|
Selected Correspondence Peter Authority and Expertise
RESPONDENT: The common interpretation of the word cult has as a primary characteristic the wielding of power by one or several over a group of others. This power can only exist with the mutual agreement (at some conscious or unconscious level) of both parties to honour the hierarchal arrangement. PETER: There are currently hundreds upon hundreds of self-declared Gurus on the planet, all of whose fame, power, influence and wealth is totally dependant upon the fervour and numbers of their followers. I am not denying that many of these Gurus have the capacity to wield considerable psychic power over their followers but the follower has to be fully compliant and blindly loyal in order for this power to operate. When I was a loyal follower of Mohan Rajneesh his word was God to me, yet when I stopped believing that what he said was the Truth he no longer held any power over me – in other words, I gave him power over me, it was not a matter of mutual agreement. RESPONDENT: I stand corrected. It does start with the followers. I think I arrived at that in my last statement (below), but probably should have taken a bit more time to think about my post before hitting send. PETER: This issue does take a bit of ‘getting’, because it has many deeper layers to it and few bother to do more than scrape the surface in trying to understand it. Every child is socially trained to obey mummy and daddy, to follow the leader, to fall into line and so on. This is essential training, very necessary and quite sensible. This training often results in resentment, which can lead to rebellion and anarchy, and then the child needs to be reminded of his or her limits, lest they be punished. Many people continue living their lives rebelling against this essential social training, thinking their rebellion is a necessary and noble action, essential for social change, when in fact it is often little more than senseless riling born of childhood resentments. It is also very common for many people to seek out a big daddy or big mummy figure in the form of a Guru, Godman, God or Goddess at some stage in their life and, once hooked on the beliefs espoused by the guru, it is very difficult to wean oneself off such a fixation. Not only does abandoning such beliefs evoke feelings of disloyalty, ostracization and the like, but also very intense atavistic feelings of heretical and hellish punishments. There is a deeper layer, of course, which is animal-instinctual in nature and an actualist will usually touch upon this layer fairly early on when daring to take the risk of ceasing to follow the herd and striking off on his or her own path towards autonomy. I know the issue of authority ran deep with me for a long time at the start of actualism and I seem to recall Gary mentioning it as well. That’s why I spent a bit of time in replying to you in detail – not as a correction to what you said but as further explanation that may trigger even more contemplation. For me, if my memory is accurate, the issue was about leaving home, growing up, standing on my own two feet, taking responsibility, if I can throw in a few catch-phrases that came to mind at that time. Certainly this issue dominated a good deal of the early chapters in my Journal and I did a good deal of thinking about it at the time. When you say, ‘I stand corrected’, my reply was not meant as a matter of me correcting you as in a normal ‘who is right or who is wrong’ argumentation. I was simply digging down a bit further so as to understand the facts of the matter because I found by my own experience that only by doing so, can you avoid the dangers and pitfalls of the many forms of cultism – both secular and spiritual – that permeate the human condition so as to eventually become free of them. You also might find the * RESPONDENT: If the players in this game do genuinely follow Richard’s edict about ‘not trusting in another person (thereby inviting betrayal), but evaluating the validity of a claim through reference to one’s experience’, then the argument ends there. I detect no indication of the attempt by the AF veterans to establish a controlling influence over the participants. PETER: Given the human propensity to need someone to be an authority, a Big Daddy figure, the argument about actualism being a cult will no doubt continue long after the supposed cult-leader is dead and burnt. Speaking personally, as one of the ‘AF veterans’, I look forward to the time when the mailing list has sufficient practicing actualists that the discussions can remain lively, interesting, down-to-earth and on-topic and not be dominated or overwhelmed by objectors or flamers. At this stage retirement is a definitive option. RESPONDENT: Isn’t one of the primary functions of this list to educate interested newcomers? PETER: Not as far as I’m concerned. This mailing list is not an internet classroom offering personal tuition in actualism. The website is the primary source of information and it is adequate in itself for anyone sufficiently motivated to become free from the human condition. The mailing list is supplementary and secondary to this information – a forum for actualists and those interested in actualism to mutually discuss and share their experiences about the actualism method. RESPONDENT: There will always be objectors or flamers in that group. PETER: Seemingly so, but experience thus far has shown that they come and go … and that increasingly they are not the main event on the list. RESPONDENT: Speaking for myself, perhaps my queries could be construed to be aggressive (you be the judge), but it’s just that I consider this work to be of paramount importance, and there’s no time to be wasted beating around the bush. I am not remotely interested in spreading malice on the mailing list, I’m just trying to get the heart of the matter, in my own blundering way. PETER: To even consider heading off in a direction that is diametrically opposed to everything that humanity holds dear is a daunting business and it is bound to stir emotional responses and precipitate cognitive confusions. The process of actualism not only brings into question all of humanity’s dearly held morals, ethics and beliefs but it also stirs up the deepest of the instinctual passions. I do appreciate the difficult nature of many of the topics and discussions on this list for they are of an ilk that is usually avoided, precisely because they can get ‘too close to the bone’, as it were. But throughout, I’ve never detected you as being aggressive at all, something which I do appreciate. I’ve always had a preference for politeness. RESPONDENT: On the general topic of the mailing list, out of curiosity yesterday I took a ‘core sample’ of the past year’s worth of posts to the topica list. There certainly have been some periods of intense flaming! But I also noted that many of the ‘veterans’ who were active contributors are now mostly quiet. Perhaps for most who live in some measure of actual/virtual freedom, the need to communicate dissipates, leaving only a few dedicated individuals to carry on the educational torch. PETER: The list has a life of its own, as it were – it is completely spontaneous, no-one knows who is going to say what next, what the next topics will be, who will come along next, who will enter, who will exit, who will pop up. We are all, in fact, doing this for the first time. It’s thrilling enough stuff just to be able to have such an unfettered, uncensored discussion in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are, and yet we can all do it anonymously, without fear of reprisal or repercussion from the safety and comfort of our own house/ flat/ whatever, from wherever in the world. There have been several attempts to broach that privacy, but then again nothing in life is without risk. I often reflect that I have never, and probably will never, meet most of the people I write to on this list, but when I write and when I read, I am talking to a fellow flesh and blood human being about the most intimate aspects of what it is to be a human being. I can say things on this list and write things that I can’t say to most people I meet because they are either not interested or are likely to take offence at such conversation. As to your reference to ‘the ‘veterans’ who were active contributors are now mostly quiet’, I obviously cannot answer for them. Personally I find it a delight to be able to discuss with others my discoveries about the human condition and how it operates and as a consequence I would find it improbable that other practicing actualists would not want to share their experiences and successes on this list so as to help facilitate the freedom of other fellow human beings. But then again, I cannot know whether the past contributors to the list are still interested in actualism unless they continue to communicate or whether their need to communicate has dissipated because their inquiry into the human condition has ceased. RESPONDENT: I don’t quite grasp your last statement.
I think it could be interpreted one of two ways: Either you are fed up with the present state of affairs, PETER: To the contrary, I find the present state of affairs, with regard to this list, to be excellent – the discussions are generally lively, interesting, down-to-earth and on-topic and the contributions of our resident and visiting Godmen, objectors and flamers are in themselves informative and very often pertinent to the discussions. This mailing list was never meant to be a sheltered workshop or a cave for monks. RESPONDENT: … or at some point when the list arrives as a critical mass, you can relinquish some responsibility. PETER: When I first suggested to Richard that he put his writings on a website so as to make his discovery available to all, we discussed ways to make it less personal and more generic. We also discussed the issue of being able to make the information publicly available whilst maintaining the sensibility of living a private life. The idea emerged of establishing the web-site under the name of a legal entity in the form of a trust administered co-operatively by a number of individuals – the idea being that the trust would take responsibility for maintaining a public web-site so as to make the writings freely available world-wide and maintain the integrity of the original actualism writings for as long as necessary. As a founding member of what became the Actual Freedom Trust, I have undertaken that responsibility. As to my continuing to write on the mailing list, that is a separate and personal issue. Given that I am not yet actually free from the human condition, I still learn a lot from writing on the list. I still enjoy writing on the list and I don’t do so out of a sense of being responsible for others. I have always been willing to share my experience of actualism with anyone interested purely on the basis of passing on experience to others – what they do with it is their business entirely. After all, being able to learn from the trial and error experience of others – both the mistakes and the successes – is one of the essential attributes that separates humans from all the other animals. But I don’t see that I will be writing on this list for the rest of my life – already my usefulness in talking about the early stages of actualism and the likely issues encountered is questionable as my memory of this time is not as vivid nor as precise as it was. It’s a good thing that I wrote a lot of it down in my Journal and it’s also timely that others are now capable of writing in a way that is far fresher and more immediate. * PETER: Nowadays it is not necessary for seekers to spend years on the spiritual path because so much of the spiritual teachings are available on the Net to be read at leisure without the need to become involved in a group or embroiled in a cult. It is also possible to join any one of many spiritual mailing lists in order to assess the effectiveness – or ineffectiveness – of the teachings in producing harmonious and peaceful communities. There are ample opportunities for a present-day seeker to check out for themselves the followers of almost any spiritual teaching, to assess the quality, range and tone of discussions and by doing so make your own assessment as to whether or not the followers are living the teachings and if they are, what effect it has on their daily lives. Given the doubts you have raised in this post about actualism being a cult and your, I can only suggest that you take a clear-eyed look at spiritualism as it works in practice in order that you can move on from doubt to making an assessment one way or the other. The important thing about asking questions and having doubts is to find definitive workable answers and nowadays the Net makes it much easier than having to troop off to the East as was needed in the old days. As I remember it, living in doubt and not-knowing is the pits. There is such a joy to be had in devoting yourself to something one hundred percent. RESPONDENT: I have no doubts about the ‘cult of AF’. There is absolutely no evidence to that suggestion. I’ve looked at spiritualism and I reject it categorically. Your point about the purpose of questioning/doubting is well taken. Also, I do recognize the importance of commitment and intent to any of this work. While I can browse my way through a world’s worth of information, at the end of the day, the plain old hard work still must be done. PETER: My misconception appears to have come from reading your words and taking them at face value. You said, among other things – RESPONDENT: However, they are leading a simulation of the originator’s way (that’s what the word ‘virtual’ means after all), so it is possible that they have suspended some measure of their common sense in order to ‘be like Richard’. I can’t really ascertain that, but if that were the case, then they are dancing around the edges of cult-ness. PETER: When you say ‘however ... it is possible …’ and ‘I can’t really ascertain that, but if …’, that to me means you have doubt, i.e. you are not sure, not confident, or it is not your experience. In other words, to me, what you wrote expressed that you had doubts, which is why I responded as I did. Perhaps this is an example that throws some light on the feedback I sometimes get – that I am putting words into the mouths of correspondents that they didn’t say or that I am misinterpreting what they say. I am not saying I always get things right but I can only respond to the words someone says. The other example that comes to mind – although it has nothing to do with this current conversation – are correspondents who say things like ‘I agree, but …’ which to me means there is not a mutual agreement as to the facticity of what is being said but that very often the correspondent is objecting to the proposition being offered by saying ‘but’. In this case, what can often happen is that the correspondent will ‘dig their heals in’ and begin a standoff of principle as to ‘who’s right and who’s wrong’. Such reactions usually prevent any common sense discussion and further investigation as to what are the facts of the matter and the resulting feedback is that of me ‘being aggressive’ or ‘being confrontational’ or ‘always wanting to be right’. You may have noticed this tendency is common to many discussions – I know it was one that plagued all of my conversations and interactions until I came to see it in action and worked to break the habit. What I realized was happening was that I was emotionally defending my beliefs and convictions, very often without thinking about what I was defending at all. When what ‘I’ said or felt to be right or true was questioned or contradicted ‘I’ immediately felt threatened, the defence and/or attack mode automatically kicked in, and any chance at sensible conversation flew out the window. Sometimes, in a vain effort to keep the peace, I would feign to agree with the other outwardly whilst covertly holding on to the conviction of my rightness, thereby ensuring the truce so gained was nothing but a temporary lull in my ongoing battle with others. The only thing I found that worked to end this cycle of conflict and ceasefire was to make the effort to establish what were the facts of the matter so that my common sense was able to operate in lieu of ‘my’ automatic emotional reactions of defending ‘my’ beliefs and convictions. This process is what is meant by questioning beliefs and replacing them with facts – this is the
actualism method in a nutshell and the resulting common sense discussions on this list illustrates why and how it works in practice. Peace and
harmony between human beings is possible.
GARY: Thank you for the information. I found it helpful. You wrote:
Yes, of course, that makes more sense. I felt rather a fool after I sent my first post requesting more information. That is because there is such a wealth of information in the AF and Third Alternative website that there is scarcely any need to go further afield. PETER: Yep, The Actual Freedom Trust website is getting bigger by the day and Richard has
covered so many topics in his writings that it is not necessary to go further afield. Personally, I checked out everything he said either by
checking my own life experiences, checking my current experience or life-situation, observing others, reading what others have said on the matter,
etc. My previous experiences in the ‘real’ world and on the spiritual path made me very wary of believing others or meekly accepting the
status quo viewpoint in whatever field, spiritual or otherwise. Thus I was moved to think about and question everything that I had been taught,
told or assumed to be true, right, good or sacred. Even now as I sit on the other side of the fence, as it were, I would encourage anyone to
abandon the act of believing and to question and think for themselves, for it is only by doing this can one become autonomous. * PETER: My experiences were very similar to millions of the so-called baby boomers who got into Eastern religion – not particularly special nor unique. I remember when I met Richard I was very interested in what qualities he had that I didn’t. What became increasingly obvious was that it was the genuine absence of any malice and sorrow whatsoever that was the yawning gap between him and me. All my other comparisons and objections as to me being not good enough, not clever enough, etc. eventually faded in the face of the evidence as to how he actually was. He is the genuine article, which is something you may want to check out for yourself one day. GARY: While I might like to check that out, the distances involved with the financial realities of long-distance travel being what they are hardly makes it practical. There is still doubt in my mind that there is such a thing as a ‘general article’, I must say. And given what I have said previously, that should not be surprising. Whether Richard is the genuine article or not seems to be besides the point, however. The real point for me is whether I myself am eliminating instinctual malice and sorrow in myself and becoming virtually or (someday) actually free from the Human Condition. That there is one who is actually free and others who are virtually free is a great encouragement to continue with the method. Writing on this list is a great encouragement. However, the real point for me is whether this method is working for me, whether it is producing what is on offer – happiness and harmlessness. However actually or virtually free someone else may be, it does me no good unless I am reaping the rewards of the method. PETER: I like what you wrote. I remember having exactly the same attitude. Very early on, after having established a prima-facie case that actualism made sense and was worth a whole-hearted go, I wanted to find out for myself if what Richard was saying was true, as in factual, and whether using the method would work, as in bring about actual change. Spurred on by my early successes I then wanted to write of my experiences, investigations and findings so as to put it on record for others to read and assess for themselves. At the time of writing my Journal I stopped seeing Richard on a regular basis and did a lot of investigating, sorting out, and making sense of the human condition as it manifested as ‘me’. I also like that you find writing on the list to be a great encouragement. I have had countless hours of discussions with Richard and especially with my companion Vineeto, and these discussions gave me great encouragement, verification, and confidence to push on beyond what is considered safe and sane. I was emboldened to go even further with my own explorations and discoveries to the point where they became experiential understandings. While my touchstone was always my own pure consciousness experiences, having others to check things out with is invaluable. Well Gary, I’ve got into one of my wanderings again – but these investigations and discoveries are
such fun. So much for following a thread, but these investigations are such that all of our beliefs, morals and ethics have to be questioned and
replaced with sensibility, and we have to become aware of all of our precious feelings and instinctual passions in action so that we can examine
and investigate and find out how they function. As such, a freewheeling, unregulated discussion forum such as this is an imperative if we are to
finally break free of the myths of good and evil and the fantasies of Gods and Devils. * GARY: I think I can say in retrospect that what I went through recently with fears was another layer in dismantling the social identity and uncovering the instincts. It is not, as you point out, a cool dispassionate business this, and there are bound to be many storms along the way. As I have said before, I have a tendency to make more out of these things than they probably deserve. For instance, I have noticed that it is a distinct tendency of mine to think that I have been terribly angry and offended someone else and when later checking this out with the other person they tell me in no uncertain terms that I did not seem very angry at all and that what happened was hardly worth bothering about. PETER: One of benefits of becoming obsessed about observing feelings, emotions and passions, is that you can become your own expert very quickly. Instead of being run by feelings as in, repressing, expressing, ignoring, accepting, denying, transcending, wallowing, etc., you become an expert in reducing their debilitating effect in your life – thus becoming virtually free of them. Becoming your own expert also means you become free of having to rely on others’ assessment of what you are feeling – the usual biased and unreliable assessment based on intuition, body language, self-interest, competitiveness, jealousy, etc. I remember this being a wonderful moment when I finally realized I was becoming free of having a social
conscience where I was continually beholden to others’ moral and ethical judgements. It is obvious, in hindsight, that this only happened with
the knowledge and experience that I was becoming harmless to others around me and thus realized, with confidence and surety, that their
assessments were biased and false. * PETER: The eventual aim in actualism is not to feel different, but to be different – to be free of instinctual malice and sorrow and thus to be a flesh and blood body only, free of any psychological or psychic entity whatsoever. To get to this stage, my experience was that I passed through all of the ‘normal’ stages of feeling an outsider and all the ‘spiritual’ stages of feeling driven to be a messenger, or Messiah, for others who needed freeing. It was such good fun to personally experience and therefore understand the instinctual lust for psychic power that fires the priests, teachers, Gurus, God-men and Goddesses. I found people and events always challenged me in the process such that feelings and emotions automatically arose and all I had to do was observe them to become familiar with how I had been programmed to operate, both socially and spiritually. Observation led to awareness, awareness led to knowledge and knowledge led to experience, practical change and confidence. As you progress further on the path, confidence leads to surety, which, in turn, overcomes doubt and fear. Combine that surety with stubbornness, bloody mindedness and patience and success is guaranteed. GARY: Yes, bloody-mindedness is certainly something that I can relate to. I have found that I am essentially on my own in this enterprise. Being my own counsel in all matters has become increasingly important to me, and it is not something that I am used to, and perhaps it is this that is occasioning so many fears. Practical change and confidence are developing, perhaps slowly, but seemingly with an increasing momentum. PETER: It does seem that you have understood, and are experiencing, that actualism is about becoming autonomous. Understanding is the first step, experiencing it is the next. Autonomy is an inevitable essential part of the process, which is why I always chuckle when someone says I am a disciple of a Guru. Actual Freedom is squeaky clean. * PETER to Gary: Before reply to your last post, a few things have occurred to me to write to you about, so I’ll lead off with these. (...) The next issue is something that is also relevant to others on this list and it involves the role of the four people who are the nominal directors of the Actual Freedom Trust. The Trust is a legal entity that was set up to publish the writings of actualism and Actual Freedom so as to make them freely available for whomever is interested – and this endeavour has now been accomplished. There is nothing that needs to be added to the web-site – there is already more than sufficient information for anyone to become free from the human condition, should they so desire. More writing and more correspondence is a bonus and certainly not a necessity – the job the Trust was established to do has been completed. I remember soon after I met Richard thinking what would happen if he disappeared and went off to live on the proverbial desert island. I then realized that I already had sufficient information by way of his journal, and his physical presence was a bonus and certainly not a necessity. This realization finally cracked the last of my seeing and treating Richard as a Guru or an authority figure I was dependant upon – from then on he was a source of information and the best and most concise form of this information is definitely his written words. The same thing applies to my writing – the one thing I wanted to do was write a personal journal
documenting how to apply the actualism method and describing a virtual freedom from the human condition. Anything else I write falls into the
bonus category. I do enjoy talking to others who are interested in actualism, passing on my expertise, comparing notes and sometimes coming up
with a new way of saying something that may help to twig someone’s curiosity or interest. As I see this mailing list, it is a free-wheeling
forum where those who are interested in actualism, or who have taken on actualism, can swap notes and relate experiences. What topics are talked
about is secondary to the value of knowing that there are others doing the business of seeking freedom and peace on earth.
PETER: Hi Irene, I’ve been following your correspondence with Vineeto with interest, but as you are beginning to not only present your philosophy but bend a few facts in the process I thought it time I responded. So a few words in reply to some statements of yours: IRENE: Now, although you may be convinced that Richard is not an authority for you (‘because he says so himself’) why don’t your words and attitude bear that out? Why do you put into practice his methods, aim for the state he is in, defend him and criticise others using his words and phraseology and prove him to be right by your own experiences? Is it possible that you may not be aware that this is actually the classic indication of following an authority? The ‘born-again’ Christians show the same behaviour, so did most of the German subjects of Hitler, or Sannyasins or ‘students’ of Barry Long, Andrew Cohen, Adida (or whatever his name is this week!) etc. PETER: I find it amazing that you of all people would wheel out this thorny old accusation of us being mere blind followers of a Divine Master (I assume that was what was meant by the use of bold letters in the passage above) and that you further equate this with following Hitler. It is really quite a simple matter for me. Throughout my life I have tried to make sense of being a human being on the planet, why we humans are as we are, and how I could find a way to be free of fear, which I have experienced as the ground of all malice and sorrow. I rejected the claims of the spiritual freedoms as I discovered that they involved a swanning off into an imaginary inner world of love and bliss. Then I came across a man and a woman about my age who had obviously taken their investigations much further than I had, so I thought what they were saying was worth checking out. Now I was at a stage that I wouldn’t have cared who was offering this different approach (man or woman – in fact I got as much from you as I did from Richard in the early days). I liked how Richard was as a human being – happy and harmless – and I liked how he was with you (and how you were with him) and decided to test out his words rather than merely believe him. The point was he was saying something different than all the other Gurus, he had nothing to hide and would talk and discuss anything. There was nothing unspoken, nothing sacred or secret. Given that I had followed a few Masters and discovered first hand the duplicity and deceit, the power and authority, the surrender and blind trust of disciple-hood and its consequences, I was wary in the extreme of Guru-ship. I had looked up to them (and loved them) as Mentors, wise men and someone to emulate in my life. But after 16 years I could no longer turn away from how they were as men, how they were with women, sex and power. The last thing I wanted was to be an Enlightened One – they were not worthy of emulation as I had a few ‘backstage’ glimpses of their ‘private’ life in my time. What impressed me most at the time was the obvious peace and harmony that existed between you two and the depths of investigation you had undertaken into the Human Condition of malice and sorrow. So check it out I did and was so impressed that it worked that I wanted to write a journal of my process in case someone else was interested. I have not heard even you deny that I now live in peace and harmony with Vineeto, but then again you will probably say we are only pretending. That you have now turned away from what you experienced and talked to me about for hours and hours is your business. I simply see that you abandoned the chance for peace and harmony and equity for love, sorrow and woman’s liberation. The concept of Guru-ship and Divine Masters is so ingrained in us as to forever hobble us to their energy and power, and blind us to the consideration of something genuine, something free of power and authority. I know personally as I had to battle and eliminate in me the subtle (and often not so subtle) seduction of becoming yet another authority, yet another saviour. Actual freedom is not about surrendering your will to some higher authority, quite the opposite if you read the words. One needs all the will one can muster to go against all that has been held to be wise or sacred up until now. (...) * IRENE: For most of my life I had looked automatically for an authority in the field of human interests, whom I believed to be better equipped and more knowledgeable than I, which of course was very understandable and sensible to do in the first 10 or even 20 years of my life, as I had not developed my own integrity enough yet and there was still a lot to learn from others. PETER: I take it from this that Richard was an authority figure for you given that he was Enlightened when you met and you were a spiritual seeker. I further take it that after leaving him you now reject him as an authority figure and blame all who listen to him as blind followers of a Guru. What interest is it to you what others think of Richard? What is your interest in comparing us to followers of Hitler. I smell sour grapes or a woman scorned or wounded pride, but I could be wrong. IRENE: But now I can say that my integrity can stand proud on its own, although this doesn’t mean that I am closed off to another’s input and remarks about me, on the contrary, I always check them for value, as I wouldn’t want to overlook anything! PETER: I find that checking things out for facts far better, because I tend to only value that
which I want to value – things like praise, sympathy, emotional support, appreciation, etc.
PETER: Nobody judges you worthy or unworthy as in success, money, power and prestige or spiritual advancement, hours meditated, Guru followed, Satoris attained, etc. From early childhood we have been taught by the carrot and stick, right and wrong, good and bad – but always within society’s limits. Once anyone dares to step outside the limits – it’s ‘You can’t do that – Who do you think you are?’ RESPONDENT: I still find myself occasionally falling for authoritarian right and wrong mainly because of the passion associated with it. That doesn’t last long though as I note the emotion trying to make truth out of something. PETER: The great thing for me was to by-pass Richard as an authority or Master-type figure and acknowledge that he was an expert on the Human Condition and how to get free of it. It has been a little tricky as he was Enlightened and dug himself out of the delusion over an 11 year period, and the new experiment is to demolish and eliminate both the psychological and psychic entity together in order to avoid the instinctual grab for Glory and Immortality that the entity makes when facing death. But it is working. Certainly both Vineeto and I will avoid Enlightenment as we have patiently and diligently explored and investigated the instinctual passionate trap of self-aggrandizement. As a pre-requisite to avoiding Enlightenment it is absolutely essential to eliminate one’s spiritual
identity – and there-in lies the radical-ness of this method.
PETER to No 4: (...) I like what you have written. You are obviously beginning to be concerned with ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ It is a question that will bring you to being concerned with, and interested in, all sorts of aspects of the Human Condition. It is useful to remind yourself continuously that who you think and feel you are is a social identity, that you had no part in the forming of, and that you are an instinctual being by birth. These facts can free you of the need for guilt, blame, resentment and the like. The Human Condition is common to all, whatever nationality, gender, intelligence, etc. The point is to look around at the Human Condition and see if you like it or if you want to get free of it. Then you look at how the Human Condition operates in you and you set about eliminating it – becoming free of it. It’s a fascinating exercise – one that is brand-new, never been done before and never been capable of being done before, for humans have had to operate on survival-mode up until now. Another point that helped me to get free from the spiritual was the realization that Richard is no Guru – in fact, the discovery of an actual freedom from the Human Condition is only possible because Richard broke free from the delusion of Enlightenment and Guru-ism. But he is an expert, an authority on Actual Freedom. He is an ordinary flesh and blood mortal human being, as am I, and as is everyone on the list. Actualism is for anyone who is willing and interested – it requires nothing special, nothing extra-ordinary other than sincere intent. We have recently amalgamated our Web-sites to offer a combined, comprehensive and detailed explanation of Actual Freedom and how to do it – freely available for anyone. We have our own domain – www.actualfreedom.com.au – and have established a firm base of writings and correspondence to try to seduce people out of the real world and out of the spiritual world and into the actual world. It’s an excellent product we are giving away – peace on earth being as good a product as there is! Actual Freedom is the beginning of the end of malice and sorrow on earth, and it is so good not to have missed the bus to freedom and to be in the actual world. And I do like it that you are interested.
RESPONDENT: I have seen my possibility in the presence of Rajneesh. And I think you have seen your possibility in the presence of Richard, Peter and Vineeto. PETER: I found your proposition intriguing, particularly the words ‘in the presence of’. The Eastern tradition of Moksha or freedom is always a transmission of a ‘feeling’ of liberation from the world-as-it-is into the spiritual world – an escape from reality into a Greater Reality. Being ‘in the presence of’ one who has realised this Greater Reality is regarded as the best way to facilitate the necessary spiritual feelings of Unconditional Love, Unity, Oneness, etc. The initiation into disciplehood and the formation of Ashrams, Sanghas, Monasteries or other spiritual communities was a way of reinforcing the feelings of escaping into a Greater Reality – of ‘coming home’, ‘being chosen’, being lovers of the Master and being loved by the Master. The possibility offered was that the follower or disciple too could become like the Master, despite the overwhelming evidence that those who became Enlightened did so by their own efforts and not by being mere disciples of other Masters. The ‘being in the presence of’ is the great attraction of being around a living Master, and ‘belonging’ to His group is the similar attraction with dead Masters. The wide and wondrous path to Actual Freedom neither contains nor entertains any of these religious authoritarian and hierarchical structures. It is free of any power of one over the other, be it the psychic power and strangleholds of worship, surrender, gratitude, loyalty, devotion and prayer that binds the disciple to the Master, or the necessity to belong to the group, contribute to the movement, pay your dues in time or money, support the ideals, and defend the Master. Those involved in Actual Freedom are those intrepid individuals who have taken it upon themselves to change the only person they can change – themselves. Their motive is a personal peace for themselves – a freedom from malice and sorrow – and to prove that global peace is possible, as in – ‘if I can do it, and I am nobody special, then anyone can rid themselves of malice and sorrow’. There is no ‘in the presence of’ in Actual Freedom. This is it. A few Web-sites, a mailing list and about a million words so far. The story of how one man escaped from the delusion of Enlightenment, the method he devised to become free of the Human Condition and the writing of others reporting their success in applying the method. Also documented are the countless objections of many correspondents to the new and radical discovery that human beings can be actually happy and harmless, and the detailed and considered responses to these objections. Anyone can now be free of the Human Condition (including the belief in a spiritual ‘other-world’ and a life after death), as sufficient words conveying the method, the results, the pitfalls, and the objections are now accessible on the Net. The ‘possibility’ I saw when I met Richard was that I could live with a woman in peace and harmony, and for me that was a prerequisite to finding a personal peace and there ever being a chance of global peace. If I could not live with one person peacefully and harmoniously then how could I ever expect there to be peace on earth – then life was indeed a sick joke. The other possibility I saw was that I could live the PCE I had experienced as an ongoing state 24 hrs. a day every day. I knew it would prove the death of ‘me’ but I was getting very tired of ‘me’ by then anyway. The effort of maintaining a social identity and the being ‘on-guard’ constantly against instinctual passions arising was both debilitating and shackling – a second rate life. An actual freedom was what I sought, and I’d settle for nothing less. So, I wanted to throw some light on the differences between the spiritual path in practice and the path
to actual freedom in practice. The nuts and bolts of how both work and the factual differences between the two paths.
RESPONDENT: I guess that means that Richard is spiritual too because he was on a spiritual mailing list. This is like having the king of denial tell me that I am in denial. PETER: It is a moot point to describe someone as spiritual who has lived the pinnacle of spiritual achievement – Enlightenment – for some 11 years and who, when the delusion collapsed, described the experience of Enlightenment as institutionalized insanity. You would be well acquainted with the oft fierce opposition meted out to Richard’s writings on the list in question such that his voluminous correspondence could well be entitled ‘Objections to being happy and harmless’. RESPONDENT: Thanks for reminding me why I have read very little of what you have written. I will no longer attempt to talk to either you or Vineeto as I clearly see the futility of that. I came here to attempt a conversation with Gary and have had to wade through the Peter and Vineeto show. I will not do that again. If it is not all right to come here without talking to you or Vineeto let me know and I will not come back at all. PETER: Again I would remind you that it was you who wrote asking either Gary or I to respond to a question you raised and I responded to your request. Given that this is an un-moderated and uncensored mailing list – Vineeto simply joined in the conversation and you pursued the topic with her. This list is in fact ‘run’ by a computer program, which automatically receives and distributes all posts without exception, any moderation or censorship will have to be your responsibility. I have received similar demands before and suggested that the correspondent put a block on my incoming mail if they do not want to read anything I write to the list or do not want to receive a reply to anything they write to me. RESPONDENT: P.S: Here is something I posted to the spiritual list yesterday:
This is my answer to why I am still on a spiritual mailing list. I am no longer spiritual but at least there are no dictators running it. PETER: I take it from your statement ‘When I go to another list or talk to someone that only wants to teach, I know I am in the wrong place’ that you have an aversion to being taught anything on this list, i.e. that there might just be something new to learn on this list. Personally I find this attitude somewhat bewildering because when I came across Richard and his discovery, I was – after some understandable initial hesitation – only too willing to learn something new from him. Should you change your mind at any time, I would be only too happy to discuss the issue of fear with
you, distinct from the topic of sorrow. I do have some practical experience that I am always willing to share with anyone who is interested as to
how to eliminate the feeling of fear from your life such that you can be become virtually happy and harmless.
PETER: Some comments on your reply to Gary’s query, given that I was mentioned by implication – GARY: I found it cute upon a pit-stop to the Krishnamurti Listening-L list to find a reference to myself having left that list and joined the Actual Freedom list, which according to the poster is ‘the ultimate cult’. According to this poster, supposedly I am too blind to see that I am in a cult with other cult-members, and several names were mentioned (No 13, Richard, Vineeto, No 21, Peter, etc.). Also, supposedly, there is no ‘communication’ or interaction among members of this list, according to said poster. The cult business has been visited time and again on this list, yet I find it behoves me to ask current participants to this list what they think: is Actual Freedom a ‘cult’? How would one know it is a cult or not a cult? Since some on this list have belonged to *actual* cults (Sannyasins, Krishnamurtians, etc), how is one to know that one is not just getting involved in a cult again, since one has been duped before? To anticipate a possible answer to this question, something was written recently, I think by Richard, about not trusting in another person (thereby inviting betrayal), but evaluating the validity of a claim through reference to one’s experience, thus enabling one to separate fact from fancy, the actual from the imagined or hoped for. I have never felt that this is a cult. But of course those who believe it is a cult would think that I cannot see the forest for the trees because I am in ‘denial’ of this being a cult, and me being a ‘follower’ of Richard. Since there are other people participating in the list now, I would like to know what others think. Gary to the Actual Freedom Mailing List, 25.7.2002RESPONDENT: Excellent query as it may lead to some discussion about the recent heated list activity. The common interpretation of the word cult has as a primary characteristic the wielding of power by one or several over a group of others. This power can only exist with the mutual agreement (at some conscious or unconscious level) of both parties to honour the hierarchal arrangement. PETER: This deduction does not account for the fact that there are many, many cults founded upon dead people, in fact the deader the person the stronger the cult in many cases. Such cults, ‘with (its) primary characteristic the wielding of power’ ‘only exist(ing) with the mutual agreement of both parties’, can hardly exist by mutual agreement in these cases since a dead person is incapable of either agreement or disagreement. The power of any cult-leader, be they a living person, a dead person or a purely mythical figure, is entirely dependant on his or her followers believing in, and surrendering to a leader, thereby making him or her into a higher authority or Big Daddy/Big Mommy figure. The fact that the power of a cult leader comes from the followers, and is entirely reliant on the followers, can also be seen by looking at a few examples from recent times. Mr. Hitler was revered as a Messiah-like figure in Germany by his followers who believed in the message of Nazism, whereas most of the rest of the world regarded him as a pathological megalomaniac. The loving followers of Mohan Rajneesh regarded J. Krishnamurti as a second-rate, too-intellectual, Guru, whereas the followers of J. Krishnamurti were generally scornful and dismissive of Rajneesh and his followers. There are currently hundreds upon hundreds of self-declared Gurus on the planet, all of whose fame, power, influence and wealth is totally dependant upon the fervour and numbers of their followers. I am not denying that many of these Gurus have the capacity to wield considerable psychic power over their followers but the follower has to be fully compliant and blindly loyal in order for this power to operate. When I was a loyal follower of Mohan Rajneesh his word was God to me, yet when I stopped believing that what he said was the Truth he no longer held any power over me – in other words, I gave him power over me, it was not a matter of mutual agreement. Nowadays I know that no one can exercise psychic or psychological power over me, which also means that no one is standing in the way of me being free. RESPONDENT: If the players in this game do genuinely follow Richard’s edict about ‘not trusting in another person (thereby inviting betrayal), but evaluating the validity of a claim through reference to one’s experience’, then the argument ends there. I detect no indication of the attempt by the AF veterans to establish a controlling influence over the participants. PETER: Given the human propensity to need someone to be an authority, a Big Daddy figure, the argument about actualism being a cult will no doubt continue long after the supposed cult-leader is dead and burnt. Speaking personally, as one of the ‘AF veterans’, I look forward to the time when the mailing list has sufficient practicing actualists that the discussions can remain lively, interesting, down-to-earth and on-topic and not be dominated or overwhelmed by objectors or flamers. At this stage retirement is a definitive option. RESPONDENT: What I do see is:
PETER: Speaking personally, I became interested in actualism because I had begun to be suss of the hypocrisy of the spiritual path, yet I had not given up on my search for a genuine freedom. As a consequence of my spiritual indoctrination, in the beginning I naturally regarded Richard as a Guru, an all-wise, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent figure. What I rapidly discovered was that any attempts at fawning or worshipping washed off him like water off a duck’s back and I came to see that these feelings were simply feelings that I projected on to him. Not only that, but I soon discovered that these feelings prevented me from seeing him as a fellow human being – exactly like you and me – who had managed by his own efforts to free himself of the human condition. I eventually came to understand that my making Richard a Guru – putting him on a pedestal – was a safe way of avoiding the fact that becoming free of the human condition was equally possible for me. So I assume making Richard a Guru is a stage that most who are interested in actualism will experience, many will pass through, and some will remain stuck on. Actualism, whilst freely available for everyone, will clearly not be everyone’s cup of tea, particularly in this early pioneering stage.
Your supposition depends upon your definition of the term ‘common sense’. The common-to-all sense would have it that human beings need to be aggressive in order to survive in the world and that suffering is not only essential but is good for you. On the other hand, to me it is common sense to do all I can to become both happy and harmless. Perhaps a better way of putting my desire to emulate Richard is that I have abandoned the usual common-to-all-sense and relied on the uncommon-to-all-sense of devoting my life to becoming both happy and harmless. Thus far this sense is indeed uncommon, for I only know of less than a handful of people who have openly declared themselves to be similarly motivated, and I have the good fortune to live with one of them. RESPONDENT: What I do get from this group at times is a tendency to formulate fairly broad responses in quite black and white terms, at times sounding like a party line. Yes, the basic AF tenet is black and white, but I am suspicious of any system that attempts to fit the entire universe into one of two bins. Elemental particles may be black/white, but when you mix a lot of them together, it sure starts to look grey. YMMV. PETER: So, the basic actualism tenet is black and white but ‘this group’ tends to formulate fairly broad responses in quite black and white terms. As part of this group, I have no trouble at all with making things black and white, bringing issues and beliefs out of the shadows into the light, understanding what were formerly grey areas, calling a spade a spade when appropriate. This is the whole point of actualism – to clearly understand the human condition and how it operates in black and white terms in order to be free of it. If you want murkiness and greyness, not-knowingness and uncertainty, obscuration and ambiguity, then there are a multitude of other forums on the Net whose discussions would better meet your criteria. I remember once pricking up my ears at something Richard said. He said something like ‘Do you really believe that human beings will never find a way to live together in genuine peace and harmony – that there will never be an end to all the wars, rapes, murders, child abuse, domestic violence and corruption that human beings inflict upon each other?’ It sure made me understand how cynical the universal conviction is that there can never be a workable straightforward down-to-earth solution to ending human malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: So, AF is clearly not a cult per se. However, there is a ravenous horde out there who are determined to plug into a cult, and occasionally one of them is going to drift this way and project their needs onto an external group. That is nothing new, and is the source of great misery. PETER: I spent 17 years fully immersed in an Eastern spiritual cult, and I do mean full-on. I renounced the real-world, left my job, gave away my money and possessions and wore the robes and mala of a spiritual devotee. By being fully committed, I learnt a great deal from the experience and I would not be where I am today had I not taken the risk and found out for myself whether spiritualism delivered what it promised. I know of many who were more cautious in that they kept a foot in both worlds – ‘tethering your camel’ was an expression they used. This meant they sat on the fence, neither here nor there, did neither this nor that, were for it or against it as it suited. They learnt nothing by experience as to the inner workings of the spiritual world and what happens when the revered teachings are put into practice, but remained outside the ashram gates, looking in, commentating and speculating on the goings-on within. Because I got so much life experience and hands-on direct knowledge out of my years on the spiritual path, I knew the only way to make the same assessment of whether actualism worked was to jump in boots and all. I remember when I made the decision, a great feeling of having nothing left to lose because I knew by experience that the other common-to-all approaches to being a human being were less than perfect and produced less than perfect results, to say the least. Nowadays it is not necessary for seekers to spend years on the spiritual path because so much of the spiritual teachings are available on the Net to be read at leisure without the need to become involved in a group or embroiled in a cult. It is also possible to join any one of many spiritual mailing lists in order to assess the effectiveness – or ineffectiveness – of the teachings in producing harmonious and peaceful communities. There are ample opportunities for a present-day seeker to check out for themselves the followers of almost any spiritual teaching, to assess the quality, range and tone of discussions and by doing so make your own assessment as to whether or not the followers are living the teachings and if they are, what effect it has on their daily lives. Given the doubts you have raised in this post about actualism being a cult, I can only suggest that you take a clear-eyed look at spiritualism as it works in practice in order that you can move on from doubt to making an assessment one way or the other. The important thing about asking questions and having doubts is to find definitive workable answers and nowadays the Net makes it much easier than having to troop off to the East as was needed in the old days. As I remember it, living in doubt and not-knowing is the pits. There is such a joy to be had in devoting yourself to something one hundred percent.
RESPONDENT: But still, we try ... and sometimes when a master weaver is able to totally disarm us, there is a cessation in our mind-created thought stream. Suddenly we have a moment of silent peace and experience the wonder of WHAT IS. PETER: Yes. The psychic power and authority of a shaman or spiritual teacher is directly proportionate to his ability to enthrall and entrance his audience, to lead them inside, to abandon sensible thought and wallow in the feeling of What Is or God. I know how overwhelming this experience is for I have experienced it myself over many years on many, many occasions. It was only when I got to the point where it was evident that I was soon to become one of these all-powerful men that I balked. By then I had started to see the inherent maliciousness in a system whereby human beings worship other human beings as Gods and prostrate and humble themselves in order to get a bit of feel-good inner bliss. I somehow knew there must be something better than this, something more genuine, something more down-to-earth, something that did not rely on ‘me’ and ‘my’ feelings to sustain it, something pure and perfect in itself. And there is. (...) * RESPONDENT: Speaking of words, here are a few I would like to ask you to consider ... why do they exist in our vocabulary ... where did they come from ... what are they trying to express? humility, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers humble themselves in the face of some mythical Higher Power. As I well know from my spiritual years, there are none so proud of their humility than spiritual seekers, for the more one humbles oneself, the more one debases and humiliates oneself and the more faithful and loyal one is, the more one’s personal self will be diminished and the more one’s Divine Self will be strengthened and enhanced. Humbling oneself to a Higher Power, trying to become God, or cunningly becoming ‘one with Him’ – a sort of a ‘God and I are best mates’ scenario – taps into a deep pathological dependency that has been cunningly utilized by the Gurus to wield power over others and to wage horrendous wars on rival Gurus, shamans, priests and God-men for centuries. RESPONDENT: surrender, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers surrender their will and blindly and unquestionly follow. To surrender is but to give in. One surrenders to the tried and true belief in God and thus accepts that nothing will ever change. I for one would not, and could not, stop until I found something better than old time, or New Dark Age, religions. Of course, the first step was when I realized, right in the middle of one of those sublime moments of surrender to a Master, that I was but a sheep and far, far from being a free human being. RESPONDENT: listen, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers listen but what they really mean is feel not listen, for as you yourself said ‘those who only hear words, these ONES are easily dismissed’. What the God-men are saying is feel what I am saying in the heart and turn ‘inwards’, away from the evils of the ‘outer’ world. Unfortunately the Jew who fights the Arab feels god in his heart, the Catholic fighting the Protestant both feel God in their hearts, the Indian fighting the Pakistani both feel God in their hearts, the awakened ones who accuse others of not being awake feel God in their hearts, the Rajneeshee who riles against the Christians feels God in his or her heart, the seeker who feels his or her Master is the best and only true Master feels God in his or her heart. To hold someone dear in your heart often means you are willing to kill or die for that person. When that someone is a mythical God, by whatever name, that very same passion has fuelled all the religious and spiritual warfare that has caused countless millions of human beings to kill, maim, rape and torture each other over the millennia. RESPONDENT: open, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers be open to the teacher and the teachings. They simultaneously demand utter faith, trust and unquestioning loyalty – consequently their followers remain forever closed to any other possibility but the teacher and the teachings. RESPONDENT: empty, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers be empty whereas what they are saying is fill the emptiness you feel inside with the feeling of God or Being or Is-ness. This is not being empty inside, as in ‘self’-less, this is being full inside as in ‘self’-fulfilled or ‘Self’-satisfied. RESPONDENT: stillness, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers seek stillness of thought and thinking so as to allow the traditional, much sought after, feelings of fullness, completeness, wholeness, oneness, timelessness and spacelessness to come welling in to fill ‘the void’. In the East millions of monks have isolated themselves from the world and practiced sitting with their eyes closed for hours upon hours as a way to achieve the prized feeling of stillness. From isolation, sensory deprivation and physical pain comes the relief of stillness and, if one is passionate enough, the prize of feeling Fullness. RESPONDENT: peace, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers abandon any notions of actualizing peace on earth for what they preach is a feeling of ‘inner’ peace as an escape from the necessary suffering and inherent evil of the world and they dangle the alluring promise of an eternal peace after physical death. It really matters not a fig what the faithful feel or preach, for they are but supporting the religious wars of the Gods and the petty battles of the Gurus. But for someone who is genuinely interested in peace on earth, the true messages of spiritual/ religious teachings are worthy of serious scrutiny rather than blind unquestioning loyalty. RESPONDENT: one, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers feel there is only ‘one’, for usually they are the representatives of the ‘One’, they are in tune with the ‘One’, ‘One and I are best mates’ or even ‘I am the only One. As for the feeling of oneness – why is it that despite these grandiose feelings of ‘we are all one’ in the spiritual/religious world, there are still petty battles between Gurus, ongoing religious wars between Gods. Not even two people can live together in utter peace and harmony, let alone any spiritual/religious community. RESPONDENT: mystery, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers treat what they are saying and the energy they are giving out as a mystery – never to be doubted, never to be questioned, never to be unravelled, never to be debunked. If one dares to do so, one is threatened with the withdrawal of the Guru’s love, incurring the wrath of God, and suffering the scorn and anger of the mob. So far, if anyone was dissatisfied, doubting or questioning, they have had no alternative but to shift allegiances in the spiritual world or simply give up and return to the real world of grim reality. There is now a third alternative. RESPONDENT: miracle, PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers believe that what they are offering and the energy they are giving out is miraculous. Thus, every follower is led to believe that their God or, by proxy their Guru, is responsible for all the astounding life-forms and happenings on this planet and all of the majesty that is evident in the physical universe. Christians believe it is all God’s work, Hindus believe it is all Brahma’s work, Environmentalists believe that this planet itself is a living-entity populated by living spirits, the ancient Greeks believed the heavens were a battle ground for the Gods, Buddhists believe the physical universe is all a dream-like illusion, many even believe that their God will one day wipe out the planet and the universe in an act of vengeance. I could go on, but I think you might have got my gist. I don’t find these fairy stories to be miraculous at all, I find them to be ancient fear-ridden puerile nonsense. I experience the actual physical universe to be a place of wonder, amazement and marvel. The universe is infinite – there is no outside to it, no other-worlds – and the physical universe is eternal – there was no beginning, there is no end. There was no Creator, there will be no Destroyer. There is no Higher Power, there is no-One in charge. The actual world is the miracle – to claim it is the work of a higher power is but spirit-ual twaddle. To believe otherwise is to forever shut oneself off from the opportunity of ‘self’-lessly experiencing the perfection and purity of the actual world. RESPONDENT: IS. PETER: Gods and God-men, shamans and priests have forever demanded that their followers accept that ‘what is’ is in fact all God’s creation, hence the term IS. This is why followers have to believe that it IS and feel IS-ness rather than seek a permanent ‘self’-less sensate-only experience of the actual world. RESPONDENT: No matter what we think, or how we intellectualize this amazing experience of BEING ... IT JUST IS! PETER: If you want an amazing experience, ponder a while on what is actual, as in sensately
experienceable, as opposed to what you feel and imagine is amazing. See if you can find a forest without a God or a divine energy in it and you
may well be astounded at the experience. What is actual always beats imagination and impassioned feeling, for it is actual and it requires no
‘me’ to believe or feel it is amazing.
RESPONDENT: Instead of them inquiring into our experiences, they go on and on exclaiming themselves to have got it right and the rest of us to be wrong. That doesn’t set the ground for talk between equals. PETER: Nowhere have either Vineeto or I exclaimed ‘to have got it right and the rest of (you) to be wrong’. A fact is a fact – it stands on its own as it were – it is neither right or wrong. To me it is far better to live one’s life based on facts rather than beliefs – then one is free to judge things as ‘silly’ or ‘sensible’ firmly based on facts. Simple things like – if you want to live with a woman (or man) it would be good to do so in peace, harmony and equity. In the case of Vineeto and I, we had a contract to look at everything (in ourselves only – not the other) that was in the way of that being possible. And within 12 months we succeeded – and one of the first things I had to throw out was ‘right and wrong’. Also, it was a trap for me when I would put what Richard was saying into the ‘right and wrong’ basket. It was a recipe for conflict, and a vain attempt by ‘me’ to justify ‘my’ knowledge, ‘my’ experience – in short, ‘my’ very existence. And beneath it all, ever-lurking, lay pride. As for ‘equals’, on meeting Richard, I quickly had to abandon the principle. Here was a man who was happy and harmless, had a knowledge of the Human Condition that is unprecedented in human history and who knew the delusion of Enlightenment from the inside. I settled into his lounge-room and lapped up all I could – to find out ‘a new way of walking’ – as someone posted the other day – upright, free, independent, beholden to no-one. Happy and harmless. I freely acknowledged I had a lot to learn and that he was a far superior human being. He is, after all, free of malice and sorrow, and I unabashedly set out to learn all that I could in order to emulate his freedom. I can’t give you more than the sense I make of the Human Condition – that bummer of a birthmark – that all we humans are embroiled in. What you make of it is your business, but I do appreciate your comments and observations. They are most
welcome.
PETER: I wanted an actual freedom that is applicable in the marketplace, available to all, perfect and pure, untainted by power and authority. RESPONDENT: So, why does an enlightened being have to wallow in power and authority? PETER: Just a note to the questions you raised – The Enlightened Ones, having found God and Love, are compulsively driven to spread their message and to gather their disciples. It is intrinsic that if one discovers the Truth then one is impelled to teach it. Truth does not exist without the teachings. They are in effect teaching their versions of the Truth, but a Truth must be told, must be passed on, otherwise it withers. And the one who teaches the Truth has the power and authority, for people are hungry for the Truth with its promise of salvation, bliss and immortality. For those who reach Enlightenment the reward for having found the Truth is having others be grateful to you, love you and worship you. Having achieved the altered state of consciousness, whereby one is God, it is also a very lonely business and one needs love from others. It is all a Grand tradition in the East where the pinnacle of human achievement is to become an immortal God-man ... The Glamour, Glory and Glitz of Enlightenment is the ultimate power and authority. So it comes with the territory, so to speak. It gets a little watered and wimped down in the west with higher numbers and lower quality, but all ultimately are doing battle for customers and status. I have written about my feelings of power and authority and the battle to free myself from their seductive clutches, as has Vineeto. Richard, having been Enlightened for 11 years until he freed himself, is the expert in the field and he has written of it (from the inside) on his web-site. It makes fascinating reading. RESPONDENT: Can they not just live without malice and sorrow, with unconditional acceptance of everything, as a quiet light to those who are seeking a way out of the darkness they find themselves in? Well seemingly not, if history is any guide. I’ve heard a lot of theories about humble Enlightened Ones, the un-seen and un-heard of ones, but if no-one hears of them then they are a myth. As for the declared one’s – in becoming a saviour of others, a light on the path – they are
obviously in the power and authority game.
PETER: Hi, in reply to your good question – RESPONDENT: Are you a missionary? PETER: A missionary, by definition, usually refers to the spreading of a particular faith. Since I see no sense at all in merely believing what anyone says I pass on that one. I am not flogging a spiritual or religious method. I am saying that there is now an alternative to being normal or becoming spiritual – there is now available a new, down-to-earth actual freedom from the Human Condition. ‘Missionary’ can also refer to the ‘style’ of presentation or wording. I thought a lot about this when I wrote my journal as I was writing with enthusiasm at the time, and I knew with the general cynicism abounding in the world, that it would generally be regarded as missionary. But what to do ... I am enthusiastic that at least we are beginning to talk sensibly about that ‘which cannot be spoken of’. At some point in my spiritual search I noticed that my scepticism was turning to cynicism and I deliberately attempted to turn my scepticism into investigation and scrutiny. The other thing about a missionary is that he has the power of God with him, he is doing God’s work. He represents the ultimate authority – God. I am, most definitely, not an authority in that sense, but I am an expert on how to become happy and harmless and how to live with a woman/man in peace, harmony and equity. So it is my pleasure, for a few hours a day, to get an opportunity to write of how it is to be actually free of the Human Condition. It beats Enlightenment by a country mile ...
PETER: A very good question and one I am pleased to answer. I do find it excellent that we can swap observations about these matters – to dare to question both the bona fides of the Gurus as well as their Message(s). RESPONDENT: In a recent reply to No 11 you stated –
It appears to me that you must have had intimate contact with a considerable number of these people to make such a statement. Is that the case? If this is so, your definition of Guru differs markedly from mine. PETER: Well, not many people had ‘intimate contact’ with Osho for he led a life of increasing isolation and separation from his disciples. I did, however, see enough ‘back stage’, as it were, to see a lot that was hidden from many. The bit I write about in the journal will give you a brief idea –
The main point about Rajneesh was that he was not available to scrutiny, and deliberately avoided it. I was witness to one incident when a disciple of many years was publicly dressed-down in Buddha Hall because he had been overheard by someone casting doubts on His truthfulness. Rajneesh certainly did not have an ordinary life in terms of being free to come and go as He pleased in anything resembling normality, and the women in his life all worshipped the very ground He stood on. Any semblance of direct down-to-earth intimacy (or communication) between ‘fellow human beings’ is inherently impossible in the God-man – disciple system. After Rajneesh’s death I came in contact with another Enlightened Master who led a life more resembling ‘normal’, but still his women worshipped him as a God, I saw him get very angry on one occasion when I was with him on some business, and he was condescending and dismissive of any who dared to question his Divinity. Another Guru, with whom I some extensive business dealings, showed ‘personality quirks’, as he called them, which I found to be bordering on rude and belligerent. I do not wish to name names or go into more detail about those that are still alive. It is the business of guru-ship that is rotten to the core. The men and women involved are merely playing their roles of Ultimate power and Ultimate authority. It rocked me to my very core when I saw that one of the major reasons that I wanted to become Enlightened was to have that power and that authority. To have people worship and fawn over me – sort of a ‘money for nothing and your chicks for free’ scenario. Once I had seen this in myself I understood a lot about the God-men and that the enormous psychic power they wield. I could go on, but in the interest of brevity I’ll stop. I do rave on sometimes but it needs words to communicate what we have found out about the business of being a human being. How else do we communicate accurately and intelligently. * P.S. The famous J. Krishnamurti had clandestine affairs in his life, and kept them hidden to protect
his God-man image and a revealing book has been written by his mistresses daughter – ‘Lives in the shadow with J. Krishnamurti’ by Radha
Rajagopal-Sloss.
PUBLISHER No 1: My relationship, as absurd as it might seem to you, is with Osho not the inner circle or other sannyasins. PETER: Fair enough. This loyal faith is exactly why the Inner Circle has the power it does. PUBLISHER No 1: ‘Loyal faith’ just where do you get this from. I find your judgments most violent and not based on ‘fact’. Could you please explain how you arrived at this from the above statement? Fact, the above statement contains no reference to the type or quality of the relationship I have. Fact, without knowing what sort of relationship I have you then go on to pontificate about the ‘The loyal faithful personal relationship that Catholics have with Christ is exactly why the Pope is given the power he has over the faithful’. For someone who bases their lives on fact perhaps you could explain how your judgement and stereotyping of another person becomes a ‘fact’ and then it becomes actual? PETER: I have already explained the crucial role that loyalty plays in both the Gurus maintaining their power over others and in ensuring their followers remain in their spiritual/ religious group, even long after the Gurus are dead. One can also be a loyal rebel – if a rebel was not loyal he would not be moved to rebel in defence of the Guru, he would simply leave and find something better and something that works. * PETER: The loyal faithful personal relationship that Catholics have with Christ is exactly why the Pope is given the power he has over the faithful. The Pope (and Rome) only has power because Catholics give Him the power. Realizing this fact is why I quit from the power structure in Pune. I had too much integrity to actually give someone else power over me. To willingly give someone else power over me and then to spend my life riling against it seemed to me to be the height of stupidity. PUBLISHER No 1: Yes it was pretty stupid of you to give them this power in the first place, I’m glad you had the common sense to break away from it. PETER: Yes. This is why Actual Freedom is an actual freedom. One incrementally breaks free of
the belief-systems and groups that make up the Human Condition. One does not simply change identities or beliefs – one abandons the lot with
glee once one makes a common sense evaluation and once one acknowledges the glimpse of Actual Freedom that the PCE offers. Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom
Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
