Actualism.vineeto.list c

8/16/2019 Actualism.vineeto.list c

1/183

========FILENAME========c-corr22.htm

Please note that Vineeto's correspondence below was written by the feeling-being `Vi

neeto' while `she' lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom.

Vineeto's Correspondence to Mailing List C

Correspondent No. 22

Topics covered

I is a collective pronoun, cerebral, affective, sensate, magic of the actual wor

ld * expert in becoming free of the Human Condition, ASC, universal bliss

18.12.1998

RESPONDENT: I is not a singular pronoun. It is a collective pronoun. It is THE collective pronoun. The only I is the I we are. Present-centered consciousness is the God-realized activity of Self. I'm wanting to avoid esoteric sentences. Thatlast one was too far out. We never find God because we look for God outside ourselves or in ourselves and God is neither outside or inside but is the us. Nevermind. I won't go on. Maybe I've provoked something for us to talk about.

VINEETO: I must admit I had your letter sitting in my Inbox for a few days, looking at it and being completely baffled as to what you mean by your statement.

Do you mean, that with whatever you say you speak for everyone else? Do you mean, when I go to the toilet, everyone goes to the toilet? If `God is the us', as you say, why do you then call ùs' God. Why not just call us what we are: human beings. If all 5.8 billion people are God, what's the point of calling them God? The outcome is, as you admitted, èsoteric sentences'. Why do you have to bring the concept of God into the matter? But then, you have given the answer in the first part of your letter:

RESPONDENT: I want to simply comment on your Ì am the body, aren't I? What else cou

ld I be?' questions. I don't think those questions, however, can be answered with the logical brain as you are attempting to do. You seem to be leaving out all magic, all shamanism. Maybe you're not and I've missed it.

VINEETO: There are three ways to experience the world: cerebral, affective and sensate. In the spiritual teaching there are usually only two ways mentioned ± cerebral and affective. The cerebral is condemned, which leaves only one accepted way to experience the world ± the affective. So if I am not affective, feeling ± I must be cerebral, logical. And you seem to say that affections have the magic, love has the magic.

I have known both the powerful emotional `magic' and shamanism (a very appropriate word!) of Divine Love and the pure magic of Actual Freedom in various peak-experi

ences. An actual freedom from both the `self' and the `Self' reveals the magical fairy-tale-like innocence, purity and perfection of the physical universe. This physical universe is already perfect as it is ± only human beings, acting out their diffe


2/183

rent constructs of instinctual passions, feelings and imaginations, are not perfect. They kill each other every day, for exactly those instincts, feeling and imaginations! Once you discover or re-discover the actual world as a sensate human being, the magic is obvious, self-evident and actual. And it is pure ± pure because there is no `self' or `Self' present or `present-centred' to mess things up, to controlinterpret, distort or pollute. I am simply doing what is happening, like now, Iam typing and listening to piano-lessons in the background. Delicious, thrilling

, alive, sparkling and wonderfully simple.

4.1.1999

VINEETO: I had a two weeks off since the last outbreak of objections because our local server was out of order. And I have noticed that I now indeed prefer to write on our Actual Freedom mailing list to whoever wants to continue the conversation.

Of course, if someone talks about a subject that twigs me I will join the conver

sation on this list, there is no promise to keep my mouth shut. So, I have no idea what is going to happen. But then, nobody knows what is going to happen anyway. Or do you? Do you know what is going to happen after you read this mail? Will you respond or not? Will you be pissed off or bored? Or amazed? Or none of it?We don't know what is going to happen in the next moment, and that makes life so fascinating ... if there is no fear, that is.

You wrote before the Christmas break:

RESPONDENT: No, I don't mean that in the physical world we live and dream in there is no individual body which we call `I', but that, in fact, the I-ness that is notthe body/mind is a shared and common consciousness. That is my current understanding. You have obviously gone much further in discovering and understanding thes

e questions.

VINEETO: Yes, actually, I have. As much as someone is an expert in repairing a car, in selling chai or in cooking a gourmet meal, I am now an expert in becoming free from the Human Condition ± because I have done it and I know how I did it.

I have become free of all those expressions of the Human Condition, and I know how I did it, what method I applied, what obstacles I met on the way. Anybody who wants to can now become free in a similar way, there is no mystery about it and no Divine Grace required. It is all in your reach, you just have to take it into your hands and reclaim responsibility for your life and your deeds.

I had the experience of an altered state of consciousness and managed to come back into the actual world, and I experienced the in and out of the state of `universal bliss'. I know how not to be seduced and trapped in either of those delusory states. Free to live in this actual physical magical world, which is so enormousin its splendour, aliveness and delicious sensuality. Any concept of God or soul or Love would only destroy its purity and prevents you from experiencing the actual world. This physical universe is so vast, it is complete and perfect in each of its aspects. What a delight to be the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being, through all the physical senses, without separation, day after magic day and night after sparkling night, here, now, each moment again fresh and delightful, sensuous and actual.

Seemingly, there are very few of all the 117 people on this list, who are intere

sted enough to find out about this actual, non-spiritual down-to-earth freedom.In this New Dark Age of hundreds of new and rehashed ancient beliefs it seems very unfashionable, unpopular and threatening to investigate facts for oneself rat


3/183

her than faithfully believing what everybody else believes. Even to acknowledgethat one believes seems an impossible task for most.

Never mind, maybe one needs a crisis to question what one's life has come to. I can only say that I have found out ten times more about myself and the Human Condition in the last two years than in all of my 17 Sannyas years. So I can say outof my own experience that there is much more to discover than meditation, therap

y or Vipassana-like watching can ever facilitate. But the search is 180 degreesin the opposite direction, away from the spirit-ual, into the actual, factual, sensual and sensible.

So, here is the address of the Actual Freedom mailing list: http://www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read

You are very welcome to draw on my expertise.

Mailing List C Index

Vineeto's Writings and Correspondence

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition ± Happy and Harmless

Vineeto's & Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity========FILENAME========

c-corr19.htm

Please note that Vineeto's correspondence below was written by the feeling-being `Vineeto' while `she' lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom.

Vineeto's Correspondence on Mailing List C

Correspondent No. 19

Topics covered

Love, mask, peace, religious persecutions and fights * living together in peaceand harmony, sex

13.11.1998

VINEETO: Hi,

Well, I would say, from my experience and from common sense, that love is not going to be liberating. It only makes one more dependant of others and confused ..


4/183

.

RESPONDENT: Obviously, you never have felt any love from anyone. Otherwise how can you state such a nonsense.

VINEETO: I actually got off my bum and cleaned myself up from everything that Idid not like about myself: anger, jealousy, need, greed, fear, malice, bitching

and depression, ...

RESPONDENT: Wow! And who is this who doesn't like these things? Is that you now? Your Mask = Perfect Person?

No. 18 said: Please listen carefully to what I'm not saying ...you didn't.

I find her poem just wonderful, and I want to thank her for it.

PETER: I had a conversation with someone yesterday, who said that how I talked a

nd wrote was offensive...

RESPONDENT to Peter: Of course it is ± you are continuously spitting around in subtle ways.

PETER: I have no religious tolerance whatsoever, so all call me evil, ...

RESPONDENT to Peter: except you. You BELIEVE you are HARMLESS, hahaha

PETER: ...but given that I was a Sannyasin,

RESPONDENT to Peter: at least you BELIEVE you were, isn't it?

PETER: ...particularly the followers of Mr. Chandra Mohan call me evil.

RESPONDENT to Peter: Right, they will, 'cause you want to destroy their `leader'. TheLOVERS of Osho, however, will call you simply an asshole. I do. (An asshole is one who spits at love, in case you don't know).

In fact, to call an asshole an asshole is such a joy, thanks for the opportunity, guy. And don't forget to do what you said on top of your first reply: get lost sometime soon ± the endless repetition of your happy and harmless number is getting too boring man.

VINEETO: As far as I know, your Indian name means `peace'. Does it mean you are looking for peace in you, with others and for the world at large? That had been my main reason why I took Sannyas.

But to be a LOVER of Osho for you means obviously calling everybody who isn't an asshole. The consequence of love is obviously that you have to hate everybody who does not love who you love.

Isn't that what the Jews do to the Muslims in the Middle East, what the Catholicsdo with the Protestants in Ireland and the Hindus do with the Muslims and Sikhsin India. Tell me, where is the difference? Aren't you simply defending your loveof Osho, your belief in him as the Master, against another belief? You attack the `wrong-believer' like all get-out and have great glee doing it. So your love is just another opportunity to wage war, something human beings have developed into a

great art or entertainment over the centuries.

Just calling someone an asshole is not enough of a fact to refute anything he sa


5/183

ys, you have to give more evidence to your opinion. Otherwise I cannot see any difference to all the other religious warriors who are simply sending missiles when they disagree with their neighbour's country's religion.

When I met Peter and he said he wanted to live with a woman in peace and harmony, I took the opportunity. I had to question and eliminate a lot of my dearly held beliefs in the course of the search for such daily and permanent peace, but I

considered those beliefs as part of the ego that I had set out to leave behind when I started on the spiritual path.

My primary aim was peace. And being practical I realised that the challenge wasto live in peace with one person. That was and is my contribution to peace in the world. If I could not live with one other person in peace and harmony, how could I realistically expect to be peace on the planet? Whatever was in the road between us I would investigate according to what was factual and what was a belief. Based on facts, we could always find a sensible agreement in whatever situation, something that has never been possible on the basis of believing something to be right or wrong, good or bad. Sticking stubbornly and passionately to my beliefs had only resulted in endless fights about opinions in my previous relationsh

ips.

This is how I came to question one belief after the other, and one of them was the belief in authority. Without the belief in authority I can confidently standon my own two feet and can examine whatever somebody says according to the content and not to who says it ± a man, a woman, a guru, a `newcomer', a heathen. That confidence gives me peace with everyone, I don't need to attack or defend authority, and I can simply examine facts.

You replied to what I wrote to No. 18:

[Vineeto]: I actually got off my bum and cleaned myself up from everything thatI did not like about myself: anger, jealousy, need, greed, fear, malice, bitchin

g and depression...

[Respondent]: Wow! And who is this who doesn't like these things? Is that you now? Mask = Perfect Person? [endquote].

I think you don't consider it a possibility that somebody can actually get rid ofanger, greed, jealousy etc. You can only interpret it as another mask. I think it is a bit short-sighted, that's all. I am simply saying that it is possible because I did it, and why not give it a try? My life now is well worth living and somuch more fun than with all the problems that the Human Condition in me, like anger, fear, greed, sorrow etc. used to produce.

You seem to get rather annoyed when we use the words `happy' and `harmless'. I could also call it `not miserable' and `not vindictive'. But you can always press `delete' in caseu enjoy your life as it is and yourself as you are.

27.11.1998

VINEETO: As far as I know, your Indian name means `peace'. Does it mean you are looking for peace in you, with others and for the world at large?

RESPONDENT: I'm not the pope, dear.

VINEETO: Maybe that's why the world is in such a bad state with 160,000,000 people killed in wars in this century alone. People think it is the job of the pope or somebody enlightened or God to take care of peace, and then they can go on bein


6/183

g their grotty and violent self they want to be. I was simply tired of waiting for god or any other authority to solve the problem, it has not happened in centuries. So I became a non-contributor to the violence and misery around. You can call that `pope' if you like, it is definitely not Pollack.

*

VINEETO: When I met Peter and he said he wanted to live with a woman in peace and harmony, I took the opportunity.

RESPONDENT: So why he (and you) doesn't DO it? Butting in, butting out, butting back and all that jazz... Maybe another type of butting in & out would be more fun. For the list & you too...

VINEETO: I don't see how sex could be fun for the list. But if you don't like the conversation, nobody forces you to write. You obviously have good reasons to keepgoing. It is a strange human habit to try and change the other according to one'swishes ± which in itself is an impossibility ± when it makes so much more sense to find the solution in adjusting one's own attitude or behaviour.

*

VINEETO: When I met Peter and he said he wanted to live with a woman in peace and harmony, I took the opportunity. I had to question and eliminate a lot of my dearly held beliefs in the course of the search for such daily and permanent peace, but I considered those beliefs as part of the ego that I had set out to leave behind when I started on the spiritual path.

RESPONDENT: The I setting out to leave the I behind, hahaha. Great Idea! But it'sa good warning ± thanks!

VINEETO: This is one of the insidious beliefs of spirituality and of Sannyas, th

at you can't change yourself. People believe that simply loving the Master of obeying God will do the trick. That's why everybody who believes it keeps going roundin circles. We are not only born with instincts and then filled up with the usual social conditioning but we also have a brain equipped with intelligence and awareness. Both intelligence and awareness are very good tools to change one's behaviour, to get rid of emotions and beliefs that don't work in life. Just to call it `I'and then pretend that you are helpless to do something about it is an easy cop-out and a cheap excuse. It smacks of fatalism. Maybe it is threatening when I state that it is possible to change myself because it reveals this great belief for what it is ± an excuse to stay malicious and miserable.

But if you want this conversation to end, just don't reply.

Mailing List C Index

Vineeto's Writings and Correspondence

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition ± Happy and Harmless

Vineeto's & Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:1997- . All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity========FILENAME===


7/183

=====c-corr04.htm

Please note that Vineeto's correspondence below was written by the feeling-being `Vi

neeto' while `she' lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom.

Vineeto's Correspondence on Mailing List C

Correspondent No. 4

Topics covered

Flavours of Papaji and Gangaji, freedom from feelings and instincts, questioning

enlightenment, superiority, perfection * facts, heart, experiencing physical world without Human Condition, repression / elimination, mind, beliefs, Truth, physical senses, PCE, missionary, peak experience, belief of perfection / actual perfection * objections, non-spiritual, thought, beaten path * Fact of death, clear-eyed view * facts / beliefs * scrutiny , dictionary definitions not applicable to psychic world experiences, personality, identity * why disciple of Rajneesh, bargain, love, intimacy * facts , divine love * to see the facts for what theyare I had to examine and eliminate my emotions first * Love Agape * brainwashed, instincts, awareness* watcher as the cheap solution, `self', Richard's apt words * fantasy world, proof, delusion of the world of the watcher * Merry Christmas * mindless affair

28.11.1998

VINEETO: Hi,

PETER: Fair enough, I was just offering an alternative non-spiritual and down-to-earth solution to the Human Dilemma. So you are not interested, so why even bother to criticize if you haven't even bothered to read my book. Guess you don't evenlike the idea of what you `think' it is about. Peter, List C, No 4, 26.11.1998

RESPONDENT: I don't feel inclined to read your book. I read parts of yours, Vineeto's and Richard's sites. When I replied to you, it is from having read your mails. I don't feel very eager to discuss with you, we have our different viewpoints and experiences and that is ok. The reason I answered was because you seem to have taken a position from where you look down on others, and that I find it strange that you can do that from your illuminated state of delight. Expansion beyond enlightenment should be able to offer a broader view to life than what you can. Also I find some of your words to be agreeable upon, but I don't sense your heart through the words. Read Papaji or Gangaji here on the net, the flavour of their words is something totally different.

VINEETO: Yes, you observed it right ± the flavours of Papaji (W.L. Poonja) and Gangaji Antoinette Varner) are very different, they have got `the heart' in it.

The whole issue of actual freedom is the freedom from emotions, feelings and the

instinctual passions. `Heart'-felt passions have been the source of both religiousand tribal wars, of domestic violence, and of the misery and gulf between men and women. Any questioning of the love and devotion that the followers have for th


8/183

e enlightened ones and the religious leaders has led to emotional responses which you can now see happening on the sannyas mailing list.

Richard was indeed the first one to question the state of enlightenment becauseit did not match the way he experienced the world in the peak experience. In arduous years of investigation he discovered the massive delusion that enlightenment is and, by eliminating not only the ego but also the soul, all the heart-felt

emotions, he managed to get himself out of this delusion. What was left after the complete elimination of ego, soul, identity and being was simply the physicalhuman flesh-and-blood body, perfectly functioning in this magical fairy-tale like world. Without the Human Condition, without the overlaying fear, aggression, nurture and desire this world is experienced as-it-is, benevolent, friendly, easy and magically delightful.

As for your notion of us looking down on others ± that is a curious matter. Of course, the actual world is superior to any state of enlightened delusion in that it is not merely a creation of human imagination but factual, obvious and perfect, as evidenced by the physical senses. If you have experienced it once in a peak experience ± or remembered one you had, you would easily agree with me. Many peop

le seem to have peak-experiences, if only for a short period of time. In my writing I am simply sharing the joy of having been able to clean myself up with Richard's method and becoming virtually free. It is possible for everybody because I am nobody special. Everybody with enough intent and courage can indeed become happy and harmless.

I find it strange that most people seem to get stuck with their opinion, objecting to this freedom because of their personal feelings instead of investigating the contents and facts of what we are talking about. When Galileo first discovered the fact that the earth went around the sun, many people have objected, because this was contrary to the ancient beliefs. It took centuries until it became accepted as a fact. The same will be the case with actual freedom. For most people it is too radical a thought that emotions and even instincts might not be neces

sary for survival, but that they are, to the contrary, the very cause for all the misery happening on the planet.

I am simply telling my story in case someone becomes intrigued by the possibility of a third alternative to `normal' and `spiritual'. I understand that many will want to stay in their particular belief system ± I myself had rocky days to work myselfout of the social and religious conditioning, before I could tackle the animal instincts every human is born with.

In case you want to discuss any further, I invite you to join our mailing list.

Otherwise I just leave you with a definition of perfection (people might call it superiority...)

Perfection ± The condition, state, or quality of being perfect or free from all defect; flawlessness, faultlessness. An embodiment of this; a perfect person or thing. Oxford Dictionary

Peter: Perfection is readily apparent in the physical universe when one perceives a star-filled night sky, the delicacy of a passion flower, the smell of approaching rain on the wind, the taste of a strawberry, the touch of skin, the ever changing weather, the delight of human settlements, and the amazing things fashioned from the earth's minerals. And it is perfect in that it is infinite and eternal , there is no outside to it, there is nothing to compare it to, it is incomparable± there is nothing finer or more pure. The imaginary ethereal worlds pale into

insignificance in comparison to a stellar nebula millions of light-years across or a dew-drop in the early light of dawn. Human beings, with their in-built program of malice and sorrow , are painfully aware of their own shortcomings in the


9/183

face of this perfection. Thus humans live in a state of constant turmoil and guilt about their collective and individual lot ± to be forever attempting to cope with and control the feelings of being malicious and sorrowful in the face of this obvious perfection.

But there is a solution. The diligent and intentional pursuit of the perfectionevidenced in a PCE, while assiduously avoiding the pitfalls of Glory or Dread, w

ill inevitably result in an actual freedom from the Human Condition ± perfection in humans is possible. Not the deluded perfection of feeling Divine or the cerebral version of perfection as in `never make a mistake', but the down-to-earth everyday perfection of being a mortal flesh and blood human, innocent of malice and sorrow. The very same perfection readily experienced in a Pure Consciousness Experience . If you can experience it for a moment, or a minute, or an hour then it is, of course, possible to experience the perfection of the world-as-it-is with people as-they-are as a constant on-going experience. And it is freely available for those who want it. It requires no special qualities, no super intelligence ,no being `chosen', no being coerced or cajoled ± the only requirement is you have to want to do it, like you have never wanted anything else before. The Actual Freedom Trust Library

29.11.1998

RESPONDENT: You give a definition of perfection and as a librarian I like to know the source of any statement.

VINEETO: The first (italics) part is from the Oxford dictionary. The second part is written by Peter to explain how `perfection' is used in his journal.

RESPONDENT: When I said that Papaji and Gangaji have got a heart, which can be felt ± a transmission, it has nothing to do with human feelings as you describe in

your mail. It is the heart of their being which is perceived, the sweetness coming from the divine. I don't sense this in yours or Peter's or Richard's words. On thecontrary, I find your words to be very firm and closed to the fact you want to deliver, your words are not flexible or poetic, they stem from the very logical world of materialism and don't offer any juice to the spirit.

VINEETO: Yes, this is exactly the difference. The enlightened ones talk about and experience the heart of their being, juice to the spirit, poetry, sweetness and flexibility , all of which are qualities of the affective nature of their experience. You rightly don't sense this kind of transmission in Peter's or Richard's words, because it is not part of actual freedom. Actual freedom is to experience the physical world ± only. To experience this physical world without the Human Condition, without fear, aggression, nurture and desire, without the overlaying `self', without the delusion of `soul', is pure delight. If you would take the trouble to read a bit deeper into the matter you would understand that Richard is indeed the very first person who discovered the perfection of the actuality that is usually obscured by any kind of emotion, instincts and imagination, be it `normal human' feelings or divine feelings.

I notice that you first assume that actual freedom falls into the same categoryas Papaji's or Gangaji's enlightenment, and then you criticise that our words don't describe the state of enlightenment. Of course not. Actual freedom is something completely different altogether, in fact 180 degrees in the opposite direction ofenlightenment. It is impossible to imagine the actual world ± a world without concepts ± and that's why it is so important to remember one's peak-experience. But then,

we are not talking about the same experience. I will explain further down.

Richard described it best in his introduction to his journal:


10/183

Richard: For many years I sought genuine exploration and discovery of what it means to live a fully human life, and in October 1992 I discovered, once and for all, what I was looking for. Since then I have been consistently living an incomparable condition which I choose to call actual freedom ± and I use the word àctual' because this freedom is located here in this very world, this actual world of the senses. It is not an affective, cerebral or psychic state of being; it is a phy

sical condition that ensues when one goes beyond Spiritual Enlightenment. In September 1981 I underwent a monumental transformation into an Altered State Of Consciousness which can only be described as Spiritual Enlightenment. I became Enlightened as the result of an earnest and intense process which commenced in the January of that year. At approximately six o'clock on the morning of Sunday 6th September 1981, my ègo' disappeared entirely in an edifying moment of awakening to an Àbsolute Reality'. I lived in the Enlightened State for eleven years, so I have anintimate understanding of the marked difference between Spiritual Enlightenmentand actual freedom. Richard's Journal, Introduction

RESPONDENT: What you sense as emotional responses on the list are just plain human responses, emotions are alive in the human realm and can cause both pleasure

and pain. One does never get rid of these unless one suppresses the human nature and seduces oneself into enlightenhood....

VINEETO: I am not talking about suppressing the Human Nature or the Human Condition, and I am not talking about `seduction' into enlightenment. Richard discovered that it is possible to completely eliminate the Human Condition, instincts, emotions, the whole lot. Enlightenment happens when you get rid of the ego and become divine feeling ± the Self one with God, while actual freedom is the state when every bit of identity, ego, soul, being, Self, That, Truth, Divine Love, Universeand God have altogether disappeared. What remains is just the body with its senses and its wonderfully functioning intelligence.

RESPONDENT: ...by merely living in the dry land of mind

VINEETO: `Mind' is a word very much used in the spiritual understanding as something to `get out of'. In its dictionary definition it means:

mind ± that which thinks, feels and wills, exercises perception, judgment, reflection, etc, as in a human or other conscious being; the psyche, the totality of conscious and unconscious activities of the organism; the intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; the intelligence. Oxford Dictionary

Mind as `that which feels and wills', as `the psyche' is indeed something that needs tobe extinguished to become actually free. Mind as `the intellect or understanding,as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; the intelligence' , however, is highly recommendable when one wants to live a sensible, pleasurable, considerate, beneficent and comfortable life. The East, as in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tibet, Nepal, Bhurma shows clearly what happens if intelligence gets thrown out of the window ± poverty, repression of women, overpopulation, corruption, illiteracy and ignorance are only a few obvious facts. After giving up my spiritual practice I had to re-start my brain and exercise my rusty intelligence inorder to distinguish between silly and sensible, between facts and mere beliefs. Intelligence and awareness combined are the tools that one can re-wire the brain from its conditioning, beliefs and instincts. To use pure intelligence ± and tobe aware of its happening ± unobstructed by social and religious conditioning or instinctual fear is a magnificent and exquisite function of the human brain.

RESPONDENT: There are two ways, as I see it, to become free from our nature. One: suppressing ± which is illusive freedom, and two: stay a witness to one's nature,don't identify but enjoy. The third, which you may think I have missed, is not som


11/183

ething one can do, it is a happening, which happens in spite of our personalities.

VINEETO: Yes, you do describe the two known ways of dealing with the Human Condition. Richard's discovery is the third alternative, a method to actively become free. Your description of the `third' is simply an extension of the second, the spiritual transcendence.

*

VINEETO: Any questioning of the love and devotion that the followers have for the enlightened ones and the religious leaders has led to emotional responses which you can now see happening on the sannyas mailing list.

RESPONDENT: I think you take quick conclusions. Maybe it is your words leading to these emotional responses????

VINEETO: Of course, my words evoke those emotional responses. I am questioning dearly held beliefs, I am shaking the very foundation of spirituality. But once I

have rid myself of emotions, no words from others can evoke them in me. Everybody has the potential of emotional responses, it is part of our birthmark. Unless one sets out to rid oneself of the very source of those emotions, one by one, anybody can spark off an emotional reaction, anger, envy, fear, etc.

*

VINEETO: Richard was indeed the first one ...

RESPONDENT: `Indeed'?? Could it be others have talked about enlightenment in many different ways, which you have missed out on? What is this need to point out somesuperiority here?

VINEETO: As I have said, Richard does not talk about enlightenment. He talks about something far superior to enlightenment.

*

VINEETO: ...to question the state of enlightenment because it did not match theway he experienced the world in the peak experience. In arduous years of investigation he discovered the massive delusion that enlightenment is and, by eliminating not only the ego but also the soul, all the heart-felt emotions, he managedto get himself out of this delusion.

RESPONDENT: Well, this is all very good for Richard, but why ± WHY ± from where comes the need to say that what it is like for me, so must it be for the others andwhen they don't agree with me, they are emotional and wrong?

VINEETO: Richard talks about facts. The fact is that everybody by birth and conditioning is inflicted with the Human Condition. Those facts are the same for everybody. That is the superiority of facts. A tree is a tree, fullstop. Not some mysterious product of Mother Nature, filled with divine energy, of some creationof God's grace. When someone does not agree with a fact, he/she usually has emotional reasons and is wrong in that he/she denies facts ± or lives in imagination. The Macquarie dictionary states:

fact ± what has really happened or is the case; truth; reality: in fact rather than theory, the fact of the matter is; something known to have happened; a truth k

nown by actual experience or observation: scientists work with facts. Oxford Dictionary


12/183

Enlightenment, on the contrary is an affective state, an experience of the psyche, which is another word for imagination. Therefore everybody experiences it different, there exists `my Truth' and `your Truth' and a million ways to reach this elusive Truth.

*

VINEETO: What was left after the complete elimination of ego, soul, identity and being was simply the physical human flesh-and-blood body, perfectly functioning in this magical fairy-tale like world.

RESPONDENT: This was not what I experienced after my peak experience. So then, who is right and who is wrong???? This is really my whole point, there are many ways to freedom and I find it strange that you and Peter, marketing your freedomwith many words, are not more inclusive, more broad-minded, more acceptable andmore understanding. It is obvious you are clinging to the truth you have found,and by clinging you are not free.

VINEETO: As I pointed out before, you are talking about a different experience w

hen you use the word `peak experience'. Peak experience refers to a pure consciousness experience without any affective qualities whatsoever, without the conditioned notion of divine-ness or love. see definition below...

*

VINEETO: Without the Human Condition, without the overlaying fear, aggression, nurture and desire this world is experienced as-it-is, benevolent, friendly, easy and magically delightful.

RESPONDENT: Absolutely. And I understand the need to share this with others. Just ± the responses you get, both positive and negative, can tell you something if you are willing to stay open in an communication, without any defences, which it

seems to me you put up in front of the truth you have found. You want to share it, with NO objections what so ever. You put the truth upon people by telling them they are wrong, who is interested in listening to your truth when you come from that perspective? We are all, ALL, on the search and we are all, ALL, wrong from time to time. But when we are right, we are right according to ourselves only, no one can confirm that for us. Be more tolerate, more compassionate (which has nothing to do with emotions), more understanding. I know you would have been,if you came from the Source. I don't think you do.

VINEETO: I have not found `the truth', which is indeed different for everyone. I talk about facts, about experiencing the world without notions of `right' and `wrong', true and false. You can be maybe `right' according to your affective experience, but the physical senses without emotions and feelings give a clear experience of the world-as-it-is. You cannot call a coffee-cup a chewing gum. This is where actual freedom differs from spiritual truth in that it is definable, describable, factual, physical, obvious and perfect, as evidenced by the physical senses.

RESPONDENT: But the physical senses differ from human to human, so everybody have their own facts, their own obvious perfection., so it occurs to me you are deluding yourself here.

VINEETO: Exactly, our physical senses are not fit to respond to the divine, andthere is no need to. The `divine' is a product of our imagination, like everything else that cannot be evidenced by the physical senses. God is a mere fiction of the human psyche, the ignorant human invention based upon the dualistic need to ex

plain anything and everything in terms of cause and effect. And what human energy is powerful enough to give birth to this imaginary god? Passionate human energy, of course, all in a desperate search for immortality, a denial of physical de


13/183

ath.

*

VINEETO: If you have experienced it once in a peak experience ± or remembered oneyou had, you would easily agree with me.

RESPONDENT: No, I cannot because my peak experience was beyond my physical senses.

VINEETO: This sentence proves that we are talking about different peak experiences (pure consciousness experiences). There is nothing beyond physical senses when I talk about a PCE. Here is how Richard describes it:

Richard: A PCE is when one's sense of identity temporarily vacates the throne andapperception occurs. Apperception is the mind's perception of itself ... it is a pure awareness. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception is when the `thinker' and the `feeler' i

s not and an unmediated awareness occurs. The pure consciousness experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one's head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any `self' whatsoever. One is able to see that Ì' and `me' have beentanding in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential characterof this moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the `thinker' and the `feeler' is in abeyance. One is the universe's experience of itself as a human being ... after all, thevery stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no òutside' to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity. Apperception is something that brings the facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. Then what one is (`what' not `who')is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this

tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas Ì', the identity, am inside the body: looking out through `my' eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through `my' ears as if they were microphones,tasting through `my' tongue, touching through `my' skin, smelling through `my' nose, and tnking through `my' brain. Of course Ì' must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for Ì' am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ± the world as-it-is ± by `my' very presence. Richard, List B, No 26, 13.11.1998

In my writing I am simply sharing the joy of having been able to clean myself up with Richard's method and becoming virtually free. It is possible for everybody because I am nobody special.

RESPONDENT: There is a little missionary hiding in you. See her??? :-)

VINEETO: Don't hope for that! Once understood, everybody has to do it for themselves. I have better things to do with my time than playing the saviour for `lost souls'. Actual freedom is something everybody has to earn for themselves by cleaningthemselves up, nobody can clean you up but you.

RESPONDENT: You can share and see that people are suffering because you have left that plane, but you can only shine your truth. This is the case with the people today, that those who could make use of your alternative, are holding on tight to their individual right to think and believe for themselves. They don't like to be told. People has to come down from their ivory towers ± by themselves ± and youhave to have patience, shine on and wait from them to ask you for help. And this

is how it should be, people should not be told, but be allowed to search and search until they find some master that fits.


14/183

VINEETO: I am only telling my story. It is completely up to each individual if they are intrigued, curious, thrilled or disgusted. Nothing to do with me. I have neither the need nor the responsibility to save anyone. Otherwise I would not be free. But I won't just hide under the blanket because someone might feel offended ± and a lot of people have been and will be. It is very understandable. I have been upset and offended myself, until I saw in a peak-experience that there is aworld beyond beliefs. Here is my description of this mind-blowing experience:

[Vineeto]: Finally, a minor car-accident shocked my spinning mind to a halt. Itwas followed by a peak-experience on the same evening that shed some light on my dilemma. Having smoked some marijuana I wandered off into the vast spaces of my imagination, exploring the `psychic world', as I tried to make sense of the diametrically opposed options that had presented themselves in my life.

I seemed to perceive my questions in a wider context and had intense sensationsabout pains and processes in different parts of my body. Watching the people around me I had a deeper understanding of their behaviour and how they related to each other. I could even see the ènergy-lines' between the people relating to each other. Each presented a protective shield of a particular personal image, and thi

s ìmage' would act and operate, relating to the others while the actual, fearful and aggressive person remained hidden.

At the same time that I was watching this I was distinctly aware of my thinkingand my journeying in this magical ìnner' world. At one stage I even experienced what it is to be mad. I understood the temptation of staying forever in an easy, illusory world of psychedelic wonders, where the mad person is the magician in his own world enjoying the power and safety of his dream. But anybody who dares toquestion this dream has to be considered a deadly enemy. However, I was always aware that I had the choice to stay in this imaginary world or not.

When I tried to tell Peter about my experiences and insights his simple response gave me quite a shock. `But all this is just inside your mind, it is simply your

own interpretation, it may appear to be real, but it is not actual.' Yes, that was true. I could easily see that I was inside the `mind', roaming about in the different chambers of my assembled beliefs-systems, trying to find the one that was `right' and `true' ± while in fact, I was just having a little grander and unusually complexperception of this huge labyrinth of thoughts and feelings! I could see more ofmy ideas or concepts and other people's ideas, but they were simply ideas. None of them had any relevance to the actuality of the physical world!

In seeing the fact, everything stood still and the whole construct of beliefs suddenly disappeared. Then, for the first time in all my years of the spiritual search, I experienced several hours outside of the `psychic world'. Being outside, I could see that this `world' is a huge, all-encompassing construct, created and held in place by the dreams, beliefs, bonds, power-battles, emotions and different spiritual ideas of all of humanity. Everyone is part of it, weaving and reproducing bits of this `psychic carpet'. The more people believe in one particular version the more that version becomes `real' or `true'. Intuitive or `psychic' people are simply a ltle better acquainted with the rules and occurrences of this òther-world'. It is never actual though, because it relies on constant re-creation through imagination and belief. The moment people cease to believe in a particular religion, idea or value, that very concept eventually disappears from the earth. Actual, on thecontrary, is what is already here without anybody applying a feeling, an interpretation, a belief or any other `psychic effort'. It is simply here, visual, tangible, audible and tastable.

That night I had stuck my head beyond the blanket of beliefs ± including good and

bad, right and wrong, love and evil. In the first moments, with the `psychic world'disappearing, this new place was stark, black, scary, a big hole and a bottomless abyss. Suddenly the ground under my feet wavered as the very existence of beli


15/183

efs ceased. For a while I was lost, frightened and bewildered.

After a minute or two that appeared to contain an eternity of complex understanding, Peter said to me, `Hello, how are you? Good that you are here!' `Here' obviously meant that there existed a place outside the belief-systems! I turned round, out of my shock and bewilderment, into the actual world, and saw that I was simply sitting on the couch with Peter. Here was someone sitting next to me, another huma

n being, not particularly a man, lover or boyfriend. Just a human being, smiling and pleased to meet me, eager to explore with me the next event in life. He isinterested. And I am interested. Who is this person? What will happen next? What will he say next? What will we do next? It is exciting, alive, right here and a great pleasure!

The pure and immediate adventure of experiencing this moment of being alive wasso utterly superior to everything I had come across in the name of meditation, bliss or `satori' that it spoke for itself. Being in the actual world, everything issimply obvious, needs no explanation or theory, and contains no emotional memories of any past struggle or fear. There is nothing that blurs or edits the experience of the world around me, which is both wondrous and delightful. Freedom is l

iving each moment as it happens, without any objection. It is not the end-product of years of building up a structured belief-system; it is the opposite ± destruction of everything that lies between me and the experience of the actual world.Freedom is simply what is left after I rid myself of every layer of the emotional and instinctual `self', which is the only obstruction to my direct experience of the universe.

The next morning, when the effects of the drug had long faded, the understanding of the night before was still vividly present. I clearly remember walking around a crowded out-door market, looking at all the different stalls with people offering their products together with their particular belief-systems, as they tried to convince the customers of the reality of their particular version of `truth'.

There were all kinds of proposals to find `truth' or meaning, whether religious, spiritual or secular. Feral feathers and karmic wheels, goddesses and herbs, ways of natural living and an impressive array of spiritual bookstalls, offering a hundred different solutions to life. Colourful Turks were selling their local hot coffee and delicious cakes; a black boy was playing romantic songs on his guitar, selling them by the hour. He was successful ± people bought his dreams, his lovesongs! A woman in purple dyed feral clothes was selling self-made dream-catchers, talismans and other symbols of her particular conviction.

There were traders of organic vegetables, Indian farmers and food-vans with a wide variety of exotic meals ± all served with the conviction of their producer: healthy or hearty, plain or spicy, Italian, Thai or Indian, home-made or magicallyhealing. Hippies from the hills sold their produce along with their dreamy, chaotic life-style; drumming ferals with uncombed tasseled hair presented their life as the most juicy and happy of all. Ecologists proclaimed that only purely native rainforest trees should be planted to save the environment. Everyone was utterly convinced of what they were offering, complete with their corresponding outfit, make-up, special `language' and music. I was quite taken aback by the enormity of what I saw. Being outside of all those beliefs made me see what they consisted of ± merely ideas, thoughts, constructs, dreams and hopes; nothing was factual about any of them.

This peak-experience proved to be the most significant turning point in the last turbulent year. It began to dawn on me that perhaps I also had just another belief-system ± my particular search for enlightenment with this `special' master and gro

up of people. I could no longer completely deny that possibility. However, it took another two months until I gathered the courage to actually investigate my dearly held conviction. I had already one foot in the actual world while the other


16/183

foot was still stubbornly trying to march in the direction of the spiritual search. Up to now I had not found a reliable compass to decide the course, but nowthe very idea of believing anybody else became questionable. I decided that I wanted more of this actual freedom. Now, for a change, I would start relying on facts and actual experiences instead of someone else's vision or dream. A Bit of Vineeto

I just leave you with a definition of perfection (people might call it superiority...)

perfection ± The condition, state, or quality of being perfect or free from all defect; flawlessness, faultlessness.

RESPONDENT: Whose definition is this?

VINEETO: The Oxford dictionary.

RESPONDENT: Mine is that even a fault can be perfect, a perfect fault. There isnothing unperfect, only our mind judging. And as such, the judging mind is also

perfect.

VINEETO: Your interpretation of perfect is derived from the spiritual interpretation that the world is illusory and has to be transcended. Of course, Eastern religion preaches that you have to transcend body and mind and disappear completely into the grand state of imagination and delusion. In its affective experiencethis is seen as very real, seductive and engulfing, but nevertheless a product of the `universal' imaginative psyche, not based on facts. As I said before, intelligence is a very good tool to judge silly and sensible. You, however, seem to usethe word `judging' as in `rejecting', not as in `discriminating'. Rejecting is ineffectiveuseless and silly, discriminating a necessary quality to make down-to-earth decisions about one's life.

*

VINEETO: ...perfection in humans is possible.

RESPONDENT: Whatever is, is perfect. It cannot be any other way. But there can be more.

VINEETO: One of those insidious spiritual beliefs. If you look around in the world, human beings are anything else but perfect. Murders, rapes, domestic violence, religious and tribal wars, child abuse and suicides tell enough of a story. This belief that everything is perfect is one of the reasons why people think they don't have to change, just wait for the grace of god or the master, or the universe to miraculously remove them from this miserable realm of the body. But thenyou have to deny the body, all its pleasures, its intelligence, its physical senses. Then, the only place you can have peace is in some imaginary world of the psyche.

Actual freedom means living in this physical world, as this physical body with its marvellous intelligence. But it also means living without a psyche, without affective qualities ± human or divine, without instincts, without imagination, without any sense of self or Self, ego, soul and idea of who you are. Actual freedom is to discover what you are ± a flesh-and-blood body, one of 5.8 billion on the planet ± completely ordinary with only one difference: one is completely harmless and as such a non-contributor to malice, and one is completely happy and a such a non-contributor to sorrow.

I have answered all your objections as clearly as possible. One thing strikes me as curious: You seem interested enough to engage in a detailed and inquiring co


17/183

nversation with Peter and me. Yet you have enough objections to not investigateany further into what actual freedom is all about.

There is another option, though. You could put your objections ± which are more than understandable ± aside in order to investigate scientifically, rather than emotionally. With a more informed understanding your questions will be more to the point and have more the quality of questions instead of objections.

Since I am not a missionary, I prefer the second option.

4.12.1998

RESPONDENT: I end my discussion with you with this:

[Vineeto]: I have answered all your objections as clearly as possible. One thing strikes me as curious: You seem interested enough to engage in a detailed and inquiring conversation with Peter and me. Yet you have enough objections to not i

nvestigate any further into what actual freedom is all about. [endquote].

Aren't you beyond curiosity?? I am not interested in discussing, I have already told Peter that. And since you two seems to be one, I have mailed either one of you, not bothering whose name was on top. My only issue all along has been ± and you haven't answered that: why do you criticise what doesn't work for you but which might work for others? why put Osho and his Sannyasins down? what makes you think you and you only, has the truth?

VINEETO: Curious that you are ending the discussion when you run out of objections. For me, that would be the point when to really start the discussion.

What you may perceive as a criticism, for me is simply a presenting another opti

on. That this option is so radically different to everything else I have come across in life seems to be the thing that's bothering you ± if Osho works for you, ifyou have no doubts about it, than that's fine.

I don't have the truth, because truth is different for everyone. I had similar objections in the beginning, having been a devout Sannyasin, and therefore I understand the various objections. But after thorough investigation and experiencing both the realm of enlightenment and the actual world I am now able to confidently state that they are opposite states to live in ± truth and enlightenment are faculties of feeling and imagination, while actual freedom is an experience of the physical senses and apperception.

It is not a matter of criticising Osho or Sannyas, actual freedom is a different, non-spiritual approach to life altogether. I am saying everybody got it 180 degrees wrong. I understand that this statement is offensive to almost everybody ± who wants to admit that they barked up the wrong tree? You could compare Richard'sdiscovery to what Galileo discovered a few centuries ago. With his self-built telescope Galileo proved the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is actually revolving around the sun and not vice versa ± as everybody believed then. He was persecuted, mainly by the Church, and it took a few centuries until his discovery became general accepted knowledge.

So, our discovery is similarly radical, new and a quantum leap in evolution, and as such will appeal to those with a pioneer-spirited.

*

VINEETO: There is another option, though. You could put your objections ± which ar


18/183

e more than understandable ± aside in order to investigate scientifically, ratherthan emotionally. With a more informed understanding your questions will be more to the point and have more the quality of questions instead of objections.

RESPONDENT: You say here that you don't hear me. Ok, but why can't you say so, instead of TELLING me what to do? Can't I think for myself??

VINEETO: The trouble with thinking is that is goes round in circles, because humans have learned certain `truths' that they take as facts. To question something that everybody believes to be the case ± for instance that there is something like truth, or a life after death, or that Human Nature cannot be changed ± is not something that would occur in normal thinking. At least, it did not occur in my thinking, trained by society and spiritual wisdom, and it did not occur in anybody else I have talked to. As long as thinking is edited and distorted by instincts, emotions and beliefs, our innate intelligence does not have much chance to operate.

Also, I am not telling you what to do, I am suggesting another option. From my own experience at the start I know quite well how the Human Condition reacts in m

ost of us. But since you said you were only curious, not vitally interested in finding an alternative to Ancient Wisdom, I will stop wasting your time now.

10.12.1998

RESPONDENT No. 10: Hello everyone, I just wondering if there is anyone on this list who is attracted to Peter and Vineeto? What is it you admire about their writing?

RESPONDENT: They have a peculiar way of expressing experiences which I can share and recognize. What I wonder about, is what they call fact. And I must ask you, Peter, what is a fact, when that which is a fact to you is not a fact to me?

VINEETO: From this different view of understanding the fact of death without anafter-life, I can see facts as naked as they are, without the embellishing veilof love, compassion, hope, right and wrong, soul and inner world. I had taken all those feelings for facts before I met Richard, but after closer and honest investigation they could not stand the scrutiny of my discrimination. I had had strong experiences or `realisations' about truth, love, hope etc. and that had made itall the easier to believe them as real ± I don't deny that those experiences are real. But they are not actual, which means, you cannot see, touch, hear, smell or taste them. They exist in the head and only in the head (or are felt in the heart) and they are a bit different for everybody. A Christian sees Jesus in a vision, a Sannyasins may hear Osho talk `truth' in their minds.

Facts are material facts, physical facts, sensual facts, scientifically proven facts (in opposition to a scientific theory like a black hole), what has really happened or is the case, as the Oxford dictionary says.

The so-called facts of the `real world' are mere beliefs. That millions of people believe them does not make them facts. And belief can have amazing results. I have had wonderful spiritual experiences and psychic understandings. But in comparison with the peak-experiences of the actual world it is evident and obvious thatthey are mere passionate imaginations.


19/183

15.1.1999

RESPONDENT: Can you give me the references to the dictionary you are referring to?

VINEETO: Yes, I can. I appreciate your scrutiny.

The sentence that you are referring to was in a post to No. 12:

... belief per dictionary means `fervently wishing to be true', while fact means `what has really happened or is the case'.

The reference for the definition of fact is from the Macquarie dictionary:

[quote]: what has really happened or is the case; truth; reality: in fact rather than theory, the fact of the matter is; something known to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation: scientists work with facts.

The reference for belief is from the Oxford Concise Dictionary Of English Etymol

ogy published by `The Oxford University Press' (c) 1996.

I quote the part in question:

[quote]: The etymology of the word `believe' comes from the Old English `belefan' (from `gelefan') derived from the Gothic `galaubjan' meaning `hold dear' or `trust in'. (This is fe + lief' and the Old English word `lief', `leof', `liob', `liub' ± from the Germanic `lieiufs' ± means `to love' or `beloved' as in `dear' meaning `desirous'). [endquote].

Hence `believe' means `hold dear' as in `love desirously'. Thus `believing' means `dearlyor desiring to be true'. Thus the word `believe' means `fervently wish to be true'.

Does that answer your question?

15.1.1999

RESPONDENT No. 17: I have enjoyed your writings. But only one thing has been questionable to me. Its about being disciple of Osho. As far as I have understood,you seem to had been a disciple of him to get something, Enlightenment, actual freedom, or anything you can call. It sounds a kind of bargain to me. It is verystrange compared with my experience of being a disciple of him. You are now OK.Its good. But I think being disciple of Osho is not what you have experienced while you were a Rajneeshee.

RESPONDENT to No. 17: Yes, I agree with you on this, that being with Osho to get something is a bargain. It becomes a search for yourself outside yourself. Howcan Osho, or any master, give us what we already are, what we already have? My experience of being a disciple of Osho is that he has shown me my identifications with what is not me and he has shown what it takes to loosen these identifications so that more and more space inside is left untouched by the world. In this space meditation grows. It is an ever-on-going process.

VINEETO: Yes, for me it was always clear that I went to India and I became a disciple of Osho to `get' something ± freedom, happiness, understanding of life, love and enlightenment (once I learned about it).

Otherwise, why should a 26 year-old leave a wealthy country with a respectable job, with friends and a loving family, to go to India ± a country so stricken withpoverty that it makes one weep every time one sees a human being, with filth tha


20/183

t you can hardly breathe, with corruption and all its pathetic implications? Why should I go there, if there was not something I was hoping to get?

Of course the spiritual search is a bargain. I was with Osho for very selfish reasons. I was hoping to learn something for a better life than the one I left behind in the West.

I don't know what has attracted you, or you No. 17, to become a disciple? I am intrigued to know.

17.1.1999

VINEETO: Yes, I can. I appreciate your scrutiny.

RESPONDENT: Why?

VINEETO: Why scrutiny? Scrutiny has been one of the main tools to make me free.

Scrutinizing every so-called fact for its factuality, every belief for its validity ± which I always found lacking ± and scrutinizing every emotion that went on inmy head or my heart. Once I had understood that it is `I' who is in the road, my ego in the head and my soul in the heart, I started to scrutinize whenever emotions happened or beliefs surfaced. Underlying both emotions and beliefs I found theinstincts, in-built and innate in me and every other human being. To become free of those beliefs I had to examine them thoroughly, study how they are expressed, and how they are generally accepted in the moral system, the spiritual belief-system and amongst scientists. Everybody believes you cannot change human nature. Well, I know you can change it ± you can even get rid of instincts. And it was scrutiny that brought me to that freedom.

The second reason why I appreciate your scrutiny is because we are discussing ab

out facts, not feelings. In the `feeling world' everybody is in their private world, but with facts as a basis communication and common sense are possible.

RESPONDENT: Yes, scientists may work with facts because they are working with the visible, the material, the measurable. The definitions found in dictionaries refers to that and to the commonly relied upon as truths, those are formed by the way people have been living ± commonly unconsciously. The definitions are not transferable to the inner world, the individual world.

VINEETO: Exactly, the definitions are not transferable to the inner world, because the inner world is a psychic construct, woven by the belief systems of millions of people, yet `felt' differently by everybody. Everyone has their individual dream of their inner world ± and it has nothing to do with facts. Millions of Catholics believe in Jesus, maybe half of them believe in Mother Mary's immaculate conception, but it is still their collective belief built upon a romantic fantasy. Immaculate conception is a factual impossibility.

Before I applied scrutiny I did believe almost everything that people would tell me: life after death, reincarnation, the power of coloured waters, the workings of chakras, the magic of stars, mysterious and miraculous healings, karmic causes for disease, the truth of Tarot, the existence of channelled entities, you name it.

But most wars are fought over beliefs, not over food and plain physical survival. It is this inner individual world that causes fights and killing, famine and a

buse. Just now the fundamental Hindus have decided to attack the Indian Christians ± one man's God is evil to another ± a conviction that resides in their `inner individual world'.


21/183

RESPONDENT: I find it strange that you, talking from your clarity, need the support of the definitions from dictionaries. I have an instinctive mistrust to quotes, if you can't speak for yourself, from yourself, don't speak at all.

VINEETO: There is no other clarity in me than simply relying on facts, and not following beliefs. This clarity exists because no beliefs and emotions are cloudi

ng my head. The actual world consists of what already exists, without the interpretation or creation of anyone's psychic effort.

Definitions from dictionaries are generally agreed on meanings of words. I am not making my own individual meaning of the words I use ± otherwise communication becomes impossible, as it is quite apparent in the world of beliefs. Every religion has its own interpretation of `God', `soul', `good', `bad', etc., and people are ready t for those interpretations. What then is so bad about investigating generally agreed upon definitions and proven facts? Otherwise I would become yet another guru creating yet another religion by convincing others of my individual inner `Truth'.

Actual is what is left when all beliefs and emotional interpretations are taken

away. Then a tree is a tree and a human being is a flesh and blood body with physical senses and awareness.

RESPONDENT: Because there is nothing as facts working when it comes to individual living. What is a fact to you, may not be so for me.

VINEETO: I would like to know which facts you are talking about. Could you giveme an example how facts can be different for everybody? I still can't see how `whatis the case' ± the dictionary meaning for a fact ± can be different for everybody. A car is a car, some people might have different preferences about cars but it does not change the actuality of the car.

RESPONDENT: A quote, a definition from a dictionary says nothing about you.

VINEETO: That is the idea. I am eliminating `me', the personal and instinctual selfinside this body to be able to experience the actual, which becomes apparent when this `me' is not operating. This `me' is not only utterly irrelevant, but it is the very thing preventing me from experiencing the universe as the benevolent, magical and pure perfection it is.

RESPONDENT: In this respect both you and Peter seem to me a bit unhuman, you have reduced yourself to ± I don't know what ± denying every human aspect working, feelings, thoughts.

VINEETO: Yes, freedom leaves Humanity behind, that giant club with all variations of individual, collective or instinctually-atavistic beliefs, with all feelings and emotion and instinctual passions. The strange thing is, when one leaves everything behind that is considered `human' one becomes human for the first time because one's animalistic heritage is being investigated and eliminated for the firsttime in human evolution.

RESPONDENT: To become enlightened and to go beyond enlightenment doesn't mean that the personality stops working. Being inside a body, being earthy requires a personality. Another thing is to be able to distinct yourself from your personality.

VINEETO: For communicative purposes I first want to agree upon a common understanding of what `personality' means. So I use the dictionary:

I, as a human being have been wired or programmed in a certain way. This wiringconsisted of the beliefs that had been instilled in me from the time when I firs


22/183

t was rewarded for `good' or punished for `bad' behaviour, and it included all the morals, values and ethics that would make me a fit member of society. On top of it, and developing from the age of about seven were the beliefs and traits I would take on and develop as `my own' identity. At the core, inherited from `Mother Nature's' survival package, are our animal instincts of aggression, fear, nurture and desire.

In the process of becoming free from the Human Condition the emotional and socia

l characteristics are being eliminated by thorough investigation. What (not `who') is left are foibles, talents, preferences, interests which are different in everyone ± as in definition No. 1. You can see the difference in Peter's writing and my writing, and if you go to Richard's web site his style is very different again. But there is no emotional, social or instinctual personality remaining.

*

VINEETO: The etymology of the word `believe' comes from the Old English `belefan' (from `gelefan') derived from the Gothic `galaubjan' meaning `hold dear' or `trust in'. (This is fe + lief' and the Old English word `lief', `leof', `liob', `liub' ± from the Germanic `lieiufs' ± means `to love' or `beloved' as in `dear' meaning `desirous'). Hence `believe' mea

in `love desirously'. Thus `believing' means `dearly trusting or desiring to be true'. Thuthe word `believe' means `fervently wish to be true'.

RESPONDENT: Dearest Vineeto, from you clear space, can't you see how many, innumerable ways there are to interpret these definitions? There are no facts here.

VINEETO: No I can't. Apart from the etymological description, `belief' in my own experience vanished the moment I examined the `desire for it to be true'. It becomes either a fact or a fantasy. It is the passionate hope that is might be true which makes it a belief.

I have enjoyed our discussion and I am looking forward to your reply.

18.1.1999

RESPONDENT No 17: It's about being disciple of Osho. As far as I have understood,you seem to have been a disciple of him to get something, Enlightenment, actualfreedom, or anything you can call.

RESPONDENT to No 17: Yes, I agree with you on this, that being with Osho to getsomething is a bargain. It becomes a search for yourself outside yourself.

VINEETO: I don't know what has attracted you, or you, No. 17, to become a disciple? I am intrigued to know.

RESPONDENT: The attraction was the feelings of wellbeing and relaxation I felt being around Osho's people, the confirmation he gave me from reading his books, the sweetness of his voice when listening to his discourses, the sexy look in his eyes and the way his look made me feel ±

VINEETO: So, has it been a bargain, you have got something. From your answer I read that you got `wellbeing', `relaxation', `confirmation', `sweetness', feeling good.

There is nothing wrong with getting something, it is a substantial part of attraction and for me it is useful and important to acknowledge the fact that there is a deal. Why call it bargain in a condemnatory way? To me that looks like one o

f the New Age rules of `Thou shalt not bargain.'

RESPONDENT: AND the fact(!) that his techniques worked. It was love all the way


23/183

and still is, love still growing.

VINEETO: On my way to an actual freedom I have investigated ± first scared and hesitantly, then more and more confidently ± the meaning and workings of love. The first thing I found was that love which human beings know and feel is based on bargains and hope or trust for bargains. All relationships are based on that kind of love. If relationship would be a straight contract of bargains without the fee

lings of love, we would be able to investigate both sides of the contract and agree or disagree. Love, being the antidote to loneliness makes this kind of investigation impossible. It conveys the sense of belonging, and it can be traced back to the instinctual need to group together for survival. So often, great fear and sorrow arises when a loved one is in danger or dies ± or breaks the relationship. It is not the broken contract that is bemoaned, it is the return to insecurity and loneliness that is so distressing.

To discover intimacy it was necessary for Peter and me to remove love from our relationship, and it made an actual meeting of the other person possible for thefirst time, without any emotions, hopes, loves and hates, projections and fears. It has also enabled me to examine the contents of my particular relationships w

ith other people, be it to the master or to the group of his disciples I felt connected to. What kind of bargains, hidden or open, were part of the relating, what fears and contracts were involved? And what were the emotions that would again and again make me blind to otherwise obvious facts?

When I removed the feeling of love ± and the belief in the master's ultimate authority ± then my previous conviction that Osho's techniques had worked for me was no longer valid. I found his methods lacking ± lacking success in what I wanted to achieve in my life compared to the effort I had put into using his techniques. I found that, after 17 years, I was neither happy nor harmless, I was neither enlightened nor could I live at ease in the marketplace. I had made myself dependant onthe master's authority and on vague interpretations of what he had said ± millions of purposefully contradicting words, which every Sannyasin would interpret in a d

ifferent way.

To see the facts for what they are I had to examine and eliminate my emotions first ± all my emotions, the good ones and the bad ones. The very act of believing,not only the content of the particular beliefs is such an insidious and automatic faculty of the `self' ± without believing, the `self' simply withers away. It is made up of belief, of emotion, of instinct.

21.1.1999

VINEETO: There has been so much mail going back and forth in the last few days,I put some of your statements together in one post to respond.

RESPONDENT: You started this argument with what you had found, and end up making statements about the entire humanity, just out of your own individual experience. How big do you think you are?

VINEETO: This is the situation with facts in comparison to beliefs. Facts (not to be confused with `truth') are applicable to everybody, while beliefs and feelingsare variable in each individual. I described how I investigated into the individual version of my beliefs and my emotional reaction to situations. What I foundin the end are facts about the actual world that become apparent when we stop feeding our beliefs and emotions. What I found underlying conditioning and emotion

s, which differ in each culture and religion, were the basic survival instinctsthat every human is equipped with at birth. It is not about `how big I am', facts are valid for everybody and the discovery of facts is not a personal claim for `the


24/183

Truth'.

RESPONDENT: There is a love, Vineeto, which liberates and comes totally alive when you die. Try that one out, too. It doesn't have anything to do with the other,but with love alone, love as being alive, love as breathing, love as being. You, from your space of clarity, must see that we talk about two absolutely different types of love.

VINEETO: You must be talking about Divine Love or Love Agapé. Yes, I tried that out. Especially `love as one's being' is very compelling ± such a nice sweet and powerfulidentity it provides, I was almost tempted to remain in that state. But out of a compelling pure consciousness experience I had my aim set on discovering an actual freedom and an actual world without emotions and beliefs. I had experiencedit since then often enough to know its utter purity and perfection. I had my eyes set on a freedom from any kind of identity, be it `normal' or divine. The purity and magnificence of the actual world leaves Divine Love far, far behind.

As I wrote to No 12 that in terms of relating, both human love and divine love operate on the principle of `feeling'. Both are affections that are addressed and dir

ected towards someone (human love) or All (Divine Love). Love to be maintained is dependant on people `needing' and `wanting' love. Therefore it is not actual.

RESPONDENT: Sure you became disappointed, because you wanted so much from the man (Osho). Every child gets pissed off at their parents when they don't get what they want.

VINEETO: I was a Sannyasin for peace of mind and for peace on earth, that's what I understood enlightenment and the promised New Man to be. If you say that I wanted too much, I am interested to hear what is your goal that you want to achievethrough Osho's teaching and methods.

21.1.1999

VINEETO: A short response about what you wrote to No 23:

RESPONDENT: You know, it is unbelievable that minds can be so thick. I haven't given up hope that there must be a gap, a small slice of openness for communication to peep through, but it seems not so. I've never before in my life come across someone so totally brainwashed, and it makes me a bit curious ± how is it possible?But you're right, it is poison and it doesn't do good.

VINEETO: Good to hear that you have not given up yet. Maybe there is indeed something we can agree upon. I am a very sensible and down-to-earth person, so who knows, there might be a chance.

You are right with the term of `totally brainwashed' ± I have washed not only my brain clean of all conditionings, beliefs and social psittacisms, but I have also washed my heart or soul clean of any emotions and underlying animal instincts. With neither a psychological nor a psychic entity one can experience the actual world as it is, magnificent, sensuous, benign and perfect. It is possible, and it only took me 18 months of intense and honest investigations into my ego of conditionings and beliefs and into my heart and soul, and it was utterly worth it. Life is now so easy, so carefree and so simple as I always wanted it to be but could never achieve through meditation and Eastern spiritualism.

Maybe you have no choice but to call it poison, because it has no nectar (love)in it. But the actual is neither nectar nor poison, it is simply experiencing this moment of being alive without separation by any `self'. Moral eyes may see that a


25/183

s poison. The same applies to your perception that I am not human:

RESPONDENT: Me not into discussions. You not human to share from yourself as you are beyond humanity, becoming a dictionary parrot instead. Me not want to bla bla with parrots.

VINEETO: What has been considered human up to now is this: Every human is born w

ith a set of instincts (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) meant to ensure the survival of the species. Further we are imbibed with a social identity from early age consisting of the particular morals and ethics of the tribe or culture we are born into. We further develop an individual identity within the tribe consisting mainly of the particular beliefs or customs that appeal to us for whatever reason. This collection of hard-wiring and programming we fondly call `me', and we then proceed into the world to make our way as best we can. No wonder everyonefeels lost, lonely and frightened and develops a very cunning nature. Thus our personal view of the world is so dense, so thick, so instinctually perceived as to be real, that it is taken to be `set in concrete' as it were.

Someone who has freed himself, or herself, from this entire set of beliefs, emot

ions and instincts must look ùnhuman' to everyone else who is still trapped in theHuman Condition. I think I have shared more about myself than many others here,but not in the emotional way you are used to, or expected me to.

RESPONDENT to No 14: But the day you wake up to your awareness, you don't let theanimal in you rule you. I used to fear my animal take me over totally, now I enjoy being taken. It isn't anymore to it than this.

VINEETO: This is where our aims clearly differ. I set out to eliminate my ànimal' in me in order to be able to rely on myself completely so that I can be sure that I would not cause harm or feel sorrow. From the way you use the word àwareness' it seems rather a tool for control (as in ... `don't let the animal in you rule you'), although then the `now I enjoy being taken' does not make any sense to me.

What do you want to achieve by waking up to awareness. You seem to mean something different when you use the word than I do. That's were I found the fundamental difference between the spiritual approach to the human capacity for awareness and the way I used it to become free. One can use awareness to investigate and eliminate conditioning, emotions, beliefs and instincts ± to become completely free of the Human Condition (hence you perceive me as being unhuman).

The spiritual approach to achieve enlightenment, however, uses awareness to create a separate entity, the `watcher' and teaches to shift the identity from normal to the `watcher'. But it leaves all the instincts and emotions intact, albeit apparently dormant, but they can erupt if that new grand identity is threatened. Not only in my personal life, but also on a global scale I found that spiritual approach to awareness very wanting in its attempt to bring an actual peace. It has neither brought me peace of mind and it has vastly contributed to all the wars, rapes, murders and poverty in the world.

28.1.1999

VINEETO: Since you did not answer the two letters I sent you last week, I take it that you agree with me.

*

Now to your proposal ±


26/183

VINEETO to No 8: Isn't it a wonderful thing to discover a nasty trick of this very cunning entity, and by discovering it disentangle oneself of its tentacles? You move from not objecting to ± to agreeing with ± to beginning to investigate into ± to becoming thrilled and finally obsessed with the journey into your psyche ± slowly freeing yourself of the stranglehold the Human Condition has on us!

RESPONDENT: Yes, Vineeto, you are right. What you describe here is a really slow

and arduous journey just to find out in the end that the psyche as such is nothing but a mind full of nasty tricks. Why move so slow when you can just step right out of the whole thing?

To be the watcher, the witness is to be out of the mind.

VINEETO: So is that why you are on the spiritual path ± it looks like a short-cut? The way you described the whole process is like a real short-cut, shifting one'sidentity from the nasty tricks to the wonderful identity of being the removed watcher.

It reminds me of another instant solution that is offered now-a-days: if people

have trouble finding a suitable girl-friend, then she is not willing to have asmuch sex as the man wants, then there is daily quarrel from living together, then the unresolved question of having children or not, then the money spent on her etc etc. So, the instant solution ± why not step out of the whole relationship trouble, be the watcher, get a blue movie and have virtual pleasure instead? Muchquicker, much cheaper and discard-able as well!

With the watcher, the witness, you not dis-identify from the mind, but also from the body and thus from the actual world. You go into a fantasy world where youare `one with the universe', living in perfect love and bliss, imagining yourself to be God or something similarly grand, in short, off the planet. Of course, it appeals, since the world where we find ourselves in is littered with sorrow, malice and anxieties. The spiritual solution is to just say, `this `body-mind' is not me' and

you then you will be out of trouble.

But your body is not a projection on a screen that can be switched off. Pity, isn't it? Your body needs food, a place to stay, money to be maintained, healthy tobe well, it can be physically hurt by others and then feels pain. It is actual.Further, this body is inflicted with the Human Condition of malice and sorrow. Although these emotions, beliefs and instincts are all products of the imaginary `self' (or `Self'), they are very real when experienced by yourself and others around you.

So, you say, one is imagining all this and it is not happening or it is an illusion, and further that you are only witnessing it from some inner world which cannot be talked about ± but only felt.

I went in the opposite direction ± I decided to clean up myself from this alien entity that is the root cause for all the experienced misery and suffering. Then I don't need to go `somewhere else', then I can be here on this abundantly verdant planet earth and delight in experiencing this physical universe as a sensate and reflective human being.

It is a different ballgame all together.

31.1.1999

VINEETO: Here some more words, again ... to answer your questions, communicatedin words...


27/183

Richard: `When the ultimate moment happens, one finds that one has gone beyond everything. Nothing remains, only utter stillness abounds. The perfection and purity of the stillness is impossible to imagine ± it has to be lived to be known. Thejourney is over, one has arrived at one's destination. One's destiny is here. Richard's Journal, Article 23

RESPONDENT: Why are these words aptly to you only when they are said by Richard?

VINEETO: Because they are. They are said by a man who lives in the actual world24 hours a day, every day. They are said by a man who has been enlightened for 11 years until he saw through the delusion it was. They are said b

Actualism.vineeto.list c

Documents

Transcript of Actualism.vineeto.list c