Actual Freedom – A Diatribe from Gardol Yack

May 05, 2008

GARDOL: But let’s give him another chance ... continuing my evaluation:
[Respondent]: ‘I have previously read the link supplied and the proof that you offer is not a proof for the uniqueness of your actual freedom’.
[Richard]: ‘You have to be joking, right? Here is the remainder of the brief exegesis, of what can be found on that page, which I provided in the very e-mail you are now responding to (the first part I have already re-quoted just above): [Richard]: ‘... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look. I was truly on my own ... *no one had ventured into this terrain before*. [emphasis added]. I did not need any more proof than that – indeed there is no other proof than that [these experiential proofs] – and, just for the record, I would have preferred there had been tracks to follow as it was an enormously risky journey to go all the way through the institutionalised insanity known as spiritual enlightenment. It was an incredibly hazardous thing to do ... I could have got lost forever and never come out the other side’ [endquote]..
‘You have to be joking, right?’ I find this very odd.

RICHARD: It is not at all odd as Richard had provided (1.) a link to a page which described, as asked by the respondent, how he knew (via extraordinary, not ordinary, proof) ... and (2.) a brief exegesis of what was reported in detail on that page (the experiential, not scientifical, proof) ... and (3.) a terse account of additional extraordinary/experiential evidence which served to reinforce the earlier experiential/extraordinary proof ... only to have it arbitrarily dismissed as merely believing rather than knowing. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Thanks Richard for taking the time to reply to me. What I get out of what you said is that you *believe* rather than *know* that you were the first to have attained an actual freedom from the human condition’. [endquote].

What really would be very odd would be to tamely accept that the criticaster (Respondent), to whom the word ‘experiential’ is apparently synonymous with the word ‘believe’, actually knows better than the experient (Richard) as to just what to get out of those extraordinary experiences/ that experiential evidence.

Hence the expression of incredulity ... as what that would mean, of course, is that virtually nothing of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site would have any validity as just about everything written there is experiential.

GARDOL: The respondents who write to him about this point have a valid argument.

RICHARD: As another look at what the respondent wrote, in the quoted exchange further above, reveals that they specifically refer to having [quote] ‘read the link supplied’ [endquote] already – which is the link that Gardol, quite indicatively, surreptitiously snipped out earlier on – it is not at all a valid argument of theirs to just arbitrarily dismiss that experiential evidence (which most certainly qualifies as extraordinary proof) obtained during many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment as merely being something believed.

GARDOL: Richard apparently can’t believe someone would seriously need more proof.

RICHARD: Yet he was never proving it to that respondent in the first place – nor is he in the business of proving it to anyone anyway – as he was expressly asked how he knew and, accordingly, he supplied a link to a descriptive report detailing the way or manner in which he did know ... how he actually knew (experientially knew). Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) My question is *how do you know this to be true* ...?’
• [Richard]: ‘(...) the following link provides a description of how I actually know – experientially know ...’. [emphasis added]. List AF, Respondent 56, 18 Oct 03

Just so that this is absolutely clear: if (note ‘if’) the respondent had asked Richard how they too can know, in an extraordinary way, rather than just asking him how does he know (by way of extraordinary proof), they would have elicited an entirely different answer. For example:

• [example only]: ‘(...) My question is how can I know this to be true ...?’
• [example answer]: ‘By following in the (transcendental) footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if you so desire, and thus ascertaining for yourself that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (previously considered to be only possible after physical death)’. [end example].

Incidentally, if (note ‘if’) they had wanted Richard to prove it to them scientifically then they should never have even mentioned the word extraordinary in the first place. Here is but one instance of what Richard has to say on that topic:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, I surfed your website for one day only and the clarity you have found is amazing. Your approach to the whole problem is very simple and direct and not couched in mysterious phrases or delusions. Reminds me of all great science, magnificent in its insights but expressed with breathtaking simplicity.
• [Richard]: ‘This is an apt place to point out, right up-front and out-in-the open, that what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not scientifical’. List AF, Respondent 116, 13 May 06

Here is one more instance (mentioned en passant on another matter also pertaining to that particular respondent):

• [Richard]: ‘(...) my co-respondent, self-represented as being a scientist by profession, formulated an hypothesis about me – that in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have others believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world – which had no observational basis at all (what I share with my fellow human, being experiential, is not at all scientifical) nor any textual evidence whatsoever to support it and, despite being given cogent reasons and at least ten opportunities to do so, would not budge one iota from their un-informed and ill-conceived way of ramping up the brouhaha.
There is no way I am going to discuss a mathematical model of the universe in (supposedly) scientific terms with someone who will not, or can not, put into practice the rigour rightly expected of the scientific profession’. List AF, Respondent 74f, 11 Feb 06

GARDOL: When he said ‘critical examination’, and ‘closest possible scrutiny’, just what did he really mean then?

RICHARD: When he said ‘critical examination’ what he did really mean is contained in the remainder of the paragraph Gardol deliberately snipped off so as to fraudulently justify publishing this diatribe of his; what he did really mean by ‘closest possible scrutiny’ is encapsulated in his oft-repeated phrase ‘read with both eyes open’ (as in an antidote to being one-eyed) ... something Gardol is yet to demonstrate any capability of doing.

Not all that surprisingly, then, Gardol’s condescending [quote] ‘but let’s give him another chance’ [endquote] intro to this section has, on closer inspection, been exposed for the arrogance it is. Viz.:

• ‘arrogance: aggressive conceit [overestimation of oneself or one’s personal qualities] or presumption’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: Then he goes on again with the psychic footprints and the psychic eye as his proof.

RICHARD: And then the dial-a-delusion advocate goes on again with his ignorance of a fundamental feature of enlightenment (that metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable in the enlightened field of consciousness).

Here is a useful word:

• ‘mountebank: a false pretender to skill or knowledge, a charlatan; a person incurring contempt or ridicule through efforts to acquire something, esp. social distinction and glamour’. (Oxford Dictionary).

| Contents |  Part Two; Section Two |

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.