February 12 2025

ROY: Life is already pretty great as it is. But there are times that something happens, and it’s apparent that if I was free from this natural and social conditioning, it would have been different – specially for others: the experience of others you be better if I didn’t behave the way I behaved. That part, being “harmless” is as appealing to me, as being “happy” at this point, I think.

VINEETO: Hi Roy,

I like what you wrote here – I remember ‘Vineeto’ writing about how ‘she’ discovered that feeling harmless was not enough, ‘she’ recognized that ‘she’ wanted to be harmless, not just feel harmless.

Vineeto: The reason I said that there is a remarkable difference between *feeling* harmless and actually being harmless is because it is easy to assess one’s happiness by checking if I am feeling happy whereas many people may feel themselves to be harmless when they are not experiencing feelings of aggression or anger against somebody. Yet they are nevertheless causing harm via their thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions, something that all human beings are prone to do unless they become fully aware of their instinctual passions *before* these translate into vibes and/or actions.

It was about a year into my process of actualism when I became aware of how much my outlook on the world and on people had changed in that my cloak of myopic ‘self’-centredness began to lift and I no longer saw the world only ‘my’ way and my judgments and actions no longer revolved around ‘my’ interests, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ ideas, ‘my’ ideals, ‘my’ fears, ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ aversions. Consequently I have learnt to judge harmlessness by the amount of parity and consideration I apply to others whom I come in contact with, both at work and at play, and not by merely feeling myself to be harmless. (…)

I remember well the first evening when I looked at Peter and saw him as just another human being – not as a partner, a mate, a member of the other gender, a lover, a sexual object, a valuable addition to my circle of friends, and not as someone who would approve or disapprove of me – simple another fellow human being. Suddenly the separation I felt was gone and there was a delicious intimacy, as ‘I’ was no longer attempting to force him to fit into ‘my’ world.

I was astounded and shocked by this experience, being outside of my so familiar ‘self’-centred and ‘self-oriented skin, because I realized that never before, not once in our 3-months acquaintance, had I been able, or even interested, to see him as a person in his own right. I was shocked at how all of my perception and consequently all of my interactions were driven by what *I* wanted, what *I* expected and what *I* believed him to be and how much I was therefore constantly at odds with how he actually was.

The reason I am telling this story is because this experience was the beginning of a slow and wide-ranging realization that as long as I live in ‘my’ world – made up of ‘my’ worldview, ‘my’ beliefs, opinions, feelings and survival passions – I cannot help but struggle to fit everyone into ‘my’ world, as actors on the stage of ‘my’ play, so to speak, as family and aliens, as friends and enemies, as ‘good’ people and ‘bad’ people. And not only am ‘I’ busy trying to do this, everyone else – all six billion of us – are equally struggling to fit everyone into ‘their’ world.

It then comes as no surprise that being actually harmless is out of the question – until ‘I’ more and more leave centre-stage, stop resenting being here, stop being stressed, take myself less seriously, take notice of other people the way they are and start enjoying life. (Actualism, Vineeto, AF List, Tarin, 13.8.2006)

ROY: By being harmless you are already helping everyone without being altruistic in the traditional sense. You are harmless if you manage to deconstruct your biological and social conditioning. Once you understand those you realize when you judge people and why you are judging them, when you are mean and why you are being mean, etc…

VINEETO: Yes, being harmless is doubly beneficial, it reduces/ eliminates your harmful actions and simultaneous reduces your harmful vibes which are often more powerfully harmful than the words or actions themselves.

As for “when you judge people” – ‘thou shalt not judge’ is both a Christian adage and common in Eastern spiritual teachings but doesn’t hold up in real life. Judging, i.e. to make appraisals, is a necessity in everyday life – the values by which to judge, however, can be harmful or beneficial. Judging both yourself and other by the (conditioned) rules of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is following the values passed on from long-dead people or God(s) as the ultimate arbiters. Judgement according to sensible and silly, however, is indispensable.

Richard: Shall I put it this way (about not being judgmental)? Do you personally:

• Condone rape and child abuse?
• Approve of rape and child abuse?
• Have no opinion about rape and child abuse?
• Disapprove of rape and child abuse?
• Proscribe rape and child abuse?

Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity. (Richard, List B, No. 42, 12 Nov 2000).

Often such judgements (based on being silly or sensible) can be current appraisals of people or situations, which can change when new facts emerge.

However, when you discover that you were “mean” then your ‘assessment’ was based on your feeling anger, defensiveness, feeling insulted, righteous, hurt, etc., and you can then investigate the underlying feeling.

ROY: For example today I saw a woman with revealing clothes and immediately I became angry. It’s an automatic feeling (which is interesting because I used to think that it started with thoughts). The difference now from before is that I realize what’s going on with me and the feeling stops quickly.

VINEETO: This a good example of a feeling reaction based on a certain conditioned value of ‘thou shalt not wear revealing clothes if you are a female’. Even though the feeling stopped quickly for you it would be interesting to contemplate if the conditioning which set up this ‘rule’ stands in the way of being happy and harmless – just so that it won’t offend you next time it happens.

‘Vineeto’ also discovered in ‘her’ quest of becoming factually/ actually harmless, that it wasn’t enough to investigate and disempower the ‘bad’ emotions and their related conditioning but even more so the ‘good’ emotions. Each ‘good’ feeling has a dark twin underpinning it.

Here is how Richard described how during his enlightenment ‘he’ examined the ‘good’ and particularly the ‘Good’ and given that is was so revered in all societies, it was a mammoth task –

Richard: For eleven years I lived in an Altered State Of Consciousness, so I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies ... and I found much that was murky and dirty lurking around in the outer darkness. (…) I soon found enough to make me start suspecting something very serious was wrong with Spiritual Enlightenment. To start off with was the inescapable fact that I had a ‘Sense Of Mission’ to bring ‘Peace and Love’ to a suffering humanity – I was driven to spread ‘The Word’ and to disseminate ‘The Truth’ – and this imposition did not sit well with me. In my fourth year I started to question the efficacy of Divine Compassion as a means of resolving sorrow once and for all. As a palliative for suffering it was beyond compare – it superseded pity, sympathy and empathy by a mile – but it remained forever a panacea only. Consolation for sorrow, no matter how divine that solace may be, is not a cure that lasts.

In my sixth year I was ready to examine Love Agapé – which up until then had been far to sacred to put under the microscope – and I soon found enough to warrant further investigation. If Divine Compassion had been found to be murky and dirty, I was to go on to discover that Love Agapé was sordid and squalid to the extreme. Just as compassion has its roots in sorrow, so too has love its origin in malice. Hatred is the essential companion to love; the one cannot exist without the other. When I first saw the other face of love I was horrified ... for I was in the grip of a ‘Demonic Power’ disguised as ‘Divine Authority’. The diabolical is but the essential sub-stratum for the righteous; the sinister for the good; the fiendish for the glorious; the infernal for the heavenly; the wicked for the charitable ... and so on. Love Agapé – which has been touted as the cure-all for the ills of humankind for thousands of years – was hand-in-glove with evil. No wonder that religious wars have beset this planet for aeons, for the central tenet of any religious or spiritual path is love ... and love is the very element that will sabotage any well-meant endeavour with its secret agenda. A loving self is still a self, nevertheless. And a self is made out of the sorrow and malice that are generated by the instinctual aggression and fear that humans are born with in order for the species to survive. (…)

In my tenth year I tentatively approached one of the last bastions of spiritual enlightenment: pacifism. Almost all of the other attributes of what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ had been stripped away and if I was to undo what is called ‘ahimsa’ ”in the east – non-violence – then there would not be much left of my precious ‘Peace On Earth’ that I was charged to bring. I found a strong resistance within myself to contemplate letting go of the scriptural adage: ‘Turn the other cheek’ ... even though I intellectually considered it to be nonsense. If an entire country held such a belief it would be akin to hanging out a sign saying: ‘Please feel free to invade, we will not fight back’. Also, I personally relied upon the police to protect me and mine from any personal attack or robbery – what if they adopted this principle? By the time I had worked my way through this philosophical dilemma I had to turn my sights upon the last thing that stood between me and an actual freedom. I would have to let go of the deeply ingrained concept of ‘The Good’. For this to happen I would have to eliminate ‘The Bad’ in me, or else I would be likely to go off the rails and run amok. Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 Mar 1998).

Cheers Vineeto

February 13 2025

ROY: Thanks a lot for the time you spent writing this reply! It is very helpful and this forum has become a very important resource for me thanks to many of you here.

VINEETO: Hi Roy,

Thank you for your feedback, and I am delighted that you understand so much of what I explained. It’s a lot to take in and even more to digest. I much appreciate your response. Just two more points I’d like to comment on.

ROY: Intimacy to me used to mean being exceptionally close to someone in a vulnerable/fragile way, and now it means being fully transparent without worries about what I share / say / how the other person reacts / if they will accept me or not / etc. I guess I didn’t ever had this type of real human connection in the past.

VINEETO: An actual intimacy is indeed happening with everyone and everything “being fully transparent” and, of course “without worries” of any kind. This is part and parcel of not being ‘self’-centred and without any ‘self’ whatsoever, and one is therefore benevolent, equitable and considerate.

The more one is virtually happy and virtually harmless, the more intimacy with fellow human beings and the world around you is possible. When pure intent is dedicatory in place (“as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else”), then you can be “fully transparent without” and be more and more confidently harmless. Until this happens it is still advisable to take into account that you, and everyone else, is a feeling being with whatever this entails.

Maybe you had already implied all that when you wrote the above paragraph. I am just being careful remembering ‘Vineeto’s’ own experiences when ‘her’ confidence in having successfully dismantled some of ‘her’ social identity sometimes translated into impulsive actions, which were anything but beneficial … ‘oops’.

*

VINEETO: ‘Vineeto’ also discovered in ‘her’ quest of becoming factually/ actually harmless, that ”it wasn’t enough to investigate and disempower the ‘bad’ emotions and their related conditioning but even more so the ‘good’ emotions. Each ‘good’ feeling has a dark twin underpinning it.

ROY: It’s very interesting that you say that because the other day I had exactly a situation in my life in which I realized that I should investigate good feelings too. I thought I wouldn’t need to care too much about what is positive, but in fact I need to investigate any disturbing feeling (positive and negative). The situation was that I happened to do something very positive both in my community and at work without even trying and without selfish motivations. It just happened that I had to handle these situations and I handled them very well. And so I was praised and with that came a great feeling of belonging and worthiness. Later however I did something stupid and turns out that it was caused by the inflated ego from earlier. Whenever I let my ego become bigger it ends up affecting my behaviors later on in a negative way. So basically I have to investigate both positive and negative feelings.

VINEETO: That is great discovery you made.

However, there is far more to the “negative” side of ‘good’ feelings than inflation of the ego. By calling ‘good’ feelings (such as love and compassion) “what is positive” you may have missed the issue of what ‘good’ feelings and their dark twin are. The reason for the long quote from Richard at the end of my last post was to give you some material to contemplate when you have the time and inclination. ‘Good’ feelings are just as passionate as ‘bad’ feelings, arising from the same instinctual passions, ‘me’ at the core of my being, and hence equally rotten at the core.

Richard: ... Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 Mar 1998).

Cheers Vineeto

June 18 2025

CHRONO: The feelings then returned but the resentment then had morphed from being pointed towards others to me. Anger that I went along with others. There’s also this “realization” in the periphery of disbelief that then I would have to face the fact that life is indeed easy and that’s an entirely new direction. I had been listening to ‘others’ so gullibly and dutifully self-castigated. This feeling has now eased off and there’s a sort of “simmering” happening. If this is the case what vested interested is there in harbouring these feelings? Or why would I want to be these feelings?

VINEETO: Ha, that’s a good one, realising that doing it the hard way was a waste of time, and who would be willing to abandon the hard work of years of one’s life just because something easier and more fun came along!

I am confident that this won’t stop you, though it’s still “simmering” …

CHRONO: Another very interesting thing that I’ve noted in my reflection is how I had not been taking into account of what it means to be harmless. In this correspondence (Richard, List D, Martin), Richard explains that how to be harmless also includes oneself. So if I’m being angry or resentful, then I am harming myself as well. It’s also interesting that while I read thru this that I am in some way unwittingly operating from a ‘put others before oneself’ type of philosophy because when I consider including myself in what it means to be harmless, then I get a reaction of ‘oh I’m being selfish’ if I also include myself. So in some way, the laws of the ‘real world’ are such that to be happy and harmless is to be selfish. The laws of the ‘real world’ require one to suffer. How perverse! I’m seeing a more clear picture as I go along of this inauthentic persona that has been constructed and psychically impressed. Almost like there’s two of ‘me’. The ‘me’ that’s born of the world and another more authentic and naive ‘me’ that’s possible.

VINEETO: Indeed, this is an excellent find. This doctrine of “‘put others before oneself’ type” is all pervasive, and a harmful flow-on effect from all the unliveable religious teachings – be it the Eastern ‘ahimsa’/ pacifism or the Christian “turn the other cheek”. It is truly a dogma to be rid of as soon as possible. Interestingly enough, it was the last of the pillars of enlightenment which Richard dismantled on his journey to an actual freedom –

Richard: In my tenth year I tentatively approached one of the last bastions of spiritual enlightenment: pacifism. Almost all of the other attributes of what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ had been stripped away and if I was to undo what is called ‘ahimsa’ in the east – non-violence – then there would not be much left of my precious ‘Peace On Earth’ that I was charged to bring. I found a strong resistance within myself to contemplate letting go of the scriptural adage: ‘Turn the other cheek’ ... even though I intellectually considered it to be nonsense. If an entire country held such a belief it would be akin to hanging out a sign saying: ‘Please feel free to invade, we will not fight back’. Also, I personally relied upon the police to protect me and mine from any personal attack or robbery – what if they adopted this principle? By the time I had worked my way through this philosophical dilemma I had to turn my sights upon the last thing that stood between me and an actual freedom. I would have to let go of the deeply ingrained concept of ‘The Good’. For this to happen I would have to eliminate ‘The Bad’ in me, or else I would be likely to go off the rails and run amok. Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out.

The Altered State of Consciousness – in particular, spiritual enlightenment – needs to be talked about and exposed for what it is so that nobody need venture up that blind alley ever again. There is another way and another goal. The main trouble with the enlightenment is that whilst the ego dissolves, the identity as a soul remains intact. No longer identifying as a personal ego-bound identity, one then identifies as an impersonal soul-bound identity – ‘I am That’, ‘I am God’, ‘I am The Supreme’, ‘I am The Absolute’ and so on. This is the delusion, the mirage, the deception ... and it is extremely difficult to see it for oneself, for one is in an august state. This second identity – the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame – is a difficult one to shake, maybe more difficult than the first; for who is brave enough to voluntarily give up fame and fortune, reverence and worship, status and security? One has to be scrupulously honest with oneself to go all the way and no longer be a someone, a somebody of importance. One faces extinction; ‘I’ will cease to be, there will be no ‘being’ whatsoever, no ‘presence’ at all. It is impossible to imagine, not only the complete and utter cessation of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety, but the end of any ‘Ultimate Being’ or ‘Absolute Presence’ in any way, shape or form. It means that no one or no thing is in charge of the universe ... that there is no ‘Ultimate Authority’. It means that all values are but human values, with no absolute values at all to fall back upon. It is impossible for ‘me’ to conceive that without a wayward ‘me’ there is no need for any values whatsoever ... or an ‘Ultimate Authority’.

Thus I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able to be here at all is a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity. And what an adventure it was ... and still is. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 March 2000)

Cheers Vineeto

June 27 2025

CHRONO: Continuing on from my reflection, the initial feeling of this ‘put others before oneself’ type of operating seems to be guilt. I experienced it first as an anxiety and a ‘scan’ of how others view me. I sometimes experience a glimpse of what’s underneath it. This fits in with harmlessness and how I want others to accept me before I will feel good continuously. My experience is that it’s actually very easy to feel good once this is out of the picture. This feeling of guilt and anxiety I experience creates a helplessness (victim). By being this victim, I am wanting the other to antidotally respond with loving or compassionate feelings. With that, I will feel accepted and thus let myself feel good. To contemplate feeling good forever without the permission of ‘others’ feels callous. Another interesting related aspect that I’ve noted is that when you’re in love, you automatically put the other before yourself. It’s the nature of love so now it makes sense why it’s advocated by the enlightened people.

VINEETO: Hi Chrono,

This is an excellent reporting of the various aspects of ‘me’ standing in the way of feeling good.

Yesterday I watched the ‘Virtual Freedom’ video again and Peter reminded me of something I had almost forgotten – how hard it was at first to allow himself to be happy and harmless. What was one of the two main objections that he would have to go against the whole thrust of human ‘wisdom’, that one is not allowed to be happy.

I suspect at least part of your “feeling of guilt and anxiety” is arising out of that overall stipulation to not fall ‘out of line’, generated by everyone’s vibes and psychic currents. Hence your reaction so far has been to dutifully feel “guilt and anxiety” and the various consequential feelings, if you aim for “feeling good forever without the permission”. Fortunately, even though it sometimes feels like an unsurmountable barrier, the facts are that

1. you can change yourself unilaterally (and only pay lip service when necessary) – in other words, you neither need permission nor allies in this game how happy and harmless can I feel, and

2. the affective felicitous and innocuous vibes are contagious (just like the malicious and sorrowful vibes are), and they are more contagious the more you confidently allow yourself to be that way.

CHRONO: Once I saw that all it was, was guilt, I had an experience and seeing of what’s underneath. Underneath the guilt and resentment is unbridled aggression. I wrote above about how I feel angry at others for not accepting me and in turn to feel good. But this made me more aware of the anger underneath in myself. I usually am considered a ‘chill guy’ but all of that anger and aggression is right there. I started thinking up all of the times that I do feel it and it’s actually quite a bit. It’s all under the guise of “Righteous” anger or indignation. Anger that’s acceptable by society. You can be angry when something unfair happens. One example that people may overlook but surely experience is when you are driving. There are many incidents of road rage that happen, but often people only see those people as out of control and not themselves as well. I also get angry at other drivers (e.g. if someone is going very slow). This is all considered okay because the other driver choosing to go slow or doing whatever is “not okay” (unacceptable). Often driving in traffic, you can see these aspects of yourself. This aggression felt like a huge beast waiting inside a cave. It’s only the fear of the ‘many’ which keeps it in check. Weirdly, when someone does end up acting out their aggression, it’s an unmentioned expectation that they feel guilty about it. So I must be pre-emptively feeling it so that it never happens. But as I looked around, this same beast was in everyone. It was no different. This burden was being carried by everyone.

VINEETO: Indeed, wanting to be happy when everyone else prefers to follow the dictum to be sad or bad is not the only reason for feeling guilty. And as you found out, blaming others for feeling angry or not liked is pointless and only aggravates feeling bad. Everyone is inflicted by the same instinctual passions, hence no need to feel either guilty or resentful. The very fact that you have the sincere intent to do something about your aggression, and know a way to do that effectively, is already a eminent position to appreciate.

Here is how feeling being ‘Vineeto’ described ‘her’ own discoveries –

‘Vineeto’: ‘As I am the one who on my own accord is investigating my own fraudulent existence, nobody else can expose me more than I am already doing so myself! And I am not only admitting that ‘I’ am a fraud, ‘I’ am also ready and willing to take the cure – ‘self’-immolation.

Once this commitment to eliminate my own aggression and my own taking offence is taken fully on board, then aggressive arrows of others simple fall flat on the ground. The aggression of others can only trigger fear and anger in me as long as I nourish malice in myself. When I start examining my own anger and maliciousness with the sincere intent to eradicate it source, ‘me’, then I can be confident that there is no glint of malice in what I say and write and therefore other people’s accusations simply look silly.

As I am the one who on my own accord is investigating my own fraudulent existence, nobody else can expose me more than I am already doing so myself! And I am not only admitting that ‘I’ am a fraud, ‘I’ am also ready and willing to take the cure – ‘self’-immolation.

When I revisited this post that I had written four years ago, I could see my process of learning to think in action. I remember that each paragraph was the end product of mulling over topics, of sincere investigation into my emotions and of honest questioning of my beliefs. I remembered how I had enjoyed the process of discovery and the act of describing it to someone else. One thing, however, was always top priority in my writing – I needed to be 100% sure that I was in no way malicious, grumpy, resentful, spiteful, revengeful or aggressive in what I said. This means sticking to the facts and being aware of the slightest emotional reaction that I might have while making good use of it for investigative purposes each time it happens. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, Gary-d, 24.6.2001)

CHRONO: There were only superficial differences and no one was special. Not even a ‘chill guy’ like me . I feel this aggression more intensely when I think about the ‘unfairness’ in the world. When I watch the news, it does not make sense and I just play out a scenario in my head of how whoever I think is responsible (usually the “upper” class) gets punished severely. It’s truly a never-ending cycle. But now I experienced myself as responsible as well. Seeing all this makes it easier to sift through the facts as that pull towards how I should think or approach life based on if it feels ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’ has greatly lessened. But even further to that, my intent to feel good come what may now can stand on its own. Because when I saw that others were also keeping at bay this same unbridled aggression, it became more clear that no one actually knows what they are doing. Previously I wrote that others seem to know something that I don’t. Now there’s no reason to go along with that feeling as it seems silly. It’s very fascinating how all of these feelings come together and feed each other. Many of them also seem to be weaker now. Especially the negative ones that I was feeling with my partner where I felt like I had to be anxiously grasping. I’m able to allow her more to be in her own space and I meet her from where I am if that makes any sense.

VINEETO: It is really amazing how dealing with one issue, anger, and aiming to be harmless, has such beneficial results on being able to play together rather than the automatic hide, defence and attack-mode. It is quite magically and remarkably enjoyable and buoyant.

CHRONO: I’m reflecting on time now as I inevitably always come back to this and it seems very related to feeling good. The words that ‘this moment is the only moment of being alive’ seem to really stand out more. There’s an automatic sensuousness and feeling good that accompanies this seeing. It’s like how could I forget that this is my only moment of being alive?! Sometimes when I see it, it’s like waking up from a dream from everything prior. Everything prior doesn’t exist. There’s a great significance to this occurrence. Maybe I can rephrase my question then to ‘how can I fully enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive forever?’ . I think ‘oh yes everyone knows this’, but I am seeing more nowadays that everyone does not see that this is the only moment of being alive. When I tell my partner or friends something like ‘isn’t it interesting that it’s always this moment?’, they often almost dismiss it and not realize the full import of it. Just the other day I was noticing this moment more and more and ‘pushed the envelope’ a little further. It’s so wonderful that this is the only moment of being alive, so precious, that I simply don’t know how to describe it. I had to take a step back from this further seeing after that because I had tears in my eyes. What would take me to ‘push the envelope’ more?

VINEETO: Ha, and once you are back to feeling good and understood more of which dominant feeling was the trigger and how you tick, then there is room for sensuousness and remembering to appreciate this moment of being alive … and to be like that forever no longer seems impossible.

What would it take to ‘push the envelope’ more? – more of the same, looking sincerely at the obstacles and then enjoy more and appreciate more being alive, in this only moment you can experience, now.

CHRONO: Ah! Something else I was reflecting about and I forgot to write down. To be happy and harmless seems to be related to caring. This in turn is related to vibes and psychic currents. Stay tuned!

VINEETO: It’s wonderful to hear you say this.

This sentence from Richard from many years ago may sound familiar to you –

Richard: Now that you indubitably know what apperception is – as per your ‘It was undoubtedly an experience of apperception’ sentence – and how to evoke it (as in your ‘Then as I stuck with that seeing that it was this moment of being alive I was pulled towards it. The pull itself was exhilarating and thrilling’ sentences) you may very well come to look back upon this day as being the turning-point of your life, eh? (Richard, List D, No. 44, 2 January 2014).

Cheers Vineeto

July 15 2025

SONYA: I remember that delight and happiness was amping up, growing and growing. I was just having a great time!

VINEETO: Isn’t it amazing what can happen when “delight and happiness” is“amping up, growing and growing”!

So when you wonder what best to do, it is to be happy and harmless, and when it’s not only based on special events but just bubbling up because it’s such a joy to simply be alive, even better.

Here is Richard talking about being harmless – and it’s not at all anything to do with being ‘unselfish’ –

Martin: Does harmlessness have nothing to do with ‘others’?

Richard: (…)

• [Richard]: “(...) it may be worthwhile bearing in mind that it is impossible to be happy (be happy as in being carefree), as distinct from feeling happy, without being harmless (being harmless as in being innocuous), as distinct from feeling harmless, and to be happy *and* harmless is to be unable to induce suffering – etymologically the word ‘harmless’ (harm + less) comes from the Old Norse ‘harmr’ (meaning grief, sorrow) – either in oneself or another”. [emphasis in original]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 62, 26 March 2004).

Thus to be harmless as per actualism lingo (being free of malice) is beneficial both to oneself – plus it feels unpleasant (hedonically) to feel malicious (affectively) anyway – as well to others due to being unable to induce suffering either in oneself or another, via affective vibes and psychic currents, and vice versa. (…)

Martin: (…) I don’t think I’ve really understood what harmless means, as I can’t help but either put ‘myself’ or ‘others’ first (as a kind of denial of ‘self’) when I think of being harmless. (…) ‘Harmlessness’ feels like something you *do* to another human being – or an effect you have on them – but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?

Richard: Do you see how almost all of that paragraph you wrote as a lead-up to your query about being harmless – as in “but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?” that is – stems from or revolves around that hoary religio-spiritual practice of putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’) so as to counter selfishness? (…)

As being harmless does not feature in religio-spiritual practice – peace-on-earth is not on the religio-spiritual agenda – then the sooner that nonsense about being an unselfish ‘self’ is abandoned the better. (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 August 2016).

There is more practical information in this correspondence if you want to read it to the end.

So, enjoy, and give your enjoyment the tick of approval (appreciate).

Cheers Vineeto

November 14 2025

VINEETO to Chrono: I also found ‘Vineeto’s’ correspondence with Tarin on being harmless instead of merely feeling harmless useful. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, Tarin, 13.8.2006). (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Chrono3, 13 Nov 2025)

ED: Hi Vineeto, I was wondering if you could help me understand this a bit better as I don’t see a difference between feeling harmless and being harmless.
I think it’s because I equate feeling harmless with both the absence of malice and sorrow, as well as the absence of their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion. Therefore I equate feeling harmless and being harmless as one in the same – the absence of any self-centred instinctual passion.

VINEETO: Hi Ed,

The trouble with taking one’s feelings as arbiter of what is going on is that feelings are not only entirely self-centric by nature, and as such biased, but also utterly unreliable as to the facts of the matter.

That’s why Richard keeps emphasising that one needs to be ruthlessly honest with oneself – ‘I’, the identity, is not only lost, lonely and frightened but also very, very cunning. ‘I’, the identity, do not want to change the status quo. ‘You’ may be feeling harmless (because that is what ‘you’ want to be) but overlooking all the instances where your feelings, words and action are not harmless. If you are honest and sincere (in accord with the fact), then you check your feeling of being harmless if you are in fact being harmless. ‘Vineeto’ explained some of it in the paragraph you quoted –

‘Vineeto’: The reason I said that there is a remarkable difference between feeling harmless and actually being harmless is because it is easy to assess one’s happiness by checking if I am feeling happy whereas many people may feel themselves to be harmless when they are not experiencing feelings of aggression or anger against somebody. Yet they are nevertheless causing harm via their thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions, something that all human beings are prone to do unless they become fully aware of their instinctual passions before these translate into vibes and/or actions. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, Tarin, 13.8.2006).

This recorded incident demonstrates how ‘Vineeto’ discovered the difference in practice –

‘Vineeto’: I remember the last time when I tried to influence others by ‘sharing’ what I felt. I did some work for an old acquaintance who lived in a town about 25 km away. As a favour she asked me if someone could drop off a parcel at my house so that I could then deliver it to her.
However, when this person rang very early in the morning to ask when it would be convenient to drop off the parcel, I became a little upset. I thought how dare he be so inconsiderate as to wake me up so early for something that wasn’t even urgent. When I later delivered the parcel to my colleague, I mentioned that her friend had rung me up very early in the morning. She profusely apologized to me and then became really upset herself. She said she had instructed him not to ring before 9am and that she would immediately ring her friend to tell him off. At this point I realized that my seemingly calm mentioning of my emotional reaction to receiving an early morning phone call had created palpable ripples in two other people’s lives and that it was now out of my control and irreversible in its consequences.
This incident demonstrated very clearly that sharing my emotions, even in a calm way, inevitably caused ripples in other people’s lives and that I could never be harmless as long as I involved other people in my problems by sharing my emotional reactions. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 37b, 15.2.2002)

Here is more from ‘her’ exploration into being harmless –

‘Vineeto’: It was about a year into my process of actualism when I became aware of how much my outlook on the world and on people had changed in that my cloak of myopic ‘self’-centredness began to lift and I no longer saw the world only ‘my’ way and my judgments and actions no longer revolved around ‘my’ interests, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ ideas, ‘my’ ideals, ‘my’ fears, ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ aversions.

Consequently I have learnt to judge harmlessness by the amount of parity and consideration I apply to others whom I come in contact with, both at work and at play, and not by merely feeling myself to be harmless. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 71b, 9.8.2006)

*

‘Vineeto’: When I made it my goal to become harmless, in the early days I sometimes felt toothless, castrated and helpless, particularly in situations where I felt I was being ‘wronged’ or I was being treated ‘unjustly’. But once these feeling subsided and I looked at the situation as it really was, I could see how silly it would have been to waste my time passionately fighting other people or riling against the beliefs, morals or ethics of other people in order for ‘me’ to be right or for ‘me’ to feel justly treated. The simple act of becoming aware of having antagonistic and/or indignant feelings inevitably caused me to look at my own ideas and ideals of what I thought and felt was ‘right’ and ‘just’ and ‘fair’– after all the only person I need to change, and can change, is me.

And this process of discovery is still in action as I am still finding sly remnants of the ‘good’ variety of humanistic ethics extant which sometimes cause distress or indignation – clear indications of how ‘I’ tick. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 75, 23.4.2005)

Here is what Richard had to say about being harmless –

Martin: ‘I’ am fundamentally selfish and unless I temper this to some extent there’s no chance of being close to someone or liked as ‘my’ resentful urges are unrestrained (and affect my mood / disposition even if I don’t act out on them). Is becoming actually free a combination of becoming unselfish in a normal sense, and being harmless in an unconditional sense?

Richard: First of all, each and every identity is “fundamentally selfish” by nature – which is why it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) – insofar as blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group).

(Hence the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness – as per the unliveable ideal of each and every ‘self’ being an unselfish ‘self’ via the nonsensical edict of each and every ‘self’ putting each and every ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ – is basically an institutionalised elaboration of the most primal of blind nature’s instinctual drives, urges, and impulses and, as such, is not at all intelligent).

Second, as “being harmless in an unconditional sense” is to be actually free it makes no sense to ask if becoming actually free is a combination of being that and becoming an unselfish ‘self’.

Third, rather than having to restrain your “resentful urges” forever and a day – so as to have a chance of “being close to someone or liked” as exemplified by intimacy experiences (IE’s) – why not find out why there is resentment in the first place?

Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago first located the root source of all ‘his’ anger – the basic resentment at being alive (as expressed in the “I didn’t ask to be born” type of plaint) – and was thus able to rid ‘himself’ of (full-blown) anger within three weeks. (Richard, List D, Martin, 2 August 2016).

There is more in that correspondence if you are interested.

Richard: Not at all ... the word ‘harmless’ means ‘lacking intent to injure, devoid of hurtful qualities, marked by freedom from strife or disorder, innocuous free from guilt; innocent, blameless, faultless, irreproachable, lily-white; safe, non-dangerous, gentle, mild, peaceful, peaceable’.(Richard, List C, No. 4b, 7 March 2000a).

Are you really saying that all the above qualities are covered by the term “feeling harmless”?

ED: Feeling-being Vineeto is pointing out that some people consider the absence of aggression and anger to be adequate enough to classify themselves as feeling harmless – while overlooking other thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions.

VINEETO: Yes, here is what else ‘she’ said about how she approached ‘her’ aim of being more and more harmless –

‘Vineeto’: The way I approached the task of becoming harmless was that I first sought to stop any of my harmless actions or verbal expressions of harm towards other people. When I got to the stage when I could rely on my attentiveness such that I could detect my aggressive mood before I verbally expressed it to those around me, I then raised the bar to detecting any aggressive moods or vibes as soon as they arose. It became readily apparent that a bottled up aggression or resentment towards others only served to make me unhappy and did not count as being really harmless because any such feelings are detectible by others and have an influence on others.
This meant that I increased my attentiveness such that I became able to recognize sullen or resentful thoughts, quiet complaints, silent accusations, automatic suspicions, unfounded misgivings, subtle revenges, sneaky deceptions, surly withdrawals, petty one-upmanships, deft sabotages, malicious gossip and the like. Of course, applying this fine toothcomb of attentiveness to my thoughts, feelings, moods and vibes brought to light many hidden patterns of belief and sources of malice in my relating to people, all of which had to be investigated. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 49, 16.5.2003)

ED: Whereas being harmless would mean the absence of not only the anger and aggression, but also any other instinctually-driven feelings that often fly under the radar or even appear as “good” such as love.

VINEETO:

‘Vineeto’: The process of actualism is not one big heroic jump into oblivion, not at the start anyway, but about *practically* doing something about all the little things in daily life that prevent me from being harmless and considerate. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 60g, 6.8.2006)

In other words, putting the bar so high that you won’t be harmless until you are actually free, you (inadvertently?) stymie yourself from the start – or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless.

ED: Am I following correctly?

VINEETO: Being harmless also means to look at the practical consequences of your feelings, vibes, words and actions. I am not writing about theoretical philosophy but about changing oneself radically, experientially to become virtually harmless.

Cheers Vineeto

November 16 2025

ED:

‘Vineeto’: The way I approached the task of becoming harmless was that I first sought to stop any of my harmless harmful actions or verbal expressions of harm towards other people. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 49, 16.5.2003)

Heads up – I think you used ‘harmless’ when you meant harmful. “I first sought to stop any of my harmless [edit-harmful] actions or verbal expressions of harm towards other people.”

VINEETO: Hi Ed,

I appreciate you pointing out the mistake, undiscovered for decades – I have now corrected it on the website.

*

Richard: Not at all ... the word ‘harmless’ means ‘lacking intent to injure, devoid of hurtful qualities, marked by freedom from strife or disorder, innocuous free from guilt; innocent, blameless, faultless, irreproachable, lily-white; safe, non-dangerous, gentle, mild, peaceful, peaceable’.(Richard, List C, No. 4b, 7 March 2000a).

VINEETO: Are you really saying that all the above qualities are covered by the term “feeling harmless”?

ED: Yes – exactly. “Harmless” is defined by the qualities Richard listed. What is the difference between feeling and being? I don’t understand why “feeling harmless” would not include the above qualities but “being harmless” would.

I’m trying to understand how the two are being distinguished. Could you describe the qualities of being harmless vs feeling harmless, and point out where feeling harmless falls short? The following quote seems to clarify things more for me:

VINEETO: Being harmless also means to look at the practical consequences of your feelings, vibes, words and actions.

ED: I’m trying to understand the distinction between the two: being harmless vs feeling harmless. It seems what’s being pointed out is that being/ becoming harmless is a more encompassing affair than feeling harmless. That one doesn’t just consider how one feels, but also considers how those feelings effect their thoughts, actions, and other people. (And takes it beyond consideration into an actualization).

Is that it? That feeling harmless only takes into consideration how one feels?

VINEETO: Yes, “feeling harmless only takes into consideration how one feels”, not what is factually the case. If your arbiter (your feelings) consider it good enough when you merely feel harmless no matter if this is factually the case, that you are practically being harmless, then a lot of harmfulness flies under the radar, so to speak.

As Kuba said a few days ago –

Kuba: And just like one can attend to the smaller and smaller dips in enjoyment and appreciation I find in BJJ I am focused on progressively smaller things, in that an unexperienced opponent is looking at big and rudimentary motions whereas I am paying attention to whether I can feel the weight on the toes or the heels, or if the elbow is up or down etc.

So habituation is key to any skill, in that once something is habituated it takes care of itself and now the mind is able to attend to the next thing.

*

VINEETO: In other words, putting the bar so high that you won’t be harmless until you are actually free, you (inadvertently?) stymie yourself from the start – or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless.

ED: The bar isn’t set by me – the PCE makes it clear what it means to be actually harmless.

Becoming more a bit more harmless is only ever a small step away from where I’m at any given moment and much more realistic than a giant leap to become a lot more harmless.

VINEETO: Yes, actualising bit-by-bit is the way it works – you change yourself slowly to a more happy and more harmless person and notice the increasingly finer nuances where there is a diminution in feeling good or when there are occasions where you felt harmless but nevertheless thoughtlessly caused ripples in people’s life.

ED: I think part of my confusion in this matter stemmed from me considering “feeling” and “being” in a different context – such as how they are used here:

RICHARD: (…) it is also to no avail to vociferously state, for example, that [quote] ‘‘I’ have NEVER been king of the show’ [endquote] because it is ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), who fundamentally determines behaviour/ appearance by ‘my’ very presence (‘my’ affective vibes/ psychic currents are ‘me’).

Put succinctly: there is more to identity than just the ego-self … much, much more.

RESPONDENT: Okay … then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it.

RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 103a, 14 October 2005).

VINEETO: I don’t understand how this quote from Richard causes confusion about the difference between feeling harmless (as a subjective feeling) and being harmless (as an objective reality)? Even though, whilst you are a feeling ‘being’ until you are actually free, you can nevertheless aim to become increasingly harmless until you are virtually without malice. A practical example might help.

Look, if you wanted to employ a driver for your company, would you choose one who feels that they are a good and careful driver or choose the one who demonstrates that they are a good and careful driver?

*

VINEETO: … or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless.

ED: Well don’t forget also feeling happy; which in conjunction means to be as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible while remaining a ‘self.’ The innocuity and felicity that ensues is a different quality than my reactive feelings that depend on conditions.

But I think my issue is I’m failing to grasp the difference between merely feeling happy and harmless and being happy and harmless. Is merely feeling happy and harmless not enough because it’s a temporary affair, just aimed at feeling that way momentarily but not a fundamental change? Whereas becoming happy and harmless is something more involved, changing one’s very being?

VINEETO: There, you wrote it yourself “to be as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible”, not just to feel as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible. As I said at the beginning, feelings are not reliable arbiters of what is factual, whereas when you are being sincere, your own sincerity aims for “being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity”.

Cheers Vineeto