This quote made it click for me now, I still had some residual issues with authority in that I could see that there is a genuine authority that comes from expertise and yet I was trying to eliminate all authority, but that would be going back to humility too!
This is obvious in my BJJ training, I am an expert at this point and there is a genuine authority that this infers, this authority is a natural result of expertise/competence. Yet this authority does not have any power, in fact it does not require power as it is sourced in the confidence of knowing. I cannot pretend that I understand BJJ any less than I actually do. In fact with such authority I do not have to pretend at all, I don’t have to play that game.
It’s like humility and equality here go hand in hand, for it would have me reject my genuine expertise in order to pretend that “we are all equal”. This reminds me of I think Peter’s writing where he mentioned a novel where the ballerinas had led strapped to their ankles in order to ensure that they were all equal in their ability to leap in the air.
This “we are all equal” is basically saying “we should all forever remain trapped”. This is all so silly because there is such a joy and such benefit in being able to make use of one’s acquired expertise. This “we should all forever remain trapped” is made into a virtue, not knowing is made into a virtue, this is all so silly upon a sober reflection.
It’s quite funny because this mechanism was so clearly demonstrated when Richard went public with his discovery. What blasphemy it was for someone to come out and state unequivocally that they have found a solution to the human dilemma. The commonly raised objections section on the AFT demonstrates this point perfectly Just one section has the below :
I don’t like your style.
Nitpicking, Differences are merely semantic.
One-Up-Man-Ship, confrontational and defensive
Actualists are arrogant and think they know-it-all.
Actualists are authoritative and have to be always right.
Yesterday, I wrote about Actual Freedom in my own words, and it was incredibly liberating to put my thoughts into writing. It felt much like the relief I experience when I unload a pile of to-dos into my reminders app—no longer needing to carry them in my mind or worry about forgetting them. Writing always brings me clarity because it directs my attention along a specific train of thought, helping me organize my ideas and see them more clearly.
Today I re-read it and found some mistakes and some other things that I would write differently now. But moderators (such as my “vizinho” @claudiu!) have removed by ability to edit after some hours (I’m joking: I totally understand and agree with their decision).
The text is not beautifully written, but this was mostly a selfish endeavor, and it really helps me to write in a way that maps directly to the way I think.
I made several decisions when writing that text that I’m happy with. I ended up calling the ego/self/ simply “identity” because, while it is an oversimplification, it is, in my opinion, the most useful way to look at it, in the context of Actual Freedom, for a person with no spiritual baggage.
For me it helps to think of the ego/self as an identity and think of it in terms of being a construct instead of an illusion. The term illusion is not great because it can mean:
Illusion:
a false idea or belief
a deceptive appearance or impression
an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience
By using the term construct instead, I can then say that we can “deconstruct the construct” when we are investigating for eg our beliefs. Because it’s not a matter of removing beliefs. In a way, you replace “beliefs with other beliefs”.
Belief:
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
More precisely, you replace one belief with another idea that you trust to be true. Ideally, you’ve checked your biases, examined the data and facts, and arrived at an idea that’s closer to the truth. I don’t fool myself into thinking that I’ve swapped a misguided belief for an irrefutable scientific truth. The key point is that this new idea isn’t tied to my identity — I no longer identify with this belief. If someone comes along and says “You are wrong about that, here’s proof”, I’ll say “great!” without feeling attacked.
The other part that had me confused for a long time which I also wrote about was the no feelings. I always had a hard time thinking about this one. “How can someone have no feelings?”, I would think to myself. “Doesn’t that mean no pain?”. It was funny that the answer came from the now famous “Vineeto’s Encounters Cop” tale:
All the sensations of discomfort and physical pain continue but don’t need to lead to negative feelings/negative emotional state/suffering. I did some more research on the website just now, which I could have done before
Just because I have physical pain, that didn’t stop me from feeling good. [source]
I can also confirm that it is possible to remain feeling good while physical pain is occurring [source]
EDIT: A disclaimer: If my writing looks inconsistent at times, it is because when I’m lazy I grab my text and ask ChatGPT to revise it.
Roy: I made several decisions when writing that text that I’m happy with. I ended up calling the ego/self/ simply “identity” because, while it is an oversimplification, it is, in my opinion, the most useful way to look at it, in the context of Actual Freedom, for a person with no spiritual baggage.
For me it helps to think of the ego/self as an identity and think of it in terms of being a construct instead of an illusion. The term illusion is not great because it can mean:
Illusion:
a false idea or belief
a deceptive appearance or impression
an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience
The reason Richard used the term “illusion” was from his experience of actuality – ‘I’/ ‘me’ entirely disappeared upon self-immolation and as such had never been essential for physical survival. On the contrary, when I became actually free I could confirm that I – the physical flesh-and-blood body had been here all along (of course the identity, the software formed of instinctual passions, having arrogated charge of ‘my’ life).
As I said to Claudiu in a recent post –
Vineeto: ‘I’ am real, very real, as long as ‘I’ am a passionate entity hijacking and controlling the actual flesh body. Thinking that ‘I’ am an illusion while ‘I’ am in existence is to transfer information gained from apperceptive seeing during a PCE into the passionate realm of ‘me’ – what Richard calls from “3D-stunning” to “one-dimensional thought” in his correspondence about “utter fullness”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 25e, 16 June 2000). (link)
Hence I do understand your hesitation in regards the term illusion.
Roy: By using the term construct instead, I can then say that we can “deconstruct the construct” when we are investigating for e.g. our beliefs. Because it’s not a matter of removing beliefs. In a way, you replace “beliefs with other beliefs”.
Belief:
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
More precisely, you replace one belief with another idea that you trust to be true. Ideally, you’ve checked your biases, examined the data and facts, and arrived at an idea that’s closer to the truth. I don’t fool myself into thinking that I’ve swapped a misguided belief for an irrefutable scientific truth. The key point is that this new idea isn’t tied to my identity — I no longer identify with this belief. If someone comes along and says “You are wrong about that, here’s proof”, I’ll say “great!” without feeling attacked.
The problem with thinking that you can “deconstruct the construct” is that the human condition is not a construct. Here is what I found in some dictionaries –
to build something, to create a theoretical concept (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
To 1. To make or form something by combining parts
To put together different parts to form something whole (Cambridge Dictionary)
To 2. A construct is a theoretical concept, theme, or idea based on empirical observations (…)
For example, psychologists develop and research constructs to understand individual and group differences (Scribbr)
As such to describe something which evolved and developed of its own accord from a rough and ready survival package and human ways to curb those survival passions for socially co-existing as being built (by someone) or as a theoretical concept is not conducive to comprehending the nature of the human condition. A theoretical concept (construct) does not describe the facticity, it rather keeps the raw reality of what ‘I’ am at a comfortable distance. To “deconstruct a construct” you are then bound to merely “replace one belief with another idea that you trust to be true”. Whereas the way the actualism method (dismantling one’s beliefs) works is to replace a belief with a fact instead of falling for another concept or belief.
There is also no need to ‘believe’ what I say or what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website –
Respondent:Where is the proof? Richard: I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory … and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which subjective experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). (Richard, List C, No. 4b, 19 April 2000).
By determining the fact of the matter you need to “no longer identify with this belief” or disidentify from this belief. It just drops away the moment you acknowledge/ recognize the fact of the matter.
Richard: I am interested in ‘facts but not ideas’ because only thus is there something that can not be erroneous or incorrect. A fact is actual, not a dream, an illusion or a delusion. A fact is patent, obvious, apparent, evident, tangible, palpable, substantial, tactile, verifiable and indisputable. The marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on … but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List A, No. 14, #No .09)
And being in accord with the fact is what sincerity is.
Hence belief, trust, faith, credulity, intuition and factoids can be readily abandoned. But it is certainly worthwhile to investigate each of one’s beliefs to the point where the pattern/ the core of the belief is seen in order that it can disappear when the fact is discovered. The difficulty in acknowledging/ recognizing one’s beliefs as being beliefs is the emotional investment in wanting them to be true, sometimes fervently so, when they are a significant aspect of one’s identity.
Richard: Please, whatever you do with me, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window … along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair.
Besides, I am a certified madman! (Richard, List B, No. 11, 22 Mar 1998).
Roy: The other part that had me confused for a long time which I also wrote about was the no feelings. I always had a hard time thinking about this one. “How can someone have no feelings?”, I would think to myself. “Doesn’t that mean no pain?”. It was funny that the answer came from the now famous “Vineeto’s Encounters Cop” tale:
Vineeto: There was no thought of what to do next when suddenly I felt an uprising of a sob from the gut area and so I allowed it to continue, resulting in the eventual calming down of the police officer’s mood as I had obviously demonstrated the remorse he was looking for. (link)
Roy: All the sensations of discomfort and physical pain continue but don’t need to lead to negative feelings/ negative emotional state/ suffering. I did some more research on the website just now, which I could have done before (link)
I take it that you understand that actualism is not about stopping feeling but eventually ceasing to ‘be’ (and then, upon extinction, the instinctual passions, feelings, emotions and imagination disappear completely with the entire psychic faculty. Hence there are not only no events which “need to lead to negative feelings/ negative emotional state/ suffering” but such feelings/any feelings simply do not happen because the entire affective/ psychic faculty has disappeared together with the instinctual passions upon the extinction of ‘me’.
You are wondering about what life without emotions, passions and imagination would be like. Others have tried and failed miserably – here is one example –
RESPONDENT:A state without emotion, sexuality, passions, ‘animal instincts’ just sounds rather hollow and dead to me. As I said above, I certainly might be wrong. RICHARD: Your words ‘just sounds rather hollow and dead’ reminded me of a passage I read recently wherein an arguably influential writer speaks of ‘a condition of negativity and deadness’ when trying to imagine what the universe would be like sans emotion (from ‘The Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion’ delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 1901-1902):
(snipped quote, to be found at original link)
Thus the factual world (the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum) when ‘stripped of all the emotion with which your world now inspires you’, is conceived to be ‘as it exists, purely by itself … a condition of negativity and deadness … the whole collection of its things and series of its events [being] without significance, character, expression, or perspective’.
Yet a pure consciousness experience (PCE) evidences that the actual world, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality, is abounding in vibrant aliveness and sparkling significance.
Irregardless of this pristine actuality, however, the physical world is then deemed to be the passive recipient of ‘our gift to the world, just so are the passions themselves gifts’ … specifically ‘the passion of love’ and other ‘pure gifts of the spectator’s mind’ such as ‘fear, indignation, jealousy, ambition, worship’ so as to endue ‘our respective worlds’ with ‘value, interest, or meaning’.
What price human vanity, eh? (Richard, List B, No. 54, 17 May 2001)
You will find some answers in the FAQ section how life is without feelings (link Section E and F).
Actuality is unimaginable – imagination has no capacity to figure it out. It requires the direct experience of a PCE to consider and understand such a possibility. The reason is, to put it mildly, that ‘I’/‘me’ and the actual world are incompatible/ mutually exclusive.
GARY:It is indeed incomprehensible. RICHARD: Yes … an actual freedom from the human condition is inconceivable, unimaginable, unbelievable and undreamed of. Actuality is far, far better than anything ‘I’ could want … ‘I’ did not know that this pristine perfection could possibly exist. (Richard, List B, Gary, 23 Nov 1999)
It became a much longer post than I intended but it might help you in figuring out even more precisely what actualism is about.
I haven’t updated my diary here for some time because, as I investigate my conscious experience more and more in my daily life, I feel less desire or need to read about this subject. Partly because it’s a subject no one else can write about, as it concerns my personal, subjective experience – one that only I live.
The lingering question from this analysis is whether this, let’s call it, subjective reality or personal reality, draws closer to or further from “objective reality” – actuality – as I delve into my inner mechanics, or whether, on the other hand, I remain so conditioned that I cannot go beyond this apparent reality.
But understanding this, in itself, was important because it helped me grasp a little better the people who share personal experiences – mystical or otherwise – that I often find unbelievable. These experiences are real to them. But they are subjective, personal realities that I may not be able to comprehend.
One thing I discovered was my complicated relationship with time. It’s a bit silly, but despite intellectually understanding what the past is, in my experience, I lived as if the past truly existed on the same level as the present and the future. And my future is basically just the present projected forward. In that imagined future, I forget crucial aspects like aging and death – mine and others’. In other words, I lived as if time were a line and the present an insignificant point on that line. But ultimately, the present is the only thing that truly matters…
Another seemingly obvious realization I had was the decisive role my brain and body play in my awareness of being alive. Eventually, I will experience cognitive decline, and that will influence my conscious experience. I used to have this habit of trying to solve thought problems with more thoughts. The truth is, my brain operates within a context that is immensely influenced by the external world. When it comes to the inner world, it consists of memories of subjective experiences – but even those result from interactions with the external world. That is, I had not yet truly realized how much of what I think of as “myself” is influenced by the world. And what remains is the result of my biology. It is what “I” am – it is not merely conditioning. What remains is what I never used to think of as distinctive to my person: this entire physical and chemical apparatus that allows me to be a sensing conscious being.
With this realization, I understood how foolish it is not to take care of myself, and I started to be more interested in the present – the only moment when I can act, the only time in which anything can actually be done. That said, there isn’t really much that I want to change, to be honest. There are things I am doing, but I don’t feel anxious for them to be completed, as I used to. Maybe because I am already content with my present. Perhaps it also has to do with age. Sometimes I wonder if this is simply a phase in a process of identity construction and deconstruction, unfolding at its own pace, and whether my voluntary choices are just a small part of a vast web of causes that contribute to this process.
These two unknowings, which when described like this seem like the most obvious banalities ever, were, to a large extent, the causes of my suffering. These personal discoveries have led me to a genuine appreciation for my present moment.
It seems to me that you are indeed interested in what the actualism method is all about and yet currently you have muddled it together with your prior scientific/philosophical/psychological ‘understandings’ and are somewhat content with the end-product.
It seems it is all related to this idea you have that ‘you’ can un-condition ‘yourself’ to a point where actuality is known - you call this end-product ‘objective reality’. That entire pursuit does very much have the flavour of that scientific/philosophical/psychological endeavour of “exposing the limitations of subjective experience and discovering an objective reality”.
Neither the ‘inner world’ nor the ‘outer world’ are actual, and the same with regards to time - the past, present and future are indeed “on the same level” meaning that they are not actual. All this is impossible to grasp however unless you have a clear memory of a PCE or if you can induce one now.
The question is are you interested/fascinated enough to discover these facts for yourself and are you fed up enough of those ‘tried and true’ ways that you can consider trying something entirely new?
Sorry for the quick reply, please feel free to ignore. Thanks again!
That is not the case. I’m simply trying to describe my discoveries, from applying the method, using the words and concepts I have at my disposal, based on my understanding. There is prior knowledge that allows me to express this experience of reality — which has nothing intellectual about it — in a way that may not be clear to others.
I have no illusion of having been able to decondition myself to the point of having no trace of subjective reality.
Perhaps you would use different words, but try to see that saying “neither the ‘inner world’ nor the ‘outer world’ are actual” and “the past, present, and future are […] not actual” makes no logical sense to me, and that, in fact, has no actual basis. You frequently make statements like this which, when analyzed, are empty of meaning. Clearly, we have a very different way of communicating…
I don’t think it’s something specific to me to question the essence of such a statement. Then you’ll say that the actual world is inexplicable to someone who isn’t free, or something along those lines, and that doesn’t help me in any way whatsoever — we just end up in the same place. I’m trying to communicate in the most objective and concrete way possible.
I completely agree with you on that.
Well that’s not the question I have at the moment… The question that has come up for me now is whether it’s even worth spending time trying to describe my experience in words that others can understand, using words I don’t normally use. I feel tempted to say certain things, but they will lead to responses like this —, not through anyone’s fault, but simply because maybe I have no interest / gave up in describing my experiential discoveries in different terms.
I’m simply writing on my journal, in the most down to earth way I can. What I can say is that I appreciate your contribution, I can assure you that I am completely interested and fascinated in discovering the facts for myself, and that is exactly what I am doing.
From what I can see, you’re mostly describing your experience pretty accurately. The issue isn’t that you’re using the “wrong” words to describe it. It’s that what you’re describing indicates you’re not entirely on the right track (with regards to success with the actualism method), and there’s room for commenting and discussion so you can learn more about yourself and how to have even more success with actualism than you’ve had already.
If you were to write exactly what you did but instead replaced it with actualist jargon, it would be worse not better, it would be more confusing because you’d be masking what you’re actually experiencing and exploring using words that refer to other things.
So it’s not an issue of what words you use, it’s a question of if you’re open to feedback from people further along the path?
———
My last quick comment would be indeed to confirm that what you’re calling “objective reality” is not what is called “actuality” in actualist jargon. It’s something else, still within the human condition — and the sooner you accept it (or at least take it on a provisional basis - not suggesting to believe it!) the better it will be, as you won’t keep looking if you think you already found something.
And I’ll also add:
It only appears “empty of meaning” because you don’t have yet the experiential referent of what those words are referring to. Once you do it will make sense.
What I’d suggest is sort of putting it on a “well let’s see…” basis rather than an already rejecting basis. And then you could focus on attempting to induce a PCE so you could have the experience and then what is being written here and on the AFT site will make more sense.
I read this and another post with interest, as they both connect to something I’ve been questioning for weeks…
Recently, feeling some stress from having more things to do than there are hours in the day, I questioned the reason why I get involved in so many things. I have always been this way and was never someone to just drift along — to the point of feeling physically unwell when I’m idle, doing nothing “productive”. That investigation led me to something I’ve noticed on multiple occasions, which relates to this need for external validation and that the motivation behind certain of my “projects” was, ultimately, tied to ego. The result was that, over time, I managed to free myself from that (mostly since the beginning of this year), and now I have a less busy — I would say calmer — life.
That calm doesn’t come only from this, but also from having been able to let go of wanting to control things and of imposing my own will. Now, whenever someone suggests a plan, my intuition is to say yes and go with it. Interestingly, letting myself be led by others’ choices on certain occasions has brought me unexpected happiness. Perhaps because those situations bring with them unpredictability, or because of the happiness they also bring to the other person, or even, I would say, because of the very sensation of being out of my control (little by little, I’ve managed to ensure that the unpredictable and the uncontrollable doesn’t carry negative emotions, but positive instead).
So with time my motivated and ambitious attitude seemed more and more to be the result of social conditioning (stemming from my life experiences) and less and less of genetic traits. But today, upon reflecting on this, I see that in fact I remain driven — simply in different aspects of life. This pursuit of a more happy and harmless way of being, all day, every day, even in the face of adversity, continues, for example.
But in general I have been questioning many aspects that I believed defined me. Do I believe myself to be driven? I think so, in relation to specific aspects, when I sleep well and am not sick. But is it an innate characteristic of mine? I have no idea. The other day I even called into question all the psychology around personalities when investigating my shyness. But there are some studies that seem reliable to me which suggest there is a scientific basis to the claim that certain personality traits are influenced by genetics. At this point I would say that my being introverted might have some genetic basis but that my shyness is primarily the result of my life history — and I have been able, little by little, to change that. It doesn’t bother me at all to be introverted, but being shy does, insofar as it prevents me from being honest in certain situations and from enjoying them.
So the old recurring idea from self-help coaches — “find yourself” and “be true to yourself” — it’s all about the “self”… as if it were easy to know what it means to be “me”. That is… I know exactly what I feel “I” am, but I don’t know to what extent that is different from others. What, intrinsically, differentiates me from others? As I deconstruct beliefs about myself, what remains? The answer to “what makes me tick” seems to exist only in the context of my current circumstances, which keep changing and which I change along with them. I have a physical aspect that is uniquely mine (I have no twin), and I certainly must have some particular mental traits, but just as my physical appearance changes, my mind changes too. By mind I mean the nature of my thoughts, my desires, my needs… It is a fact that they change quite a bit, in small ways through out the day but substantially if I read my older journal entries for example.
I’m happy with that but using adjectives or anything to define myself, I may quickly end up using these to feed some story about me. Is there any problem with that? It depends on what purpose they are serving, I suppose. I want to perceive the world as it is, without being clouded by imagined stories about who I am and my place in this world. I still believe it’s possible to have a direct perception without the existence of a self, that the reports are true — even the more mysterious ones, such as pure intent. It’s a belief, but I still believe there must be a scientific explanation for everything that doesn’t involved anything more than matter and energy. But I also recognize that there are limits to what I can discover through my conscious experience. That’s why I keep reading — because what I discover through my experience is limited to my experience. I shouldn’t draw conclusions about the universe based solely on my own experience. My experience may show me that the universe is benevolent, but is it really? What scientific basis is there to support that? Could that perception not simply come from the fact that I descend from creatures that evolved to benefit from this world? Just as it turns out it’s not the sun that revolves around the earth, but the earth that revolves around the sun — could it be that the universe isn’t benevolent toward me, but rather that I evolved to benefit and prosper in it?
Claudiu: This reminded me also of what I saw recently which is that, I am a very driven person, it is how I tick – and this energy of being driven is precisely the level of energy needed to succeed with self-immolating! In other words it is not that I have to stop being driven, it is rather that I just re-direct that same energy itself in that same driven way, towards the task of enjoying and appreciating and self-immolating. …
Roy: … So with time my motivated and ambitious attitude seemed more and more to be the result of social conditioning (stemming from my life experiences) and less and less of genetic traits. But today, upon reflecting on this, I see that in fact I remain driven — simply in different aspects of life. This pursuit of a more happy and harmless way of being, all day, every day, even in the face of adversity, continues, for example.
Hi Roy,
Whilst it is useful to make a distinction between one’s social identity (one’s vocational, national, racial, religio-spiritual, ideological, political, class or caste identity, familial and sex/gender identity) and one’s genetic identity of the instinctual passions, it is advantageous to keep in mind that both categories of identity can be changed and ultimately abandoned. Neither is set in stone and neither does define you in your “pursuit of a more happy and harmless way of being, all day, every day”.
And that is wonderful.
Roy: But in general I have been questioning many aspects that I believed defined me. Do I believe myself to be driven? I think so, in relation to specific aspects, when I sleep well and am not sick. But is it an innate characteristic of mine? I have no idea. (…)
So the old recurring idea from self-help coaches — “find yourself” and “be true to yourself” — it’s all about the “self”… as if it were easy to know what it means to be “me”. That is… I know exactly what I feel “I” am, but I don’t know to what extent that is different from others. What, intrinsically, differentiates me from others? As I deconstruct beliefs about myself, what remains? The answer to “what makes me tick” seems to exist only in the context of my current circumstances, which keep changing and which I change along with them. (…)
It seems to me that because you believe that actualism is mainly to “deconstruct beliefs” you appear to be under the misconception that what is left after deconstruction is something you can define yourself as. Neither “self-help coaches” nor scientific psychological research can reveal what you are (devoid of identity) – this can only be experienced in a pure consciousness experience where the identity is temporarily in abeyance. There is no scientific research about this for two reasons –
Actualism is experiential not scientifical (for instance a ‘self’ and an absence of ‘self’ cannot be detected in a brain scan or any other medical scan) and
Because actualism is entirely new to human history, all researchers and scientists and self-help authorities are not only afflicted with the human condition as you are but also have no clue that a third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism exists. And actualism is not materialism.
Roy: I’m happy with that but using adjectives or anything to define myself, I may quickly end up using these to feed some story about me. Is there any problem with that? It depends on what purpose they are serving, I suppose. I want to perceive the world as it is, without being clouded by imagined stories about who I am and my place in this world.
This is exactly where sincere intent comes in – you are the one observing and investigating your psyche wherever it gets in the way of enjoying and appreciating being alive and this very intent (to be as happy and harmless as humanly possible) will aid you in recognizing when something is an imagined story or deceptive narrative instead of a fact. It’s like playing chess with yourself – on one side the identity programmed to keep the status quo and on the other side your sincere intent to feel good, feel excellent, be more naïve, more considerate, a friend to yourself and benevolent towards your fellow human beings. It’s a fun game once you get the knack of not putting yourself down for the tricks and deceits you discover or the negative traits and feelings you uncover in yourself. It’s all par for the adventure of a life-time.
Roy: I still believe it’s possible to have a direct perception without the existence of a self, that the reports are true — even the more mysterious ones, such as pure intent. It’s a belief, but I still believe there must be a scientific explanation for everything that doesn’t involved anything more than matter and energy. But I also recognize that there are limits to what I can discover through my conscious experience. That’s why I keep reading — because what I discover through my experience is limited to my experience. I shouldn’t draw conclusions about the universe based solely on my own experience. My experience may show me that the universe is benevolent, but is it really? What scientific basis is there to support that? Could that perception not simply come from the fact that I descend from creatures that evolved to benefit from this world? Just as it turns out it’s not the sun that revolves around the earth, but the earth that revolves around the sun — could it be that the universe isn’t benevolent toward me, but rather that I evolved to benefit and prosper in it? (link)
It is essential to understand that actualism is not materialism – it is experiential – and experiential of a world outside of ‘I’/ ‘me’, the actual world. Ultimately you cannot understand the actual world when applying the template of the real world – materialism.
You had some experiences which you wondered if they were PCEs or not. Now after experimenting with the actualism method for a good while you again want to know for a fact if “the reports are true — even the more mysterious ones, such as pure intent”. The only answer for this will be in a clear unequivocal PCE, where you yourself can say with certainty – ‘this is the world I have been reading about on the AFT, this is how I want to live for the rest of my life, this is indeed magical’.
Unfortunately, you have presently all but closed the door to such a confirmation when you say “what I discover through my experience is limited to my experience” – this way you pre-emptively doubt whatever you will experience.
When feeling being ‘Vineeto’ first learnt about an actual freedom – and had barely a clue what this meant, ‘she’ passionately wanted to have a PCE to find out, ‘she’ became obsessed with having one happen, ‘she’ thought about it in ‘her’ free time for several weeks – and then it suddenly happened (A Bit of Vineeto). It was shocking in its ramifications of how incomparably different the actual world was to the real world and it gave ‘her’ the necessary certainty to whole-heartedly move forward.
I can recommend to suspend both belief and disbelief for this investigation. Frequent Question No. 64a, particularly the very last paragraphs on that page is a good place to start and also Richard’s text on ‘Sensuous’ in the AFT Library. It also relates to Richard’s first sentence where he explains the actualism method –
Richard: Before applying the actualism method – the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive – 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. (This Moment of Being Alive).
Actual time is entirely different to the real-world time of past-present-future.
There is more on this topic in case you are interested. I wish you success in your experiential inquiry into actuality.
This is such a great way to describe the process of observing and investigating the psyche, and as long as there is sincere/pure intent noting can go wrong, it is a guaranteed win. The “identity programming” side has only tricks and deceits on it’s side whereas the side of sincere/pure intent is where the facts are. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ no choice but to happily loose at the game eventually, by exposing ‘myself’ freely.
I just want to re-emphasize Vineeto’s point that, as “actualism is entirely new to human history”, it has not yet been possible for science to have already ‘caught up’ with what actualists have already discovered.
So you won’t find any scientific explanations for things such as pure intent yet – because it hasn’t been scientifically investigated, since there have been no actualist or actually free scientists yet that even know about it as such in order to even begin to think about how such a thing might be measured.
As an example, it was only in 1883 that the first prototypical solar panel was invented, but it was only much later that science advanced enough to be able to understand why it worked and to make progress optimizing it (picking up pace in the 1950s perhaps) (link) and only relatively recently that mass adoption of solar panels has begun. And this was with a lot of attention from scientists from the beginning of looking into the phenomenon. It happened within a pre-existing framework already present for humans to share their discoveries and build on one another.
The term “pure intent” was only coined in 1981 (link, 1st tooltip), many actualists have experientially confirmed its existence, but it is far more radical and new than discovering the photovoltaic effect was, there is nothing really like it in the past, no pre-existing framework within which to understand it.
So it may well take more than 67 years (ie from 1883 to 1950) for scientists to ‘catch up’ with it and figure out how to properly describe or measure or scientifically quantify it or understand the nature of it, etc.
It doesn’t mean it’s not possible, just that it hasn’t been done yet.
So it’s ultimately up to you what level of pioneer you are willing to be – are you willing to take these steps now and go forth even though the scientific community hasn’t studied the topics here thoroughly yet, or will you wait until 2048 or perhaps even later until that is done in order to continue?
The universe won’t force you to do it one way or another, it is really up to you, this is a ‘clean’ choice!
What might be incentivizing for you is that if you yourself do continue this will accelerate the pace of actualism spreading and bring the timeline closer of that point where the topics are all properly scientifically studied. Also you will have the benefit of not having to wait as you will know for yourself sooner.
As to a final note, you wrote:
What about the converse question: What scientific basis is there to support that the universe is not benevolent? I think you will find there is not much scientific basis for this one way or the other.
Just a brief addendum as since you wrote here you believe it is true and you may wonder where I’m coming from —
I think we may agree that a scientific description of it all is indeed possible. I’m just offering reasons as to why it couldn’t have happened yet — the reason being to assist you in allowing yourself to transform this belief that the reports are true, into an experiential confirmation that the reports are factual — at which point you won’t need the belief anymore as it will be redundant!
Curiously, I would intuitively agree with that, but something intellectually pointed me toward the knowledge that “you can’t change your genetics”. While that may be scientifically true, it’s also true that I’ve ignored an entire field — epigenetics — which studies precisely how certain factors can influence genetic expression. Reconciling that intuition with a scientific understanding helped me, given that I have this tendency to cling to a scientifically grounded basis.
Yes, I understand that. I’ve been reading about the problem of conducting scientific research necessarily from a third-person perspective on something that is experiential, in the first person. As impressive as some studies are — I found the research around the Default Mode Network (DMN) particularly interesting — it’s an endeavor that, given its inherent limitations, we can’t accept its results without some caution.
I’ve also been reading about this very topic, and I was quite amazed to discover that some people in the past dedicated much of their time to exploring the problem of the scientist starting from a point that is not neutral or objective. I was especially fascinated by Edmund Husserl and Eugen Fink and their method of Phenomenological Reduction. But apparently, their method — which involves suspending all beliefs and preconceptions and associating concepts to what is experienced — was criticized by many, ignored by others, and misunderstood by the rest. It’s truly a problem in science that cannot be overlooked. Psychology seems to suffer from this especially, but certainly so do philosophers of mind and neuroscientists.
I understand what you’re saying, but let me just clarify a bit. I have no doubt that what I experience during my PCEs is exactly what I want, each day, every day, forever. I’m also not closing any doors, as I’m not doubting anything I’m experiencing — I simply need to remain aware that I can’t draw conclusions about the nature of the universe, space, or time based solely on this experience. My conscious experience is entirely true within the context of my subjectivity. A concrete example is pure intent, because the apparent benevolence of the universe might be true only within my subjectivity, maybe due to the fact that I’m a creature evolved to thrive in this physical world. This matters in practice, so that I don’t drift away from the actual truth — that is, so I don’t end up like someone who, to take a religious example, believes in an anthropomorphic god and subjectively experiences the presence of that god: it may be true, for them, but that doesn’t mean it’s a truth outside of their subjective experience. Someone who has never heard of actualism might have a PCE and interpret it through a religious lens, for example. Does that make sense?
The fact that I’m receiving your comments on my posts has been an immense help (thanks @claudiu and @Kub933!), because it makes me feel insecure — in a positive way — about my position, and on the other hand, it makes me question even more what is being said — a natural response when “I” am confronted.
Today there was a realization greater than possibly any I’ve had before. At a certain point recently I started trying to refrain from attaching “concepts” to everything I was experiencing, without success. But that led me to realize that I wasn’t perfectly honest with myself and that there were, again, unexamined beliefs. That made me question one of my deepest beliefs — that I am this body being conscious. This is something I knew not only because of science but also due to actual freedom website. But I questioned if I really had an experiential basis to confirm that. I began a potentially dangerous process consisting of the question — “Am I this?” — based on the principle that I cannot be subject and object at the same time. In other words, I told myself that if I hear something, I cannot be that sound, nor the hearing, nor the ear… I started doing that consistently for everything… At some point I came to the apparent conclusion that I was just awareness… But then something unexpected happened: I saw in a very surprising way that the starting point, the subject, was the “I”. For some reason, I had been convinced I could see the “self” from the outside… that I knew exactly what the “self” was — but the “self” was exactly what was comparing itself. I was unknowingly — but completely — fully identified with the “self”. For a moment, this brought a clarity I’d never had experienced while contemplating. I realized that this is the kind of question I never ask during a PCE, for obvious reasons (I never think about any of this), but on the other hand, it’s the kind of inquiry that is made impossible outside a PCE, due to the existence of the “self” — I don’t escape it, I only fool myself into thinking that I do.
Vineeto: Whilst it is useful to make a distinction between one’s social identity (one’s vocational, national, racial, religio-spiritual, ideological, political, class or caste identity, familial and sex/gender identity) and one’s genetic identity of the instinctual passions, it is advantageous to keep in mind that both categories of identity can be changed and ultimately abandoned. Neither is set in stone and neither does define you […]
Roy: Curiously, I would intuitively agree with that, but something intellectually pointed me toward the knowledge that “you can’t change your genetics”. While that may be scientifically true, it’s also true that I’ve ignored an entire field — epigenetics — which studies precisely how certain factors can influence genetic expression. Reconciling that intuition with a scientific understanding helped me, given that I have this tendency to cling to a scientifically grounded basis.
Hello Roy,
Thank you for your feedback and reply.
I clearly specified “one’s genetic identity of the instinctual passions”. I did not say that you can or “you can’t change your genetics” or that “epigenetics” are part of the instinctual survival passions. Why make things unnecessarily more complicated?
Vineeto: Actualism is experiential not scientifical (for instance a ‘self’ and an absence of ‘self’ cannot be detected in a brain scan or any other medical scan) […]
Roy: Yes, I understand that. I’ve been reading about the problem of conducting scientific research necessarily from a third-person perspective on something that is experiential, in the first person.
Good.
Roy: As impressive as some studies are – I found the research around the Default Mode Network (DMN) particularly interesting – it’s an endeavour that, given its inherent limitations, we can’t accept its results without some caution.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about DMN –
“In neuroscience, the default mode network (DMN), also known as the default network, default state network, or anatomically the medial frontoparietal network (M-FPN), is a large-scale brain network primarily composed of the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus and angular gyrus. It is best known for being active when a person is not focused on the outside world and the brain is at wakeful rest, such as during daydreaming and mind-wandering. It can also be active during detailed thoughts related to external task performance.’ (…)
“Evidence has pointed to disruptions in the DMN of people with Alzheimer’s disease and autism spectrum disorder. Psilocybin produces the largest changes in areas of the DMN associated with neuropsychiatric disorders.” (Wikipedia)
I don’t see any relevance at all to what actualism is about – bringing about peace on earth via the minimisation of both the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and thus maximising the felicitous and innocuous feelings. The fact that you found the studies impressive indicates that you are still looking for evidence and proof of the descriptions and reports of an actual freedom from the human condition – something which is entirely new to human consciousness – in real-world research.
Vineeto: […] all researchers and scientists and self-help authorities are not only afflicted with the human condition as you are […]
Roy: I’ve also been reading about this very topic, and I was quite amazed to discover that some people in the past dedicated much of their time to exploring the problem of the scientist starting from a point that is not neutral or objective. I was especially fascinated by Edmund Husserl and Eugen Fink and their method of Phenomenological Reduction. But apparently, their method – which involves suspending all beliefs and preconceptions and associating concepts to what is experienced – was criticized by many, ignored by others, and misunderstood by the rest. It’s truly a problem in science that cannot be overlooked. Psychology seems to suffer from this especially, but certainly so do philosophers of mind and neuroscientists.
I am pleased you can see that. The other aspect for you to ponder is that both psychology and psychiatry are concerned with changing the psyche, not with eliminating the psychic faculty altogether via ‘self’-immolation.
Vineeto: […] you again want to know for a fact if “the reports are true — even the more mysterious ones, such as pure intent”. The only answer for this will be in a clear unequivocal PCE, where you yourself can say with certainty – ‘this is the world I have been reading about on the AFT, this is how I want to live for the rest of my life, this is indeed magical’.
Unfortunately, you have presently all but closed the door to such a confirmation when you say “what I discover through my experience is limited to my experience” – this way you pre-emptively doubt whatever you will experience.
Roy: I understand what you’re saying, but let me just clarify a bit. I have no doubt that what I experience during my PCEs is exactly what I want, each day, every day, forever. I’m also not closing any doors, as I’m not doubting anything I’m experiencing – I simply need to remain aware that I can’t draw conclusions about the nature of the universe, space, or time based solely on this experience. My conscious experience is entirely true within the context of my subjectivity.
Given that you go on to say that “my conscious experience is entirely true within the context of my subjectivity” I strongly doubt that what you experienced were clear unequivocal PCEs because then you would know, without a smidgen of a doubt, that there is no subjectivity in a PCE because the ‘self’ is temporarily in abeyance in a pure consciousness experience and thus allows you, the flesh-and-blood body devoid of ‘self’, to experience that the actual world is a totally different paradigm to the real world. Unless you do, it is not a PCE.
In a PCE, when the ‘self’ (‘I’ and ‘me’) is in abeyance, apperception – the mind’s perception of itself – operates unimpeded, which is unmediated perception by any subjectivity, by any emotions or feeling or passion, therefore unmediated by any belief, concept, principle, moral or ethics. It is a different paradigm from one’s normal perception distinct from the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception (‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious).
Roy: A concrete example is pure intent, because the apparent benevolence of the universe might be true only within my subjectivity, maybe due to the fact that I’m a creature evolved to thrive in this physical world.
As long as you consider pure intent – “a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself” – as “true only within my subjectivity” you have not experienced apperception in a PCE. In other words, as long as you search for a PCE “within my subjectivity” you will never be able to experience it. Perhaps reading (again) about the meaning of the word ‘apperception’ including examples and quotes will make it more clear to you what an experience outside of subjectivity is.
Or to put it differently, as I said in my last post to you, as long as you consider actualism as an off-shoot or addition to materialism, you cannot understand the actual world whilst applying the template of the real world – materialism. To flesh it out, here Richard introduced a quote from his correspondent espousing the virtues of materialism –
Respondent (to No. 49): ‘Someday you may open up your mind, see the wonder of science and empiricism, learn the best of what psychology has to offer (cognitive and behavioural are two good ones), learn to have neither a pushing away nor clinging to of your emotions (rather a felt sense of them, that integrates them naturally) and venture off to live life to the fullest w/o concern of a eternity anywhere.
After the initial shock you may well become calmer, more relaxed, happier, kinder, less dogmatic, more empathetic, have a better sense of humour, etc. And all of this has nothing to do with Actualism (though I do like a lot of Actualism, but I’m sceptical of some of it)’. (tool-tip in Richard, AF List, No. 68, 14 July 2004)
Reading the first two pages of correspondent No. 68 (and link) on the Actual Freedom List may give you some more understanding of the difference between actualism and materialism. This correspondent was a convinced proponent of various real-world (materialistically based) concepts, morals and ethics as well as psychological researches to aid and compliment what he then understood the actualism method to be.
Roy: This matters in practice, so that I don’t drift away from the actual truth – that is, so I don’t end up like someone who, to take a religious example, believes in an anthropomorphic god and subjectively experiences the presence of that god: it may be true, for them, but that doesn’t mean it’s a truth outside of their subjective experience. Someone who has never heard of actualism might have a PCE and interpret it through a religious lens, for example. Does that make sense?
For starters, there is no such thing as “the actual truth”. Truth, the way it is used, often means what one fervently believes to be true, hence there is my truth and your truth and his truth and her truth.
Richard: In short: what makes a belief a truth is its affective component (as in one’s investment in holding it to be so). (Richard, AF List, No. 68d, 10 Oct 2005).
Actuality only deals in facts [fact: a thing done; the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality. ~ (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary)].
As to your question “Does that make sense?” – There are examples of people describing a PCE, which then degenerated into an ASC, and in hindsight they interpreted the whole experience in terms of their religion/ creed. As such their initial PCE cannot be used as a loadstone for describing the actual world. This is the very reason why the Actual Freedom Trust website exists.
Roy: The fact that I’m receiving your comments on my posts has been an immense help (thanks Claudiu and Kuba!), because it makes me feel insecure – in a positive way – about my position, and on the other hand, it makes me question even more what is being said – a natural response when “I” am confronted. (link)
I am pleased that you are open to suggestions and feedback, Roy.
I will answer the next part in a separate message.
Roy: Today there was a realization greater than possibly any I’ve had before. At a certain point recently I started trying to refrain from attaching “concepts” to everything I was experiencing, without success. But that led me to realize that I wasn’t perfectly honest with myself and that there were, again, unexamined beliefs. That made me question one of my deepest beliefs – that I am this body being conscious. This is something I knew not only because of science but also due to actual freedom website. But I questioned if I really had an experiential basis to confirm that. I began a potentially dangerous process consisting of the question – “Am I this?” – based on the principle that I cannot be subject and object at the same time. In other words, I told myself that if I hear something, I cannot be that sound, nor the hearing, nor the ear… I started doing that consistently for everything… At some point I came to the apparent conclusion that I was just awareness… But then something unexpected happened: I saw in a very surprising way that the starting point, the subject, was the “I”. For some reason, I had been convinced I could see the “self” from the outside… that I knew exactly what the “self” was – but the “self” was exactly what was comparing itself. I was unknowingly – but completely – fully identified with the “self”.
Hi Roy,
The following quote might clarify what ‘self’ means in actualist understanding –
Respondent:If I see a real lake and look closer and closer, there is still a lake. If however, I see a mirage of a lake, the closer I get, its lack of existence is clarified. Likewise, the existence of a real self would be clarified with close exposure. What happens, though, is that no substantial self can ever be found. Richard: This is because you, as self, are the very self that is trying to see the self. Of course you will only find an ever-receding mirage. To put it into language you will be familiar with: You, the seer, are what is wished to be seen. You, the seeker, are that which is being sought. Respondent:Since there has never been a real ongoing self from the first (only action based on the assumption or belief in one) there is an appearance of something ending when in fact it is exposing and dropping of the beliefs and misconceptions concerning an ongoing self. Richard: Unfortunately it is not such a simple matter as merely exposing and dropping beliefs and misconceptions. I would suggest asking who is doing the exposing and dropping. I would enquire into just who is holding the beliefs and misconceptions concerning an on-going self. ‘I’ cannot drop the belief that ‘I’ exist because ‘I’, the would-be ‘dropper’, am what is to be dropped. Like-wise, ‘I’ the would-be ‘exposer’, am what is to be exposed.
Only apperceptive awareness will do the trick. (Richard, List B, No. 22, 28 Feb 1998).
What you say you “fully identified with” was still the ‘self’ which the ‘self’ was able to see (except the part doing the seeing). It makes no difference if you “fully identified with the ‘self’” you can see or not because ‘you’, the totality of the instinctual passion plus the social identity, are the ‘self’, whether you identify with or not. The only way to see the ‘self’ from the outside is when ‘you’ are in abeyance, in other word when apperception is operating.
You being the ‘self’ is not a concept or a belief or an identification, it is the reality, and a deeply felt reality as such, kept in place and reinforced by the ever-changing instinctual passions and concomitant beliefs, principles, concepts, etc. It only ends with ‘self’-immolation.
The same applies to your question am I “this body being conscious”. You may believe that you are “this body being conscious” but as long as you are a ‘self’, this body is permanently hijacked by the identity (the ‘self’) within and the body and its consciousness in operation doesn’t get a word in edgeway, so to speak. The only way you can experience the fact that you are this body being conscious when apperception is operating, i.e. when the ‘self’ is in abeyance.
Maybe it’s only your terminology which confuses the issue – I just want to make sure that you understand what belief and concept and identification mean and where they are applicable, else your use of language creates a narrative that can lead you astray.
Roy: For a moment, this brought a clarity I’d never had experienced while contemplating. I realized that this is the kind of question I never ask during a PCE, for obvious reasons (I never think about any of this), but on the other hand, it’s the kind of inquiry that is made impossible outside a PCE, due to the existence of the “self” – I don’t escape it, I only fool myself into thinking that I do. (link)
Even though you didn’t see the totality of the ‘self’ you seem nevertheless have experienced a big chunk of it and realised that you cannot escape it, for instance by labelling it a belief or by trying to disidentify from it (if I understood you correctly).
The actualism method of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is designed to thin out or weaken the affective influence of ‘I’/ ‘me’ by minimising the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings which keep the ‘self’ in place, and maximising the felicitous and innocuous feelings which diminish the affective energy/ influence of the ‘self’.
I had a different impression than Vineeto – I am not sure if it was wittingly or unwittingly but it seems you have taken up some meditative/spiritual advice and ended up going off the path!
What prompted you to try refraining attaching ‘concepts’ to everything? This is part and parcel of the spiritual approach – aiming at thoughts/cognition as the culprit (‘concepts’) whilst ignoring the root of the problem, which is ‘you’ the feeling-being in ‘your’ entirety (i.e. the soul), viz.:
When we name an object, we develop a concept of what the object is. The object is then immediately present in our consciousness. When we stop the false mind’s habit of thinking and differentiating, our wordless awareness mind – our true mind – immediately becomes present and we will experience peace and tranquility. Not naming, not labeling objects – Sunyata Meditation
By contrast the actualism method is the enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive, which is done affectively (ie by feeling good, enjoyment, happiness, harmlessness, naivete) whilst outside a PCE and apperceptively (ie anhedonically, unmediated by any self or Self or soul or Soul) during a PCE.
“Attaching “concepts”” is not a ‘problem’ for the actualist. The mind discriminating and discerning objects into this or that and the associations along with them, is a very useful and functional mental utility that continues smoothly (and functioning even better) during a PCE. It is only a problem if one dips below feeling-good, but even then it is not the concept-making/labeling that is the problem, it is ‘me’ reacting to it, and the solution is getting back to feeling good anyway and then essentially giving up that part of ‘myself’ so ‘I’ don’t react in that silly manner next time.
You may well have picked this belief up from “science”, but it can’t have come from a clean and clear reading of the actual freedom website, because it says quite the opposite, viz.:
And:
In other words, ‘you’, ‘Roy’ the feeling-being, are not ‘your’ body. ‘You’ are ‘your’ feelings/‘your’ feelings are ‘you’. Who ‘you’ are is those feelings swirling around, which form themselves into an identity that is then parasitically inhabiting the actual flesh-and-blood Roy that is entirely invisible to ‘you’ the feeling-being Roy.
A PCE is when ‘you’ the feeling-disappears entirely, at which point what you are (as opposed to ‘who’) becomes apparent, as actual Roy is the “I” that will be experiencing himself as being the flesh-and-blood body he actually is, which will come part-and-parcel with the experiential knowing (which comes apperceptively) that he along with the actual universe actually exists.
Just to be clear, while ‘you’ (as a feeling-being) are reading this now, you are not having an experience of being your body. You are being a feeling-being, you are the feelings, not the body.
To re-iterate, the PCE is what informs you that you are your body, but at that point it isn’t you who is reading this now that is having that experience, but the actual Roy. You will be absent in a PCE.
This is another very common spiritual approach/idea, not an actualist one, viz.:
The actual purpose of such neti-neti type meditations is to show that whatever the Absolute Self/Absolute Soul is, it cannot be anything in the phenomenological world, i.e. it is something metaphysical that transcends the material world. Of course, this has nothing to do with actualism!
Yes, just as expected from the goal of the meditation. But then you are supposed to take it even further than this – if you are just awareness, but somehow some part of awareness is being aware of awareness, isn’t it? So then you are not even that (still worldly) awareness, but something else… it gets even more sublime and transcendental than this. I don’t recommend this of course, it will just take you further from actuality
This is correct as far as it goes, it was ‘you’ who was doing this meditation. But you go on to say…
And here it seems the meditation started to ‘work’ because here you are talking in dissociative terms! You are now talking about the ‘self’ as if it is an object, something other than you (Roy who is reading this now) are.
That’s the point of the neti-neti meditation. The ‘self’ you are starting from here is the ‘ego’ not the soul. The ultimate goal of the neti-neti approach is to eliminate the ego such that the Soul can reign supreme. So you perceive your ego (which is who you think yourself to be) as something other than you-the-Soul, so that the ego can disappear (leaving just the observer of the ego, you-the-Soul).
You don’t need to identify with ‘your’ self or not – you already are your self. If you now no longer identify as your ‘self’ then you are a step closer towards the spiritual realms and a step further away from actuality, i.e. now you are two steps removed (both removed from actuality and reality, towards spirituality) rather than just one step removed (removed from actuality via being in reality).
The way towards the PCE is the opposite direction – away from reality yet towards actuality.
I didn’t quite follow what the clarity here was, it is not clear to me .
During a PCE the inquiry would be incorrect since you are that whta you are experiencing (the actual you is the senses, is the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body). You are not the trees of course but you are the experience of the trees. This is in direct contradiction to the neti-neti approach which would have you believe you are not the experience of the trees either.
I think it would just end the PCE if during the PCE you start considering that you cannot be that which you are experiencing.
Outside the PCE the inquiry is incorrect also since you are your feelings, and the inquiry would have it that you are not your feelings (since it’s something you experience and it has the starting point that whatever you experience you can’t be that).
You can definitely do the inquiry outside the PCE (that’s what you were doing here) so that part I am a bit lost. But the result will be an ASC not a PCE.
Hehe nice Claudiu, it is handy that you are able to use your past meditative expertise to write like this.
These meditative/dissociative concepts are so slippery, hence so many people fall for their apparent ‘wisdom’. Even materialism rests on the bed rock of spiritualism, so these things are hiding in plain sight!
I can often see these (I was thinking along the same lines as you when I read Roy’s post) but I can’t quite flesh it out as well as you do.
Just one section has the below :
