|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have been reading on your site, your account of your meeting with a spiritual master; presumably someone whose name begins with ‘I’. RICHARD: May I ask? Why would you presume that his name begins with an ‘I’ ? If it because of the address, please bear in mind he may have been a visiting teacher ... this place attracts so many on the world-wide circuit. And why is it important to know what that person’s name begins with, any way? He could be anybody of mystical persuasion ... they are all saying the same-same esoteric thing, fundamentally. Which is: narcissism rules supreme. RESPONDENT: Elsewhere you criticise gurus who engage in monologues and keep themselves at a safe distance from their ‘disciples’ by preventing true dialogue. Fair enough. I don’t like that either. RICHARD: Good, I am glad that we are in agreement on something so basic as a two-way communication between fellow human beings, then. RESPONDENT: The impression I get of the meeting between you and the contemporary spiritual master is one of many, many words and concepts arising in the space we habitually call you. RICHARD: Aye, your impression is correct – apart from the ‘concepts’ bit – for that was the whole purpose of the meeting. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that the purpose of the meeting in your mind was to allow you to further develop your thesis (or should that read ‘Thesis’). RICHARD: Not so ... I have no ‘thesis (or ‘Thesis’)’ whatsoever. Let alone needing to develop one in such a situation. I do have an agenda, however, and I unabashedly and unrepentantly push my barrow. The purpose of the meeting was to share – using many, many words – a different experiencing of life to the ‘Tried and True’ with a fellow human being. RESPONDENT: The actual afternoon seems to be just a trigger for the development of verbosity on your part. RICHARD: Yea verily ... verbosity is my forté. There is upwards of 650,000 words in the English language ... which allows for an amazing array of nuance of expression. There is no need whatsoever for someone to have to say ‘I don’t know’ ... or that something is ‘indescribable’ or ‘ineffable’ or ‘beyond words’ (which is one of the main points the article makes – in case you overlooked that – given that this ‘Spiritual Teacher’ publicly invites people to go all the way with him and to regard nothing as being sacrosanct in the search for truth). RESPONDENT: Words and concepts were the outcome. RICHARD: Hmm ... you do rather seem to be missing the point. This actual world is not a conceptual world ... it is a direct experience. RESPONDENT: The meeting was contained within your mind, it would seem . RICHARD: Oh, no ... it definitely happened. At the seaside restaurant set amidst trees and bushes as described. Other people were there too. RESPONDENT: It is words and concepts you seem to want to convey in your article, rather than some account of a meeting with another human being. RICHARD: You do seem to be pushing this theme about ‘words and concepts’ ... life is to be lived as an actual experiencing, each moment again. The reason that the conversation appears to be one-sided is because it was one-sided – he had nothing of substance to offer – and nothing to say other than what is reported in the article. RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard, was your meeting with the contemporary spiritual master in the lush seaside environment, which appears as reported to be on the level of a monologue originating in the mind we habitually call yours, an example of actual intimacy. RICHARD: In an actual freedom, intimacy is not dependent upon the cooperation of the other. I
experience an actual intimacy – a direct experiencing of the other – twenty four hours of the day irrespective of the other’s
interest in themselves, in life and in their fellow human being’s suffering. It is an estimable condition to be in. Also, I do
not suffer fools gladly – having been one myself for eleven years – and anyone living the altered state of consciousness known
as spiritual enlightenment knows in their heart of hearts that they are wanking. They merely lack the intestinal fortitude to go
all the way into extinction ... and so all the animosity and anguish continues. And thus, because they have feet of clay RESPONDENT: And I am missing seeing that somehow, or perhaps, in your estimation of things, was the contemporary spiritual master somehow responsible for propagating this stream of words. RICHARD: Indeed he was – he and his ubiquitous ilk – this is a very perspicacious observation. RESPONDENT: This stream of words that I read which I see as having an artistic value second to none – I am impressed! RICHARD: I am pleased that it impresses you ... but of what use is it to be impressed by eloquence if the impressing does not make one sit up and think, eh? After all, you are on record as stating that you are not on this list to learn anything ... and it would appear that you are true to your word. RESPONDENT: Yet, in its very verbosity, and impenetrable cohesion and monologueness, leaves me with the feeling that meeting this Richard in the actual reality of his idyllic seaside village would be a bit like being fucked by an actual steam train? RICHARD: Only if you were an ‘Awakened Teacher’ who was actively propagating those ‘Tried and
True’ psittacisms called ‘Teachings’ that perpetuate all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence
and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide for ever and a day. You would indubitably be
stopped short in your tracks ... those well-worn tracks leading from illusion to delusion. Eastern mystical philosophy is an
extremely complex and complicated metaphysics that does nothing to eliminate identity – both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul
– and in fact, if one were to apply his eastern-derived religious and spiritual system, one’s self would be endorsed,
enhanced, glorified and rewarded for staying in existence. If it were not for all the mayhem and misery, it would be
entertainingly amusing ... for the self does not exist in actuality. All this monstrous behaviour is about something fictitious.
The self – and the Self – are only psychological and psychic entities ... phantasms in mundane reality and in a super-charged
Reality. It is all much ado about nothing. However, it is no laughing matter ... it is far too serious when appalling suffering is
concerned. It behoves one to put aside the selfish ego-driven and soul-ridden will to survive and look again at what exactly is
occurring. One will no longer be entranced by the bewitching promises proffered so alluringly by these self-appointed guardians of
virtue and morality ... all self-serving, mind you. It is a must that one establish one’s integrity For there is nothing harmless about this divinity – this is a very self-centred and self-seeking approach to life on earth – something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s Immortality is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All Religious and Spiritual and Mystical Quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All Religious and Spiritual and Mystical Leaders fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the Eternal After-Life. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’. All this gets played out in the human psyche ... and not in this actual world. For those rare few who succeed, their reward for narcissism is bliss, ecstasy, euphoria, love, compassion, beauty, truth and a few other glittering baubles ... which also only have an existence in the human psyche. But they do not get a ‘blithesome actuality’, for they are driven to ‘save the world’ and to ‘set mankind free’. Nor do they get an actual freedom from the Human Condition ... and certainly not peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Could you comment at length please? RICHARD: Indeed I could – I have over half-million words at my command – but as this E-Mail forum is restricted to 9 KB per mail we will have to settle for this for now. Is there anything in particular that you would like to discuss? For the way is clear to do so, now that we have got all of that mandatory verbal sparring (as per standard Internet protocol) out of the way. Shall we stop trying to score points of each other and attend to the subject at hand? To wit: How to enter into a genuinely blithesome actuality?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have been reading on your site, your account of your meeting with a spiritual master; presumably someone whose name begins with ‘I’. RICHARD: May I ask? Why would you presume that his name begins with an ‘I’ ? RESPONDENT: I presume because various facts you recount about your man fit in with facts I know about a man whose name begins with ‘I’, and I ask because I don’t know that the fitting together of all those facts really proves anything. And I would like to know. RICHARD: I can assure you that fitting all those facts that I recount together with the facts you know does not prove anything other than the fact that he could be anybody of mystical persuasion ... they are all saying the same-same esoteric thing, fundamentally. Which is: narcissism rules supreme. * RICHARD: If it because of the address, please bear in mind he may have been a visiting teacher ... this place attracts so many on the world-wide circuit. And why is it important to know what that person’s name begins with, any way? He could be anybody of mystical persuasion ... they are all saying the same-same esoteric thing, fundamentally. Which is: narcissism rules supreme. RESPONDENT: I can imagine you may have reasons for not wanting to clearly state the identity of this particular person. Perhaps there are legal reasons. That is why I thought we could play a little game where I say does his name begin with ‘I’. It is true, he could have been a visiting teacher, perhaps one I have not happened to hear of. I find I like to relate together the various bits of information I hold in my mind. So when I read your report I wanted to relate it to what I already know about the man whose name begins with ‘I’. But here we are at this point and what I know is that I do not actually know who your contemporary mystic was. That’s OK, for now, perhaps we can come back to this sometime. Or ... I could just ask ... What was the name of this contemporary spiritual teacher? RICHARD: There are no legal reasons that I am aware of as it is an accurate report ... and he went public after the meeting himself in order to warn his followers about one of the perils of travelling the spiritual path ... going insane like Richard. The only reason I have for maintaining the incognizance is that the content of the conversation be emphasised, rather than devolve into an exercise in disparaging a particular person. I like my fellow human beings ... no matter what mischief they get up to. It is the skulduggery that I am talking about ... not the person. RESPONDENT: If you believe that all mystics (except you?) are saying one thing, fundamentally, then perhaps this is a reflection on yourself. I imagine you can almost see that. RICHARD: You can imagine whatever you like ... but it has zilch to do with me. For example:
RESPONDENT: Elsewhere you criticise gurus who engage in monologues and keep themselves at a safe distance from their ‘disciples’ by preventing true dialogue. Fair enough. I don’t like that either. RICHARD: Good, I am glad that we are in agreement on something so basic as a two-way communication between fellow human beings, then. RESPONDENT: Yes, I also am glad we have this agreement. As time goes on I will try to show you that it is that agreement which is of fundamental importance. It is much more important than: 1. adherence to a particular guru or path, and, 2. the espousal of certain sets of words, concepts, beliefs or actual questions. To spell it out, my impression from your writing is that you have got the first point but not quite the second. To spell it out further, that is my impression, it may not have anything to do with you at all. I enter into dialogue with you in order to question that impression. RICHARD: I live what I say ... my words are a description of what is actually happening because what I write comes out of my living experience. None of what I am living is applied theory, concepts or beliefs ... there is this which is actually happening and I put together an explanation of it – after the event – to explain it to others. You see, peace-on-earth is always here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; making it apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it was already here, as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. RESPONDENT: The impression I get of the meeting between you and the contemporary spiritual master is one of many, many words and concepts arising in the space we habitually call you. RICHARD: Aye, your impression is correct – apart from the ‘concepts’ bit – for that was the whole purpose of the meeting. RESPONDENT: Your language here is a little convoluted. Could you re-phrase it? Do you mean that ‘concepts’ were the whole purpose of the meeting, or they were not ... or something else entirely. RICHARD: Your impression about ‘concepts’ is incorrect, whereas your impression about ‘many, many words’ is correct. Words are vital as our means of communicating our understanding to one another. It is marvellous that we are able to be discussing these matters of great momentousness ... and momentous not only the individual, but for all of the humans that are living on this verdant planet. It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed in words. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again (however, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next). Speaking personally, I am very appreciative of all those brave peoples who dared to enter into ‘The Unknown’ ... if it were not for them leaving their written words behind I could not be where I am today. Please, do not scorn words ... it is what sets us apart from the other sentient beings. It is only through words that peace-on-earth is possible. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that the purpose of the meeting in your mind was to allow you to further develop your thesis (or should that read ‘Thesis’). RICHARD: Not so ... I have no ‘thesis (or ‘Thesis’)’ whatsoever. Let alone needing to develop one in such a situation. I do have an agenda, however, and I unabashedly and unrepentantly push my barrow. The purpose of the meeting was to share – using many, many words – a different experiencing of life to the ‘Tried and True’ with a fellow human being. RESPONDENT: Sincerely, I value highly your barrow. As I read you, you are willing to challenge some VERY sacred cows, and I like that very much. I am slowly reading through what you have to say, and sometimes – excuse me for saying so – I am bowled over by your humour. Still I have the feeling that if I were to sit with you in a cafe, I may just want to get away as quickly as possible from your passionate (sorry, enlivened) sharing, in order to be able to experience something other than ‘you’. RICHARD: As the entire thrust of what I write about is the possibility – borne out by my own on-going experience – of living without any identity whatsoever, then it would appear, that for all your ‘reading slowly’, you have overlooked this pertinent fact. There is no identity extant in this flesh and blood body for No. 12 to get away from. That is, there is not only no ‘I’ as ego here ... but no ‘me’ as soul either. Given that spiritual enlightenment means ‘no ‘I’ as ego’, then this – the extinction of ‘being’ itself – is what ‘beyond enlightenment’ means. An actual freedom is what happens when not only the ‘self’ dies ... but the ‘Self’ does likewise. However, if you were sitting at the caff with some spiritual teacher you may very well wish to flee ... their avowed aim being to lasso ‘you’ as soul and hitch ‘you’ to their wagon so as to make their god more powerful. But that is up to ‘you’, of course. * RICHARD: There is no need whatsoever for someone to have to say ‘I don’t know’ ... or that something is ‘indescribable’ or ‘ineffable’ or ‘beyond words’ (which is one of the main points the article makes – in case you overlooked that – given that this ‘Spiritual Teacher’ publicly invites people to go all the way with him and to regard nothing as being sacrosanct in the search for truth). RESPONDENT: I like it that you challenge this teacher to go all the way. RICHARD: Good ... are you so challenged? RESPONDENT: Do you perhaps also mean that verbosity is your fort? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Words and concepts were the outcome. RICHARD: Hmm ... you do rather seem to be missing the point. This actual world is not a conceptual world ... it is a direct experience. RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... I may or may not be missing the point, that is not the point, for here I was making a point, not receiving one. The point I am making is that it seems to me that your experience of this actual person who you were sitting with, was – as reported on your Web Site – one of words and concepts, rather than one of an actual meeting with a real person. That is my point. Do you get it? RICHARD: Aye, I ‘got it’ the first time around ... and your point was incorrect then. Repeating it at length does not miraculously turn it into fact, for my experiencing of people, things and events is automatically actual for the twenty four hours of every day. This is an actual freedom ... it all happens of itself ... there is no need to make it happen through effort or practice or discipline or meditation or whatever. RESPONDENT: The meeting was contained within your mind, it would seem. RICHARD: Oh, no ... it definitely happened. At the seaside restaurant set amidst trees and bushes as described. Other people were there too. RESPONDENT: Here again, you miss my point. Yes, of course there was a seaside restaurant amidst trees and bushes, and there were other people there, and there was a Richard and a man whose name begins with ‘?’, and you reported very well the flavour of the environment, and the concepts elicited in your mind. RICHARD: You were proceeding famously up until you felt impelled to stick in your pet theory. To emphasise: What I live is not conceptual ... this is actual. RESPONDENT: But what is missing from your report is some description of an actual meeting between two human beings. There is no indication in your report that a meeting really happened – there would just seem to be the coincident spatial relationship between 4 people. No meeting in the real sense of the word. This would seem to me to be a fact. RICHARD: Okay ... ‘would seem to me to be a fact’ is the operative phrase here. I experience an actual intimacy with all people, things and events irregardless of where they are at ... hence an actual meeting wherever and with whomsoever. If by ‘no meeting in the real sense’ you mean making a connection – one entity relating to another entity – then no, there was no ‘real’ meeting. RESPONDENT: There was no meeting outside your mind. Your mind met itself in the seaside restaurant, amidst the tropical foliage. RICHARD: I see that you have absorbed the mystical philosophical gobbledegook rather well ... but it does not accord with the facts of the situation. Would you care to examine that borrowed statement of yours: ‘your mind met itself’ ? I am not being difficult here for the sake being difficult yet this recondite mental posturing – designed to be enigmatic – is impressive only to those who over-intellectualise. Thus ‘your mind met itself’ sounds kind of silly when one considers it sensibly, does it not? RESPONDENT: It is words and concepts you seem to want to convey in your article, rather than some account of a meeting with another human being. RICHARD: You do seem to be pushing this theme about ‘words and concepts’ ... life is to be lived as an actual experiencing, each moment again. the reason that the conversation appears to be one-sided is because it was one-sided – he had nothing of substance to offer – and nothing to say other than what is reported in the article. RESPONDENT: Yes, I push this theme about words and concepts, I push it because it seems to me to be your fort. It is a very pretty fort. RICHARD: Okay, let us run with this theme, by all means. What is this ‘fort’ protecting, in your view? Secondly, from what is this ‘fort’ guarding, in your view? RESPONDENT: Indeed, life can be lived as an actual experiencing of each moment and of each person. RICHARD: I am glad that you agree ... is this an actuality for you? I only ask, because if it was then why all this carping about concepts? If you were experiencing life as an actual experience you would intimately know what I speak of as having nothing to do with conceptualisation at all. RESPONDENT: The reason the conversation appears to be one-sided is because it was reported by you. Reported otherwise it may appear that in fact you were the one offering nothing of substance, but rather, only words and concepts. To be more precise it may appear that your offering was hidden underneath a barrage of words and concepts. If the conversation were reported by other than yourself. RICHARD: This is really starting to amount to being an exercise in futility for you ... is it a case of ‘if I have a good theory running I will stick to it through thick and thin’? This post – like your last post – has only this one proposition: Richard is a conceptualist. RESPONDENT: To say that this person had nothing of substance to offer is to say that you are still refusing to live in actual reality. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is that phrase ‘actual reality’ that Alan asked you about in a previous post. Perhaps you may care to respond this time? I will re-post it for your perusal and comments. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I imagine he did not choose to have anything to say other than what was reported in the article. RICHARD: You may imagine whatever you like ... but it does not make it into a fact. May I point out? For a person who maintains that Richard is conceptualising ... you are the one who is doing a lot of imagining. RESPONDENT: That is a pity for him, and a pity for you. You both missed each other. RICHARD: It may have been a pity for him – given that he missed the point – but nothing is a pity for me. You see, I lived what he was espousing for eleven years and I know it from the inside ... I do not miss it at all. RESPONDENT: But it was a fine article. Very well expressed. RICHARD: I am pleased that you find it to be very well expressed ... but what is it that is being expressed if not the ending of aloneness? And of what use is expression if the expressing does not make one sit up and think, eh? After all, you made no secret of being alone in a previous post:
Also, do you not comprehend that living life to the full requires something more substantial than ‘redefining’ some situation? That smacks of conceptualising, to me. RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard, was your meeting with the contemporary spiritual master in the lush seaside environment, which appears as reported to be on the level of a monologue originating in the mind we habitually call yours, an example of actual intimacy. RICHARD: In an actual freedom, intimacy is not dependent upon the cooperation of the other. I experience an actual intimacy – a direct experiencing of the other – twenty four hours of the day irrespective of the other’s interest in themselves, in life and in their fellow human being’s suffering. It is an estimable condition to be in. RESPONDENT: Yes. I can understand this, and I do believe that you experience intimacy so. You directly experience the other irrespective of the willingness of the other to enter into intimacy around you. Indeed this is a condition that deserves esteem. RICHARD: It deserves emulation ... esteem is so cheap. RESPONDENT: I respect that condition. RICHARD: Respect is even cheaper ... it does not cost anything substantial. RESPONDENT: And yet, ... somehow, I get the impression that you hide behind your autonomous ability to experience. RICHARD: If I did hide – as you say – then that rather makes a lie of the first part of your understanding (above) ... does it not? Are you having a ‘two-bob each way bet’ on this matter? RESPONDENT: There is perhaps (?) a sense in which you would prefer that the other be willing or able to meet you in that space. Is that so? Would that be your preference? RICHARD: Of course ... I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. The optimum. * RICHARD: Also, I do not suffer fools gladly – having been one myself for eleven years – and anyone
living the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment knows in their heart of hearts that they are wanking.
They merely lack the intestinal fortitude to go all the way into extinction ... and so all the animosity and anguish continues.
And thus, because they have feet of clay RESPONDENT: Maybe extinction means to you the same as it means to me. RICHARD: I mean by extinction the total elimination of identity ... both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (that is: ‘self’ and ‘Self’ ... which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: I mean by extinction the willingness to enter deeply into THIS moment. I mean by extinction the willingness to meet another. RICHARD: Aye ... this can only happen when ‘being’ itself is not. RESPONDENT: And I am missing seeing that somehow, or perhaps, in your estimation of things, was the contemporary spiritual master somehow responsible for propagating this stream of words. RICHARD: Indeed he was – he and his ubiquitous ilk – this is a very perspicacious observation. RESPONDENT: You are teaching me so many new words! Perspicacious! Indeed! Did you already have that particular word in your head, or did you find it in a thesaurus or similar? May I ask? How did you come to be so verbose? RICHARD: My background is that of a simple country person ... a boy from a farm in the South-West of Australia. I left state school at fifteen and learned to appreciate the English language as I started to question what others had to say about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. Keeping my head in the sand (linguistically speaking) would have got me nowhere because they obfuscate through their pedagogy and sophistry. Also, people so dearly love to cover up their ineptitude by using words in a slippery manner. No one, it seems, likes to be pinned down to a clear-cut definition ... they like to ‘keep things open’ or ‘be flexible’ or ‘don’t be so fixed’ or ‘things aren’t black and white’ and so on. I happen to like the English language ... one can clearly communicate with another if a little rigour is applied. However, because people like to hide behind words they have to resort to uttering pithy aphorisms like: ‘The Truth is Ineffable’. RESPONDENT: This stream of words that I read which I see as having an artistic value second to none – I am impressed! RICHARD: I am pleased that it impresses you ... but of what use is it to be impressed by eloquence if the impressing does not make one sit up and think, eh? After all, you are on record as stating that you are not on this list to learn anything ... and it would appear that you are true to your word. RESPONDENT: The use of being impressed by eloquence if the impressing does not make one sit up and think, is to experience that impression as the actual reality of this moment. And, I also enjoy writing this sentence. RICHARD: Ahh ... so that is what ‘actual reality’ means. Somewhat akin to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘observing ‘what is’’, eh? That is, not actually doing anything about one’s current condition – which is the Human Condition – but to procrastinate by merely observing thoughts or whatever? RESPONDENT: Now I am also impressed that you remember or found out what I am on record as saying. I am not sure exactly what I said all those weeks ago – I am not even going to bother checking my records. What I know is that I love to learn, I am learning constantly. For example my contact with you has triggered my looking up the meaning of the word ‘Apperceive’. My Macquarie gives two (almost) distinct meanings: ‘To be conscious of perceiving; comprehend. To comprehend by assimilating (a new idea) with the mass of concepts, etc, already in the mind’. RICHARD: The word ‘apperception’ is seeing the world of people, things and events without the filter of identity ... and some people maintain that such a direct experience of actuality is not possible. Most people do not want to be here in this actual physical world and escape into the abstract metaphysical world ... as is evidenced in the phrase: ‘God, Truth, or Reality is the Unknown, and that which is known is not The Real’. Apperception has three meanings: Oxford Dictionary : from French ‘aperception’ or modern Latin ‘apperceptio’ (Leibniz) from ‘ap’ (towards) plus ‘perception’ (awareness or consciousness of something:
Apperceptive awareness – as distinct from perceptive awareness – is drawn from meaning (1) which indicates the brain being aware of itself being conscious ... instead of ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. That is, awareness happening of its own accord without a ‘thinker’. Mostly peoples are of the borrowed opinion – a belief – that thought itself must stop for an unmediated awareness to occur. This is because they blame only thought for creating the ‘thinker’ – which is ‘I’ as ego – as per standard Eastern Spiritual Philosophy. Of course, when there is no identity in there messing up the works, there are many periods throughout the day wherein thought does not operate at all ... but there is apperception whether there is thinking or not. RESPONDENT: I love assimilating your Approach? / Wisdom? / Humour? / Concepts? / Nonsense? / Knowledge? into what has previously been assimilated. I love it that I am conscious that that is going on. I am here for that. What you are writing goes into my pot. I stir it all up and what dissolves, dissolves, and what settles into the shit collector at the bottom of the pot settles. It enters my pot because I want to know. I want to know because some things that are in my pot just don’t gel. One of the things that is not quite gelling is my observation that I am not here to learn from you yet I am learning. anyway. Thanks, if that’s the right word. Are you on this list to learn something, Richard? Or? RICHARD: If you can tell me something that I do not already know then I am only too willing to learn. Nevertheless, it does have to make sense and be based in fact and actuality. If someone has something new and original to say that I have not heard about or read about or thought for myself ... then I will listen with both ears. However, I am not open to anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical, for I lived that for eleven years and found them to be wanting ... and all a delusion, anyway. RESPONDENT: Yet, in its very verbosity, and impenetrable cohesion and monologueness, leaves me with the feeling that meeting this Richard in the actual reality of his idyllic seaside village would be a bit like being fucked by an actual steam train? RICHARD: Only if you were an ‘Awakened Teacher’ who was actively propagating those ‘Tried and True’ psittacisms called ‘Teachings’ that perpetuate all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide for ever and a day. You would indubitably be stopped short in your tracks ... those well-worn tracks leading from illusion to delusion. <remainder snipped> RESPONDENT: I leave out your wordy, commendable response because I actually prefer to focus on my imagery. I still crack up at the image of being fucked by an actual steam train. Do you? RICHARD: It is a pity that you chose to leave out what you dismiss as a ‘wordy, commendable report’ and choose to remain stuck in useless imagery ... for it is the very actuality that you seem to be overlooking in your zeal to see only concepts wherever there is words. RESPONDENT: Could you comment at length please? RICHARD: Indeed I could – I have over half-million words at my command – but as this E-Mail forum is restricted to 9 KB per mail we will have to settle for this for now. Is there anything in particular that you would like to discuss? For the way is clear to do so, now that we have got all of that mandatory verbal sparring (as per standard Internet protocol) out of the way. Shall we stop trying to score points of each other and attend to the subject at hand? To wit: How to enter into a genuinely blithesome actuality? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is well put. Let’s do that. Is there something in particular I would like to discuss? Yes, forts and fort’s, generalities and specifics, words and concepts, actualities and defences, you and me. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey. Let ‘er rip, Boris ... full speed ahead and damn’ the torpedoes!
RESPONDENT: Thanks for taking the time to go more deeply into my ‘impressions’. I appreciate that, and I intend to come back to it and write again about those things, perhaps tomorrow, or at the weekend. Meanwhile, as I was just now sitting on the terrace looking at the trees of the national park through the darkness, enjoying a stubby of my favourite beer – Coopers Sparkling Ale – and two slices of Gourmet Vegetarian Pizza, and enjoying the stillness of the world free of my emotions and mind, a question began formulating. I know for myself, that I have a very different set of responses to the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment’ according to whether or not I am engaging in creative ‘work’ around the time of the asking. What I mean is, that when I have been working creating ‘stuff’ that didn’t exist before – whether it be a piece of writing or a vegetarian hot-pot, then the answers that come when I ask how I am experiencing this moment are along the lines of ... ‘the world is sublime’, ‘there is no ego here, there is no self, there is only the senses sensing light, sound, smells, vibrations ...’, ‘life is so easy’, ‘I am harmless and blithesome’ (I use the words ‘harmless’ and ‘blithesome’ since I ‘met’ you, but the state they describe was known to me beforehand, although I keep moving in and out of it). These answers come to the extent that I am freely following some stream of creativity that seems to continuously develop inside me. RICHARD: Yes, I can recall something similar 20 years ago – I made a living as a practising artist – and ‘my’ greatest work came when ‘I’ disappeared and the painting painted itself. This is the difference between art and craft – and ‘I’ was very good as a craftsman – but craft became art only when ‘I’ was not. It was this magical way of ‘creativity’ that led ‘me’ into this whole investigation of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being, by the way. ‘I’ desired to live my whole life like these utter moments of artistic creation ... ‘I’ wanted my life to live itself just like my paintings painted themselves. Consequently, here I am today ... and what an adventure it has been. RESPONDENT: When I am not being creative, not working, then I am more likely to answer the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment’ with something like, ‘I am bored’, ‘I am happy but there is, as well, a feeling of wanting something else’ or ‘all is not well’, or ‘l want to fuck’ or ‘if only ...’, or even, yes, even, ‘I need a mission in life!’ Now I wonder whether this is true for you, also. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I notice your creative output – on this list and your web-site – you seem to delight in writing and I am wondering how you would experience your ‘self’ should you somehow find yourself with no creative possibilities. RICHARD: A fair-enough comment ... and easy to answer from experience and not theory. I have only be actively creative on the Internet since May 1997 ... before that – going back to 1993 – I did exactly nothing. I kid you not ... any creativity whatsoever was zilch (other than writing the rough draft of my journal). Simply being alive here at this place in infinite space now at this moment in eternal time provides the ultimate fulfilment and satisfaction ... anything that I get to do or experience on top of this perfection is but an added bonus. RESPONDENT: If for some reason you could not write, you could not speak ... perhaps your ‘self’ or even your ‘ego’ may come back into the picture. RICHARD: No, extinct means what it says. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event that happens in the brain-stem that eliminates the psyche itself. I opened the door and walked through. Once on the other side – where thousands upon thousands of atavistic voices were insistently whispering ‘fool – fool – fool’ – I turned to ascertain the way back to normal. The door had vanished – and the wall it was set in – and I just knew that I would never, ever be able to find my way back to the real-world ... it had been nothing but an illusion all along. I walked tall and free as the perfection of this material universe personified. I can never not be here ... now. RESPONDENT: You may start feeling ... things are not quite right, I need to achieve something. RICHARD: I have arrived at my destiny and am already always here ... now. So I have nothing to prove and nothing to achieve. I am retired and on a pension and instead of pottering around the garden I am currently pottering around the Internet. I only write as the whim takes me ... and easily sit with my feet up on the coffee table watching television. RESPONDENT: What am I getting at? The real question in my mind is, could it be that this living in the actual sensate world that you experience is brought about by living a creative life – following your bliss, as they say. RICHARD: No, to base one’s well-being upon pleasurable activities is to build upon quicksand. The happy and harmless attributes of actual freedom are uncaused ... and therefore free. Also, I do not experience bliss ... it being affective. The purity of the perfection of infinitude is vastly superior to bliss ... and I experienced bliss – and ecstasy and euphoria – for eleven years. There is no comparison, actually. RESPONDENT: Could it be that your state of benignity has arisen because you dare to create? RICHARD: No, on the contrary ... through destruction. The basic instinctual passions – like fear and aggression and nurture and desire – that blind nature endows on all sentient beings at conception have been eliminated. Their elimination was the elimination of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... ‘being’ itself vanished. RESPONDENT: You create the Actual Freedom Trust, and the process of creating it makes you actually free????? RICHARD: Oh, if only it were that simplistic ... thousands of chartered accountants all over the world would be free! (I did not create ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ ... an accountant did). There is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation ... ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ is simply a statutory legal body that four nominal directors operate under for sensible commercial reasons. RESPONDENT: I am interested in reading what you have to say about this. RICHARD: I appreciate your interest and welcome any further investigation. If someone like myself publicly claims to have discovered the secret to life that will cure humanity of all the suffering that has endured through aeons ... then they automatically invite the closest scrutiny. And rightly so.
RICHARD: In actualism the third alternative always applies. ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’, ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’, ‘Virtue’ and ‘Sin’, ‘Hope’ and ‘Despair’, ‘Gratitude’ and ‘Resentment’, and so on, all disappear in the perfection of purity. RESPONDENT: This is typical Taoism. RICHARD: Are you sure? Shall we take just one pair of opposites as an example? Virtue and Sin? In Taoism, virtue does not disappear along with its cohort, sin ... it transforms into a superior virtue called ‘Te’. Now, ‘Te’ is the power acquired by the Taoist and is known as the efficacy of the Tao in the realm of ‘Being’ (‘Being’ is life on earth as opposed to ‘Non-being’ which is the abode of the ‘Hsien’ ... Sages known as ‘The Immortals’). Indeed, Mr. Lao-Tzu viewed it as being vastly different from ordinary (Confucian) virtue:
The ‘superior virtue’ of Taoism is a latent power that never lays claim to its achievements; it is the ‘mysterious power’ (‘Hsuan Te’) of Tao present in the heart of the sage:
I have no need for any virtue whatsoever ... either the common or garden variety or the superior model. I have written about this previously:
RESPONDENT: Are other aspects of actualism also derived from Ancient Wisdom? RICHARD: You are yet to establish that these aspects of actual freedom are derived from the ‘Ancient Wisdom’.
RICHARD: I am not saying that if you bring ‘peace to yourself’ that ‘peace on earth will follow’ ... like they say. Peace-on-earth is already here; it always has been here and always will be here ... now. It is ‘me’ that stands in the way of this already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent. When ‘I’ self-immolate in ‘my’ totality, then the individual peace-on-earth is evident ... for one person. Then one is living in this actual world ... the value-free world of the senses. RESPONDENT: This sounds very much like basic Tantra teaching. Just replace your term ‘peace-on-earth’ with ‘enlightenment’ or ‘my Buddha nature’. ‘Enlightenment is already here, my Buddha nature is already here; it always has been here and always will be here ... now. It is ‘me’ that stands in the way of this already always enlightenment being apparent, it is ‘me’ that stands in the way of my Buddha nature being apparent’. RICHARD: Agreed ... so far. RESPONDENT: ‘When ‘I’ self-immolate in ‘my’ totality, then the individual enlightenment, the individual Buddha nature is evident ... for one person’. RICHARD: Not so ... when ‘I’ self-immolate in ‘my’ totality – and totality is the operative word – then one is beyond enlightenment and living an actual freedom. To become enlightened – to realise one’s ‘Buddha-nature’ – it is important that only ‘I’ as ego dies ... thus leaving ‘me’ as soul the licence to expand like all get-out in a veritable frenzy of self-glorification. RESPONDENT: ‘Then one is living in this actual world ... the value-free world of the senses’. Is it so? RICHARD: No way ... then one is living in the ‘Greater Reality’ (by whatever name) which is the value-packed world of the psyche ... powered by the affective faculty. I like your approach here!
RICHARD: Being here now is to put your money where your mouth is, as it were. All other actions are methods, devices, techniques ... which are, in effect, delaying tactics. The most sincere form of flattery is not, as is commonly practised, imitating all the other people’s performance of standing back and expressing a feeling. To feel an emotion or be passionate about life is nowhere near the same as actually being here now. In being here now one is completely involved. Being here now is total inclusion. One demonstrates one’s appreciation of life by partaking fully in existence ... by letting this moment live one so that one is doing what is happening. One dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here now as the universe’s experience of itself. When ‘I’ willingly and voluntarily sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological or psychic identity residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what one holds most dear. RESPONDENT: Did you read the ‘Being Here Now’ book by Ram Das? Do you recall the bit where the young Richard Alpert is off to find the truth and comes across a holy man who just is not interested in his stories of the past, in his emotions or imaginings, only in ‘Being Here Now’. Hence the title of the book. Could you explain how ‘your’ ‘Being Here Now’ is different than the ‘Being Here Now’ of Richard Alpert, who, I am assuming, is, in your estimation, one of those gurus who has caused the whole bloody mess this planet is in? RICHARD: First off, I do not point the finger at the Gurus and God-men for creating all the mess but for perpetuating it forever and a day with their specious solution. It is ‘blind nature’ that is the root cause of all the anguish and animosity. Secondly, Mr. Richard Alpert does not claim to be enlightened – or he did not the last time I looked at his work about 12 years ago – but his influence has encouraged many an otherwise intelligent person to trek eagerly off to the Himalayas for that permanent ‘high’. The phrase ‘being here now’ has become rather hackneyed, yet there is no other expression that conveys the immediacy of experiencing what ‘I’ used to call ‘the cutting edge of reality’ back in the days that there was an ‘I’ inhabiting this body ... and therein lies the clue to the difference: reality. Mr. Richard Alpert’s ‘being here now’ lies in a ‘Mystical Reality’ that is ‘spaceless and timeless’. This is where mystics deceive both themselves and their gullible listeners ... this blurring of distinction between the physical and the metaphysical. There is a lack intellectual rigour in all this in that time and space is actual and ‘being here now’ can only be at this place in space and this moment in time. The confusion lies around the nature of time: time is eternal ... eternal as in physically without beginning and without end. Now I know that the word ‘timeless’ can mean eternal, but it is a metaphysical use of the word because it implies time stopping or vanishing. In that context, the mystics use it in conjunction with ‘spaceless’ ... ‘I am Timeless and Spaceless; Unborn and Undying; Birthless and Deathless’ and so on. As this physical body has a limited life-span, they can only be referring to a psychic entity receiving its post-mortem reward of immortality. Thus the reality of their psychic ‘being here now’ is vastly different to the actuality of sensately being here now. There is no ‘spacelessness’ here or ‘timelessness’ now, in actuality. Living here, at this moment in time, there is only this moment that is actual. As it is already always this moment, time has no duration when ‘I’ am not ... and to the unaware it appears to be ‘timeless’. It is not. This moment is hanging in eternal time like this planet is hanging in infinite space. There is no beginning or end to the infinitude of this universe’s space and time, therefore there is no middle, no centre. Thus, here and now is nowhere in particular and one is easily already here as it is always now. With apperceptive awareness – which is this flesh and blood body being conscious sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – there is the direct experience of the immediate being the ultimate and the relative being the absolute. This is what I describe by saying ‘being here now’.
RICHARD: I can freely say that I, as I am today, did nothing to become free of the Human Condition. It was ‘I’ that did all the work ... ‘I’ self-immolated. And I am very pleased that ‘I’ did that. I am not proud because I did nothing to earn commendation ... it was ‘I’ that made this possible. Consequently I find myself here, in the world as-it-is, as this flesh and blood body. A vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able to be here at all is a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity. And what an adventure it was ... and still is. These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite quality of life – who would have it any other way? Thus I find myself to be this infinite and perfect physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. RESPONDENT: Very beautiful. I mean it. I can sense it ... ‘vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity’; ‘Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions’. Yet, again ... this to me is how I understand enlightenment to be. RICHARD: This description (‘a vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity; beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions’) could very well be a description of the Enlightened State Of Being, yes. Religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality in general does not have the corner on descriptive phrases ... what these words describe has no copyright. RESPONDENT: I (unlike you), do not understand enlightenment to be an altered state of consciousness. RICHARD: This is not only my classification ... I am following the generally accepted convention around the world. RESPONDENT: I understand enlightenment to be the state where nothing is in the way of ‘this infinite and perfect physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being’. RICHARD: I would be pleased if you could refer me to your sources – I would be delighted to meet such a person – as I have never read any Enlightened Being describing themselves this way ... they say that it is they who are infinite. RESPONDENT: Richard, are we just having linguistic issues here. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Or are you just wanting so very much to be the only one who has entered the ‘adventure’. RICHARD: As I said (above) I would be delighted to meet another person who experiences this as I do ... it would be such fun comparing notes. RESPONDENT: Or am I still missing something here? RICHARD: Yes ... enlightenment is when ‘I’ as ego dies and ‘me’ as soul transmogrifies into the ‘Eternal Self’ or ‘Original Face’ or ‘Buddha Mind’ ... or some-such identity. This identity (that I am calling ‘me’ as soul for convenience) is the ‘consciousness’ which reincarnates until liberation and then one has freed themselves from the cycle of birth and death and rebirth. It is ‘me’ as soul that makes this world of people, things and events into a grim and glum reality ... and causes one to seek the ultimate state in a metaphysical realm. Whereas, when ‘me’ as soul likewise dies ... the ultimate is here at this place in infinite space, now at this moment in eternal time. It is this physical universe that is infinite and eternal ... not me. I am mortal.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I am at the end of the weekend – a perfect weekend, that was imbued with a sense of sublime ease and happiness. Even harmlessness. There were a couple of matters I’d like to take up sometime – such as your reminder that I never replied to Alan’s question about the meaning I give to ‘actual’. I’m sure there were one or two more things I want to explore deeper. Perhaps I will sometime. When I look at the main theme – my impression that you are verbosing people away from you – I just don’t care any more. No ... ‘any more’ is the wrong word. I don’t care right now. My agenda for talking about this was to chip away at you to see what is underneath the surface. RICHARD: Mostly peoples are rightly suspicious of another’s hidden agenda for there is indeed something ‘underneath the surface’ ... even in those who have purportedly gone deep and have attained to a superior virtue that transcends normal morality. I would guess that what is motivating you to ‘chip away’ is in order to see – and thus expose – this ‘being’ that is underneath the surface in 6.0 billion human beings ... plus the 0.00001 of the population who are ‘Self-Realised’ and have identified as ‘Pure Being’. You will find no ‘being’ here – or ‘Being’ – only a flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. This body called Richard hosts no identity whatsoever ... I use the first person pronoun for convenience. RESPONDENT: I am through chipping, for now. I like what I see, for now. I like your writing. I am not quite sure of some of the things you claim, such as your ego and soul walking out the door, that you are extinct. That’s a bit esoteric for me right now. RICHARD: Yet if one does not explore the esoteric – all the way – one will never be free from the human conditioning that overlays the human condition. Humanity is steeped into millenniums of esoterica ... it is its very foundation. RESPONDENT: Constantly I am filled with the sense that what I am experiencing is enough, so very enough. I don’t need spiritual dimensions to give life meaning. RICHARD: Excellent. I am reminded that you said that you liked Richard’s challenging of the ‘Tried and True’:
May I ask – given that you do not need ‘spiritual dimensions’ to give life meaning – just how iconoclastic can you yourself be? RESPONDENT: I rarely or never feel lonely. I enjoy myself. I enjoy this world. I experience so many people. I don’t have a strong need for people to be a certain way with me. I find, like you, that my senses and my ability to reflect, positions me in a world of actual peace. It wasn’t always like this. I got here by continually examining myself. RICHARD: Seeing that you further commented in a previous post:
I am interested to see if you are ready to proceed even further into your investigation into life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in this world as it is with people as they are ... so that actual peace is apparent for the twenty four hours of the day? RESPONDENT: Unlike you I experience feelings occasionally during each day – today I had a momentary patch of anger directed at my wife, one moment of exasperation with my PC deleting stuff I didn’t want deleted, and one or two of gratefulness and love. I don’t make those things a problem, and I don’t just ‘watch them’, I put myself into them and at that same time (or at least very soon after) in some way I ask myself how these feelings came to take me. The question how am I experiencing this moment of being alive is a powerful one. It works. RICHARD: Okay ... anger and exasperation, for instance, are commonly seen to be ‘bad’ emotions/passions and love and gratitude are seen to be ‘good’ emotions/passions. The path to enlightenment – the ‘Tried and True’ path – is predicated upon sublimating the ‘bad’ emotions/passions and enhancing to ‘good’ emotions/passions. In the magical perfection of the PCE it is experienced that the emotions/passions play no part whatsoever; therefore, the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ initially means ‘What feeling am I experiencing this moment with’? Whatever is blocking the direct experiencing of this moment can thus eliminate itself through exposure to the bright light of the awareness of pure intent – born of the purity of the PCE – which is both relentless and remorseless. Then, by asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ with the emphasis on ‘this moment’, the reward is immediate; it is all about being here now at this moment in time and this place in space ... one starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life. Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space. This attention becomes fascination RESPONDENT: But on the whole, life is just me, here, now, seeing, hearing, smelling (not so much, my nose seems a bit weak!), tasting and touching. And thinking. Except that’s possibly the wrong word because it gives the impression of mental effort. Your ‘reflection’ is a better word, or ‘meditate’ in the western sense of considered contemplation. RICHARD: Yes, considered contemplation combined with fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur. Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. RESPONDENT: In writing this and the other things I wrote this weekend somehow there is no effort involved (perhaps that shows!). My experience is just deep, round, soft, full, still, pleasure of moments of being here, and of understandings building on each other. RICHARD: Good ... yet one has to reach out – extend oneself – like one has never done before. One has to want peace-on-earth as the number one priority in one’s life. One has to desire freedom from the Human Condition to the point of obsession and beyond ... it is that urgent and essential. And one does it for a two-fold purpose: for the good of oneself in particular and for one’s fellow humans in general. RESPONDENT: There’s no problems this weekend, Richard, and no questions or challenges for you, from me. I trust that your weekend was blithesome and harmless. If you happen to be near Sydney sometime, let me know; I’ll buy you a coffee at my local cafe. We’ll sit on the terrace together and talk about actual freedom. With the sun shining in our faces. RICHARD: I have not been to Sydney for years and years and am not likely to as I do not travel these days. I do appreciate your offer, however ... given your previous imagery about sitting at a caff with me! RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to follow up something with you. In the previous series of exchanges between us, I focused on your article about your meeting with a contemporary ‘guru’. I had some issues and I raised them with you. I would like to go now, right back to the beginning. What I would like to know is how much of the article was reporting actual conversation between you and Guru X, and how much was your reflection on that conversation. That distinction is not clear to me. As I read the article it is not clear where actual reality ends and where your reflection begins. As you read the article is it perhaps clear to you what was said and what was thought? One possibility is that all the words in the article were spoken between the two of you. Is that the case? Each and every word? I need to know this so that I can get a handle on the facts. I love facts and in fact you are influencing me greatly to honour the efficacy and joy of living in a factual world. Thankyou for that. RICHARD: The article is expressive prose designed to convey the silliness of the central point essential to the maintenance of the Enlightened State Of Being: ‘He who says he knows does not know’ ... or as I put it: ‘Ignorance is bliss’. As such, it is in no way a verbatim transcript of the spoken conversation – there are some transcripts of taped conversations on my Web Page – and is not intended to be ... what is verbatim is the five article headings. The vast majority of the article is me pontificating about the hidden under-belly of divinity ... the diabolical. It would take far too long for me to go through it sentence by sentence and delineate what was actually spoken and what is lyrical prose. I guess that a general rule of thumb would be that wherever there is a ‘He said’ or a ‘I said’ then that would be actual. I freely acknowledge that my writing is flowery – which is a polite way of saying ‘convoluted and over-ornamental’ as an editor once explained to me – but that is an idiosyncrasy that brings me great delight. I make no apologies for an extravagant exuberance with words ... I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Two) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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.
Disclaimer |
