In this case it was to highlight that ‘I’ do have a very important role in this whole endeavour, specifically because the rest of the post was expounding on the ultimate meaninglessness of anything that comes from ‘me’. I did not want it to come across that “‘I’ am meaningless and so ‘I’ should just stop trying to do anything.”
Yes to be more specific and how I see it is exactly how Richard has described it - In that ‘I’ am responsible for an action which results in ‘my’ demise, without doing the expunging ‘myself’.
Kuba: Thank you Vineeto, your post was initially received on my end with a ‘sting’ (the sting being ‘my’ emotional reaction to the facts presented), the thought of “how can I still manage to get things so wrong”, but of course I will continue to miss the mark until I hit bullseye. It’s better to correct course in an expedient manner rather than having to go so far down the road to realise it is a dead end. I will just add that conversing with you has always made me think to what Richard wrote in his journal – “I am experiencing life from the vantage point of being a totally fascinated person … and a fascinated person is someone who can be extremely interesting to be with for those who dare”. This “for those who dare” is a key qualifier here because there is simply no way ‘I’ could predict what you are going to say. Whatever ‘Vineeto’ exists in ‘my’ psyche is of course not the flesh and blood Vineeto that writes the post, as always originally and completely impervious to anything that may be going on in ‘my’ reality.
Hi Kuba,
I appreciate your detailed explanation and I do experience from our correspondence that for you (and others who dare) our conversations “can be extremely interesting” and of course many times surprising because my “vantage point” does not match the reality you live in. Feeling being ‘Vineeto’ was so fascinated that oft times in the first few weeks ‘she’ experienced as if ‘her’ brain was being turned upside down and ‘she’ had to relearn how to think all over again. (link)
I am immensely pleased that despite experiencing occasional ‘stings’ you nevertheless contemplate what I say to find out something which hadn’t occurred to you in order to move closer to your destiny. I am also having a lot of fun talking about my favourite topic.
Kuba: I was doing a lot of driving yesterday for work and so I had plenty of time to contemplate on what was being spoken about. I can see now that to go down the route I was presenting would be for ‘me’ to try to squeeze ‘myself’ into actuality and of course take all ‘my’ serious standards along with ‘me’. So ‘I’ was the arbiter who managed to reverse the order of operations, now it is actuality that had to prove itself to ‘me’, against ‘my’ standards.
I did have many fascinating flashes yesterday of the answer to this, they all had the same flavour of total release. This total release was related to the nature of what happens at self-immolation, which is specifically not only that ‘I’ cease to exist but that ‘I’ would have never actually existed in the first place. So of course trying to take any standard of ‘mine’ into actuality would be back to front, for that standard ceases to exist when ‘I’ disappear. And not only that but looking back that standard would ultimately never have made sense to begin with, as it required ‘my’ existence as a reference point. […]
It is rather fascinating how sticky and obstinate ‘I’ can be to want to carve out some sort of an afterlife for ‘me’ when ‘I’ disappear. So that you are not disappointed later on, there may be some standards of ‘you’ anyway from a persistent social identity which you can resolve after the feeling being and the identity formed thereof has self-immolated. Apparently ‘you’, the identity, considers ‘himself’ something extraordinarily precious (whereas in fact ‘you’ are as ‘precious’ or as common as every other ‘precious’ identity).
If ‘you’ really wanted to be extraordinary, ‘you’ would need to do something hardly anyone else does … but I know that this tease does not work, because one cannot ‘self’-immolate to be better than others.
Hence you need to patiently bring your ‘self’ on board to want/ agree to the benefit that ‘your’ demise will deliver – oblivion, as well as a sacrifice, which makes ‘your’ life worthwhile – for the benefit of something more valuable than ‘your’ own survival.
But all these very serious and philosophical, albeit passionate, deliberations can fall by the wayside when you are having so much fun being alive, being naiveté (the closest an identity can be to actual innocence), that experiencing this felicity and appreciation is way more enjoyable and preferable to any ideas of afterlife standards or fantasies of reverend tombstones ‘you’ can ever erect.
Kuba: Of course ‘I’ am not meaningless in this endeavour of becoming actually free as ‘I’ am the only one who can set this body free, it is more the seeing that when ‘I’ self immolate ‘I’ become extinct, which means that any construct that ‘I’ weaved will also dissolve, it will no longer make sense as it required ‘me’ as the arbiter.
So yes there was so much release in these experiences because it showed that with ‘me’ never having actually existed in the first place nothing was ever actually wrong, the painful story of ‘my’ life is only as real as ‘I’ am, and that it is possible for all of that to become extinct in one fell swoop.
That is indeed so – “the painful story of ‘my’ life is only as real as ‘I’ am” because all ‘your’ painful emotional memories will be wiped out and only the actual body’s memories will remain. ‘You’ are presently only concerned about the past and the future – no wonder you are so worried about the survival of ‘your’ “serious standards” .
Richard: “… it is essential for success to grasp the fact that this very moment which is happening now is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual.”
Come out and play, there is nothing to lose but your shackles.
I think this was a useful exercise. I basically had gotten to the point where I wasn’t sure anymore what I sincerely thought was the case, and what I was maybe pretending like I think or what I believe rather than what I know. It’s interesting – on the one hand, having the path already laid out and described and all the reports available, it allows one to fool oneself into thinking they know something they don’t. On the other hand, not having that path laid out is clearly much harder – it took a few thousand years since civilization started for one human to become free, and only some years after that for the second (and the third, and the fourth…) So it’s certainly better to have the path laid out, but it has challenges that Richard didn’t (which is interesting!)
So in any case I decided to throw out anything I thought I knew and experientially walk through everything step by step and bit by bit, only proceeding when I was sure I knew what was the case. In computer terms I thought of it like an internal consistency check – making sure none of the bits within were ‘corrupted’.
The conclusion was basically that nothing changed haha, everything made sense from the tiniest bit and step onward:
It feels good to feel good
Enjoying & appreciating being alive is better than not
…
What’s funny now is I don’t even remember exactly all the stuff I went through. I wish I had written about it at the time lol. But basically there was nothing new that came out of it, just an increased confidence that I wasn’t misleading myself.
As to:
I suspect this was part of it as, I started living my life again after, fully engaging with work and the people around me. A work trip was particularly helpful as I got to re-engage in person with my work partners, which was much more fun and motivating.
So I swung back from shirking work to doing a lot of work – and it was obvious that, firstly this was a lot more fun, and secondly that putting all my energy into work also was not a viable long-term solution. It’s just the other end of the spectrum, it’s almost like a hypo-manic vs hypo-depressive approach (nowhere near actual mania or depression, and I’m not a psychologist, but this is I think a reasonable albeit amateurish way to characterize it)
But what does certainly work and is much better, is actually fully engaging with life. Just doing the things that are obvious to be done. In a sense I see that in this regards it’s not ‘me’ doing more stuff, but ‘me’ getting out of the way to allow myself to do what makes sense, eg by having the work conversations I’ve been avoiding or bringing up issues with the company that I’ve been noticing. It’s basically more about not hampering the obvious from happening rather than ‘me’ actively doing more stuff (whereas the hypo-mania is indeed more about ‘me’ expending energy and digging into things more)
This is all a lot of fun to uncover, it’s literally uncovering how ‘I’ tick, what makes ‘me’ go – apparently being productive at work makes ‘me’ go much more than not being productive at work! And it would be a mistake to think I have to ‘choose’ being working and not progressing with actualism, vs. not working and progressing. Actually the best way to succeed with actualism is to fully engage with life, and Richard showed there’s no excuse to it even if one has a busy work schedule.
As to whether I am out-from-control or not, I do wonder about it at times, it does seem Kuba & I are experiencing the same thing, but it also seems different than how ‘Vineeto’ experienced it. That being said I’m fairly frequently reminded as to how different ‘I’ am now than before. Example I saw a show where someone was having a bad day, and they were like “oh it’s one of those days…” And I just realized I haven’t had a ‘bad day’ since I went out-from-control! I’ve had very intense days, yes, but nothing that happens actually has a long-lasting impact where I go into feeling of despair or circling around in resentment. It is really remarkable.
And actuality is always so close at hand, even if ‘I’ am anxiously ruminating about an issue, it can always rapidly turn into a near-pure experience if not a PCE outright.
So I always end up concluding that it is properly out-from-control haha.
That being said it is a bit strange as I would think being out-from-control is always about being naivete personified, but I don’t feel that way all the time. Perhaps @Vineeto can shed some light here.
Regardless of what it’s called, being more naive, as naive as I can be, does look like a very sensible step and something I can certainly do. It’s about giving up myself, those parts of me that want to still be serious, so that I can naively flourish instead, knowing it will lead to my ultimate demise.
What really makes this eminently sensible (and thus palatable) is knowing with confidence that anything that is actually important (as in needs doing), apperceptive consciousness can readily handle, indeed with far more care than I could muster. This was exemplified in a piquant manner the other day during a period of particular proximity to actuality, when I had finished curbing after my dog. With the dog’s waste product in the proper poop-bag receptacle, I then twisted the top of the bag, and wound it around to make a knot… and then when I pulled the bag through the knot-hole I thought to make the end flourish outward like as if of a flower blooming.
This was an effortless thought and physical gesture, that was done solely because of the sheer fun of doing it – and it was no burden to do it whatsoever! Normally when ‘I’ do things it’s a burden to ‘care’, because ‘I’ feel like ‘I’ care and ‘I’ have to put effort into execute this ‘caring’ action… but when nearly apperceptive there is essentially no burden at all, and of course when actually apperceptive there is actually no burden whatsoever.
In general there is no more thoughts or wondering ‘how’ to self-immolate, and there is continuing to be (and has not been for a while) any feeling of being ‘stuck’. What is running as a constant now is the “Do not hesitate!” anymore, and taking every opportunity that serendipitously presents itself to go forth into actuality/allow ‘myself’ to diminish to allow apperception to occur. Going about it all in as naive manner as possible ought only to increase the potency of this!
Hehe yes there are many things like this for me too, just now I realised that me and my boss haven’t had even a bicker since I went out from control And to the ‘me’ say a year ago this would have been an impossibility. He even calls me “mate” now and Skypes me every now and then just to chat about life, which is lovely!
And I haven’t done anything specifically to make this change happen, it just shifted to a totally amicable situation.
And really when I sit down and look at my life now it has somehow changed to a life of ease, and not only for myself but in my relation to others.
It seems to me that stepping out from control is the deliberate action taken to have pure intent live one’s life, this sets the actualism process in motion where it does itself. Whereas before it was ‘me’ that had to remain in control and in charge of the actualism method being applied (with varying degrees of success).
However it is not that ‘I’ do not habitually arrogate ‘myself’ once this process begins. It is just that whatever arrogating ‘I’ do is of a different kind, it is almost like ‘I’ can kid myself for so long that ‘I’ am still in control. Those periods seem to be the “parenthesis” periods where an aspect of the human condition is brought out to the fore and there the drama can play out whilst it is being resolved.
In terms of comparing it to Vineeto’s experiences it’s probably best to wait for her to clarify but it could be in part due to the fact that ‘Vineeto’ stepped out from control after an extensive period of living an in control virtual freedom. As such the bulk of the exploration would have already been done and her period of being out from control would have been like a bullet train to the final destination.
Whereas for me and you it seems being out from control has been this super useful platform (a dynamic platform haha) from which to explore whatever aspects of the human condition which still need exploring. And in fact this would align more closely with Richard’s experience, as he went straight into an out from control virtual freedom prior to any dismantling of the social identity.
Claudiu: As to whether I am out-from-control or not, I do wonder about it at times, it does seem Kuba & I are experiencing the same thing, but it also seems different than how ‘Vineeto’ experienced it. That being said I’m fairly frequently reminded as to how different ‘I’ am now than before. Example I saw a show where someone was having a bad day, and they were like “oh it’s one of those days…” And I just realized I haven’t had a ‘bad day’ since I went out-from-control! I’ve had very intense days, yes, but nothing that happens actually has a long-lasting impact where I go into feeling of despair or circling around in resentment. It is really remarkable.
And actuality is always so close at hand, even if ‘I’ am anxiously ruminating about an issue, it can always rapidly turn into a near-pure experience if not a PCE outright.
So I always end up concluding that it is properly out-from-control haha.
That being said it is a bit strange as I would think being out-from-control is always about being naivete personified, but I don’t feel that way all the time. Perhaps Vineeto can shed some light here.
Hi Claudiu,
Btw, naiveté is not necessarily something you feel but rather a “range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself” as laid out in “A Quaint Clay-Pit Tale” (link).
‘Vineeto’ wrote that “the way I discovered naiveté was to actively rid myself of cynicism, and the first step was to become aware of the fact that I had cynical thoughts and feelings – i.e. to experience how cynical I was and to recognize the maliciousness of cynicism. The next step was to stop feeling cynical because a cynic is someone who despises being here.” (link)
Then ‘she’ noticed that ‘she’ had trouble even detecting cynicism and sarcasm in ‘her’ correspondents. Putting aside ‘her’ pride was a big help as well, whilst ‘being naiveté’ required to give up ‘her’ fears which was the more difficult task to accomplish, hence the delay.
I am glad you brought up this issue which I have been pondering for a while.
It seems to me that just like with the term of ‘virtual freedom’ (link), see also tool-tip at the end) we perhaps could introduce, after so much praxeological evidence mainly from you and Kuba, two distinctive labels for being out-from-control in order not to water down the original experience/ reports/ descriptions –
Richard: The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience.
(This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen).
This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience. (It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago). (Richard, List D, No. 4, 14 May 2009) Richard: An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable is not so likely to readily occur sooner rather than later. (List D, No. 12, 9 Dec 2009). Richard: In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable. Then one is in for the ride of a lifetime! (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016)
I say ‘perhaps’ because only the persons themselves can accurately determine what is going on for them and neither I nor anybody else has the role of a probity policeman. Only they can determine if their experience of being-out-from-control, which has been a clear stepping-up in their actualism process (“being able to let go of the controls” (link) and “the brakes cannot be put on” (link)) is the beginning of a seamless ongoing process, through to an ongoing experience of being naiveté itself, or if there is/was another noticeable stepping-up towards being naiveté itself –
Richard: “In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphasises the distinction the most.” (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016)
Claudiu: Regardless of what it’s called, being more naive, as naive as I can be, does look like a very sensible step and something I can certainly do. It’s about giving up myself, those parts of me that want to still be serious, so that I can naively flourish instead, knowing it will lead to my ultimate demise.
What really makes this eminently sensible (and thus palatable) is knowing with confidence that anything that is actually important (as in needs doing), apperceptive consciousness can readily handle, indeed with far more care than I could muster. This was exemplified in a piquant manner the other day during a period of particular proximity to actuality, when I had finished curbing after my dog. With the dog’s waste product in the proper poop-bag receptacle, I then twisted the top of the bag, and wound it around to make a knot… and then when I pulled the bag through the knot-hole I thought to make the end flourish outward like as if of a flower blooming.
This was an effortless thought and physical gesture, that was done solely because of the sheer fun of doing it – and it was no burden to do it whatsoever! Normally when ‘I’ do things it’s a burden to ‘care’, because ‘I’ feel like ‘I’ care and ‘I’ have to put effort into execute this ‘caring’ action… but when nearly apperceptive there is essentially no burden at all, and of course when actually apperceptive there is actually no burden whatsoever.
In general there is no more thoughts or wondering ‘how’ to self-immolate, and there is continuing to be (and has not been for a while) any feeling of being ‘stuck’. What is running as a constant now is the “Do not hesitate!” anymore, and taking every opportunity that serendipitously presents itself to go forth into actuality/ allow ‘myself’ to diminish to allow apperception to occur. Going about it all in as naive manner as possible ought only to increase the potency of this! (link)
This is excellent news.
My pondering was mainly that Richard’s description of “being naiveté, the closest a ‘self’ can get to actual innocence” has so far not much featured in yours and Kuba’s ongoing reports but is now beginning to become apparent. Whether this first period should perhaps be labelled as a “pragmatic out-from-control period” or is presently automatically morphing into a “being-naïveté-out-from-control” way of being rather than being an extra deliberate stepping-up is going to be observed/ determined by the present practicing actualists.
Cheers Vineeto
P.S.: History: Richard’s own experiences of a ‘Dynamic Destinal Virtual Freedom (link) lasted for a short period before ‘he’ was hijacked by enlightenment and before that by “love and oneness” (link) and Footnote.
‘Vineeto’s’ period of Out-from-Control (link) began after ‘she’ overcame the wall of fear (particularly the fear of becoming enlightened) and lasted for four-and-a-half weeks before ‘she’ became actually free.
Geoffrey said “the only time where ‘I’ might have been said to be in an out-from-control virtual freedom was that one week before ‘my’ self-immolation: the first week on September 2018” (link)
Footnote:
Tarin:Which event (including unconsciousness non-event), to the best of my understanding, happened at the very beginning of the on-going state that you lived day and night for 11 years, and was the first time you had experienced going beyond name-and-form. Is this correct? Richard: To answer your specific questions: as the first-time event occurred in April, 1981, it was five months prior to the start of the eleven year period of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment; it was the turning-point, as far as PCE’s and ASC’s were concerned. (Mailing List D Tarin)
There is something to it of the actual doing of it… like really, am I gonna buck the status quo so much, do this thing that only on the order of 10 others have done? An irrevocable step — that is definitely part of it @Kub933
Then I look at that which I am bucking and it’s all ultimately dissatisfying. What I am leaving behind, I am leaving behind because it hasn’t worked! And not only for me, it doesn’t work for anyone ultimately, actually… so something new is warranted!
I was contemplating on this very thing yesterday, on just how huge of a shift it would be and it is clear that ‘I’ could never do it. The good news is that ‘I’ do not do it anyways, ‘I’ only set down the path of no return, in gay abandon. It is the universe that does it, ‘I’ am not capable of changing something so fundamentally, of doing something that big.
So ‘I’ do not have to try, because ‘I’ would tie ‘myself’ up in knots and still not succeed. ‘I’ can have the utter confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe and go into gay abandon, then it can happen but ‘I’ do not do it.
On Monday evening the fourth of January 2010, I knew I was running out of time. We expected a guest for the next day and I didn’t want to wait until we three were on our own again. I consequently sat on the toilet taking a few minutes longer than usual to gather any scattered bits of intent that were missing to make up the 100% I needed – I pulled out all the stops. When I returned to the living room a dynamic and quite frivolous interaction developed and in that uninhibited hilarious atmosphere I blew the last remaining cobwebs of seriousness, cautiousness and social correctness out of the corners of my psyche. It was all very casual, jovial and funny, unrehearsed and spontaneous and I became confident that this is how I wanted to live my life forever.
I heard myself saying to Richard that ‘We’ve got all the time in the world’ and when I contemplated on the sentence that had just slipped out, time suddenly stood still.
Is this not exactly what ‘Vineeto’ did just prior to ‘her’ self immolation?
When I look at my moment to moment experience this is the only way things could be upped, the only direction ‘I’ can see that is left in ‘me’, which is to release those last shreds of control, seriousness etc and go into gay abandon. Seems like I am trying to make up my mind about doing that exactly…
The means to the end (enjoyment and appreciation) is no different to the end (enjoyment and appreciation), going into gay abandon would be the closest ‘I’ can humanly get to this exactly.
Claudiu: Woww writing on this forum does do magic sometimes. I uncovered a huge one for me – a belief that this actualizing of and living of an actually perfect life is just “not for me”. As soon as the contemplation yielded this thought it is like it knocked something loose, and the excitement and naivete and joy resumed.
And then I was able to think it through in words to explain: it was a belief that it’s not something that is ‘meant’ for me, not my destiny – it will be what is meant for some other lucky people but not for me. All I can do is sombrely suffer whilst others get to have this reward.
And I saw how it is utterly silly because everyone feels this way. So I feel it’s for some other people … those other people will feel it’s for someone else… maybe someone far more wealthy or something … then that wealthy person will be weary of having to manage all their resources and think it’s for simpler and carefree people that are not as well off … meanwhile for them they will think it’s for someone without the resources issues they have… lol, something like this.
But this is really silly because we can all just partake in this together! I’m very happy now to lead the way and set the example for this someone has to go next after all… (link)
Hi Claudiu,
Didn’t Kuba name his objection “too good to be true” (link) – and now you have found a very similar credible (?) objection: “not for me”? It is indeed rather silly yet I do wonder if there is not something yet unexposed underneath which cannot be displaced by merely thinking about it and determining it to be silly. This something ‘unexposed underneath’ may well shift you sideways, as it has done before with various objections you have found.
You say “someone has to go next after all” which to me looks a rather lack-lustre way of a lamb being led to the slaughter, resigned to its fate … but do tell me if I am on the wrong track. I base the word ‘lack-lustre’ on the comparison to Richard’s own experience –
RICHARD: If you do not want peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this body … then you will never get it. Please, whatever you do, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window … along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair … and go for the actuality of peace and perfection ‘boots and all’. Use all of your determination – gather up all the intent you can muster and more – and jump in the deep end without a life-jacket. Desire it like you have never desired anything before. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 28, 29 Mar 1998)
RICHARD: Furthermore, if the identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body has no interest in enabling peace on earth then all the misery and mayhem will go on for ever and a day … it is only the very desire to bring about an end to all the anguish and anger that will provide the enormous energy necessary to impel the identity into making the supreme ‘self’-sacrifice. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 12p, 6 Nov 2002)
RESPONDENT:You mention: [Richard]: ‘This is because ‘I’ wanted to know, ‘I’ wanted to find out, once and for all, that which has paralysed human beings for millennia …’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Yes, this is the ‘me’ that was actively and consciously harnessing the affective power of the instinctual passion of desire and channelling it into one goal and one goal only: altruistically making apparent the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) through ‘my’ demise. The ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body wanted to sacrifice ‘himself’ for the good of this body and that body and every body. (Richard, List B, No. 33a, 11 Oct 1999).
You see, in whatever form the instinctual passion is happening, be they desire, nurture (compassion/passionate caring) or fear, you need to fully feel and embrace your ‘being’ and fully experienced it as what ‘you’ are in order to be harnessed and channelled for your goal, else any attempt to ‘self’-immolate will be still-born or evade side-ways.
Claudiu: Then I look at that which I am bucking and it’s all ultimately dissatisfying. What I am leaving behind, I am leaving behind because it hasn’t worked! And not only for me, it doesn’t work for anyone ultimately, actually … so something new is warranted! (link)
Again, ‘I’ will not agree to become extinct because it’s a sensible idea or because the alternative is “ultimately dissatisfying”. ‘I’ need to be fully and passionately on board and for that ‘I’, the passionate ‘me’ as well as the sensible ‘me’ need to take part in the final decision as a passionately felt decision.
Now in case the unrecognized energy underneath those easily dismissible objections perhaps turns out to be “disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension” or something even more disconcerting then this is the very affective power to harness for your “one goal and one goal only” –
Richard: … in my experience all those years ago, at the moment of fear (or disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, anxiety, terror, horror, panic and dread), the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body would ‘sit with it’ as it were and directly experience it as it was happening as the fear which it was (or disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, anxiety, terror, horror, panic and dread). This is because ‘I’ wanted to know, ‘I’ wanted to find out, once and for all, that which has paralysed human beings for millennia … ‘I’ observed ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) with the objectivity of a scientist.
Now, whilst the word ‘fear’ is not the feeling itself, the feeling is very, very real whilst it is happening (as real as any ‘I’ is). By ‘being with it’ as it was happening – without moving in any direction whatsoever with escapist thoughts, feelings or urges – ‘I’ would come to experience ‘being it’ … and ‘I’ am this fear and this fear is ‘me’. Thus ‘I’ came to experience ‘myself’ in all ‘my’ nakedness. All ‘I’ am, is this fear … and fear is but one of the instinctual passions that blind nature genetically encodes in all sentient beings at conception in the genes … ‘I’ am the end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes. ‘I’ am the product of the ‘success story’ of blind nature’s fear and aggression and nurture and desire.
Being born of the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old … ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed … carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. In other words: ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’ (and ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am nurture and nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’). The direct experiencing of this is the ending of ‘me’ … and I am this flesh and blood body only being here now as only this moment is. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 33a, 8 Oct 1999).
I have no intention to talk you into one deep uncomfortable feeling or another – these are only pointers what to do if you discover a feeling as the source of your hesitation, prevarication, teetering on the edge, preventing you from doing what you promised yourself to do for so long. Because whenever such a feeling is operating in the shadows, naiveté and pure intent are obscured, and your thinking may be rational but lacks the clear seeing of apperceptive awareness to help you out of your conundrum.
You remember how Geoffrey solved ‘his’ problem –
Geoffrey: There was the actual world just right there in front of me, obviously existing, pure and perfect, and then there was ‘me’, ‘humanity’. The contrast was simply hilarious. I can’t describe how hilarious this contrast was. What we’ve all been doing forever and ever, on a ridiculous parade of malice and sorrow, with the greatest seriousness. (Geoffrey - Report of Becoming Free)
Kuba: It is very clear lately that the way forward is for ‘me’ to go into gay abandon, that this is the last direction ‘I’ go into, as it will be a one way ticket. Most of the time ‘I’ am teeter-tottering right on the edge of this. At times there is some degree of control, it is ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, from this vantage point there is still a way back to some semblance of ‘normality’.
Then there is the other direction where ‘I’ release whatever remnant controls and go into gay abandon. It is very clear at this point that the universe does not force anyone to become actually free, it is at the end of the day a personal choice as to which way I travel.
It does take some mettle to proceed in this direction however, not that it is difficult or unpleasant in any way but more so because it is so different. What a hard sell that is, to go irrevocably into a fairytale-like world.
Hi Kuba,
Yes, it is utterly amazing what hold ‘humanity’ and its stringent taboos have on each and everyone.
Kuba: But looking back now this is the same “force” that I experienced throughout the whole journey with actualism, it is this weird and perverse attachment to the ‘known’. This “force” is why actualism is ‘difficult’, in that ‘I’ will intuitively drift towards that which is already known, no matter how terrible this ‘known’ is and will experience anything outside of it as utterly dangerous.
So looking back now all the plateaus that I have experienced were periods where I was making up my mind as to whether I am ready for more.
The choice to proceed was always available but ‘I’ would hang back and come up with “issues to solve” whilst ‘I’ was making up ‘my’ mind. Here ‘I’ am doing exactly this .
It is the weirdest of things though, that going towards a world of enjoyment and appreciation only is taboo, there is this deep aspect of ‘me’ which feels this is simply not allowed. ‘I’ will engage in the most impressive gymnastics to find some reason as to why this shouldn’t happen and yet at this point it is all for naught because ‘I’ know what ‘I’ have already begun.
Right now I can’t even put a name to the objection, rather it is as if the entire force of ‘my’ being says it is dangerous and therefore not allowed.
I remember when ‘Vineeto’ experientially discovered what it means that ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’.
‘VINEETO’: Hi Richard,
Reading through your correspondence on mailing list B I have come across something that I cannot grasp.
• Respondent:If the many are reduced to one, what is the one reduced to?
• Richard: When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’ … ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’. Then I am this material universe’s infinitude experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. A desirable side-effect is peace-on-earth. (Richard, List B, No 12b, 20.7.1998).
What does it mean, when you say ‘‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’’? (Actualism, Vineeto, AF List, Richard, 27.9.1999).
‘VINEETO’ (to Richard): Last night serendipity provided the answer to my question to you, which had been going on in my head since I wrote to you. The experiential answer to ‘I am many and many is me’ presented itself in the form a TV program on International Humanitarian Aid Organizations and their role and accountability. For one and a half hours there was ample footage presented on human suffering and devastation in war, famine, genocide and racial ‘cleansing’ on one side and the helpless, well-intentioned, yet almost useless effort of people in the aid organizations on the other side.
The presentation was enough to make it utterly and unquestionably clear to me that there is no difference between me and the hundreds of thousands who have suffered and died and those who have, without success or effective change, tried to help – for ‘umpteen hundreds of thousands of years’. On an overwhelming instinctual level ‘I’ am ‘them’ and ‘I’ have had no solution and never will have a solution.
The devastation is enormous and the only way ‘out’ is ‘self’-sacrifice. (Actualism, Vineeto, AF List, Richard, 28.9.1999).
Part of Richard’s reply –
RICHARD: There is no cure to be found in the ‘real world’ … only never-ending ‘band-aid’ solutions. VINEETO:The devastation is enormous and the only way ‘out’ is ‘self’-sacrifice. RICHARD: Yet it is the instinct for survival that got you and me and every other body here in the first place. We peoples living today are the end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes … we are the product of the ‘success story’ of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Is one really going to abandon that which produced one … that which (apparently) keeps one alive?
Do you recall those conversations we had about loyalty (familial and group loyalty) (link) back when you and I first met … and what was required to crack that code?
That was chicken-feed compared with this one. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, Vineeto, 30 Sep 1999)
This was the beginning of several experiences of universal sorrow and its pacifier compassion which segued into a deep passion for peace-on-earth for everyone and became ‘Vineeto’s’ springboard into actual freedom via ‘a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster”. (Richard, List D, Srinath)
Kuba: It is the fear of irrevocability!
It’s like I am cleaning out the house and there are these old dirty shoes that I haven’t worn in 5 years and yet I cannot bring myself to put them in the bin, because “what if”? What if they are one day needed, what if there is some potentiality that I haven’t prepared for or accounted for.
There is a mountain of reasons as to why these shoes need to go and not a single good reason for why they should be kept, but it is the fear of irrevocability, once it happens it is done. Then what if I wanted to go back? there would be nothing to go back to. (link)
Well, well, I didn’t know you were so conservative, in the literal meaning of the word!
Have you heard from any basically free actualists who you know of, who wanted to go back to the real world after becoming free?
Here is one example – Geoffrey when asked in jest once in a video chat, said if he found himself back in the real world he would come straight out again immediately.
Now that your ponderings about irrevocability have progressed further, I see from your next post that you already discovered the solution for yourself –
Claudiu: There is something to it of the actual doing of it… like really, am I gonna buck the status quo so much, do this thing that only on the order of 10 others have done? An irrevocable step — that is definitely part of it. (link)
Kuba: I was contemplating on this very thing yesterday, on just how huge of a shift it would be and it is clear that ‘I’ could never do it. The good news is that ‘I’ do not do it anyways, ‘I’ only set down the path of no return, in gay abandon. It is the universe that does it, ‘I’ am not capable of changing something so fundamentally, of doing something that big.
So ‘I’ do not have to try, because ‘I’ would tie ‘myself’ up in knots and still not succeed. ‘I’ can have the utter confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe and go into gay abandon, then it can happen but ‘I’ do not do it. (link)
Indeed, and it is only when this “utter confidence” (i.e. pure intent) is lost that those doubts and objections can surface and keep your mind busy … until you remember “gay abandon”.
Here is something to look forward to – an actual intimacy –
RICHARD: Love does not feature in my life … thus sexual congress is always excellent. RESPONDENT:Well, that sounds strange, if not contradictory, to me. RICHARD: I can comprehend your ‘sounds strange’ response given that the conventional wisdom is to cover-up the base carnal passions with a gloss of love … but why ‘contradictory’ ? The total absence of the instinctual passions – and their compensatory love – enables an actual intimacy, a direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, unspoiled by any ‘me’ and ‘my’ neediness and greediness whatsoever. An actual intimacy surpasses the highest or deepest feeling of love possible.
Hence ‘always excellent’. RESPONDENT:Sex without love is like pizza without cheese – edible, but not a pizza really. RICHARD: Pizza – even with cheese – is hardly haute cuisine. Sex without carnal desire enables a purity that far exceeds the greatest or most profound feeling of love. (Richard, List B, No. 33c, 18 Nov 2000). RESPONDENT:… Without love we do not relate to another. So, I don’t understand the concept of actual intimacy sans love. Without love – which is feeling for another with the same intensity as for ourselves – there is no intimacy, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Yet love, no matter how intense, is seeing (feeling) the other through rose-coloured glasses (feelings). The total absence malice and sorrow – and their compensatory love and compassion – enables an actual intimacy, a direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, unspoiled by any ‘me’ and ‘my’ neediness and greediness whatsoever.
An actual intimacy surpasses the highest or deepest feeling of love possible. (Richard, List B, No. 33c, 3 Dec 2000).
Well this particular one was more that I had the insight into seeing that this was an objection, at which point it was an objection no longer – so it isn’t so much I thought about it and labeled it silly, but rather was surprised to uncover it had been operating, if it makes sense. I consider this one a ‘win’…
At the time I experienced it more like a naive exuberance, like, of course I will go next! And yet 4 hours later then I posted about the next hesitation, which indicates the naivete had diminished already
So you are right that there is indeed “something yet unexposed underneath”. That latter post of “that which I am bucking” being “ultimately dissatisfying”, indeed was more of a thought-out ratiocination rather than a naively insightful ending-of-the-objection
You are onto something here that it is a feeling currently underlying it. I take the advise well to sit with it and see what I find out!
Do you mean he solved it by naively finding it just very hilarious? A sense of humor and sincere carefreeness rather than a ‘serious’ approach?
I can rationally understand the contrast and I even know it experientially (the PCE-while-driving vs. the real-world), but the solution that occurred for Geoffrey upon seeing what he did has not occurred for me yet
huh, reading the quotes you posted @Vineeto something did click there, it is something that I have seen before, the quotes I am referring to :
By ‘being with it’ as it was happening – without moving in any direction whatsoever with escapist thoughts, feelings or urges – ‘I’ would come to experience ‘being it’ … and ‘I’ am this fear and this fear is ‘me’. Thus ‘I’ came to experience ‘myself’ in all ‘my’ nakedness . All ‘I’ am, is this fear… In other words: ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’ (and ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am nurture and nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’). The direct experiencing of this is the ending of ‘me’ … and I am this flesh and blood body only being here now as only this moment is
…
When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’ … ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’.
The seeing was almost like this entire game of being an identity is a misunderstanding. ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’… Furthermore ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ are ‘me’… There are only the passions and the drama which erupts due to these passions operating in human beings is called “the human condition”. Yet there are no ‘entities’ actually in existence, it is only that the passions have usurped human intelligence and created an illusory real world along with the various ‘who’s’ that live there.
It was the glimpse that ‘my’ very ‘being’ has no substance at all - that if ‘I’ am seen to be merely a feeling then ‘I’ cease to exist in the entirety of ‘my’ being. This seeing was that it would be almost too easy for ‘me’ to cease existing because ‘I’ don’t actually exist in the first place.
It would be all this over absolutely nothing… that this whole time you have been conversing with a flesh and blood human being and ‘my’ whole existence was as if a huge misunderstanding.
That would be something to laugh about à la Geoffrey
And this is that “special preciousness” of ‘being’, in that the passions have become a ‘who’, this ‘who’ feels precious beyond compare and yet ‘he’ has no actual existence, ‘he’ is merely a feeling.
And what is even more ridiculous is that the ‘many’ exist in the same manner. What ‘humanity’ has been doing is over nothing because there is not a single ‘entity’ that actually existed through all this madness. Both the ‘me’ and the ‘many’ are the instinctual passions in operation.
So 100% it is doable for all, the illusion can come to an end. Furthermore once done there is no possibility at all for going back, there would be nothing to go back to, there never was in actuality.
Of course this thing that I saw was only a glimpse as ‘I’ am still here but it seems extremely doable, exactly what Richard wrote - “The direct experiencing of this is the ending of ‘me’ … and I am this flesh and blood body only being here now as only this moment is”.
‘I’ just have to allow ‘myself’ to be exposed like so, for the very core of ‘my’ being to be unravelled in this way.
Vineeto: Didn’t Kuba name his objection “too good to be true” (link) – and now you have found a very similar credible (?) objection: “not for me”? It is indeed rather silly yet I do wonder if there is not something yet unexposed underneath which cannot be displaced by merely thinking about it and determining it to be silly.
Claudiu: Well this particular one was more that I had the insight into seeing that this was an objection, at which point it was an objection no longer – so it isn’t so much I thought about it and labelled it silly, but rather was surprised to uncover it had been operating, if it makes sense. I consider this one a ‘win’…
Hi Claudiu,
Thank you for your receptive, considered and precise feedback, it is much appreciated.
Vineeto: You say “someone has to go next after all” which to me looks a rather lack-lustre way of a lamb being led to the slaughter, resigned to its fate … but do tell me if I am on the wrong track.
Claudiu: At the time I experienced it more like a naive exuberance, like, of course I will go next! And yet 4 hours later then I posted about the next hesitation, which indicates the naivete had diminished already.
So you are right that there is indeed “something yet unexposed underneath”. That latter post of “that which I am bucking” being “ultimately dissatisfying”, indeed was more of a thought-out ratiocination rather than a naively insightful ending-of-the-objection.
I had read several of the follow-up conversations you had with Kuba and it was more the whole tenor of those that I based my comment on.
Vineeto: I have no intention to talk you into one deep uncomfortable feeling or another – these are only pointers what to do if you discover a feeling as the source of your hesitation, prevarication, teetering on the edge, preventing you from doing what you promised yourself to do for so long. Because whenever such a feeling is operating in the shadows, naiveté and pure intent are obscured, and your thinking may be rational but lacks the clear seeing of apperceptive awareness to help you out of your conundrum.
Claudiu: You are onto something here that it is a feeling currently underlying it. I take the advice well to sit with it and see what I find out!
Good.
Vineeto: You remember how Geoffrey solved ‘his’ problem –
Geoffrey: There was the actual world just right there in front of me, obviously existing, pure and perfect, and then there was ‘me’, ‘humanity’. The contrast was simply hilarious. I can’t describe how hilarious this contrast was. What we’ve all been doing forever and ever, on a ridiculous parade of malice and sorrow, with the greatest seriousness. (Geoffrey - Report of Becoming Free)
Claudiu: Do you mean he solved it by naively finding it just very hilarious? A sense of humor and sincere carefreeness rather than a ‘serious’ approach?
It is not an either-or suggestion at all – only you can know which one ‘clicks’ for you, which passion is lurking in the background or, if there aren’t any, if one clear moment of apperceptive seeing the whole, ultimately ridiculous though seriously passionate, “entire game of being an identity” as Kuba put it (link) will bring the whole edifice of ‘me’ crumbling down.
Claudiu: I can rationally understand the contrast and I even know it experientially (the PCE-while-driving vs. the real-world), but the solution that occurred for Geoffrey upon seeing what he did has not occurred for me yet. (link)
I understand that. Even “asense of humor and sincere carefreeness” require ‘your’ unconditional permission to penetrate and unravel the most precious core of your ‘being’ – and you only know that it is unconditional when it’s too late. Hence ‘Vineeto’s’ last hour was where
Vineeto: “a dynamic and quite frivolous interaction developed and in that uninhibited hilarious atmosphere I blew the last remaining cobwebs of seriousness, cautiousness and social correctness out of the corners of my psyche. It was all very casual, jovial and funny, unrehearsed and spontaneous and I became confident that this is how I wanted to live my life forever.” (Actualism, ActualVineeto, Becoming Free Report).
It could only happen this way after ‘she’ gathered “any scattered bits of intent that were missing to make up the 100% I needed – I pulled out all the stops.”
Quite obviously, Geoffrey had equally neither emotional nor mental barriers in place anymore when this apperceptive insight occurred – he was ready to let it end ‘him’ in ‘his’ totality.
Vineeto to Claudiu: The only time when you are possibly able to make a case is when naiveté stops operating, and pure intent is thus side-lined – then it becomes again “a puzzling state of affairs”. (link)
Kuba: Ok so this habit/mechanism is becoming pretty clear now, as it should after so many times it has resurfaced – Naiveté stops → connection to pure intent is cut → Now ‘I’ am once more doing sudorific things, solving puzzles etc.
The answer is of course to resume naiveté rather than continuing down the dead ends.
And I know when I am being naiveté because it is all so easy, there is this uncapped optimism, I am doing it / it is happening, there is no space for solving puzzles, that would require hanging back. And as for sudorific challenges, it is way too fun to become involved in this manner. (link)
Hi Kuba,
Excellent.
Now you have the map, you can actualize it.
Kuba: huh, reading the quotes you posted, Vineeto, something did click there, it is something that I have seen before, the quotes I am referring to:
Richard: By ‘being with it’ as it was happening – without moving in any direction whatsoever with escapist thoughts, feelings or urges – ‘I’ would come to experience ‘being it’ … and ‘I’ am this fear and this fear is ‘me’. Thus ‘I’ came to experience ‘myself’ in all ‘my’ nakedness. All ‘I’ am, is this fear… In other words: ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’ (and ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am nurture and nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’). The direct experiencing of this is the ending of ‘me’ … and I am this flesh and blood body only being here now as only this moment is. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 33a, 8 Oct 1999).
Richard: When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’ … ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’. (Richard, List B, No 12b, 20.7.1998).
Kuba: The seeing was almost like this entire game of being an identity is a misunderstanding. ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’… Furthermore ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ are ‘me’… There are only the passions and the drama which erupts due to these passions operating in human beings is called “the human condition”. Yet there are no ‘entities’ actually in existence, it is only that the passions have usurped human intelligence and created an illusory real world along with the various ‘who’s’ that live there.
Yes, you have seen it exactly. “This entire game of being an identity” is made seriously and deadly real via the instinctual passions. Just one correction – it is not that “the passions have usurped human intelligence” – it happened the other way round. The instinctual passions existed long before the human animal evolved into an intelligent human being. Here is a summary which I found so concise and brilliant that I like to post it here –
Richard: … it is the evolution of matter (mineral) into animate matter (life and/or nature) and thus animate matter (flora) into sensate animate matter (fauna) and sensate animate matter (saurian – mammalian – simian) into hominid sensate animate matter (proto-human) and hominid sensate matter into tool-making proto-human sensate matter (homo-habilis perhaps 2.0 million BCE) and tool-making proto-human sensate matter into tool-making fire-using human sensate matter (homo erectus perhaps 1.6 million BCE) and tool-making fire-using human sensate matter into tool-making fire-using symbol-writing human sensate matter (homo sapiens perhaps 100 thousand BCE). It is not until the advent of thought does the capacity to notice, remember, reflect, plan and thus implement considered activity for beneficial reasons (intelligence) evolve … along with the amazing ability to pass this information to others of the species, including the next generation, via language communication skills rather than grunt and gesture conveyance. Then, and only then, emerges the trait that you describe as the ‘one essential driver for knowing oneself: the wonder, the awe, the curiosity as to ask these questions (who am I, where does the universe come from, etc.)’ which, as you say, is ‘only in the human being [where] nature achieves a self-reflective consciousness that is capable of understanding itself’. (…)
I meant it in the sense that different species evolve at different rates at different places around the world … that there is no uniform evolution wherein a change here automatically happens there. Viz.: (snip quote)
I was therefore commenting that (in this specific instance) India’s paramount contribution to the retardation of evolution over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years (in that after maybe the millions of years of evolution necessary to evolve thought, thoughts and thinking (intelligence) in one animal species alone, the Masters and the Gurus and the Avatars and all the God-Men would have us value being thoughtless and mindless as if that is the highest virtue one can aspire to) is part of the mosaic of the evolutionary process and would soon become superseded when a mutation more fitted for survival takes precedence over such fantasy. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 33b, 29 Nov 1999).
Kuba: It was the glimpse that ‘my’ very ‘being’ has no substance at all – that if ‘I’ am seen to be merely a feeling then ‘I’ cease to exist in the entirety of ‘my’ being. This seeing was that it would be almost too easy for ‘me’ to cease existing because ‘I’ don’t actually exist in the first place.
It would be all this over absolutely nothing … that this whole time you have been conversing with a flesh and blood human being and ‘my’ whole existence was as if a huge misunderstanding.
That would be something to laugh about à la Geoffrey
Why “would be” – why isn’t it? Is there an observer in situ who keeps this vital insight, this apperceptive seeing, at arm’s length and doesn’t allow it to penetrate to the depth of your being?
Kuba: And this is that “special preciousness” of ‘being’, in that the passions have become a ‘who’, this ‘who’ feels precious beyond compare and yet ‘he’ has no actual existence, ‘he’ is merely a feeling.
Yes exactly, and to be more precise – ‘you’ are “merely a feeling”.
Kuba: And what is even more ridiculous is that the ‘many’ exist in the same manner. What ‘humanity’ has been doing is over nothing because there is not a single ‘entity’ that actually existed through all this madness. Both the ‘me’ and the ‘many’ are the instinctual passions in operation.
So 100% it is doable for all, the illusion can come to an end. Furthermore once done there is no possibility at all for going back, there would be nothing to go back to, there never was in actuality.
Of course this thing that I saw was only a glimpse as ‘I’ am still here but it seems extremely doable, exactly what Richard wrote – “The direct experiencing of this is the ending of ‘me’ … and I am this flesh and blood body only being here now as only this moment is”.
Yes, “this thing … was only a glimpse” but it was the very glimpse of direct seeing to set you free. It is not “doable” as you call it because the ‘doer’ will not be involved – one could call it ‘it is ‘be-able’. This exact-same direct seeing can also be the catalyst for leaving humanity.
Don’t turn this insight into a map, into theoretical knowledge, which is one step removed from the actuality of the landscape itself. Don’t fall for the chimera that when you move your finger along the map that you actually walk (hence my pointing to the word ‘be-able’ rather than “doable”). I say this because you mentioned that you like to know in advance what will happen before you take the next step. Break a habit and be naïve this time around, it is of vital importance – for this body, that body and every body.
Kuba: ‘I’ just have to allow ‘myself’ to be exposed like so, for the very core of ‘my’ being to be unravelled in this way. (link)
Aye, give the permission, “pull out all the stops” and allow all of ‘you’ “to be exposed like so”, warts and all.
Wonderful! I am delighted that this seeing was of the kind that will set me free. Thank you for the other pointers, it is all received loud and clear.
So the sentence re-written is - “This seeing was that it is too easy for ‘me’ to cease existing because ‘I’ don’t actually exist in the first place.” And indeed this was exactly the nature of the seeing. Yet it was happening at some kind of a distance, far enough that ‘I’ could remain. ‘I’ wanted to check it out - “Could it really be that easy? Could it really be over nothing?” etc.
The ramifications of this are still sinking in… It is all to the nature of what Richard wrote in his journal [to the effect of] - “millions of words have been written with ‘I’ being taken as a fact, what if ‘I’ am not a fact…” Indeed what if not? This is rather staggering to contemplate and I am allowing this to naively wash over ‘me’ and ‘my’ worldview. This flesh and blood body is then as if born anew, to a completely new world just waiting to be explored. None of ‘my’ or ‘humanity’s’ antics count for a single thing in this new world, they are extinct.
Yes ‘I’ am merely a feeling which means that ‘my’ very serious and real life is as Richard wrote - “all a play in emotive imaginative thought … an errant and vainglorious brain-pattern.”
It is all exceptionally weird, because all this is very real, it is no joke to live within the ‘human condition’, the suffering is very real and yet it is ultimately all over nothing.
Yes I understand this, because as the doer ‘I’ am somewhat unaffected by the experience, a separated onlooker watching the scene play out and yet remaining at a safe distance ‘myself’. For this seeing to unravel ‘my’ very being means that ‘I’ am intimately involved. It is happening to ‘me’ rather than ‘me’ doing it, ‘I’ am inviting it to happen to ‘me’ with the / to the totality of ‘my’ being.
Yes this habit is me being negligent to a shift taking place, from naively wondering and thus inviting direct seeing to a devolution into theorising/intellectualising.
Then ‘I’ am merely moving ‘my’ finger along the map and yet ‘I’ remain exactly where ‘I’ am. Whereas when naïve the discovery and being changed by the discovery happen at the same time.
Yes and especially when the solution is more convenient and quicker acting than even a pill.
Looking into ‘myself’ ‘I’ cannot find any parts which could be aligned any more, as you wrote to @claudiu the case is already made. So it is a naïve involvement that will do the trick.
I definitely notice that sitting with and delving into the depths of ‘my’ being, there’s a distinct reluctance to really get to the ‘bottom’ of it. A sort of reluctance/avoidance phenomenon. I do really want to know what the ‘bottom’ of it is, though – experientially! I see how I can fuel this wanting-to-know with passionate desire, it’s something I really do want, and the full force of ‘my’ desire will allow it to happen.
Although I didn’t get to the ‘end’ of the above, at one point yesterday whilst sitting at my computer desk at my home hall-office, I suddenly ‘got’ it (concomitantly) that not only will I have to actually get to the very end, go all the way, of such an exploration, but also that I will actually do this. The seeing that it is needed to succeed, plus that I will go all the way, was simultaneous.
This led to an absolute blast of an exciting time. I experienced it like being really on the adventure of a lifetime. I had visions like I was going through a catacomb, heroically fighting off skeletal monsters with my sword – that was the level of excitement I felt – and far more safely because I could do it all from just sitting in my house!
This brought out a naive exuberance that was really a ton of fun. This had an effect in all my dealings and doings with others, and went well up until in the late evening there developed an irritated/annoyed/frustrated atmosphere having to do with working together to move some furniture around. The naivete gave way to being annoyed and feeling like I was unfairly offended-against.
Today I still feel the aftereffects of such aggression, and now I am contemplating on how to beneficially use this passionate energy of this instinctual passion. ‘How’ to passionately use the aggressive energy towards my aim?
A lot of it just seems to do with sitting with and seeing it for what it is. For a brief spell I was worried that the fact of me feeling aggression would somehow disqualify me from succeeding. Like, what do I do about this? But then I saw with clear seeing what had happened: the instinctual passion of aggression happens first, then on top of this the passion swirls into a ‘me’ that is a ‘who’ which is who ‘I’ am, who is aggressive and at times nurture this aggression to ‘my’ bosom. But this ‘who’ is not set in stone. Actually what it ‘really’ is is ‘just’ an underlying feeling of aggression. This clear seeing is remarkably refreshing and removes any moral weight from it (as in I am a ‘bad’ person for feeling this way). And then I see it’s actually just a choice whether to continue being aggressive or not. And now I see that feeling this way or that does not disqualify me in any way, nor actually change what I want, which is to succeed for the benefit of this body & every body. And it being for the benefit of others as well is really a crucial component, it ‘locks in’ the significance of what I do and automatically orients me in a more sensible direction.
So I think I answered my own question while typing it out lol, and now a familiar joy, lightness of being, and exuberance is rising yet again
And to the ‘me’ say a year ago this would have been an impossibility. He even calls me “mate” now and Skypes me every now and then just to chat about life, which is lovely!
A sense of humor and sincere carefreeness rather than a ‘serious’ approach?
