|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 16
RESPONDENT: I’m new to Actual Freedom, having only discovered your web page today. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... I am always pleased when someone comes across The Actual Freedom Web Site. Unfasten any psittacisms, activate some felicity and adjust your thinking gear to its highest notch ... you could be in for the ride of a lifetime. RESPONDENT: I’m currently reading through the various pages but have a few questions I hope Richard might be able to answer. I’m still learning the terms you use so I apologise if I get some mixed up. RICHARD: No problems ... Peter compiled a glossary RESPONDENT: Do you believe in the existence of planes other than the physical – I’m referring to the Astral plane etc, and the possibility of travel to it. While I have never succeeded in astral projection (never tried very hard) I do believe there wouldn’t be as large a body of literature, instructions and accounts of astral travel if it weren’t possible. RICHARD: The entire psychic world is real – at times very real – but none of it is actual. RESPONDENT: What do you think of the yogic paths? I know there’s a ton of different forms of yoga, but reading through what you describe as the end result of Actual Freedom didn’t strike me as entirely incompatible with the yogic systems of thought. RICHARD: Indeed it is not ... in fact it is best described as being entirely incompatible. RESPONDENT: Also the practice of experiencing every moment fully reminds me of some Buddhist teachings I read. RICHARD: Yet you will find that actualism is all about being fully here right now ... which is 180 degrees opposite to the mindfulness teachings. RESPONDENT: My apologies if these questions have been answered elsewhere – I feel like I’ve dived into the deep end of the wave pool at Wet’n’Wild. RICHARD: Good ... I thoroughly recommend the ‘boots and all’ approach.
RESPONDENT No. 45 (List B): By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation
as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship
and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). RESPONDENT: Richard, I’ve been following this discussion with interest and have a couple of questions for you: Which of the 3 ways did you use to achieve spiritual enlightenment in 1981? RICHARD: Well, none of those 3 ways, actually ... I inadvertently ‘discovered’ another way: ignorance. I was aiming for the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and landed short of my goal ... and it took another 11 years to get here. To explain: I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning. I had never heard the words ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Nirvana’ and so on until 1982 when talking to a man about my breakthrough, into what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ via the death of ‘myself’, in September 1981. He listened – he questioned me rigorously until well after midnight – and then declared me to be ‘Enlightened’. I had to ask him what that was, such was my ignorance of all things spiritual. He – being a nine-year spiritual seeker fresh from his latest trip to India – gave me a book to read by someone called Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. That was to be the beginning of what was to become a long learning curve of all things religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical for me. I studied all this because I sought to understand what other peoples had made of such spontaneous experiences and to find out where human endeavour had been going wrong. I found out where I had been going wrong for eleven years ... self-aggrandisement is so seductive. RESPONDENT: If people can use any of these three techniques, and I’m thinking in particular of the 3rd via raising of the kundalini, doesn’t this verify part of the spiritual theory? RICHARD: The ‘spiritual theory’ needs no further verification than that it is indeed possible to become illuminated or enlightened. Similarly, it is also possible to become angry or sad or loving or compassionate ... and so on. It is also possible to be intuitive, to be telepathic, to be clairvoyant (not accurately though). As well as that it is possible to see fairies or sprites or goblins ... the whole range of psychic phenomena. RESPONDENT: If one can practice to send the kundalini up the sushumna opening chakras along the way – for this to work mustn’t there be a kundalini? RICHARD: Not only the ‘kundalini’ ... there must also be ‘the sushumna’ , the ‘chakras’
and ‘prana’ (one cannot practice ‘pranayama’ if there be no ‘prana’). The word ‘prana’ For many early peoples (called ‘primitive people’) what animated the body was breath (air, vital
air, vital force, life force, life principle and so on), because when a person stopped breathing they were dead ... their soul had left their body
as their last breath. In the animistic religions (called ‘pagan’) of the Bronze Age and earlier, spirit was everywhere, especially in the air
(in the ‘ether’) Facts, of course, are irrelevant to spiritualists ... even though, these days we know that the ‘vital force’ in the air we breath is oxygen and that what we breath out is carbon dioxide (amongst other elements) which is the ‘vital force’ that plants imbibe ... and plants exude the very oxygen we breath in. And, unless science can be proved incorrect about the physical element called oxygen, and the wisdom of the ancients proved right about the non-physical etheric force, called prana or chi and so on, the following has no relationship whatsoever to physical actuality. Viz.:
The sublimated carnal passions (the ecstatically blissful sexual energies in the pleasure centre of the amygdala), coupled with a fertilised imagination, do have amazingly energetic manifestations. RESPONDENT: Obviously I’m having a little trouble leaving behind some of my spiritual baggage. I wonder if perhaps I have misinterpreted what you said to me in an earlier email: [Richard]: ‘The entire psychic world is real – at times very real – but none of it is actual’. Initially I interpreted this as ‘real’ meaning something akin to the spiritual concept of maya – seemingly real but ultimately not so. Now I am re-reading the definition you give of ‘actual’ and it occurs to me that perhaps you mean only the actual world is important – I’m guessing that’s something made clear during PCE’s and in Actual Freedom itself? – and that the world of the ‘real’ is more unimportant than illusory. Would this be an accurate summary? RICHARD: The ‘world of the real’ is the ‘inner world’, born of the affective faculty, and superimposed as a veneer over this actual world ... creating what is known as the ‘real-world’ (the ‘outer world’). There is no ‘inner world’ or ‘outer world’ in actuality: there is only the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. And, yes, this actual world is stunningly obvious in a pure consciousness experience (PCE).
RESPONDENT: Richard, while reading www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-benevolence.htm I was bemused by your use of the term ‘semi autobiographical novel’ to describe your journal ... I was under the impression that it (being a journal) was a factual account. RICHARD: It is indeed a factual account ... although Articles 1 to 8, being pieced together from recollection and undated jotted notes and scraps of writings from over the years so as to add some measure of sequence to the story, would not be a strictly accurate rendition. The remainder was written as it happened though ... hence the word ‘journal’. Nor is it always depicting other persons faithfully – for reasons of anonymity – as not only are a lot of my face-to-face conversations held in confidence but the coastal village where I reside is small enough for a literal depiction to be recognisable (for example an older woman may very well be described as an older man, a young woman, a young man, or even an older woman, and vice versa, and an older man may very well be described as being an older woman, a young man, a young woman or even an older man ... and in some cases may even be a composite). RESPONDENT: Could you explain which portions of Richard’s Journal are fictional? RICHARD: None of it is fictional ... I used word ‘semi’ because the journal is only partly autobiographical as the earlier articles were co-written, and not just edited, by my previous companion and, although I revised them when she moved out, they still contain – and reflect – what she had to say about human conditioning rather than the human condition itself (which is more my topic). The later articles however, apart from the italicised sections, are both my writing and my editing and nobody else’s. RESPONDENT: The American Heritage dictionary defines autobiographical as: ‘adjective: of, relating to, or being a work that falls between fiction and autobiography’ [endquote] and fiction, ironically (in this context) as; ‘an imaginative creation or a pretence that does not represent actuality but has been invented’. [endquote]. RICHARD: I presume you meant to write that The American Heritage Dictionary defines ‘semiautobiographical’ as being that because it describes ‘autobiographical’ as [quote] ‘the biography of a person written by that person’ [endquote] ... and, apart from the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary which defines ‘semiautobiographical’ as [quote] ‘partly autobiographical’ [endquote], I have been unable to find that word (coined in 1939) in any other dictionary. If nothing else I have learned a new word today and, in view of that definition, I see that I could have phrased it better to convey that I meant the journal was not to be taken as a typical autobiography with names and dates and places complete with anecdotes about childhood, schooling, career, marriage, parentage, and so on ... nor is it meant to be a scholarly dissertation or a treatise either but rather a medium to convey what happened over a selected period of specific interest and how and why. The whole life-story/plenary disquisition complete with where and when and who are incidental to such a depiction and neither add to nor detract from the import of what is being presented. An unabridged and chronologically accurate account could only be of peripheral interest.
RESPONDENT No. 90: [Richard]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...’. [endquote]. It is your ‘thus’ which I do not grasp. RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to
the following: [Richard to No. 90]: ‘Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago,
if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment (*previously
considered to be only possible after physical death*). [emphasis added]. For example: [quote] ‘There are two kinds of nirvana. One is
achieved by the Buddha while still alive, but he remains alive only until the last and most tenuous remains of karma have been expended. When these
disappear, the Buddha dies and then enters the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’. (©1994-2002
Encyclopaedia Britannica). For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master): [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of
their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha].
[endquote]. Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even: [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that sphere where there is neither earth, nor
water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going,
nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’.
[endquote]. Do you see ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial note RESPONDENT No. 90: How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before? RICHARD: Because physical death is the end, finish ... kaput (there is no after-life in actuality). Viz.: [Richard]: ‘Then the condition I went on to experience had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) and so on. It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I were to gather up my meagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, never to be seen again. As no one on the mainland knew where I was, no one would know where I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remains. *The autological self by whatever name would cease to ‘be’, there would be no ‘spirit’, no ‘presence’, no ‘being’ at all*. This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul – no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT No. 90: This doesn’t answer my question I don’t think. How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before? RICHARD: Because there is no after-life (physical death is the end, finish ... kaput). RESPONDENT No. 90: What you say above is that ‘death is the end’ ... RICHARD: What I say above is that *physical* death is the end. RESPONDENT No. 90: ... and that your condition was that. RICHARD: No, I did not say that (this flesh and blood body is quite obviously still alive). RESPONDENT No. 90: As you haven’t died yet I can’t see how you can be sure that this was so ... RICHARD: That which was previously considered to survive physical death has no existence in actuality. RESPONDENT No. 90: ...but that aside, you don’t explain how this condition revealed the fact that nobody had ever been there before. RICHARD: If identity in toto does not become extinct before physical death it will at physical death. RESPONDENT No. 90: Hm. Still doesn’t answer my question, at least to my (quite possibly imperfect and misguided) satisfaction. Far too cryptic. RICHARD: If you cannot comprehend my response to your very first question – a response which is pivotal to the entire issue – there is no point in proceeding further. RESPONDENT No. 90: Indeed. A shame though. RICHARD: You give up far too easily ... why not have another go at comprehending my response to your very first question instead? RESPONDENT No. 90: In fact I do comprehend the answer to my question. There is no afterlife. It all ends with the body. RICHARD: Good ... now, with that bit of comprehension held firmly in mind, try re-reading the sequence further above until you come to the question mark I placed at the end of my sentence starting with ‘Do you see ...’. If your answer is in the affirmative then there is every possibility it will all fall into place. RESPONDENT No. 90: What I don’t comprehend is how entering the great beyond informs you of whether anyone, alive or dead, having left a record or not, has ever been actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: Because no-one has been able to enter into the ‘Great Beyond’ before – into ‘That’ which was
previously considered to be only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ (which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’
in Hinduism or ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism and so on) – as physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. Which is why I said it is my [quote]
‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key to grasping my ‘thus’ in the quote you provided as being an answer in particular
which you would have me clarify. RESPONDENT No. 90: This seems to me to be this; Me: How does entering the great beyond equal knowing that nobody had been there before. Richard; Entering into the great beyond equals knowing that nobody had been there before because nobody had been there before. RESPONDENT: I am interested in the answer to the gist of what I think No. 90 is asking. RICHARD: Sure ... here is the answer to the gist – ‘the substance, essence, or main part of a matter’ (Oxford Dictionary) – of what my co-respondent is asking when put sequentially:
RESPONDENT: If you are willing, I would like (with your help) to try to fill in the gap between what I think No. 90 is asking and the answer(s) you are providing. If you were able to enter the ‘Great Beyond’ without dying, then it is clearly within the realm of human experience to enter the ‘Great Beyond’ while still alive. Is the gist of your previous answer(s) to categorically state that no one has ever entered the ‘Great Beyond’ without dying previous to 1992? RICHARD: The substance, the essence, or the main part, of my previous answers (now re-inserted above) is that physical death is the end, finish, kaput – there is no after-life in actuality – and, as the terms ‘Mahasamadhi’ and ‘Parinirvana’ and so on explicitly refer to a bodiless state of being in a timeless and spaceless and formless dimension only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened Being/Awakened One ‘quits the body’, it is patently obvious they have never attained to that dimension ... indeed all what has ever happened is that they were interred/were cremated just like anybody else. RESPONDENT: Although you did not state such specifically, it seems to me that it is the gist of what you have been stating, and it also seems to fit with the issue others on the mailing list are having with your reply. I will continue to assume for now that it is the gist of what you are stating. The problem I have with such a categorical (in the sense of ‘being without exception or qualification; absolute’) statement is that you do not have factual knowledge of all people prior to 1992. RICHARD: I do not have to have factual knowledge of all people prior to 1992 to know that the (estimated) 0.00001 of them who become spiritually enlightened/mystically awakened have never attained to a bodiless state of being in a timeless and spaceless and formless dimension after they physically died ... because physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. RESPONDENT: Also, recorded human history tends to be a subjective record rather than a factual one, and it is by no means a complete record at that. RICHARD: I do not have to have recourse to recorded human history to know that no Enlightened Being/ Awakened One has ever ‘quit the body’ at physical death. RESPONDENT: Based on the incomplete set of facts available, it remains entirely possible that before 1992 people entered the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death by employing the same or a similar method to your own previous identity’s. RICHARD: What you are doing is shifting away from the above discussion and introducing a variation on what is known as an agnostic argument (that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty) such as what Mr. Karl Popper made popular and stems, as I understand it, from the occasion wherein, prior to the exploration of Australia’s west coast, all (European) swans were white ... meaning that, somewhere, somewhen, in an infinite and eternal universe a purple swan may very well exist. Or not, of course, which is why, by and large, Mr. Karl Popper’s logic has been discarded as merely abstract and/or irrelevant and/or useless by many thoughtful human beings. RESPONDENT: To my knowledge, it is impossible to prove, and therefore an opinion (not fact) to state categorically whether or not this is the case. I agree, it is a reasonable opinion to hold ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on to throw in a red-herring)? For something like twenty five years, back when I was a normal person, I would say that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in – maybe it makes one feel intellectually comfortable – until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your opinion/ belief/ truth/ idea/ philosophy/ whatever’). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than a ‘it is impossible to prove’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. I now know. RESPONDENT: ... with the possible exception of the case of Bernadette Roberts, although that’s another topic entirely. But getting back to the topic at hand, would you agree that it is not a statement of fact for anyone to state categorically that no people prior to 1992 entered the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death by employing the same or a similar method to your own previous identity’s? RICHARD: Not for [quote] ‘anyone’ [endquote] to state categorically ... no. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Do you agree that it is possible (while remaining purely theoretical on the basis that it’s impossible to verify) that people prior to 1992 had entered the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death by employing the same or a similar method to your own previous identity’s? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: if you wish to have a purely theoretical discussion why not address your abstract question (and your reasoning immediately below) to a theorist? RESPONDENT: My reasoning is given that (1) your previous identity was able to come up with the
method simply by devising it (2) the set of recorded human history, while large, is partly subjective, partly erroneous (due to translation) and
definitely incomplete (3) the set of all human history not recorded factually is likely to be far more vast in depth if not breadth than the set of
human history recorded factually (4) the number of practitioners of actualism is still quite small despite global communications, it is not
inconceivable to me that someone, somewhere RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that where you say that it is [quote] ‘impossible to verify’ [endquote] you are making a categorical (in the sense of ‘being without exception or qualification; absolute’) statement? Do you also realise that the problem with [quote] ‘remaining purely theoretical’ [endquote] is that, other than usually
getting hoist by one’s own petard Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Richard, thank you for your response. After reading No. 53’s commentary and starting to pay attention to your exchanges with No. 90, I had grown concerned that might be making a categorical statement ... RICHARD: There is no [quote] ‘might’ [endquote] about it ... I am indeed making a categorical statement. Viz.:
And:
As they are in the second and third e-mails of the exchanges you are starting to pay attention to you probably missed them ... as for also growing concerned after reading another’s commentary you probably missed my response to them too:
RESPONDENT: ... [might be making a categorical statement] on a topic which, as far as I understand, can only be theoretical. RICHARD: As the topic (knowing that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience) is
not a topic which can only be theoretical I would suggest obtaining your information from a reputable source (www.actualfreedom.com.au)
The fact that they say it [quote] ‘can’t be done’ [endquote] does not stop them from also saying there is no way for me
to know it has not been done before, of course, in their on-going (950+ e-mails in 22 months) anti-peace crusade to have people stay the way they
are
RESPONDENT: My concern is not so great having read your response to my previous email, eg from your unwillingness to be drawn into a theoretical discussion ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not have an unwillingness in regards to a theoretical discussion. Here is the most recent instance (only eleven days ago):
Furthermore, I have gone into it extensively in more than a few e-mails both with the very commentator you refer to as well as with others ... what I do have little interest in doing is re-visiting it again and again, at length, with people who do not take the time to read my collected-together responses, to that same or similar question from the many and various people who have asked it before, at the link provided at the very beginning of those recent exchanges you have started paying attention to. To save me having to repeat myself, at length, again and again was the very reason why Vineeto set-up that link in the first place. RESPONDENT: ... and your statement of an entirely different gist to the one I was interpreting from your diary. But in the quote below, you have stated that it was an experiential determination, which I am interested in exploring if you are willing.
It seems to me that my experiential realisations, which have stood the test of time, have directly related to the operations of my own mind. But I have experienced intellectual interpretation at the same time which has been easy to confuse with the experiential realisation itself. They seem to piggyback the experience. Implicit in this discussion is my assumption that what you mean by experiential determination is the same or at least similar to what I mean by experiential realisation. RICHARD: No, what I mean by experientially determined is explicated in the following text (which text has been central to those recent exchanges you have started paying attention to):
RESPONDENT: To give an example of such an interpretation, I had a realisation that my anger relates to attaching importance to things. This realisation concerned the operation of my anger, and it had the nature of an experiential realisation because I could feel the anger in operation and I could witness that an attachment of importance was present in my mind. When I let go of that attachment of importance, the anger faded. But following this realisation I went on to think that I now fully understood anger. This seemed part and parcel of the experience at the time, but in hindsight that thought was nothing more than an interpretation, because it related to something other than the operation of my mind. It related to the full scope of anger, which I could not witness in operation at the time. Since your ‘experientially determined’ conclusion was that ‘no flesh and blood body either living or dead prior to 1992 has ever been actually free of the human condition’ and given that it did not relate to the operation of your own mind, in what way was this an experiential determination rather than just an intellectual conclusion based on the evidence available at the time? RICHARD: In the enlightened/awakened state of being – an apotheosised field of consciousness – metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable (meaning that ratiocination in general, and illation in particular, is not required). Moreover, as I have already remarked, anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (previously considered to be only possible after physical death).
CO-RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...’. [endquote]. It is your ‘thus’ which I do not grasp. RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following:
For example:
For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master):
Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even:
Do you see ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial note) CO-RESPONDENT: How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before? RICHARD: Because physical death is the end, finish ... kaput (there is no after-life in actuality). Viz.:
CO-RESPONDENT: This doesn’t answer my question I don’t think. How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before? RICHARD: Because there is no after-life (physical death is the end, finish ... kaput). CO-RESPONDENT: What you say above is that ‘death is the end’ ... RICHARD: What I say above is that *physical* death is the end. CO-RESPONDENT: ... and that your condition was that. RICHARD: No, I did not say that (this flesh and blood body is quite obviously still alive). CO-RESPONDENT: As you haven’t died yet I can’t see how you can be sure that this was so ... RICHARD: That which was previously considered to survive physical death has no existence in actuality. CO-RESPONDENT: ...but that aside, you don’t explain how this condition revealed the fact that nobody had ever been there before. RICHARD: If identity in toto does not become extinct before physical death it will at physical death. CO-RESPONDENT: Hm. Still doesn’t answer my question, at least to my (quite possibly imperfect and misguided) satisfaction. Far too cryptic. RICHARD: If you cannot comprehend my response to your very first question – a response which is pivotal to the entire issue – there is no point in proceeding further. CO-RESPONDENT: Indeed. A shame though. RICHARD: You give up far too easily ... why not have another go at comprehending my response to your very first question instead? CO-RESPONDENT: In fact I do comprehend the answer to my question. There is no afterlife. It all ends with the body. RICHARD: Good ... now, with that bit of comprehension held firmly in mind, try re-reading the sequence further above until you come to the question mark I placed at the end of my sentence starting with ‘Do you see ...’. If your answer is in the affirmative then there is every possibility it will all fall into place. CO-RESPONDENT: What I don’t comprehend is how entering the great beyond informs you of whether anyone, alive or dead, having left a record or not, has ever been actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: Because no-one has been able to enter into the ‘Great Beyond’ before – into ‘That’ which was previously considered to be only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ (which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ in Hinduism or ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism and so on) – as physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. Which is why I said it is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key to grasping my ‘thus’ in the quote you provided as being an answer in particular which you would have me clarify. CO-RESPONDENT: This seems to me to be this; Me: How does entering the great beyond equal
knowing that nobody had been there before. Richard; Entering into the great beyond equals knowing that nobody had been there before because nobody
had been there before. RESPONDENT: I am interested in the answer to the gist of what I think No. 90 is asking. RICHARD: Sure ... here is the answer to the gist – ‘the substance, essence, or main part of a matter’ (Oxford Dictionary) – of what my co-respondent is asking when put sequentially: 1. In order for that which had previously been considered as unattainable before death (a dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering) to become apparent, whilst the flesh and blood body is still alive, ‘Being’ itself ceases. 2. That ‘Being’ is what was previously considered to be that which ‘quits the body’, at the physical death of an Enlightened Being/Awakened One, and which attains to that dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering. 3. As there is no such ‘Being’ in actuality it is patently obvious that physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. 4. Thus no Enlightened Being/ Awakened One has ever ‘quit the body’ at physical death and attained to that dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering – indeed there is no after-life – as all what has ever happened is that they were interred/ were cremated just like anybody else. 5. Ergo, an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history. RESPONDENT (to Vineeto): If you look at the wording of what Richard is saying through each of these sequential points, [quote] ‘In order for that which had previously been considered as unattainable before death <snip>‘ [endquote]. Who previously considered it unattainable? RICHARD: The enlightened beings/awakened ones who (supposedly) ‘quit the body’ at physical death, of course. Here (from the top of this page)
RESPONDENT: It is no fact to say that everyone considered it unattainable. RICHARD: I am none too sure I said that [quote] ‘everyone’ [endquote] considered it unattainable ... I am, quite obviously, speaking of the experience of being enlightened/awakened and what that experience informs is that the solution to all the ills of humankind (aka the human condition) lies in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm (a non-material dimension by whatever name). RESPONDENT: Richard is not everyone, he does not know the mind of anyone except himself. RICHARD: I am not saying I am everyone – that is what the enlightened/awakened identity parasitically inhabiting this body all those years ago experienced – nor am I saying I know the mind of anyone else. RESPONDENT: All he can say factually is that he previously considered it unattainable. RICHARD: Not at all ... it is the enlightened/awakened experience which informs that it (the end of suffering) is not of this world. For just one (modern-day) example:
RESPONDENT: So given that he previously considered it unattainable, how does this relate to No. 90’s question:- [quote] ‘How does that reveal that nobody had been there before?’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Given that it is really the enlightened/ awakened experience which informs that the end of suffering is unattainable before physical death it relates inasmuch that no enlightened being/awakened one has, in fact, ended suffering before physical death ... indeed the enlightened/ awakened state itself is, in its entirety, nothing other than an affective state of being (which, by the way, is something my co-respondent has allowed on more than one occasion). RESPONDENT: The short answer (which I am providing) is, it does not. RICHARD: It is this simple: it is not possible to be actually free from the human condition whilst there be an enlightened/ awakened identity still in residence (still parasitically inhabiting the body). RESPONDENT: For me, as a practicing actualist, I have to wonder if Richard is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? RICHARD: Ha ... and does the obverse (if Richard is not wrong about this then what else is he not wrong about) also apply? RESPONDENT: The end result is that it discourages faith in any cosmology whilst on the path to an actual freedom. RICHARD: As cosmology is about the structure of the universe – as distinct from cosmogony which is about the (supposed) origins of the universe – the fact that peace-on-earth is not on the enlightened beings’/ awakened ones’ agenda hardly falls under that category. Perhaps a word like ‘mythology’ (for example) might be a more suitable classification?
PETER: Previously to meeting Richard I had spent 17 years on the spiritual path and was no novice to the spiritual world. My experience wasn’t merely intellectual – my experience was lived experience – I had after all turned my back on the real world and had fully immersed myself in the spiritual world, even to the point of wearing the robes and living in spiritual communes. The experience of meeting and talking with Richard was 180 degrees opposite to the meetings and discussions I had with any of the spiritual teachers or revered masters I had met in my spiritual years – no psychic power plays, no pompous air of superiority and/or feigned humility, on the contrary, a genuine willingness and an ability to provide clear and consistent answers to any questions I raised and above all, an utter down-to-earthness that was refreshing to say the least. RESPONDENT: Yes I agree those attributes are great, and while I would agree that his answers are always consistent, I would not say that his answers are always clear. PETER: I was reminded the other day that I read Richard’s Journal (the only written information available at the time) from front to back seven times – not to mention numerous going-overs of particular passages each time – before what he was saying became clear to me. Only when I had a general grasp of what he was saying was I then able to ask specific questions about aspects of the human condition that were of particular interest to me and if the answer was not clear then I was able to ask further until the answer became clear to me. It makes sense to me that if I am trying to understand anything new the best approach is to first get a broad understanding of the topic and then to hone my understanding by focussing in on the details. RESPONDENT: I don’t think that is what I was getting at, but I have experienced what you have described too. But sometimes I find that Richard does not seem to be able to read between the lines in the way that I and others on the list can. I have considered that to be evidence of his having lost an affective faculty – but it makes communication with him painfully difficult for me. RICHARD: As the reason you give for saying [quote] ‘I would not say that his answers are always clear’ [endquote] is you finding that [quote] ‘Richard does not seem to be able to read between the lines’ [endquote] I have just now re-read the exchanges we have recently had ... if you could type in just what it is that you wanted me to guess at, in the following text where I have double-spaced the lines for your convenience, by way of example as to how a (presumably) painlessly easy clarity in communication looks like in action it would be most appreciated. Viz.:
Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 15
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 |
