Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
Thank you for your reply :Vineeto: Specifically, you might want to ascertain if have you been in fact careless to contribute to the two incidences, or you perhaps just blame yourself just-in-case because you were not sure?
Kuba: I will have to go into some specific detail here because I have been puzzling over this myself. And yes even though this ‘guardian’ was experienced to be temporarily lifted the contents of it have remained.
So situation 1 :
I was sparring with a partner that has been training roughly as long as me (about 10 years) and is by all means very experienced/ skilled. It was a competitive training round, with both of us working pretty hard to gain the slightest advantage over each other in order to score a win. The injury happened during a takedown as I had my hands locked around his waist and was behind him. He was training to insert one of his arms into the circumference of my lock in order to break it, and noticing this I hit a quick throw which took him backward with the arm still trapped in the lock. As the arm was trapped in the lock he fell without a post and knocked his head on the mat and was knocked out from the momentum. Now what I did is not an illegal move by any means but it is something that can be potentially risky, and in this case it did eventuate in an injury. It’s probably the kind of technique that I would not do against a beginner at all but in this scenario going against a seasoned grappler and amidst a competitive round this is what I did. (…)
Hi Kuba,
Thank you for your detailed report.
It is quite simple – what were you feeling at the time and shortly before the incident?
Where there is no feeling of malice of any kind – as in the definition on the website (link) – then there is no reason for feeling guilty, ashamed or any similar remorse. You have to sort out where/ if competitiveness/ winning at the cost of caution and consideration fits in.
Personally, I would contemplate if I wanted to remain in a situation where competitive fervour can lead to unintended accidents, though, but then that was never neither my hobby nor livelihood.
Kuba: Situation 2 :
This is the one that has stayed with me even more, and it was a complaint from one of the customers for a hen party which I worked recently (I don’t know which one as the company understandably will keep their privacy). The complaint was to say that my behaviour at the hen party resulted in the bride being in tears after I left and that she was extremely upset. (…)
And so basically this is where I thought was the danger of no longer working to the various morals, principles and creeds.
A clarification here –
Richard: There is a marked distinction betwixt spontaneity and impetuosity (aka impulsiveness) … acuity and/or perspicacity, in the applied form of discrimination, discernment (as in being expedient, provident, judicious, prudent) in conjunction with pragmatism, practicality, sensibility, simplicity, and so forth, gives ready access for any introspective/ creative process to take place. With no identity in situ/ no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all quite effortless. (Richard, AF List, No. 103, 1 Oct 2005d)
Given that you still have an affective faculty in situ, and without the previously strict guidance of inculcated morals and ethics, a structure with fixed rules no matter the circumstance, you instead rely on pure intent.
Richard: Pure intent is the quality that encompasses what morals and ethics aspire to but never reach. (…) Freed by pure intent from the very necessary social constraints – designed to control a wayward ego and a compliant soul – one can have generosity of character without striving. Pure intent guides one in each and every situation and circumstance – it is an essential prerequisite to ensure a guaranteed passage through the psychic maze … (Richard, AF List, Alan, 16 Sep 1999)
You seem to want it both ways –
Kuba: Because yes I operate within the legal laws and protocols but in a situation where one’s character is judged it seems to be a tick in my favour if I also demonstrably live to the various moral and ethical creeds. Like in scenario 2 if I explicitly ask for consent every 2 seconds then it would work in my favour, whereas going by implicit consent of observing someone’s responses etc would not be considered as good. And the same with situation 1, I could just never do any technique that is even a little risky which would certainly prevent these events and yet it would mean that I could never hang with anyone experienced, as it’s just not how it works, there is a certain level of tenacity required to score against a seasoned opponent, but the general public does not know these things. Hence those nightmare scenarios surrounding some kind of public damnation.
Essentially it’s something like a fear of being put under a witch hunt and not having this “oh look but I’m a moral citizen” to assist me. (…)
You now seem to put the responsibility for your fears on “the general public” while you are upholding your own inner guardian, your social identity, unless you have a blank cheque guarantee in advance. Only the active pure intent of naiveté can guide you and give you the confidence and certainty. As I said to you before –
Vineeto: Then find your connection to pure intent and experience the beneficence and benevolence issuing forth from the purity of the stillness of this infinite universe. In this stillness you will find the confidence and certainty that nothing can go wrong. (link)
And like Ian perspicaciously observed recently –
Ian: Also fascinatingly, I am society – the rules I suffer under, I also enforce. (link)
Kuba: And even Richard experienced all manner of attacks on his character.
Yes he did – after all an actual freedom is most subversive – and how well and carefully phrases, mailing list members more often than not do object to the message itself, and then blame the messenger.
Richard: ‘Tis just as well I did not have you advising me back in 1997 when feeling-being ‘Peter’ suggested I go public with my discovery, on-line, for all the world to potentially access – else these words would not be available for you to peruse and neither would actualism/ actual freedom have a world-wide footprint – as my tendency is to be so bold as to render being ‘as bold as brass’ to be but the faintest of hues on the boldness scale.
(Being arguably the most subversive man on the planet – for those who read with both eyes open – would surely make any feeling-being quail). (Richard, List D, Jonathan2, 1 Jun 2015).
Kuba: I mean I have even spoken with forum members here and they have said some outrageous things about Richard and Vineeto, about what they apparently did, of course with this isomorphism in place the actions of actually free people are simply viewed through that ‘normal’ lens. (…)
Oh, vitriol from others does not automatically cease because one is free of the human condition. What always mattered most to feeling being ‘Vineeto’ was that ‘she’ was as free of malice (the intent to harm) as much as possible, especially when answering antagonistic messages.
Kuba: So update about situation 2 : (…) (link)
You may find that the more you allow pure intent to operate and suffuse you in the sweet tenderness of benignity and benevolence, the more caring and considerate you become, and possibly change situations with the foresight to avoid risks of inadvertently causing harm. It becomes second nature.
Richard: Thus the pure intent of naiveté provides the collateral assurance ‘I’ require to safely give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) and to let go the controls. Yet it is the direct experience itself which is the fundamental factor when it comes to making the curious decision to abandon both one’s present course and that of one’s peers and plunge into the adventure of a lifetime. Viz.:
• ‘I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’
This is what is important. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 22 Jun 2000)
Cheers Vineeto