|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 12
PETER: Just to follow this most interesting thread a wee bit further – RESPONDENT: Well; ok Peter... I note that you steadfastly refuse to follow the other threads open in which an exploration of facts versus imagination was taking place. a. ‘Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question – as terminated with a question mark – with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?’ PETER: I would have no trouble at all responding in this way because I would simply quote No 22’s very own words. By taking his written words at face value as meaning what they say, his words can be taken as a factual statement. Given that you have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient, I simply chose not to respond. RESPONDENT: b. ‘How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth?’ The thread where I suggested to you to clarify what reasoning processes went through your mind in your reaching the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth. You stated that No 22 believes that. No 22 provided a list of his own writings that in no way indicate he believes such. It is surely up to you to provide the relevant texts from No 22 that led you to your conclusion. PETER: Why? Simply because you demand this of me? Surely if you were sincerely interested in finding the facts you would ascertain them for yourself? Unless you are prepared to find out for yourself the fact of the situation you are either going to believe what I say or disagree with what I say – a situation that results in only two options, blindly following and believing or blindly disagreeing and arguing. The only way to become free of the belief-go-round is to ascertain the facts, for yourself, by yourself. Given that you have stated in part 3 of your reply to my post –
– it does seem you might be somewhat on shaky ground in questioning the facticity of what I said, particularly when you take your issue even further, as you have done immediately below. RESPONDENT: But you insist on avoiding the issue – the issue is you are lying, Peter – you avoid the issue by blaming it on me somehow. I have an agenda, you say. I have a pre-prepared response, you say. What relevance do I have to this? What is being sought is for you to examine some of your own beliefs. The current belief you have expressed is that ‘somebody believes x’. How (or why?) does that belief in you arise, the belief that somebody believes x? The fact is Peter that you seem to imagine a lot. You seem to imagine that No 22 presents himself as god-on-earth; and you seem to present it as fact. The fact is, this is but one example of a tendency seen in you by me over the last couple of years. I imagine you are not as clear-headed as you imagine yourself to be; and that is a fact. PETER: You do realize that No 22’s list of his own writings that you are now using as evidence was nothing other than a list of his repeated refuting of the term God-man which I used in my correspondence with him? If you had read more of No 22’s writing you may have twigged to the fact that No 22 does not like the ‘man’ part of the term ‘God-man’ but has no trouble at all with the ‘God’ part. A quote from a Mohan Rajneesh discourse will illustrate that this is an archetypical rebuttal –
The other argument usually offered by God-men in refusing to be categorized as God-men is again well demonstrated by another quote from Mohan Rajneesh. It is from a discourse given soon after J. Krishnamurti died –
Is there no wonder there is no peace on earth in the East after thousands of years of God-men teachings when what passes for wisdom in that part of the world is the feeling of ‘We are all One’ while the fact is that those who trumpet it are also those who narcissistically feel and declare themselves to be the ‘One and Only’. So much for peace and harmony in the spiritual world – scratch the thin veneer of lovey-dovey and the same old dog-eat-dog world is readily apparent for anyone to see.
PETER: Just to follow this most interesting thread a wee bit further – RESPONDENT: Well; ok Peter... I note that you steadfastly refuse to follow the other threads open in which an exploration of facts versus imagination was taking place. a. ‘Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question – as terminated with a question mark – with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?’ PETER: I would have no trouble at all responding in this way because I would simply quote No 22’s very own words. By taking his written words at face value as meaning what they say, his words can be taken as a factual statement. Given that you have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient, I simply chose not to respond. RESPONDENT: So you are responding to the question as terminated with a question mark in the negative? You have referred to my state of mind ... I ‘have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient’ ... You included an allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the question asker. PETER: No. I haven’t referred to your state of mind, I was referring to the words you wrote to No 22–
This is not an allusion to the state of your mind, nor your life situation, but it is your very own words – cut and pasted to ensure accuracy. I long ago ceased having illusions about what goes on in the minds of others. I ceased this obsessive compulsiveness when I started running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ The I in the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ focuses one’s attention precisely where it should be – if your interest is ‘self’-discovery. Further, if the question is run sincerely, the innate tendency to blame others for my feeling unhappy and my feeling offended, as well as the obsessive compulsiveness of forever trying to mind-read others, will soon wilt on the vine. Good, hey. * RESPONDENT: b. ‘How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth?’ The thread where I suggested to you to clarify what reasoning processes went through your mind in your reaching the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth. You stated that No 22 believes that. No 22 provided a list of his own writings that in no way indicate he believes such. It is surely up to you to provide the relevant texts from No 22 that led you to your conclusion. PETER: Why? Simply because you demand this of me? Surely if you were sincerely interested in finding the facts you would ascertain them for yourself? Unless you are prepared to find out for yourself the fact of the situation you are either going to believe what I say or disagree with what I say – a situation that results in only two options, blindly following and believing or blindly disagreeing and arguing. RESPONDENT: The fact I am after is in your mind and thus only expressible by you. The fact I am after is how you, Peter, reached the conclusion that No 22 considers himself god-on-earth. How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth? I am interested in something about you; not about No 22. PETER: If you are willing to put your mind-reading aside for a bit and indulge in a bit of word-reading you may be capable of understanding how I reached the conclusion I did. To put it as plainly, simply and unambiguously as I can – because No 22 said so, and not only once, but many times, in many ways. What this says about me is – I can read. I take people’s words at face value. By doing so I am able to come to a reasonable, reasoned deduction based on facts rather than have a ‘self’-centred knee-jerk emotional reaction based on gut-feelings, intuition or mind-reading. * PETER: The only way to become free of the belief-go-round is to ascertain the facts, for yourself, by yourself. Given that you have stated in part 3 of your reply to my post –
PETER: – it does seem you might be somewhat on shaky ground in questioning the facticity of what I said, particularly when you take your issue even further, as you have done immediately below. (see – ‘the issue is you lying, Peter’). RESPONDENT: The facticity I am after is a simple statement of your logic. You will not state your logic? PETER: To put it as plainly, simply and unambiguously as I can – because No 22 said so, not once, but many times, in many ways. There is no simpler statement I can make, nor is there a simpler form of logic than this. It goes like this – X says A. I read that X says A. I then report that X says A. It’s called reporting what someone else said. The excellent thing about mailing lists is that this reporting does not rely on rumour, intuition, inaccurate recall, fudging or the like. A direct, copy and paste, accurate written quote is as good a report as is possible – it is a statement of fact. Neither tortuous yang logic nor fickle yin intuition is necessary at all to discover a fact, they only serve to sidetrack and befuddle. RESPONDENT: You will not provide the texts that you suggest if taken at face value would show that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth? PETER: No. It would be not only illogical but silly to do so given that you have already stated that if I did so you would simply ask the same question again. Given that that is what you are doing anyway, I simply skipped a round in your game. * RESPONDENT: But you insist on avoiding the issue – the issue is you lying, Peter – you avoid the issue by blaming it on me somehow. I have an agenda, you say. I have a pre-prepared response, you say. What relevance do I have to this? What is being sought is for you to examine some of your own beliefs. The current belief you have expressed is that ‘somebody believes x’. How (or why?) does that belief in you arise, the belief that somebody believes x? The fact is Peter that you seem to imagine a lot. You seem to imagine that No 22 presents himself as god-on-earth; and you seem to present it as fact. The fact is this is but one example of a tendency seen in you by me over the last couple of years. I imagine you are not as clear headed as you imagine yourself to be; and that is a fact. PETER: You do realize that No 22’s ‘list of his own writings’ that you are now using as evidence was nothing other than a list of his repeated refuting of the term God-man which I used in my correspondence with him? If you had read more of No 22’s writing you may have twigged to the fact that No 22 does not like the ‘man’ part of the term ‘God-man’ but has no trouble at all with the ‘God’ part. RESPONDENT: At the current time I am not interested in No 22. I am interested in you. I am interested in how your mind has reached a particular conclusion. I am still missing a clear succinct statement from you as to how you reached the conclusion that No 22 considers himself the creator of all that is, god-on-earth. You state that No 22 ‘has no trouble at all with the god part’; ... is that a statement of a belief of yours or a statement of fact? If it is a statement of fact can you substantiate it? PETER: Again it is a statement of fact substantiated by No 22’s own written words – the very same words you stubbornly insist on not reading for yourself. You may well follow the Eastern philosophical standpoint that ignorance is a virtue but to me it is just plain silly. * PETER: A quote from a Mohan Rajneesh discourse will illustrate that this is an archetypical rebuttal –
RESPONDENT: It is nice to have a quote from Osho, but I fail to see the relevance. How does something that Osho said, prove to you that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth? Is it a case of categorisation? No 22 has a similarity to Osho (in your estimation) and thus Osho’s words can be used to determine No 22’s entire state of mind. Is that the logic? PETER: Are you really this silly or are you simply spreading your intelligence so thinly in order to point score such that you can’t follow a simple use of example? Example goes like this – Man X says he is God but denies he is a God-man. Man Y also says he is God. Therefore it is reasonable to look up what Man Y says about God-men to see whether this denial is common to God-men. When one collects enough examples by this process to see a common pattern emerging, then you go looking for exceptions. If you find none then it is a fact that all God-men deny that they are God-men. Which is why I take No 22’s denial to be nothing other than common God-man-speak – i.e. in fact it is his own words that prove that he is a God-man. * PETER: The other argument usually offered by God-men in refusing to be categorized as God-men is again well demonstrated by another quote from Mohan Rajneesh. It is from a discourse given soon after J. Krishnamurti died –
Is there no wonder there is no peace on earth in the East after thousands of years of God-men teachings when what passes for wisdom in that part of the world is the feeling of ‘We are all One’ while the fact is that those who trumpet it are also those who narcissistically feel and declare themselves to be the ‘One and Only’. So much for peace and harmony in the spiritual world – scratch the thin veneer of lovey-dovey and the same old dog-eat-dog world is readily apparent for anyone to see. RESPONDENT: ... PETER: I see that you chose not to reply to this comment. Just to let you know how my mind works, I included this quote because it was not only further proof about God-men’s distaste at being categorized but also to try and steer the conversation away from mind-reading and back on to a more pertinent subject for this list – peace on earth. But this line of conversation failed to get a response from you exactly as it did in my correspondence with No 22, because peace on earth is not a subject that is of interest to either God-men or their followers. Again, the above direct quote from Rajneesh provided another example of this common trait and given the lack of exceptions to the rule a clear statement of fact emerges – none of the God-men are, or ever have been, interested in peace on earth. Actualism is the process of weeding out allusion and belief and replacing them with facts. The process is not a subjective mind-game, there are not ‘my’ facts or ‘your’ facts, there are simply facts. But you know this, or at least you did before your current bout of resistance –
To merely have insights about others and their motives and behaviour without having the intellectual rigor and intestinal fortitude to shine the same light of awareness on one’s own ‘self’ can only lead to a ‘self’-centred feeling of comparative superiority and a supercilious feeling of pity for others who are ‘less aware’. Spiritual seekers who lust for the sense of power that accompanies such insights about others and go on to make a business of this practice can eventually develop their feeling of superiority into a full-blown holier-than-thou demeanour which, if nourished and nurtured, can be further developed into full blown ‘self’-love. Their pretence of sympathy for those who are unaware can be cunningly presented as a holier-than-thou compassion and then off they trot on the Guru circuit, satsang-ing and sangha-ing, preaching and proselytising, competing and squabbling in order to attract as many followers as possible, simply in order to try to rise to the top of a very smelly heap. When I started to acknowledge my own spiritual beliefs and acknowledge the facts of the situation in the spiritual world, I was able to stop separating ‘me’ out from others. I was able to clearly see that ‘I’ was not unique, not special and by no means superior. When I sat down and made an assessment of what I was doing with my life I finally realized that it was only pride that stood in the way of acting with integrity. When I weighed ‘my’ pride and ‘my’ beliefs against integrity and the facts it then became very clear as to which direction I needed to move in life – I abandoned the falsehood of spiritual pride and became an actualist. In short, I opted for peace on earth.
RESPONDENT: Well; ok Peter... I note that you steadfastly refuse to follow the other threads open in which an exploration of facts versus imagination was taking place. a. ‘Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question – as terminated with a question mark – with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?’ PETER: I would have no trouble at all responding in this way because I would simply quote No 22’s very own words. By taking his written words at face value as meaning what they say, his words can be taken as a factual statement. Given that you have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient, I simply chose not to respond. RESPONDENT: So you are responding to the question as terminated with a question mark in the negative? You have referred to my state of mind ... I ‘have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient’ ... You included an allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the question asker. PETER: No. I haven’t referred to your state of mind, I was referring to the words you wrote to No 22–
This is not an allusion to the state of your mind, nor your life situation, but it is your very own words – cut and pasted to ensure accuracy. I long ago ceased having illusions about what goes on in the minds of others. I ceased this obsessive compulsiveness when I started running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ The I in the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ focuses one’s attention precisely where it should be – if your interest is ‘self’-discovery. Further, if the question is run sincerely, the innate tendency to blame others for my feeling unhappy and my feeling offended, as well as the obsessive compulsiveness of forever trying to mind-read others, will soon wilt on the vine. Good, hey. RESPONDENT: So I understand that you say that you reached the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth because he said so; and that his saying so is unambiguous and clear – but you will not provide those references for reasons of your own as stated. Yes? PETER: Yep. * RESPONDENT: Your answer as developed by you and concluding with your self-evaluation ‘Good hey’ is incredibly complicated, and not only that, it misrepresents the communication so far. PETER: If you find my answer incredibly complicated, it is no wonder you don’t understand that No 22 believes he is God-on-earth because he said so, not once but many times, in many ways. That you don’t bother to read the correspondence of others on this list is your problem, which you insist on trying to foist on to me. I am simply not buying into your problem – it is one that is clearly of your own creation. As for your throw away line about misrepresenting communication, as far as I am concerned the quotation supplied was word accurate. If not, could you point out where I have misrepresented you so I can correct the quote. RESPONDENT: But let us move on; out of the around and around that you have quite rightly identified as occurring here. I wish to show you a simpler answer to the above question. Reading a question at face value and answering it without running round and round is a great way to move from beliefs to facts, in my experience. I will repeat the question so you can read it one more time and then provide you with a simple answer, for your possible edification:
See how simple it is, Peter? PETER: The yes or no only answer is usually demanded by prosecuting attorneys in a court of law or by teachers when they receive a troublesome answer. It is a ploy used by an authority figure to stifle the defendant or student from any further comment on the subject. Again I see no point in participating in a game where you make up all the rules – it’s schoolyard stuff. Besides, given that you have not only supplied the question but also the answer ... you leave me speechless anyway. * RESPONDENT: I will respond to the rest of your email in a timely manner. Thank you for joining in this exploration of factuality with me. PETER: Is this really what you call an exploration of factuality? This mailing list is about investigating why it is impossible for human beings to be happy and harmless, i.e. how to bring an end to sadness and despair, war and conflict and you insist on wasting your time by investigating whether it is a fact that No 22 believes he is a God-on-earth. It should be patently clear, even to a blind man, that No 22 not only believes he is God-on-earth but is absolutely convinced he is. Now No 22 would object to the term God-on-earth because for him there is only ‘I-as-God’ and the earth is an illusion, exactly as he objects to the term God-man because there is only ‘I-as-God’, a disembodied entity, and the flesh and blood man known as No 22 is also an illusion. You have already stated what your exploration of factuality is about and why you insist on endlessly repeating the same question over and over again – ‘the issue is you lying, Peter’. Given that you have also taken on the role of the prosecutor, as in ‘My intention, in short, is to assist in the cult-busting of actualism’, I suggest it is up to you to provide evidence for you claim. Any would-be cult-buster worth his salt needs to be able to substantiate his claims with evidence – matters of substance, not endless carping and nitpicking, facts not empty allegations and bluster. But just to get back to the thread of this conversation – The relevant aspect of No 22’s fervent objections to actualism is that he, in common with all God-men and all Eastern religion/ philosophy, preaches that suffering is an inherent and unchangeable aspect of corporeal earthly existence – which is why he objects to even the possibility of peace on earth. To put it plainly – peace on earth is not part of the Truth that any of the God-men preach. No 22 also dismisses actualism as a philosophy or worldview solely because he regards any discussion about peace on earth as academic and theoretical, i.e. peace on earth is deemed to be not possible in the mythical Grand Scheme Of Things. If you can’t understand this and find it too complicated to understand then I suggest you go back to cult-busting on some other list for, as No 24 indicated recently, actualism is for grown-ups. However, if you sincerely want to get off the spiritual belief-go-round and ‘get real’, as the saying goes, then I suggest you start reading so as to discover what actualism is really about. The choice is clearly yours, keep going round and round as you are ... or stop, take some time off, put your feet up and ask yourself ‘Am I really happy and am I really harmless?’ Given that it would be silly to fool yourself, the sincerity of your own answer will then determine the choice you make.
RESPONDENT: At 02:57 PM 15.06.2001, you wrote:
– how many actualists are there in total? And how many of that total have fallen for the said trap? This statement from Peter makes it sounds like there are at least dozens of actualists crawling out of the woodwork. I suspect there might at a stretch be 6; so what does ‘many an actualist’ mean? Is there any content to the phrase? Reminds of Osho claiming a million disciples when at the most he ever had perhaps 10,000 – I am not sure but nowhere near a million. And now we have ‘many an actualist’. LOL. Did you help Osho write his discourses when you were there building the commune structures peter? Are you a spin doctor? And who were they? Facts. You proclaim yourself as interested in facts and what you deliver is spin. Answer ‘0’. PETER: I have corresponded with you for some 2 years now and in that time your initial interest in actualism has not only altered to the point of outright opposition. You time and again dismiss anything anyone says on this list as to how to become free of the human condition, you avidly leap in to support the other spiritualists who object to actualism, you say you’re happy with your life as-it-is and further more that you have declared that you are already actually fucking free. Taking your words at face value then, I see no more reason to continue on with what has deteriorated into a meaningless conversation between us. If we were sitting at a coffee table together now it would be apparent that we had absolutely nothing in common to talk about and with that I would change the subject, talk about other things for a as long as that lasted and then I would get up, pay for my coffee, wish you well and say goodbye. So I’ll do likewise on this mailing list. I’ll wish you well, say goodbye and ask that you please don’t bother to write to me telling me I’m wrong. I know I am wrong, you don’t need to keep telling me. I turned around 180 degrees from where everybody else is headed and went down the wrong path. I simply stopped ding the ‘right’ thing, being ‘right’ and insisting I was ‘right’. I put on my dunce’s hat, went back to school and unlearnt all that I had been told was right. You are also very busy with the issue of me being a liar. Of course I am a liar from your perspective because what I am saying is not your truth, let alone the Truth. However by insisting I am wrong and a liar, you ignore the very point of actualism – it has nothing at all to do with the traditional, the ancient, the normal or the spiritual wisdom of what it is to be human. Actualism is radically different, it is diametrically opposite – it is a path never travelled before. It literally involves going where no man or woman has gone before – from a real-world perspective it is madness and from a spiritual world perspective it is a complete and utter rejection of everything spiritual. Consequently I gave up the traditional well-worn spiritual path years ago. I no longer believe in animating spirits, Gods and Goddesses, ancient healings and esoteric medicines, divinations and prophecies, energies and auras, folk tales and legends, gurus and shamans, fairies and goblins, sacred sites and cosmic planes, chakras and pranas, telepathy and spiritualism, visions and entities, ESP and UFO’s, Chi Gong and Feng Shui, somas and souls, mysticism and meditation, rituals and rites, reincarnations and past lives, karmas and dharmas, other-worlds and other-dimensions, devils and demons and the like. Then, when I was halfway ‘normal again’, halfway and no more, I then finished the job I half-started before I got sucked into the spirit-ual world – I got myself free from the clutches of the real world. Having done that, I found I had literally taken the wind out of my instinctual passions. I can’t remember the last time I got annoyed by something or someone, let alone angry. Sadness has passed so long ago I still am a bit taken aback at how people manage to complain about life and bitch about other people. But I’m getting used to the fact that being malicious and feeling sorrowful is what passes for ‘being normal’, whether it be in the real world or the spiritual world. I’m definitely wrong from your point of view and I am decidedly on the wrong track ... and all I can say it is wonderful to be here. Wishing you well.
PETER: Wow ... Since my ‘Leaving the table’ your posts have been titled ‘Painting the table’, ‘Turning the table 180 degrees’, ‘UpEnding the table’ and ‘Levitating the table’. Given this rapid progression, you may well be ‘Throwing the table’ next. I remember at one stage in the past you were even trying to ‘Make off with the table’ when you claimed your own domain in the name of www.actualfreedom.com. I may have ‘Left the table’ but I haven’t left the room so to speak. I just wanted to say that I am fascinated as to what you are going to do to ‘the table’ next. Cheers ... ... Peter at www.actualfreedom.com.au
RESPONDENT: At 03:21 AM 24.06.2001, you wrote:
LOL Peter; this has to be the most clear account of your reason for being an actualist you have as yet provided. Read your own words again – at face value – and enjoy to laugh at yourself for being suckered in once again. PETER: I see you are back at it again, ‘busting’ away and deriding my commitment to actualism. Before we enter into another round, I would just remind you that there is still an unsubstantiated allegation of yours that is sitting on the table – the issue of me being a liar –
*
You wimped out, No 12. You invented an issue, dismissed my answer and when challenged to substantiate your claims by providing evidence that I lied, you shifted the goal posts and then decided ‘we will let that go.’ So I took up your offer to let it go, as in –
Since that time you have posted a number of derisory comments so I will resume my seat at the table, whilst overlooking the egg on your face. I will reply to the subject you have raised in this post and then, at a later stage, backtrack through your other comments that you have made since my ‘leaving the table’. * RESPONDENT: At 03:21 AM 24.06.2001, you wrote:
LOL Peter; this has to be the most clear account of your reason for being an actualist you have as yet provided. Read your own words again – at face value – and enjoy to laugh at yourself for being suckered in once again. PETER: What you snipped out from this post was the context in which I made this comment, the very substance of the post –
To which you replied –
Rather making any comment on the main issue I was raising– ‘how is spirituality ever going to bring peace on earth?’ you again leapt into your cult-busting role. I know this subject is not at all of interest to you, but you yourself have recently thrown down the gauntlet in another post to me –
Okay, No 12. Given that you dismiss actualism as just talk ... put your money where your mouth is. The question is – ‘how is spiritualism going to bring about peace on earth’, or, if you object to that question because you no longer have a spiritual viewpoint, ‘How is No 12’s viewpoint going to bring about peace on earth?’ I know it is not on your agenda as in,
But it is you who have raised the issue of peace on earth and it is only reasonable to ask you, once again, to substantiate the latest of your allegations. Just as a reminder of your viewpoint in your early days when you were interested in actualism, you said –
Given that the day to day pleasure of living with a woman in utter peace, harmony and equity is due to me following Richard’s method of becoming happy and harmless, in the world as-it-is, with people as they are – what you admired back then was the result of actualism put into practice. In other words, what you were admiring was not ‘talk about actualism’ but a demonstration that actualism works, so clearly in fact that you could directly observe and admire that it worked. And yet you seem to have changed your mind, or your viewpoint, radically since then by choosing to be of the viewpoint that actualism is an evil cult that needs busting. This change of viewpoint seemed to occur about the time you posted the following –
Your subsequent examinations obviously left your viewpoint about Rajneesh unchanged, as in –
Given that your most recent viewpoint is that ‘ ...I see (enlightenment) as the pinnacle of possibility of human volition creativity and creativity’ – I seek an answer to the question ‘how is spirituality ever going to bring peace on earth?’, lest your viewpoint be demonstrated to be ‘just talk’. And just to finish off with a reply to your dismissive –
The reason I pricked up my ears and listened to what Richard was saying was that he was the first Guru I discovered who was ordinary and not super-ordinary, who was down-to-earth and not other-worldly, who was approachable and not living in an ivory tower, who was straightforward and not devious, who was upfront and not evasive and who lived what he talked. It was such a breath of fresh air compared to the Gurus I had been sussing out before that I found myself intrigued. Initially, of course, I regarded him as a Guru and what he said as spiritual-talk, but the genuineness of what was on offer and its innate sensibleness meant that I was able to question not only the spiritual teachers I had followed but the revered spiritual teachings themselves. It was soon evident that I had simply been suckered into believing in God, albeit the fashionable Eastern God-man variety. Although I was on the spiritual path when I met him, it was Richard’s sincerity, and the very down-to-earthness of what he offered, that was instrumental in me continuing on regardless of the initial fear of going down a path never travelled before. I wasn’t suckered into actualism as you say – I walked into it with both eyes open. One of the first things I did was try it out to see if the method Richard used to become free of the human condition worked. I chose to start living with a woman in peace and harmony as my experiment because it made sense that if I couldn’t live with one other person without being moody, being resentful, getting angry, feeling sad, blaming the other, wanting to change the other, feeling trapped, etc., then not only was peace on earth impossible for me but human life on earth was a sick joke. The other issue that ran parallel with this was a longing to find an answer to my continual failure to freely enjoy the pleasures of sex. The results of this experiment of putting the actualism method into action are way beyond normal human expectations and actualism has allowed me to investigate issues and find solutions to down-to-earth matters – those that Eastern spirituality dismisses as totally irrelevant. The quality that most stood me in good stead, apart from a sense of adventure, was that I was still naive enough to believe that down-to-earth life was not a sick joke – the cynical viewpoint reinforced by all of the spiritual other-worldly beliefs. That’s about it. I plan to address your other comments before the list closes down. But I do await a considered and specific answer as to ‘How is No 12’s viewpoint, [Respondent]: ‘... I see (enlightenment) as the pinnacle of possibility of human volition creativity and creativity’, [endquote] going to bring peace on earth?’
RESPONDENT: You clearly have the opinion that I No 12 am responsible personally for all the wars and rape and sorrow on the planet – I must be according to your ideal, mustn’t I? PETER: This is perhaps one of most extreme extrapolations you have yet come up with. No single person is at fault, no single person is guilty. Everybody, without exception, is born with a genetically-encoded animal- instinctual compulsive program which is then overlaid by social/religious conditioning – we all had no say in the matter at all. What Richard discovered is that you can safely undo all this programming, such that you can become what you are, as opposed to ‘who’ blind nature fated you to be and ‘who’ your peers insisted you should be. Nothing spiritual in this at all – it’s the equivalent of hitting the delete button every time you come across a bit of this programming until it ceases to function as a cohesive whole. The remaining bits float around for a while causing only minor nuisances and eventually even these disappear, leaving one totally free from any social/religious or animal/instinctual programming whatsoever, i.e. free from the human condition of malice and sorrow Actualism is about freeing oneself from the programming that gives rise to such debilitating and crippling feelings as guilt, shame, resentment, anger, sorrow, despair, loneliness and fear such that one can become what one is rather than ‘who’ you think and feel you are. To take this instinctual and social programming personally is to take one’s self far too seriously. RESPONDENT: And then you complain when you yourself are derided? You state clearly that you know and I don’t and you expect to create peace on earth? PETER: What I have always offered is facts as opposed to beliefs and what I have stated clearly is that the actualism method works in that it eliminates malice and sorrow from one’s life such that anyone can be happy and harmless ... if they want to, that is. After your initial interest in actualism waned you have now been quite clear that you are perfectly happy as you are. You have made your choice, I made a different choice. I decided to follow the path Richard’s has blazed – you didn’t. I just see it as an either/or issue or a choice of lifestyle issue if you like. Why do you keep writing to me on this mailing list, deriding me about the choice I made, and telling me I’m wrong? RESPONDENT: Are you stupid or just a brat? PETER: A bit of a rebel may be a better description. Not in the sense of being a dissenter, but in the sense of taking up the serendipitous opportunities and challenges that came my way – not running with the pack, so to speak. It’s not that I did any physically dangerous things – far from it. I just found myself trying out different things, moving on easily if they didn’t work out, changing jobs, meeting new people, moving to new places to live. Consequently I always liked to live light – not wanting be a burden on others, which also meant I rarely felt burdened by others. It was always a case of – wow, so this is what I am doing now, rather than dithering about ‘should I do this or should I do that?’ Maybe it was this bit of a rebel streak that attracted me to actualism and the opportunity not only to be autonomous, but to be happy and harmless as well. What I discovered on the way is that it is impossible to be autonomous unless one is free of misery and resentment. RESPONDENT: How are you going to create peace on earth out of an attitude that ‘we know and you don’t’? PETER: I am not going to create peace on earth – it already exists. Not only does it already exist, everyone has had brief glimpses of this peace at some time in their lives. Here is a description of the experience that I remembered that twigged me to understand what Richard meant by actual freedom, as opposed to spiritual freedom –
It was because I remembered this experience that I didn’t have to believe or disbelieve what Richard was offering, I knew by my own brief experience that actual freedom existed. Being a hands-on practical type, I simply decided to give his method of becoming free of the human condition a thorough road test. All I can say is that the actualism method is flawless, perfect. It’s totally free, it’s available to anyone, anywhere in the world providing they have access to a computer. There are no meditations, meetings, prayers, moral admonishments or ethical codes, precedents or pressures, traditions or demands. One is totally free to take it up or not. One can have a little, or one can have the lot. One always sets one’s own pace. There is a wonderful freedom in being able to become free of the human condition – the very process itself gives meaning, purpose and direction to ‘my’ life for the very first time. It is utterly delicious to devote oneself 100% to something and not remain a fence-sitter or a spectator to this extraordinary business of being alive as a flesh and blood human being. RESPONDENT: I have stated repeatedly that your attitude is what is STANDING in the WAY of peace on earth. Get rid of the attitude that our system of belief, or our path or our master or our Richard is the DEFINITIVE WAY ... and we are well on the way to peace on earth. When I was a child I was Baptist. I was taught to believe I was guilty (responsible for all the war and rape and sorrow on earth) and that I could be saved (get rid of self); and that Jesus is the only one who is perfectly acceptable to god (Richard). PETER: Then why would you want to stay feeling guilty by inventing yet another God (Richard) simply in order to feel guilty, yet again? It is you who keep insisting that actualism is somehow spiritualism in disguise and who keeps imagining Richard to be God and deriding me for being a Disciple. It is all your own invented viewpoint that has nought to do with what is on offer on this mailing list. To reiterate, actualism is about freeing oneself from the programming that gives rise to such feelings as guilt, shame, resentment, anger, sorrow, despair, loneliness and fear such that one can become what one is rather than ‘who’ you think and feel you are. To take this programming personally is to take one’s self far too seriously. But I do totally agree with you about believing in Gods – holding any such beliefs can only perpetuate misery and suffering, guilt and shame. Holding any spiritual/religious beliefs can only stand in the way of peace on earth. As I wrote to No 3 the other day –
RESPONDENT: PETER!!!!!! understand the satire!!!! You always misinterpret me. You exaggerate my words. You put my words into some category of your choosing. I return it and you take it so seriously. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001 PETER: I am glad you pointed this out so clearly in order that we can all see your mock trial of actualists for what it is – pure satire. Given the sheer quantity of allegations being currently presented you now appear to be in the summing up phase of your 2½year long investigation. I know we actualists are the villains in the dock in your show trial, but given this is a satirical court case and not a serious one, I thought I would take the opportunity of satirically commenting on the prosecutions findings to date. * PETER: Thus far, three witnesses cum prosecutors, including most noticeably your-self, or should we say your-viewpoint, have presented allegations to your own court while the rest seem to have merely dashed in for a quick dump and left, loudly slamming the door behind them. Perhaps the most heavyweight of the prosecutors is No 22 who not only believes, but states quite definitively, that he is GOD. Who better to pass judgement than an omnipotent and omnipresent Authority? But, lo and behold, a stuff-up occurred. In one of your latest allegations you proceeded to accuse Richard of being God –
It is no wonder that No 22, aka the only GOD, has been auspicious by his absence from the prosecution team lately, he’s probably feeling miffed right now. Now talk about satire, this was a classic shot in the foot move in true Monty Python style. Then we have the guest prosecutor, just popped in again to join the fray. The net-famous provocateur and salivant M. No 8 –
who is renowned for presenting his/her case stealthily cloaked in anonymity. Again the satirical play continues as he/she attempts to influence the non-negotiable viewpoint aka the chief prosecutor remarks –
with the cautionary whisper –
We await with bated breath to see whether the balaclava-clad prosecutor is willing to keep up with the frenetic pace of the accusations or decides to head off again, in true Pimpernel style, in search of fresh pickings for his thrusting rapier. Meanwhile the allegations mount seemingly to a crescendo –
And lastly, we have the prosecutor tag-team approach –
Will No 12 be the star prosecutor/judge of this international trial? Can male/female No 8 up the ante on the chief prosecutor’s accusations? Stay tuned folks for the next exciting episode in the ongoing satirical cyber fantasy of a couple of cyber viewpoints. * PETER: But all may not be as it appears to be, hey No 12? I do also have an inkling that maybe you are also playing the journalist’s satirical game of ‘fling enough mud and some of it will stick or be seen by some to stick’ – a sort of a doubled over, double entendre satirical twist with pike. After all, you have made your position very clear on this very list –
But I must admit you have me guessing as to where you are leading next ... What a hoot ...
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
