silly and what is sensible, to walk upright in the world and be beholden to no one. Since then, the feeling of needing a higher authority has ceased to be an issue in my life.

From my experience, tackling one’s dependency on and resentment against authority is one of the major obstacles to be removed when one wants to relate to other people as fellow human beings.

RESPONDENT:

6. your best may only mean providing temporarily distraction from her difficulties for a while.

VINEETO: Personally, my best would be to learn how not to be affected by someone else’s feelings and demands such that I can make an appropriate and sensible response to the situation and enjoy the other’s company when we are together.

RESPONDENT:

7. while old age and ill-health can be emotionally traumatic for all concerned we live in a very medically advanced society especially in terms of our care of the elderly.

VINEETO: Yes, ‘we live in a very medically advanced society’. Therefore it is very well possible to have an old age that is as pleasant and as comfortable as one’s middle age. One can also have an old age that is as emotionally traumatic as one’s middle age unless one does something about it, and this will have the added advantage that one then won’t be an emotional burden to one’s children!

Strangely enough I have hardly met anyone who was interested in changing his or her painful, sorrowful or traumatic situation for a happy and harmless life, whatever the age or gender. Emotional traumas are for those who like to keep their emotions and their identity. But, in fact, there is no need to have an emotional trauma at all, provided one is ready to give them up and willing to investigate into the source of one’s feelings and emotions.

Eliminating one’s identity and leaving Humanity behind has the great advantage that one does not need to suffer with the sufferers and/or rescue the victims of self-imposed suffering. In my experience, most people want sympathy and com-passion (the word means literally – company in suffering), but nobody is interested in practical methods to bring about actual change – so any attempt to rescue others or offer advice is only like pissing in the wind – you get wet for trying.

But it is always good fun to tell my story...

She is just being No. 14.

And No 12 is just being No 12. Vineeto is just being Vineeto.

Three people out of 5.8 billion on this planet; fellow human beings.

If one can’t regard and treat someone as a fellow human being then there is something in oneself to be looked at. Peace on earth is that simple.

I agree and sometimes, from compassion, it can be pointed out that one is asleep, unconscious, being their mother, whatever.

Richard: We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the Human Condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the Human Condition ... and we want to know why. We all report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it. Richard’s Journal, Foreword

What do you think?

Idiots can’t recognize Osho, he is too high for them to realize who he is.

Obviously I did not just project, when I said that you are feeling superior. You have divided the world in high and low, up and down, level 1, 2, 3, idiots and clever people. But your superiority is nothing but a psychic and psychological interpretation, supported by the emotions of the Human Condition. Since everybody is inflicted with the Human Condition, it is easy to understand. Due to our instincts and conditioning we create duality for psychic orientation, almost everyone does it – but it is not obligatory. One can delete this ‘natural’ imprint, one can become actually free of one’s instincts and beliefs.

Probably this is how you misunderstand what masters are up to. You just don’t get it and to cover your hurt ego you pretend you know something. And to convince yourselves, you must desperately try to convert others. Once one has awakened, on any level, it is crystal clear to see down.

Do you say you have been awakened and now you can see down on me?

On a subconscious level, you probably continue to write to this list ... so someone will get thru to you sleepy heads.

It seems a cheap cop-out to call what you don’t like ‘sleepy’ and ‘subconscious’. It is called name-calling and not valid as an argument to convince. Can’t you come up with something more substantial?

Meditation is to be – of one mind.

Who’s mind are you talking about, obviously not yours and Vineeto’s. We have not come to agree on one point yet. But, it is early days, we might get there. Just, as long as you talk from your imaginary top of the staircase to me on the imaginary bottom of the staircase, it will be a bit difficult to meet. I suggest, we dismiss the imagination and with it the staircase and talk to each other as fellow human beings, investigating the issue and the subject rather than declaring positions on the staircase.

When love and divine love disappear in the light of bare awareness, actual intimacy is possible for the first time. When the loving, compassionate ‘Self’ dies – or is temporarily absent – the actual world becomes apparent. The moment when the one who you ‘think’ and ‘feel’ you are becomes extinct, you are intimate with everyone you meet and everything you experience.

See, in this moment I am intimate to you, a fellow human being, writing to you about my experiences and understanding on this particular issue. Sharing with you what I found out about beliefs, about love and divine love. I have experienced the difference between love and intimacy, and intimacy in its directness and purity far exceeds any love. Love can only be a synthetic substitute for the intimacy that we all long for. Without a ‘self’ I am intimate with everything around me and everyone I talk to. We are both fellow human beings, both fascinated to find out about this business of being a human being – after all, we are all here for the first time. When no affections are clouding the conversation, a real and fruitful discussion is possible.

At one point, I tried to make a ‘guru’ out of Richard, but he would not play.

In the first few months with Peter I sometimes tried to land a sarcastic or snide remark on him. He simply didn’t ‘get it’. He just said, ‘I lost you here, what do you mean’ – and it was a sincere question. I then would only feel embarrassed and investigate my outbreak of malice.

What I find so useful, in talking with Richard (and you), is that I know there is no hidden agenda, nothing ‘going on’, so whatever reaction I have, I know it is ‘me’. Do you understand what I am saying – I have not put it very well. All of the passions require a ‘reflection’ and if that ‘reflection’ does not exist, then one knows that all that is occurring is in one’s own head.

Yes, I know what you mean. It is indeed very helpful in sorting out one’s projections and emotional reactions to know that the other has no hidden agenda except sharing delight. But then later, I came to a point where I am only concerned with my own reactions regardless of what anyone’s hidden agenda could have been. That’s what is so good about writing on the sannyas-list and now here – whatever is thrown at me is not my concern unless I have a reaction to it. I sort out my reaction – should there be any – and then answer to the facts. An invaluable exercise!

Now, I often can’t recognize hidden agendas anymore. The other day I got a reply on the sannyas list which didn’t make sense to me. Two days later I suddenly said to Peter: ‘Maybe it was sarcasm, otherwise it doesn’t make any sense!’

There is no misunderstanding here Vineeto, you have been my teacher.

When, one and a half years ago I had doubts that the spiritual gurus failed to deliver freedom I met a man who said he was not a guru. As I watched him closely I understood that he in fact had nothing in common with the gurus I had met, loved and believed in.

This man, Richard, said that it is possible to live without emotions and furthermore, without beliefs and instincts. As I watched him dealing with daily affairs it seemed actually possible to ‘survive’ without emotions and beliefs, and obviously completely happy and harmless, which I have not seen in anybody before. And so I tried it out for myself.

I emulated him, meaning I started to look at the world the way he did, every day a bit more making sense in a radically new way. I was trying to find a way of experiencing life the way he did, without emotions, beliefs and instincts. Other references were my own peak experiences.

Of course, I had to sort out a few problems on the way... But now, 18 months later, I am similarly happy and harmless.

Richard has described in his journal a lot how he experiences every-day life and, as Peter said, lots of writings of all of us are available...

To Peter: So Peter, I write this mail only to share my thoughts and am not looking for your or anybody’s answers. Nice sharing thoughts anyway.

It’s good that I am not anybody, so I can reply to your sharing of thought with my sharing of thoughts.

I think the meaning of my above sentence was taken in wrong sense. I explained it in my reply to Richard. But somehow, my reply didn’t come back to me from the list. Anyway. Not worth bothering.

Your reply to Richard got through all right. And I do think it is worth bothering. You said:

As regards terming my way of communication as ‘masturbating’ – from the tone of your mail it looks like that you don’t like my way of communication. As your words carry weight here, I expect that others also don’t like it and in this case I would prefer either to un-subscribe or remain a passive reader.

Your reaction reminds me of my childhood. When I had been really angry with my parents and felt quite helpless as to their seemingly unjust behaviour towards me I used to think: ‘When I am dead, you will be sorry!’ But even as an angry ten-year old I had enough wits about me to figure out that they may be sorry – even that I couldn’t be so sure of – but I will be the one who will be dead and then won’t be able to enjoy their grief. Here we call that ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’. On this list everybody is here for his or her own benefit and discovery.

There is one sentence in Richard’s autobiography where he describes the seminal question that finally brought an end to his spiritual delusion of enlightenment: ‘How am I in relation to other people?’ –

Richard: ‘In late September 1992 a woman, who had been coming to see me on and off for some time, earnestly asked that she be taken on as a disciple ... she seriously wished me to be her master. I was astounded, for I had been at pains to explain that I was not interested in being anyone’s master, as I considered the entire system of the master-disciple relationship, with its attendant surrender, trust, worship and obedience, to be not only insidious, but pernicious as in regards to another person’s freedom. I declined, of course, yet I had to question just what I was ‘putting out’ to people to precipitate such a request. What was my part in all this? What was I doing – indeed what was I ‘being’ – to encourage another to consider taking this step? I had been dismantling various aspects of the make-up of the Altered State Of Consciousness that I was living in – a state of Spiritual Enlightenment that I called Absolute Freedom – and had thought myself to be virtually free of all that hocus-pocus that goes on in the name of freedom. I asked myself what turned out to be a seminal question:

‘What am I in relation to other people?’

I asked the question in such a way so that I would not get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer. I wanted an experiential result ... and I kept the question burning in the depths of my psyche, discarding any intellectual answers that inevitably popped-up.’ Richard’s Journal, Appendix 3

The question has been an immensely useful tool for me, and I have used it along the path to actual freedom as a continuous investigation into my ‘self’. ‘How am I in relation to other people?’ has put me right on the spot with my emotions, feelings, beliefs and instinctual reactions, and as life with Peter became delightfully easy, how I was with other people became more important for my self-examination. When I became fearful, angry or annoyed by someone, there was always a welcome opportunity to look at the issue at hand. Otherwise, how could I know what my issues were? Living in a sheltered nursery or blaming others for their behaviour was not going to redeem me from my ‘self’. You said to Peter:

‘But I and only I have to take care of this problem – this is another thing I learnt from actualism. So Peter, I write this mail only to share my thoughts and am not looking for your or anybody’s answers’.

With this you indicate that you don’t want anybody’s input in the question of ‘How am I in relation to other people?’ How on earth do you want to get rid of your ‘self’ and ‘Self’ if not by feedback and reports from people who already have gone a considerable way on the path to actual freedom? Of course, if you prefer to stick with the Tried and True, there is no need for fresh input at all, the program of the Human Condition, complete with instincts, moral and religious conditioning is already fully installed in each of us. And then you say to Richard:

‘When I said ‘(I) am not looking for anybody’s answer’, it doesn’t mean that I am stifling or discouraging anybody to answer. It is just that I would not depend upon anybody else to give answers to my problems. I will try to sort it out myself.’

How do you want to sort out for yourself what the difference is between actualism and spiritualism? Actualism is brand-new, and unless you have had a pure consciousness experience, you won’t even have tasted what it is about. ‘Sort it out myself’ is but spiritual balderdash and it works well in the spiritual world where you only have to depend on your own intuitive feelings and mindless imaginations to arrive in a self-fabricated world of delusion and sublimated instincts.

But if you are at all interested in discovering the actual world and discovering how beliefs, emotions and instinctual passions are hindering you from experiencing this actual world, you will need all the input and feedback you can get. The tribal and religious conditioning in itself is so thick, so ancient and so insidious that it takes great courage, pure intent, clear determination and lots and lots of reports from the actual world to dig oneself out of the mess one finds oneself in – as the Human Condition.

Hmm, when I consider it, yes, were are daring enough to step out from behind the backs of all the religious and spiritual teachers and release from them and are showing our willingness to ‘stand on our own two feet’!! Whilst having a conversation with my girlfriend last night, we discussed how both of us have propped up others during our lives; making them seem wanted and worthwhile. Allowing their fears and convincing them that their petty problems are important.

I suggested that it is time to let people stand on their own two feet, to not take responsibility for someone else taking offence at our actions. We all have a choice about whether or not we respond to the taunts of others, or whether we take on their problems as our own. People have to accept responsibility for their lives and stop shirking their problems on to others. Standing free in confidence and independence is how life is meant to be.

Good fun, just a handful of those who are desperate and daring enough to question the whole of Ancient Wisdom. And it works on the way...

I found it fascinating to discover the various ‘contracts’ I had with people, like ‘I pat your back and you pat mine’, ‘I feel what you feel’, ‘I believe in your story and you believe in mine’. I could see that those contracts held me in the common belief that ‘we all need to stick together because life is dangerous and terrible’.

‘Standing free in confidence and independence’, as you say, meant for me that I did not try and change or blame others, but put all my eggs in one basket – fix myself up. I have written about it in our journal:

‘Examining my experiences with, and behaviour towards, other people I found that I have always pursued my own goals in life, as I could see everyone else was doing. Whatever my good intentions and considerations for others, there was always an aspect of personal interest involved. Ultimately I had followed the moral of being unselfish and helping other people in order to be accepted and loved, to reach heaven or become enlightened. The other part of the deal was that I in turn expected to be helped should I be in need of support. ...

‘It was a great step towards an actual freedom and a permanent happiness when I learned for the first time that I could not only explore my emotions to their very core, but actually get rid of them and live without them. But it definitely meant giving up the means of power over men. Since I had already agreed to discard battling as the solution, it was obvious that I had to give up the fight first. If I want peace I can’t wait for the other to start to lay down his arms. This does not work. I have to give up battling because the battle itself is the problem. The solution is not to try and change somebody else, but to look into the very cause of my own unhappiness. Once this condition was understood and agreed upon, we could both cease battling, sit down and talk about any situation that caused disagreement.

Now I would not only ask myself, ‘how do I feel?’ but also question the very necessity of having this feeling. Understanding that emotion itself was a major component of my (female) identity, and of my ‘self’, allowed me to explore what lies behind any upcoming emotion – what thought, what belief, what investment, what instinct. By examining the validity of the underlying cause I was then able to eliminate the subsequent emotions, one by one.’

People have to accept responsibility for their lives and stop shirking their problems on to others.

It is easier to see the problems in other people at first, but one never succeeds in changing other people. Besides, there are 5.8 billion of them and that is a lot to change. In actual freedom everybody has to do it for themselves. In my relating to others I had the simple and obvious guideline that I wanted to be both happy and harmless, which meant that I did not want to take on other’s sorrow nor cause harm to others. Whenever I discovered a feeling of annoyance, revenge, retribution, withdrawal, a snide or rude behaviour towards others, I knew that I was not harmless and that I had something to look at. And whenever I felt hurt, fearful, insulted, irritated, pitiful or compassionate, I knew that I was not happy and consequently had something to look at.

And with each discovery one is a little bit more free from the ties of the Human Condition.

VINEETO: Nevertheless, work has been a good test for my Virtual Freedom and, apart from one or two little emotional twigs, I have passed the test to my satisfaction and enjoyment. It is such good fun being with people as they are – sometimes I even get a chance to infiltrate some common sense into the conversation, but to talk about freedom is generally a no-no. I just stopped to ask them about their feelings. The response is such an emotional mess and nobody wants to change anything about this mess anyway. I found that my happiness doesn’t depend on other people’s opinion or approval, and then, I also enjoy working by myself.

I have read your correspondence with Richard with interest.

What I as a person with a practical approach to life notice from your conversation and conviction is that you never talk about how you are in your daily life. How are you with the woman you live with, how are you when you go shopping, how are you in relation to other people?

For me the relationships to different people have clearly shown me the flaws I still had to tackle, shown the occasions where consciousness is not pure but inflicted with greed, anger, superiority, jealousy, sorrow, pity and other such emotions. Only since I have eliminated those emotions in me have I been able to be with whoever I meet in an easy, equal, benign manner, fully interested in the person in question in that moment, undistractedly or undisturbed by any flaws in my behaviour.

And exactly this is for me the test of any concept of consciousness, ‘tautology’ or other: does it work in actual life, does it work in my relationship to other people. How else to test if the thought construct is not just a sweet elaborate fairy-tale, good enough for discussion, but not applicable with the person I live with?!

What I am interested in is who is the man behind the thoughts, who is the person living his daily life and how do your concepts translate into action? Looking forward to your reply.

When reading your letter there is one thing that struck me. Your whole orientation seems to be focused on a type of relation that is directed solely to your fellow men. In other words, you seem to be a very, even exclusively, social oriented person.

My position is, that you can only be totally at ease with the world you live in if there are four areas you have to be aware of. These four areas are 1: existence. 2: life. 3: society. 4: consciousness. Each of these 4 areas have their own problems, and their own tools for solutions.

First of all, I am not an exclusively social oriented person. I have said that relating to other people for me is the ultimate test if the particular concept of consciousness, of which I have had several in my life, works. All religious, moral, philosophical and spiritual concepts have failed that test. None has delivered peaceful living with other people in my life, let alone with a man for 24h a day. – By the way, my name is Vineeto and I am a woman! – Only cleaning myself up totally of any feeling and emotions, the very stuff the self is made of, has enabled me to do that. And by eliminating the very cause – the self – that produced those fickle, unreliable and often explosive emotions and feelings I am now able to be completely at ease, both on my own and with anybody who comes into my life, be it the man I live with or someone I meet for only 10 minutes.

Now you talk a lot about the interactions you have with others. Your main concern is in that area. But have you ever asked you the following question: ‘If I do not have any skills, insights, understandings, productivity, can I be of interest to others?’ If you do not have any of those, you are just a burden to others. Not a contributor, no matter how friendly you are, without emotions, or free from them.

My main concern is not the interaction with others. My main concern is to clean myself of the ‘self’ – the emotions, feelings and instincts that every human is born with and that have produced all the suffering on the planet up till now. My interactions with others have brought the problem to the surface again and again, so I could see the particular emotion, examine it, trace it to its root and eliminate it. That has been an immensely thrilling and rewarding exercise. Not only have I become harmless towards other people – a non-contributor, if you like – but I am for the first time in my life contented, happy, thrilled, delighted about each moment. Living in actuality requires no particular skills or productivity. It requires intent and determination, the courage to go all the way, to disappear entirely as a separate psychological and psychic entity . Then, and only then, am I not a burden to anybody on the planet but a catalyst for delight and more delight, for whoever comes my way. This is very well possible. The insights and understandings on the way to this actual freedom were of importance to me at the time and may be of help to someone else. But eventually everybody has to do the job himself, no-one can do it for somebody else and everybody will encounter different obstacles and related insights on the way.

In general you can ask this question in the following way: ‘If I do not have any means, capability, insight, that can make anyone’s life more fulfilling, (including that of your own) is it then possible to have relationships that are not burden-some in some way to others?’

I assert, that such a thing is not possible. But if that is so, then developing yourself leads automatically to a position whereby you have no conflict with others. Simply, because you are such a useful individual to others. So the strange situation then occurs, that our interdependence can be used to speak out freely to others without this being a source of concern. But, on the other hand, if your focus is solely on the social domain, you do not see clearly that non-conflictuous relationships with others is an EFFECT, and not a CAUSE. In this case you maneuver yourself into a position whereby you become totally dependent on the judgement of others for your well-being.

In my position, as you call it, I am not at all dependent on the judgement of others for my well-being. My well-being has nothing to do with others, it has only to do with my own state of well-being and perfection. I know without doubt that I have cleaned myself up, have made myself perfect, 99% of the time, and that eliminates the need for someone else’s approval. The relationship is ‘non-conflictuous’, as you say, when the behaviour of the other doesn’t cause any ripple in my well-being. If I don’t feel insulted, there is no emotional reaction required from my side and there will be no fight. The insult did not take place, even if it was meant to be an insult. If I don’t have any expectations from the other, there will be no contract, no disappointment, no sulking. In that way, freedom and peace are solely the responsibility of each person who wants to be free and peaceful, and therefore it is possible for everyone who has the necessary intent.

As far as ‘the world inhabited by other people’ is concerned – there are some practical safety measures to be considered. When appropriate, I will keep my mouth shut and not talk about Actual Freedom, because people seem to get really upset when their dearly held beliefs are questioned. The Internet for instance, is a much safer place to have a conversation about Actual Freedom. But most of what is considered ‘danger’ is, in fact, merely emotionally perceive and disappears with the thorough investigation of one’s emotions, feelings and instinctual passions – the actual world is an imminently safe place to be.

So I waited patiently a bit while you got over your newfound guru trip. And I still don’t quite see the end of it ... but I am learning to accept people as they are, (on another list) so soon I will be able to accept that you are just doing what Vineeto chooses to do right now, and ...

So anything I say to expand and correct your first – misinterpreted – impression of Actual Freedom is seen as ‘guru trip’? I fail to see how you can ever learn about something so iconoclastic and radically new as Actual Freedom as long as you have such an emotional reaction that causes you to disregard the facts that I am presenting.

As for ‘learning to accept people as they are’ – let me give you a reply to a similar comment from someone who you acknowledge being actually free (‘actually free as your friend Richard is’) –

Respondent: I think what happens is that a person realizes the futility of acting in ways that produce conflict and learns to live in peace and harmony with him/herself and with his/her surroundings.

Richard: Yes ... a person settling for second best often redecorates.

Respondent: Once again, a general failure to comprehend what you are getting at. What I am saying is this: a person realizes the futility of conflict and starts living peacefully with himself and his surroundings.

Richard: I was responding to your description of ‘a person’ who ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’ ... an actual freedom is gratuitous peace and harmony. No learning needed.

Respondent: What is ‘second best’ here and what is ‘redecorated’. Please explain. Thanks, again.

Richard: Missing out on the pure and perfect – and gratis – peace and harmony which is already always just here right now is second best by any criteria ... and ‘redecorated’ is an expressive way of describing what a person is doing when he/she ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’. I could have said renovate, refurbish, revamp, spruce up, smarten-up, fix-up, give a face-lift and so on. Richard, List B, No 33c, 23.6.2000

hmmm ... what I mean to say is ... it seems you are upset because I said I am actually free; and you are only virtually free ...

You do go on about me seemingly being upset ... but repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. It is simply a false impression. Virtual Freedom is vastly superior to anything that I have known from my spiritual days because one becomes actually happy and harmless 99% of the time and able to live with another person in utter peace and harmony 24 hrs. a day.

As for saying that you are ‘actually free’ – I know, and you know from meeting Richard face to face, that one who is actually free from the Human Condition has no need of ‘learning to accept people as they are’ – the entity that needs to learn to accept people has ceased to exist. To call your spiritual way of life ‘Actual Freedom’ only makes you look like a fool who is redecorating himself.

As you will have seen, I have not posted to the mailing list for some time and have not read much either. Your email prompted me to ponder why. And I came up with: everything has already been said I had nothing new to report when the writing is not doing itself there is no point.

I can only say that from my own experience with writing, that the writing is never ‘doing itself’. Apart from sitting in front of the computer and moving my fingers, I also have to put my brain in action, search for the appropriate words I want to say, often with the help of the Thesaurus and Oxford dictionary, and then consider the grammar so as to convey as accurately as possible what it is I want to say. Sometimes it takes me a day or two to write a letter and in this time some processing happens that makes the issue I’m writing about clearer and more transparent to me. I always get something out of writing – it is as much part of my investigation into the human condition as is watching television, talking to people, doing nothing really well or working in the marketplace.

VINEETO: 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.