Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

November 29 2000

RICHARD: I will put it this way: a potential client can only flower to their full potential if a merchant has set-up their stall in the market-place, fully stocked with their product, so as to peddle their wares. A client/ merchant relationship, in other words, has to mutually pre-exist as a potentiality for the colloquialism ‘it takes two to tango’ to swing into gear ... I am not that personality (the merchant) your viewpoint seeks to superimpose over my words and thus attempts to insert into this flesh and blood body. There never has been such a relationship; there is no such relationship now; and there never will be such a relationship. The personality you are wanting friendship from, the personality you want to respect you, the personality you want to be valued by and the personality you want accreditation from has no existence outside of your mind. And it is to no avail whatsoever to come seeking that personality here in Byron Bay, to endeavour to make contact with that entity personally, as there is only a flesh and blood body here being apperceptively aware. There is no person answering to that description at this address. Or to put it another way: all you will get by ringing me is an answering machine playing the same-same message as is displayed for all the world to see on The Actual Freedom Web Site.

RESPONDENT: Great. I will ring your answering machine if and when my friend [name witheld] and I arrive; and ‘we’ can perhaps arrange a lunch or coffee ‘together’. I can imagine that the ‘flesh and blood body’ would enjoy ‘being apperceptively aware’ in the beach hotel restaurant or some such.

RICHARD: Yet I already enjoy my current lifestyle, as it is, totally, completely, utterly. I fully enjoy my own company; I fully enjoy the company of a choice companion; I fully enjoy the company of select associates; I fully enjoy all current associations ... my social calendar is thus fully booked out by simply living. I live a normal lifestyle: this is the lifestyle I have chosen; this is the lifestyle I wish to live; this is the lifestyle I am living. I enjoy normal things: I live in a normal suburban duplex; I eat at normal restaurants; I meet normal people at cafés; I chat about normal things; I have normal pastimes ... to be able to freely live this normal lifestyle in a seaside village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. I never intended – and I do not intend – to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein I cannot live a normal lifestyle. I do indeed value my privacy highly ... which is one of the reasons why I chose the internet to share my discovery of peace-on-earth with my fellow human beings.

You have been persistent in attempting to intrude into this normal living – and thus violate both my lifestyle and that of my companion and associates – so as to make me into some kind of public figure-head replete with publicity photographs and pay-as-you-participate workshops ... even though I have been consistent in providing the following pertinent information, relevant reasons and articulate answers:

• [Richard]: ‘I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door’.

• [Richard]: ‘I will put it this way: a potential client can only flower to their full potential if a merchant has set-up their stall in the market-place, fully stocked with their product, so as to peddle their wares. A client/merchant relationship, in other words, has to mutually pre-exist as a potentiality for the colloquialism ‘it takes two to tango’ to swing into gear ... I am not that personality (the merchant) your viewpoint seeks to superimpose over my words and thus attempts to insert into this flesh and blood body’.

• [Richard]: ‘I am a fellow human being sans identity: the affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated. There is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here as I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. Therefore it is the words that convey ... words are words, whether they be spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen’.

• [Richard]: ‘Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves.

• [Richard]: ‘It is the words that communicate what needs to be said and not me. Nor is the number of words presented ... I initially presented 114,000 words’.

• [Richard]: ‘Now the words exist – as the actual freedom writings – and I am not necessary for the process at all’.

• [Richard]: ‘The words ‘connect up’ with the person reading them with both eyes open ... I am not necessary for the process’.

• [Richard]: ‘It is entirely possible that I will cease writing one day and go and live on a tropical island and watch the fish leap in the lagoon’.

• [Richard]: ‘The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid’.

• [Richard]: ‘The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none’.

• [Richard]: ‘A self-confessed guru-seeker from the other side of the world came to see me, having had some contact with the actual freedom writings, with the view of being able to be finished with gurus forever. Every afternoon for nearly six weeks this person had a private face-to-face interaction – for four to six hours every afternoon for 39 days this person had a one-on-one intimacy – and then this guru-seeker went back to their guru’.

• [Richard]: ‘I have experimented, over the three years or so since I went public with my discovery on the internet, to see whether I am correct or incorrect (and not merely theorising) in saying that it is the words that convey an actual freedom from the human condition, and to thus find out for myself as to whether it is pointless coming to see me in person or not. It is indeed pointless coming to see me in person’.

I have said before that the words and writings promulgated and promoted by The Actual Freedom Trust fully explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in the market place (which means there is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world). I have pointed out that there are no celibacy or obedience requirements or dietary demands or daily regimes of exercise ... nor is one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. I have emphasised that there are no courses to follow or therapies to undergo or workshops to endure or any clique to join ... I have been emphatic that there are no fees to pay. Furthermore, not only are there no prescribed books to study, the latest count shows that more than 3.1 million words are available for free on The Actual Freedom Web Page.

It pleases me immensely that the way to access an actual freedom from the human condition is available for free.

However, one is well-advised to read about the way thoroughly ... thus it is apt to quote some words shared to the world at large, by one of your fellow human beings, on The Actual Freedom Web Page:

• [Peter] ‘About this time I started to come to grips with an undercurrent of feelings that had been welling up in me as I got further along this path to freedom. As I began to increasingly understand the full extent of what Richard had discovered, I had begun quite cunningly to plot my role in the Movement that would sweep the world. Images of money and fame began to subtly occur – and sometimes not so subtly. I would see myself travelling and talking to halls full of people, spreading the message! Yes, it was good old power and authority again – the attraction of the Glamour, Glory and Glitz. No wonder the Enlightened Ones are seduced and then trapped by it! It seemed to me an instinctual grab for power by my psyche, which rightly felt threatened with elimination. I also had to admit to myself that power and authority was a definite attraction in my desire for Enlightenment – a sort of spiritual version of ‘Money for nothing and your chicks for free’. (page 88; ‘Peter’s Journal’ © The Actual Freedom Trust 1998).

Needless to say, as it would appear that you still do not comprehend plainly spoken sensibility and practicability, I will try an entirely different tack ... and then maybe you can work backwards from there, so as assimilate somewhat the reasons given above, into your ‘correct and true’ viewpoint which, although you allow it may not be ‘correct and true’, you are still rigidly holding to be ‘correct and true’ despite all evidence to the contrary.

1. [Respondent]: ‘I find myself at a time in my life when I am much more interested in my own writing than anyone else’s’.

2. [Respondent]: ‘What makes you imagine that I – for example – would have any more interest in hearing the ‘after the event’ reporting of your direct experience than I have in ... eating pizza?’

3. [Respondent]: ‘At the moment it does not interest me to read more’.

4. [Respondent]: ‘I do not have a need to read more’.

5. [Respondent]: ‘I may as well eat pizza and be actually free as read more of your words’.

6. [Respondent]: ‘I may respond at a later time as I am busy and engaged elsewhere right now’.

7. [Respondent]: ‘I will quickly scan your latest contribution’.

8. [Respondent]: ‘I cannot pretend to have read even half of what you write below; but certainly I will’.

9. [Respondent]: ‘Certainly I have the intention of responding point by point to points’.

10. [Respondent]: ‘Certainly I intend to take up the points I dropped’.

11. [Respondent]: ‘I will write more later’.

And when you have finished contemplating your own writing (1-11 above) there is a dictionary definition of an apposite word worthy of musing over:

• Narcissism: [from Latin: Narcissus; from Greek: Narkissos: a youth in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own reflection in water and pined away]: self-love, extreme vanity; (psychological): emotional or erotic gratification gained from contemplation of one’s self or one’s appearance; (noun): narcissist: a person affected or characterized by narcissism; an excessively self-admiring person. (Copyright © 1998 Oxford Dictionary).

All of which could very well bring you to a full appreciation of a particular piece of correspondence you had with me just before your current enterprise began:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am doing fine right now amidst working on my major disability which is DNA based.
• [Richard]: ‘This DNA-based disability – the human condition – is the very stuff for derring-do, eh?
• [Respondent]: ‘Could you explain what you mean when you say ‘this DNA-based disability – the human condition – is the very stuff for derring-do, eh?’ ‘Derring-do’ ... what do you mean? Is it fun?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, it is fun – sincere and thrilling fun but fun nevertheless – to embark on the voyage of a lifetime ... and an exploration into ‘my’ psyche is a journey into the ‘human’ psyche as ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. The phrase ‘derring-do’ means ‘daring to do’ ... anybody still run by the instinctual passions – specifically fear – coincidentally has recourse to the valour to match (where there is no fear there is no courage). It requires great audacity to fly in the face of the ‘Tried and True’ ... after all, could it really be so that 6.0 billion peoples now living (and maybe 4.0 billion having once lived) have all got it wrong?
• [Respondent]: ‘Please forgive me if this is kindergarten stuff and has been covered on the list previously.
• [Richard]: ‘Exploring the psychic world is not ‘kindergarten stuff’ at all and unless one has successfully removed the need for a social identity (a conscience) such a journey is fraught with danger ... one may become enlightened.

Provided you assimilate that exchange into your ‘correct and true’ viewpoint which, although you allow it may not be ‘correct and true’, you are still rigidly holding to be ‘correct and true’ despite all evidence to the contrary ... this following correspondence may become much clearer:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, you claim you were once enlightened.
• [Richard]: ‘Yes.
• [Respondent]: ‘Richard; my hearing is you were in psychosis.
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ is a psychotic state of mind; a dissociated state of consciousness, replete with delusions of grandeur that are tempered only by it being a solipsistic state. A person who believes they are enlightened when they are not do not have this temperance ... hence out-of-control megalomania is both possible and probable.
• [Respondent]: ‘That is ok; many people move in and out of psychosis; but some recognise and acknowledge it.
• [Richard]: ‘If only the ‘Enlightened Beings’ would ‘recognise and acknowledge it’, eh?

In the final analysis I can only suggest ... what another does with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to them. It is they who either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction that they may or may not do. Provided a person complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols they will be left alone to live their life as wisely or as foolishly as they wish.

I cannot save anyone.

November 30 2000

RESPONDENT: In around 48 hours, it is highly likely that a friend and I will begin driving north to Byron Bay and I would like to meet you once again for the enjoyment of each others company; and my friend [name withheld] from Holland, has expressed interest in meeting the Richard I have been corresponding with. Would you like that?

RICHARD: <snipped for space>

RESPONDENT: It looks like [name withheld] and I will indeed be in Byron by the end of the week; and as you state clearly that ‘it is indeed pointless coming to see me in person’ I will take your words at face-value and ring you when we are in town for a nice friendly pointless lunch and chat together. Great.

RICHARD: <snipped for space>

RESPONDENT: Great. I will ring your answering machine if and when my friend [name withheld] and I arrive; and ‘we’ can perhaps arrange a lunch or coffee ‘together’. I can imagine that the ‘flesh and blood body’ would enjoy ‘being apperceptively aware’ in the beach hotel restaurant or some such.

RICHARD: <snipped for space>

RESPONDENT: Richard, thanks for the email but I can’t quite find the bit where you tell whether your answer is yes or no to my invitation that I could call you when I am in Byron and we could go out to lunch or coffee just like we did last time I was in Byron and the time before; and the times before that.

RICHARD: You will find my response further above (in the ‘snipped for space’ section) ... I am having a break from copy-pasting for now.

RESPONDENT: I could call or not call; I am curious; if you answer is NO; what has changed ...

RICHARD: You will find my response further above (in the ‘snipped for space’ section).

RESPONDENT: ... because last time you responded positively to my company. In fact you informed me that No. 12 is almost the only one who comes to visit Richard. except for the circle of initiates.

RICHARD: It is far wiser to stay with factual (printed and published in the public domain) words than conjure up words out of the air when writing to a public mailing list. This way what person ‘A’ alleges person ‘B’ to have said or not said and what person ‘B’ alleges person ‘A’ to have said or not said can be verified from the archives ... otherwise sensible conversation devolves into a ‘tis/‘tisn’t, ‘tis/‘tisn’t, ‘tis/‘tisn’t schoolyard wrangle. For instance: there is no way I would ever say, what you are suggesting I said, to anyone at all at any time at all at any place at all ... I never, ever use the word ‘initiates’, for just one example, let alone ‘circle of initiates’.

I have no interest in ‘tis/‘tisn’t, ‘tis/‘tisn’t, ‘tis/‘tisn’t schoolyard wrangles whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: So; has something changed?

RICHARD: You will find my response further above (in the ‘snipped for space’ section).

RESPONDENT: Could it be for instance that ‘you’ are capable of being pissed off with your friends?

RICHARD: First, in an actual freedom from the human condition it is impossible to not like someone whatever the mischief is they get up to ... an actual intimacy is impossible to switch off. Second, in an actual freedom from the human condition it is impossible to have ‘friends’ as an actual intimacy operates unilaterally in regards every man, woman and child without exception ... no body is special because every body is special. Third, in an actual freedom from the human condition it is impossible to get even mildly peeved ... let alone angry.

Why do you ask? Surely you are already aware of all this ... or is your ‘Actual Truth=Actual Freedom’ a fake? And in this respect I would also draw your attention to your comment the other day, to another correspondent, where you said that ‘Richard gets up my nose right now’ (that ‘Richard’, of course, being the ‘phantom-friend’ in your mind you give so much reality too).

What effect does it have to discover you have had a phantom up your nose all this while?

RESPONDENT: Well; if you are not capable of that; or if you are; makes no difference to me. Why? Because I enjoy ‘your’ ‘company’; that’s ‘why’.

RICHARD: You never, ever enjoy my company – I am not that personality your viewpoint superimposes over or into this flesh and blood body – and whomsoever it is whose company you enjoy is all in your mind. There is a particularly apposite word worthy of consideration in this regard ... you will find it further above (in the ‘snipped for space’ section).

Put simply: you are busily enjoying a fantasy figure’s company.

RESPONDENT: So shall I ring ‘you’ when I arrive in Byron and we could go out to lunch or coffee?

RICHARD: You will find my response further above (in the ‘snipped for space’ section).

December 02 2000

RICHARD: ... this is the lifestyle I am living: I enjoy normal things: I live in a normal suburban duplex; I eat at normal restaurants; I meet normal people at cafés; I chat about normal things; I have normal pastimes ... to be able to freely live this normal lifestyle in a seaside village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. I never intended – and I do not intend – to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein I cannot live a normal lifestyle. I do indeed value my privacy highly ... which is one of the reasons why I chose the internet to share my discovery of peace-on-earth with my fellow human beings. You have been persistent in attempting to intrude into this normal living – and thus violate both my lifestyle and that of my companion and associates – so as to make me into some kind of public figure-head replete with publicity photographs and pay-as-you-participate workshops ... even though I have been consistent in providing pertinent information, relevant reasons and articulate answers. <snip> I have said before that the words and writings promulgated and promoted by The Actual Freedom Trust fully explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in the market place (which means there is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world). I have pointed out that there are no celibacy or obedience requirements or dietary demands or daily regimes of exercise ... nor is one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. I have emphasised that there are no courses to follow or therapies to undergo or workshops to endure or any clique to join ... I have been emphatic that there are no fees to pay. Furthermore, not only are there no prescribed books to study, the latest count shows that more than 3.1 million words are available for free on The Actual Freedom Web Page. It pleases me immensely that the way to access an actual freedom from the human condition is available for free.

RESPONDENT: ... are you aware how much in the above paragraph you draw from the teachings of the spiritual mystic and ratbag OSHO ...

RICHARD: You are joking, I presume? Where did Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain ever demonstrate that an actual freedom from the human condition is to be found in practice in the market place? He consistently lived and thus practicably demonstrated a spiritual freedom – which definitely includes meditating in silence – and proposed ashrams/communes (aka monasteries) all around the globe ... and personally lived shut away from the world in one himself. He certainly came out with some concepts about his brand of the ‘Tried and True’ spiritual freedom being applicable in the ‘market place’ – that I will not deny – but I am somewhat surprised that you chose to believe empty rhetoric, over the evidence of your eyes, for it is obvious that he did not and could not live in the market place.

As for all the courses, therapies, workshops, books to read, tapes to listen to, videos to watch and fees to pay ... the sannyas world is built upon – and financed by – more courses, therapies, workshops, books, tapes, videos and fees to pay than I can even begin to count.

RESPONDENT: ... who was for some time enlightened and then left that behind ...

RICHARD: Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain stuck rigidly to his enlightenment to the very end ... he dictated the words himself to be carved in marble upon his epitaph: ‘never born; never died; only visited this planet’.

RESPONDENT: ... to be a normal human being in company with his friends thus initiating the (mis)-organisation, Friends of OSHO.

RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did not live a normal lifestyle; Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did not enjoy normal things; Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did not live in a normal suburban house; Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did not eat at normal restaurants; Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did not meet normal people at cafés and chat about normal things ... Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain was not able to freely live a normal lifestyle.

He was a prisoner of his own making on this paradise called earth.

RESPONDENT: I am so glad to have had the opportunity to have been a sannyasin of bhagwan who latterly called himself osho; and then announced there is no more ‘sannyas’ in his point of view; there are only ‘Friends of OSHO’.

RICHARD: Hmm ... I do recall him first coming out with this notion around about the time that the US authorities were scanning his credentials vis-à-vis entrance requirements. That is, when he pretended to no longer be a religious leader replete with followers and came out with the farce that he had a lot of ‘friends’ he was living with in the good old US of A ... so as to be able to stay there.

RESPONDENT: And my point of view is that ‘OSHO’ refers to a way of life ...

RICHARD: If you say so ... but I read somewhere it refers to Mr. William James’s notion of ‘oceanic’ as in ‘oneness’ or ‘ocean of oneness’ (the timeless and spaceless and formless realm that all religionists, spiritualists, mystics and metaphysicists hallucinate about). The changeover to this nomenclature was introduced after his last discourse series, answering questions and commenting on Zen sutras, came to an end due to failing health. He explained that ‘oceanic describes the experience, but what about the experiencer? For that we use the word ‘Osho’’. And he describes just what is this ‘oceanic experience’ is. Vis.:

• [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘When you are a god, then all the mysteries disappear, then the whole existence is clearly available to you. All the doors are open, nothing is hidden. The whole splendour of existence is available, but it is available to a consciousness which has come to a peak where there is no subject and no object and nothing relating them, where the three have become one. This oneness is the Buddha hood, is your Buddha nature. Just pure oneness ... the oceanic experience. You have become the whole ocean. You are in your intrinsic reality nothing but a divine force, and the whole existence is a divine dance. (Osho: Rinzai: Master of The Irrational, Chapter 2).

Thus, rather than referring ‘to a way of life’ as your point of view says that it does, it refers to the ‘Tried and True’ inner reality that more than a few people have retreated into (and more than often retreated into on mountain-tops and in monasteries shut away from the world). I see the words <god>, <Buddha hood>, <Buddha nature>, <pure oneness> <divine force> and <divine dance> in that paragraph.

RESPONDENT: ... and secondarily as well; to a remarkable man who lived and died fully human and fully free.

RICHARD: I would agree with your ‘fully human’ summation ... but not your ‘fully free’ conclusion. All the God-men and Gurus across the ages and over all the continents have demonstrably been subject to anger and anguish from time-to-time ... Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain was no exception.

RESPONDENT: It is sad and cute and laughable that there are so many people on the planet still calling themselves sannyasins; or arguing that sannyas is not where it is at; when the man who made it all up – out of the ancient teachings – and energised the whole phenomena in the 1970s and ‘80s on planet earth; stated clearly a few years before his death, that it had been great; it had worked; now it could finish.

RICHARD: And, as this was but another concept (more empty rhetoric) it has never come about ... and never will. The hierarchical power base stemming from Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s surrender, to what he called ‘the unknowable’, so as to be able to live in what he called ‘the unknown’ will make sure of that.

RESPONDENT: Some of the most PERCEPTIVE and FREE humans on the planet were drawn to the event over a few decades and some of us got the point. Some did not.

RICHARD: And what was the point which the ‘some of us got’ exactly? I have asked more than a few of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s sannyasins and ex-sannyasins and no one has been able to explain what the point is (they tend to repeat the phrase ‘keeping Osho’s vision alive’ over and again).

In what way does it operate, or work itself out ... as in how does it function in daily life in the market place?

RESPONDENT: Yes; Richard; meeting with a spiritual Master is as pointless as meeting with you.

RICHARD: Yet the succession of all the differing strands of spirituality and mysticism – lineage – depends absolutely upon ‘transmission outside of the scriptures’. And they all say, more or less, that words cannot convey it (or it is ineffable). This is the direct opposite of what I am on about (in case you had not noticed).

RESPONDENT: My next website MAY be called FriendsofRichard.com. I suggest you grab the domain name before someone else does ...

RICHARD: Why would I? It is impossible for me to have friends ... every body is equally special in an actual intimacy.

RESPONDENT: I do not own it yet; and I will be on vacation in Byron Bay for the next week or so; so it is a perfect opportunity for you to buy the name and make a new site ..

RICHARD: But why? The Actual Freedom Trust already has a domain ... any more would be too many. If you want it then go for it ... this imaginary ‘Richard’ that you keep referring to is your friend when all is said and done.

RESPONDENT: ... that will tell people your ‘original’ idea that has never existed in the whole history of humanity ... ?? ... that ‘the Marketplace’ is where it is at ...

RICHARD: As this is a ‘straw-man’ argument (wherein you invent something I did not say then criticise your own invention as if you are intelligently commenting on what I actually wrote) I will not buy into it at all.

RESPONDENT: ... not the monasteries or the mountain tops. But they are nice also.

RICHARD: How can 6.0 billion people fit on the world’s mountain tops? How can 6.0 billion people live in monasteries shut away from the world?

RESPONDENT: By the way my friend [name withheld], who is also not a sannyasin anymore, has a music thingy in production called ‘In the MarketPlace’ ... perhaps he should check with ‘You’ first whether or not the concept is available in your estimation.

RICHARD: Why? I do not have the corner on the words ‘market place’ any more than Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain has. Just to be sure I typed the phrase ‘market place’ into ‘AltaVista’ ... and it came up with 295,921 pages to visit. And as for the ‘concept’ that the words refer to ... concepts mean nothing to me.

I live the actuality and, as the actual cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, it is freely available.

RESPONDENT: Richard; it is a pity you never made it to Pune; or to the Humaniversity.

RICHARD: I did not have time too ... I was too busy getting free of the human condition instead.

RESPONDENT: You are a natural ...

RICHARD: Au contraire ... what I did was very, very unnatural.

RESPONDENT: ... and you would have enjoyed immensely the show; and the play; and the ideation.

RICHARD: Nope ... sickness dressed up as liberation appeals to me not at all (to experience life as a ‘divine dance’ means that all the suffering goes on).

RESPONDENT: Congratulations on becoming aware that ‘In the MarketPlace’ is where it is at; 20 years or so after the movement began. Success on your ongoing immersion in actuality Richard.

RICHARD: Some one had to do it ... empty rhetoric is such a pale substitute for the actuality.

December 08 2000

RICHARD: With reference to your private communication yesterday (11.59 AM Thursday 7 December 2000) I would suggest that you make use of the forum set-up specifically for such a conversation ... to wit: The Actual Freedom Mailing List. As you also say that a friend of yours from another country is likewise interested in such discussions I would ask that you pass on this suggestion ... anyone and everyone is welcome to discuss any aspect of an actual freedom from the human condition on this freely available venue.

Apart from the reasons I have already provided in previous E-Mails, the final reason for the public discussion being preferable can perhaps be best summed up this way: a private conversation is only between two people – and can vanish into the air – whereas on a public Mailing List anyone else can join in ... and the words continue to exist long after the initial conversation. There are literally millions of words, that have vanished forever, from past private conversations ... therefore this way everyone benefits whether the words be in alignment with the actual, opposed to the actual, or anywhere in between. The reader can then make a fully-informed appraisal of what is on offer ... hence all public discussions are archived for ease of access (rather than endlessly scrolling through the mailing list archives in the public domain) and for leisurely perusal and re-perusal.

I do appreciate your continued interest.

December 17 2000:

RESPONDENT: The problem I have with Richard is that he demands that the people around him adopt his viewpoint and his rather simplistic classification schemes of complex phenomena and systems; or else those people are not part of his Actual Freedom, and he will teach them how to view things correctly and in the way that he sees things, and that will be that; and that will be the connection he has with those people and natural affection can ... be derided. I do not share his viewpoint. I have my own. My viewpoint changes. That is part of being human. I love being human. I love being free.

RICHARD: I am taking this opportunity to jump ahead three E-Mails so as to catch-up to where your mind is at. Also, this classification of yours (‘linearity’) of straightforward cause and effect consequences, is blocking mutual communication and, as you are now pointing out that simplistic classification schemes are the problem you have with Richard, I consider the jump ahead warranted. You will see that simply living, when described to university graduates (for example), can sometimes all-too-easily be classified as ‘reductionist’ or ‘simplistic classifications’.

RESPONDENT: Firstly – thankyou for the acknowledgment that my mind is ahead of yours. I am glad you have come to see that.

RICHARD: Are you really thanking me for acknowledging that where your mind is at is being engaged in creating ‘complex phenomena and systems’ out of simplicity and then classifying my descriptions of simply living as ‘simplistic classification schemes’?

If so, I appreciate your candour.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by the term ‘mutual communication’ Richard?

RICHARD: In this context I mean a discussion wherein the other does not create artificial problems such as having a viewpoint – which they hold to be correct and true – that persuades them to see that Richard similarly has a viewpoint and which also induces them to see that he is demanding that the other adopts the viewpoint that their viewpoint causes them to see as ‘simplistic classification schemes’ instead of a description of simply living.

RESPONDENT: It sounds to me from my reading of your words above – which of course I take at face-value – that it is something you would like to happen ...

RICHARD: As I have already explained to you before, I only ever write in order to communicate ... I do not talk because ‘I like the sound of my own voice’, as the saying goes. Which is why I appreciate the internet as a private conversation is only between two people – and can vanish into the air – whereas on a public Mailing List anyone else can join in. Plus the words continue to exist long after the initial conversation ... there are literally millions of words, that have vanished forever, from past private conversations.

Therefore, this way everyone benefits.

RESPONDENT: ... yet; on the topic of intimacy you have always argued that intimacy is actual – it is present in oneself or not at all; it is not dependant on the other initiating or returning the intimacy, in other words it cannot be blocked by the other.

RICHARD: You must be referring to the very first E-Mail exchange you and I had nearly two years ago:

• [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, the tide of human suffering rolls on unto the next century’.
• [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’.

Reading through that I am reminded of another expression: ‘the more things change the more things stay the same’.

RESPONDENT: Yet now you seem to imply that I have managed to block communication ... how can that be?

RICHARD: In this context by continuing to create artificial problems such as having a viewpoint – which you hold to be correct and true – that persuades you to see that Richard similarly has a viewpoint and which also induces you to see that he is demanding that you adopt the viewpoint that your viewpoint causes you to see as ‘simplistic classification schemes’ instead of a description of simply living.

RESPONDENT: How do I have the power to block ‘mutual communication’, when I do not have the power to block intimacy?

RICHARD: You have the power to block ‘mutual communication’ in precisely the same way you have the power to block mutual intimacy: cognitive dissonance. You do not have the power to block me communicating my description any more than you do not have the power to block the intimacy I experience. In other words, it is you who misses out ... not me.

RESPONDENT: Could you please explain what you actually mean by ‘mutual communication’?

RICHARD: Sure. A ‘mutual communication’ is where one person says ‘ABC ...’ and the other person reads ‘ABC ...’ (rather than ‘XYZ’) and is thus able to respond with ‘... DEF’ (rather than ‘ZYX’).

RESPONDENT: Thankyou, and kind regards – with natural affection ...

RICHARD: As I am devoid of either latent or active enmity, I require no antidotal ‘natural affection’ whatsoever to create the illusion of intimacy in my human interactions.

RESPONDENT: ... and a sense of enjoyment of playing with a bird who thinks ‘he’ is actually free.

RICHARD: Aye ... it certainly does look as if you might have typed this single-handed.

December 17 2000

RICHARD: With reference to your private communication yesterday (11.59 AM Thursday 7 December 2000) I would suggest that ...

RESPONDENT: ‘[I am not willing to meet you]’. There is only one position to take in order to bring an end to suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance. When you meet another person enjoy their company. When another person offers you their company freely, enjoy the opportunity. Richard missed an opportunity. ‘I enjoy your company; you enjoy mine’. Simple. The position of Richard, and of the ‘Actual Freedom Trust’ – however – is not to actually meet people but rather, to tell people who offer their company to first get an understanding. First (or instead) ‘discuss any aspect of an actual freedom from the human condition on this freely available venue’. The practice of Richard and of the ‘Actual Freedom Trust’ is to deny the Actual Human Freedom of all other people, and to tell all other people that they should first read the website of the ‘actual’ ‘freedom’ ‘trust’ and from there discussion is possible. First listen to us because we know and you don’t ... (we have Richard, and you don’t). This has been the position of people down thru the ages. It is the old ancient wisdom – and it is a position that does not work. Old ancient wisdom is – first listen to me because I know and you don’t; and from there we can move into an understanding and thus form into a grouping of people who know, and we will be better – more Actual, in the current lingo – than those who do not know. And then we will tell those other people that we know and they don’t so they had better listen to us. Trouble is those other groups also want to tell that they are right and you are wrong ... hence conflict, war, rape , sorrow and malice. The ‘Actual Freedom Trust’ should in fact be investigated by consumer affairs – Fair Trading NSW – to answer for the claim they make. Actual Freedom? Actual Foolishness! The rearrangement of old ancient wisdom that the ‘Actual Freedom’ trust is propagating is that some of the trust have made it as far as ‘virtual freedom’ and that one – and only one – can take on the role of being the only actually free one – and that in fact, someone HAS already taken that role (and has convinced some fools to believe him). That way there is a hierarchy and an authority and ... that way leads to conflict, dissension, rape, war and apocalypse. And shoddy logic on mailing lists. The way of natural affection, and of enjoying each others company, and of acknowledging one’s self (in other words one’s point of view) is the ACTUAL way that Actual Freedom can be recognised and acknowledged. The way of denial of human emotions and denial of the ‘self’, as proposed by the ‘Actual Freedom Trust’ is the way to a concept known as ‘Actual Freedom’ as distinct from Actual Freedom. The way to Actual Freedom is simple. Step one, is to welcome people as they are and enjoy their company. The other step one, is to welcome yourself as you are and enjoy your own company ... all the time welcoming experiencing the Actual World in this very moment, as it is (if you need to ask yourself questions to facilitate entering into actuality, then do that). Actual freedom. Simplicity. Acceptance. Natural ease-of-process of being human (with ‘self’). Obviously Richard does not want to enjoy my company; he refused my invitation to meet ACTUALLY in Byron Bay, preferring a Virtual Interaction. He wants to communicate wisdom and he wants to construct and defend his intellectual positions and rearrangings over the internet – and I enjoy that process also, that is why I am here; and that is why I established xxx.com and xxx-xxx.com, amongst other ‘Viewpoint of Respondent’ websites. I enjoy this process and like Richard I am thrilled (a good Richard word, ‘thrilled’, I think) at the possibilities of the internet; but clearly Richard does not enjoy my company in the Actual world and is more interested in convincing me that he is right and I am wrong. Again; that way is Ancient wisdom: ‘We are right; listen to us. You are wrong; by listening further you can be right just like us; and then we can be right all together and the others can be wrong, and that way the world will be better – our way – and those who disagree can find another planet to live on ...’. My point of view is my own and I enjoy meeting people who also have a point of view – such as Richard – and I think it is sad that people like Richard – who has the capability if not the intent, of entering into actual freedom – remain dogmatic – ‘I am right and you are wrong; listen to me; read my wisdom and then you can also be right like me’. (And Richard; I am well aware it is not a case of being right or wrong; it is a case of what are the facts; the fact is you are a writer; so when you construct your intellectual rebuttal of my point of view; you need not concern yourself with that one). Now; I wonder if next time I am in Byron Bay, Richard would like to have coffee with an Actual Human Being or he will be too busy Teaching the Masses and the Fools how to be (step one) Virtually Free (step two) A Director of the ‘Actual Freedom Trust’. It would seem that the guru of ‘Actual Freedom’ reserves the Actuality of ‘Freedom’ for ‘him’ ‘self’ ... and if it were not for the fact that he has found some fools who buy all this and have become ‘Virtually Free’ I would not be concerned about The Intellectual Art of Richard at all. I have always stated that Richard is a great writer. One of the best. In fact he has told me he was previously an artist and he was in charge of some sort of art studio; and obviously nothing has changed. Richard’s art is great. He has taken a million or so words (borrowing many of them from his correspondents without seeking permission; even cross-posting my words to other lists without the simple courtesy of asking me first) ... he has taken all those words and created something at least as valuable and interesting as any other literature; and not only that he has signed up two or three or maybe 5 Virtual Fools to naively accompany the virtual King With No Clothes, on his virtual parade thru the virtual streets of ‘his’ virtual empire. And all the time Richard keeps saying he does not suffer fools gladly. And the fools keep on believing that Richard has no ‘self’. One day the fools will wake up and see that they have been fooled; and they will be embarrassed that many have seen their foolishness all the time; and they will regret that all this time they could have been enjoying the company of other Actual Human Free Beings instead of making fools of themselves; and Richard will move on to set up another studio. Richard is an artist, and the material he works with is fools.

RICHARD: I am more or less cognisant, by now, of the content of what you tell me is your viewpoint ... yet in stark contrast to what your viewpoint persuades you to see, I live what I say. My words are a description of what is actually happening inasmuch as 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 what I write is an account, a report, a narrative, written as a direct experience as it is happening. In other words, it is located in or based upon or drawn from actuality – factual experience – as peace-on-earth is eternally here, as it already has been, and always will be. No one needs to invent it: it is all a matter of entering into its magic; enabling its pristine purity to become apparent; allowing its consummate perfection to emerge; watching its wondrous virtuosity unfold, or permitting its marvellous benediction to happen.

Everyone is either endeavouring to make an imitation peace via the affections or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive peace-on-earth – it is eternally here as it already 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.

December 18 2000

RESPONDENT: Long replies Richard. I will read them later and reply again. For now ... are you happy to continue this exploration? You have clearly stated that you are the only human to become actually free and I would like to explore a bit deeper into your claim. To do that I will need to ask some more probing questions than I have until now. Are you willing to be examined in that way? I would not even have transcended your limits and boundaries as much as I did by requesting your surname and photo if you were not subjecting the whole human race including me and others who I love or have natural human affection for or who I respect and value in my life; such as OSHO, and such as various other teachers and gurus and writers who have at times almost seemed to me to be my master or my guru or to have something that I do not. As I write to you I no longer see anyone like that and you do not seem capable of understanding that. I told you I am not a sannyasin; I am one of the ones who heard osho say clearly that it is not needed; so I moved on and I respect deeply the work he did for and on this planet. I respect also your work Richard. The reason I dig deeply into you; and the reason I now intend to dig a level deeper is that you insist on deriding the life and work of people – including myself – who have benefited me on my way into immersion and understanding of what Actual Freedom is. You have clearly stated in a previous email that you consider me not actually free. You are free and I am not? I do not accept such rude arrogant manipulative slimy dumb and wicked and stupid and illegal slander and gossip and shit from you Mr. Richard; I just do not accept it. I do not accept it from you and I do not accept it from the ‘Actual Freedom Trust’ that was set up to support your point of view; and to accept donations. Have donations been made by the way?

RICHARD: The Actual Freedom Trust was not set-up ‘to accept donations’ at all. I have said before that The Actual Freedom Trust is simply a statutory legal body set-up to promulgate and promote the actualism words and writings by fully explicating the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice. It has no need of ‘donations’ whatsoever ... it only costs a few hundred dollars per annum to keep the millions of words available for any one at all to access totally free of charge.

I mean it when I say that there is no hidden agenda.

RESPONDENT: I now want to state clearly that the Way to Actual Freedom is not via denial or dispensing of the self. The way to actual freedom is via full acceptance of the self. In other words the way to actual freedom is by living one’s point of view. Points of view change. Now; is it clear we have a dissenting voice on your cosy little community Richard? Up till now there have been 3 choices: 1. the normal fucked-up way; 2. the spiritual fucked-up way; 3. the selfless actual freedom fucked-up way as promoted by Mr. Richard; 4. the self-full actual freedom fucked-up way as promoted by Respondent. More ways are also welcome by (4.) but not by (3.). Richard, once again, you insist on calling OSHO Mr ‘Rajneesh’ Jain. He wanted to be called osho. I would like him to be called osho because that is what he wanted. I respect that. You do not. So I began to wonder whether I want to continue respecting your clear statements that you like your privacy. I wonder if you do not respect what others want do you expect that others respect your clear wishes? Now; you insist on referring to all manner of people by their title and surname. I would like to address you as in that way; so could you please provide your surname please. What is good for the goose is good for the gander Mr. Richard Gander of Byron Bay. Please provide your surname so you can be treated in the way you treat others. Walk your talk Richard. Once again I ask you for a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ... shall we go deeper into an examination of Richard; his claims; his state of mind; the existence or otherwise of his ‘self’; and the role of the Actual Freedom Trust in NSW Australia, 2000? Once before I asked for a clear yes or no. I wanted to know whether to invite you to our normal coffee meeting in a normal cafe in the normal town of Byron Bay on one of my normal visits to the town – as normal. You replied neither yes nor no; but rather that a meeting with you would be pointless.

RICHARD: I have also given you other reasons ... one of which was, as my social calendar is already fully booked, I have no room for more socialising. I did not come onto the internet to make social contacts ... I came onto the internet to provide the third alternative, to being either a materialist or a spiritualist, in printed form so that the words no longer disappeared into the air, as they do in face-to-face discussions, when the other does not listen with both ears.

I wanted the words to indelibly exist in the world ... and now they do.

RESPONDENT: I took that at face value and called you.

RICHARD: What you did is make a big thing out of this ‘taking words at face value’ theme you are running instead of comprehending that it means not imputing anything into another’s words – as in reading between the lines – or intuiting something that simply does not exist in actuality.

RESPONDENT: The meeting would be pointless.

RICHARD: What I said was that, as it is the words that convey an actual freedom from the human condition and not me, it is pointless coming to see me in person. It was you who changed that into ‘the meeting would be pointless’ (in complete disregard for taking words at face value) in that a ‘pointless lunch and chat’ would be ‘great’. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘In around 48 hours it is highly likely that a friend and I will begin driving north to Byron Bay and I would like to meet you once again for the enjoyment of each others company; and my friend, [name withheld], from Holland, has expressed interest in meeting the Richard I have been corresponding with. Would you like that?’
• [Richard]: ‘I have experimented, over the three years or so since I went public with my discovery on the internet, to see whether I am correct or incorrect (and not merely theorising) in saying that it is the words that convey an actual freedom from the human condition, and to thus find out for myself as to whether it is pointless coming to see me in person or not. It is indeed pointless coming to see me in person’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... as you state clearly that ‘it is indeed pointless coming to see me in person’ I will take your words at face-value and ring you when we are in town for a nice friendly pointless lunch and chat together. Great’.

I had previously explained at length how I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples who cannot think for themselves trooping daily through my front door. I had also previously explained that it is the words that convey an actual freedom from the human condition in that there is no ‘energy-field’ here ... I have no power or ‘powers’ at all. In addition to that I had previously explained many other aspects of why it serves no purpose to come and see me in person as well ... yet despite all that I had to say you saw fit to contrive a phantasm of your own making and have tilted against it ever since.

Maybe you comprehend now what taking words at their face value means?

RESPONDENT: Great. At last Richard seems to be getting what actual freedom actually is. The freedom to be alive and human and pointless (or point-full) and to be alone with all that or to hang out in the normal cafe with other normal people drinking a normal short black and discussing normal things that come to our normal minds normally.

RICHARD: Only in your dreams and schemes. I did notice in your most recent E-Mail that you described when, where, how and why you go about having a ‘pointless (or point-full)’ hanging out in cafes in reality. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... recently in a cafe in Byron Bay when Vineeto came to me and I invited her to sit down and I was half way thru a sentence when she interrupted I immediately spontaneously told her to fuck-Off. And she did. She activated her Free Actuality and fucked off to the next table. I told her to fuck off because I am a human being with self with a history with value ...’.

This reality is in marked contrast to your recently stated idealism. Vis:

• [Respondent]: ‘There is only one position to take in order to bring an end to suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance. When you meet another person enjoy their company. When another person offers you their company freely, enjoy the opportunity. Richard missed an opportunity. ‘I enjoy your company; you enjoy mine’. Simple’.

Is it not obvious that sitting in a caff nursing malice and sorrow and the antidotal pacifiers of love and compassion to one’s bosom will never, ever enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent?

RESPONDENT: Normally I would not persist in persisting Mr. Richard. but you have claimed you are free and I am not. In fact; I am beginning to suspect it is the other way around ... but at least I accord you the right to claim freedom for yourself Mr Richard.

RICHARD: There is more to an actual freedom from the human condition than having ‘the right to claim freedom for yourself’ ... it means getting off one’s backside and actually doing something about one’s malice and sorrow and the antidotal pacifiers of love and compassion.

It means enabling peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.