I could add only one reaction on the post so here are all of them 
Just want to say am super impressed you were able to pull yourself out of it!
The past has shown that this is the far less likelier outcome!
Yea! I think that is exactly it. And these quotes from Srinath really corroborate that that’s exactly what has happened here:
and
I find it really amazing from my part the palpable difference between Srinath’s appearance of himself weaving into being, and a regular feeling-being – the latter with the full force of psychic currents behind them, and the former with those noticeably absent, a real toothless tiger!!
Yes, it’s also very relevant here to consider what Geoffrey wrote on his report of becoming free:
I can think of no better confirmation that it is sound advice to aim for the fully free people rather than the newly free people, and no more evident that to go into the known/the familiar is what is unsafe, than by looking at what happened on the forum when Militio made his claims with some warning signs on his posts. The rift that Srinath had started, widened, with the effect being for people to take less heed and be less diligent about Milito’s claims, i.e. to turn away from pure intent personified and towards something else! With potentially very pernicious consequences depending on the precise nature of his current state.
I’m glad it is all out in the open now and sensibility has evidently been restored!
Cheers,
Claudiu
1 Like
OK so to go a bit deeper into why I want to believe in Milito, why I want to move towards Srinath, what is the appeal all about?
I can see that on some level I am afraid of stepping out of ‘humanity’, out of being ‘normal’, specifically with regards to what that means for my interactions with others.
The appeal of the newly free individual who is still playing in that ‘sandpit of social identity’ is kind of like they can do both. Like they are a buffer between actuality and ‘humanity’, they still give credence to the real world concepts enough so that other identities can somewhat relate.
Which looking at it from the other side is actually harmful, as in it is perpetuating sorrow and malice by maintaining some link to ‘humanity’, keeping ‘humanity’ alive.
But then the other option, the one that Richard and Vineeto live, is so far removed from ‘humanity’ that there is truly no link anymore. I am afraid of living in that place where my words, my actions and my behaviours make absolutely no sense to identities still in existence.
Of course this all crumbles upon seeing that no identity exists in actuality.
But then here ‘I’ am and ‘I’ feel like maybe someone like Srinath or Milito can still see ‘me’. I think this is what draws me to the ‘something else’. Just like ‘I’ want to be seen by those newly free individuals, ‘I’ want to set it up so that other identities are not left behind completely when ‘I’ self immolate.
Yet again though the outcome is that ‘humanity’ is perpetuated, but the other option is pretty daunting in it’s ramifications - the ending of ‘humanity’ altogether, not just ‘me’ but all those other identities that ‘I’ am trying to keep alive.
This is the weirdest little dilemma actually. I am just putting it to myself like this - right now ‘I’ experience ‘myself’ to exist, and ‘I’ relate to other identities who equally exist in reality eg the identity that exists inside the flesh and blood body called Sonya. What ‘I’ am afraid of is disappearing completely and leaving ‘her’ behind, and not even remaining in that ‘sandpit’ where ‘she’ can somewhat relate, instead going so far that ‘she’ will never be seen again, that link will be cut forever. Although ‘she’ does not exist in actuality, I know from the experience of being a ‘self’ right now that ‘she’ will be left all alone to suffer. There is a great sorrow at this, and then on the other side there is the seeing the ‘she’ does not exist in actuality.
But this is the kind of drama that is drawing me to the ‘something else’.
2 Likes
I think the key here is to see that the best thing for the actually existing flesh and blood body called Sonya, is for ‘Sonya’ to cheerfully and willingly self-immolate!
And ‘her’ having an actual Kuba as a partner rather than feeling-being ‘Kuba’, will make that far easier for her!
So the actually caring thing to do is to self-immolate not to stay behind !
1 Like
Right it’s seeing that the actually caring thing to do is to self-immolate, whereas right now it’s back to front, the caring thing seems to be to continue alleviating the suffering of other identities by remaining an identity myself.
I can see the flip side is that by remaining an identity in any form I am actually maintaining suffering. By remaining an identity so that ‘I’ can alleviate ‘her’ suffering, ‘I’ am actually perpetuating suffering for all.
2 Likes
I find it interesting that this topic has turned towards caring and I have a few more observations here. This ‘something else’ is more appealing to ‘me’ because ‘I’ don’t exist in actuality.
Richard cannot be caring towards ‘me’, therefore his actual caring is invisible to ‘me’. Therefore he can appear to ‘me’ to be cold, uncaring, not bothered etc. Actual caring can only be directed towards this flesh and blood body, which is also invisible to ‘me’.
‘I’ want to perpetuate this ‘something else’ as it seems to be more caring to ‘me’, in the language that ‘I’ can understand. So ‘I’ take this something ‘familiar/human’ to be beneficial, (because it feels to be so) whereas what it is doing in actuality is perpetuating suffering.
It is all flipping upside down right now 
So guys I checked and @Sonyaxx said she wouldn’t remain an identity for ‘me’ so it’s all good 
“Would you remain an identity so ‘I’ don’t suffer alone” is the actualist equivalent of the “would you still love me if I was a worm” haha.
1 Like
I wonder if you guys can clarify for me how becoming actually free is more beneficial to my partner than actively trying to be caring. For example, if my partner is in a slump or depressed, I have this urge (drive) to push her to get out of it and do everything I can for her. Based on past experience, this usually has the opposite effect as people actively resist being told what to do. OTOH, if I focus on feeling good, I feel like I’m leaving her behind, marooning her to a life of suffering…
It didn’t even cross my mind to feel bad that you’d be suffering alone 
I just thought surely it would be better for you if I self immolate. I also wouldn’t be so sassy all the time
2 Likes
Agreee!!
I guess the difference to contemplate upon is the difference between alleviating (perpetuating) vs eliminating.
But I am only eliminating my own suffering
What happens when you alleviate her suffering though?
I think this bit from Devika might help [not sure about quoting the whole thing as journal states 50 words or less for sharing]
Well you see it for yourself here — “trying to be caring” doesn’t work to actually help the other. It’s self-centered. You want to alleviate her suffering so that your own empathetic suffering is alleviated. And I wager that it is upsetting to you when this doesn’t work — this reveals it’s really about you!
Well the first way didn’t work so there’s no reason to keep pursuing it.
I’ll just point out that good moods can be contagious and people generally want to hang around happy people as it’s a positive experience for them.
Also If you’re actually free then you’ll be able to actually care instead of just self-centrically trying to care. Then you’ll find yourself doing what is actually best for the other person, without any reference to your own ‘self’ (which will be absent).
You can get a preview of this in PCEs, and a very near imitation of it in EEs!
2 Likes
The one thing I am beginning to understand here is that ‘I’ will willingly and cheerfully self-immolate when ‘I’ see, with certainty that it is the best thing I can do for myself and others. If this is actually seen then how could ‘I’ not?
2 Likes
What I’m about to share was something I was thinking but was not going to share but after seeing Kuba’s exposing of “himself” and Claudiu’s excellent expose I figured this might be a good chance to expose “my” craftiness as well. :-).
The notion is not as fresh now as it was initially but essentially I was thinking that aiming for Richard’s place instead of basic/ newly free actual freedom doesn’t really make sense as you have to self-imolate via becoming newly free before you can become fully actually free. So, therefore it seems like aiming for full actual freedom instead of basic actual freedom is putting the cart before the horse. In fact it seems like it’s putting the cart so far before the horse it’s a wonder one can even see the cart. Or would it be the horse that we’re losing sight of here ? LOL. I think you get my point though. 
This other point which perhaps should be a separate post altogether but hey if I don’t write it now it might be 6 months until I do so let’s just keep going. It’s interesting that every authentic actually free person to our knowledge has not moved to full actual freedom besides Richard and Vineeto. I wonder if this is somehow a choice or whether the journey to full actual freedom is not as obvious and or easy as one might have initially thought and perhaps the other actually free people don’t know how to even get there. This also makes me wonder if perhaps a basic actual freedom is more appropriate/ beneficial for certain people in regards to their life circumstances and/or stage of life. Those of us who have been around for a number of years before the distinction between a full actual freedom and basic actual freedom was made all had what we now call full actual freedom as the goal and goal post but now it appears that the basic actual freedom is what most people seem to stay at. Albeit there does seem to be perhaps a deepening of that which perhaps will eventually given more time than any of us would have ever thought lead to a full actual freedom. That’s probably more than enough for Claudiu’s incisive precision instruments to have some material to work on.
I guess my immediate thought is, it seems all the people that succeeded in becoming newly free were aiming for precisely Richard & Vineeto, to be where they are.
So I would recommend doing what has worked in the past and aiming for the same thing they were!
1 Like
So I was thinking something along the same lines as you, but this doesn’t make so much sense anymore when I consider just what remains in a newly free individual ie remnants of social identity, why would aiming for those be beneficial?
1 Like
Social identity consists of beliefs, habitual thoughts, and behavior patterns
The remnant social identity is basically whatever survived investigation while still a feeling-being. Whatever extent to which social identity can be removed while a feeling-being makes becoming free more likely / is in itself an aspect of freedom.
The removal simply continues in kind once free, but without the affective backing.
It becomes much easier to remove social identity once free because it lacks the affective backing, but it still remains as a task to fully live what the universe demonstrates as possible.
It’s also worth remembering that because Richard was the initial template, it was a bit of a surprise when others became free that they ‘weren’t where Richard was.’ It was because Richard’s investigation that led to him becoming enlightened, as well as likely the exhaustive investigation that he undertook while enlightened, served to remove all or nearly all of the social identity. That’s where Vineeto’s investigation of what she came to call the Guardian came in.
The social identity is interesting because it can apparently survive once free of the instinctive being. So it’s in residence in a free being, but it involves living out patterns that were developed for historical emotional reasons, often thousands of generations ago. So you have a free living with concessions as if emotions were extant - the very reasoning behind actions driven by the social identity is emotionally-developed. In this way, the body is still being controlled by the memory of the instinctive being.
Vineeto describes becoming fully free as sparkling and with a “wonder, amazement and appreciation” that was notably muted during her normal (newly free) operation.
So, all in all, yes there is a ‘greater freedom’ than newly-free actual freedom, and I’d also suggest that it is what we remember from the most sparkling PCEs, given that in those times the entire identity (social and instinctive) were on pause / temporarily forgotten.
Edit:
Richard: “…the ego-self (an emotional/ passional-mental construct) who arises out of the instinctual-self (an inchoate affective ‘being’/amorphous ‘presence’ the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into) somewhere around age two is not the social identity/ cultural conscience … by and large it is not until approximately seven years of age that a child knows the basic difference between what each particular society regards as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’/‘good’ and ‘bad’ and the parents’ attitude reflects this (as is evidenced in a parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated ‘you should know better by now’).”
So the social identity is layered on and developed out of the ego-self (emotional/passional-mental construct). It seems with a newly-free being, the instinctual/emotional/passional aspect of ego dies, but that does leave the ‘mental construct’ (shadow ego?) which can maintain the social identity as beliefs which are lived by until they either fall away in the normal course of life or are intentionally investigated & removed.
It’s a structure which is integrated into the ego to control and direct its actions to prevent the harms of an unfiltered instinctive being.
6 Likes