|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 20
RESPONDENT: Hello readers. I am new at this list. RICHARD: Welcome the Actual Freedom Mailing List ... I am always pleased when someone finds their way here as it shows that the internet is living up to its reputation of a truly global reach. RESPONDENT: I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very much interested into learn what Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment, as they word it. RICHARD: I am also pleased to see that you comprehend this salient point very early in the piece ... it saves a lot of explaining. RESPONDENT: Although I guess self-introduction is not very much important within this context (after all, who’s self?) it uses to mean a courtesy to say something when joining to a list, about oneself (again, what ‘oneself’?). Okay. Woman. From Spain. 41. Single. Some ‘peak’ experiences along this life. Some background from eastern paths of realization. RICHARD: I am only too happy to reciprocate your self-introduction: Male. From Australia. 54. Separated (twice married; once divorced). Many peak experiences twenty-odd years ago. No background of eastern paths of realisation (then). RESPONDENT: Now I have some questions for the ones living beyond self and beyond me and all that stuff. RICHARD: Good ... I will keep my answers short so as to not pre-empt anyone else responding more fully. RESPONDENT: Are you actualised free people able of siddhis? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Do you dream? RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain ... no. RESPONDENT: Do you sleep? RICHARD: Yes ... three-four hours at night (occasionally five). RESPONDENT: Do you experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only? RICHARD: One. RESPONDENT: How you Know (capital) you are not again into another suggestion game (self hypnosis), a game of ‘imagining actual freedom’ and so? RICHARD: The intimate knowing (no capital) of direct experiencing: this actual world is so perfect that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in ... ‘tis fail-safe. RESPONDENT: Is not the Self that you gave up a form of self hypnosis? RICHARD: Yes ... I am wont to call it a grandiose delusion, a massive hallucination (when I am being polite). RESPONDENT: Are not enlightened people just dreamers ... RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: ... (of a different flavour)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Is your actual-freedom the Ultimate Reality ... RICHARD: No ... it is the absolute actuality of time and space and form. RESPONDENT: ... or the Ultimate State of Sensitive Life? RICHARD: Not if ‘sensitive’ means the heart-felt sensitivity (being emotionally vulnerable and so on), no ... but if being sensitive means the sensuous variety, then yes, an actual freedom from the human condition is total sensitivity. Completely and utterly sensitive ... to the nth degree.
RESPONDENT: I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very much interested into learn what Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment, as they word it. RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you comprehend this salient point very early in the piece ... it saves a lot of explaining. RESPONDENT: Well, I don’t know if I am understanding it ... this is why I need to ask some questions (which I do). Intellectually, yes: I think I am grasping some of what you affirm. I’ll explore these concepts a bit more, if you don’t mind, through question and answer. You are being very kind to answer me; much thanks. RICHARD: However it is, that you comprehend an actual freedom being beyond enlightenment, is already a big plus ... there are more than a few people who prefer to see no distinction. * RESPONDENT: Although I guess self-introduction is not very much important within this context (after all, who’s self?) it uses to mean a courtesy to say something when joining to a list, about oneself (again, what ‘oneself’?). Okay. Woman. From Spain. 41. Single. Some ‘peak’ experiences along this life. Some background from eastern paths of realization. RICHARD: I am only too happy to reciprocate your self-introduction: Male. From Australia. 54. Separated (twice married; once divorced). Many peak experiences twenty-odd years ago. No background of eastern paths of realisation (then). RESPONDENT: Richard, when you say ‘I am only too happy ...’, who or what are you meaning by ‘I’? RICHARD: I am meaning ‘what’ ... what I am is this flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: Who is male, 54 and separated, etc? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is what is ‘male, 54 and separated, etc.’. RESPONDENT: I would not ask if your teachings didn’t deal about no-me, no-self, no-I. RICHARD: Of course. * RESPONDENT: Now I have some questions for the ones living beyond self and beyond me and all that stuff. RICHARD: Good ... I will keep my answers short so as to not pre-empt anyone else responding more fully. RESPONDENT: I am very thankful. I think that answering in short is very good and enough, when one can penetrate the essence of what’s being told. RICHARD: Okay ... here is the short version of what I am on about to keep in mind for future reference:
* RESPONDENT: Are you actualised free people able of siddhis? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Why not? Because siddhis do not exist? RICHARD: Yes, I have no power or powers whatsoever ... there are no ‘siddhis’ outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: Or because you did not develop them along your former state of (conventional) enlightenment? RICHARD: I neither developed nor pursued them ... even though some came and went spontaneously. * RESPONDENT: Do you dream? RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain ... no. RESPONDENT: What ‘I’ says that? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Second. When you say ‘as far as I can ascertain ...’, this means that simply you have no memories of dreams when you wake up in the morning? If so, could happen that you have forgotten your dreams but can’t be sure of not having them? RICHARD: No ... I sleep like a log, as an old saying goes, unconscious, unaware and (probably) dreamless. It would take an unusual noise (a window being broken) or an unusual smell (something burning) or an unusual sensation (a creature crawling) to awaken me. Usually upon waking I find that I am lying in the identical position (flat on my back) that I went to sleep in – complete with reading glasses perched on nose and book/magazine held in hands slumped to the belly – indicating no movement at all. Sleep is total oblivion: if there be dreaming occurring during the three-four (or five hours) I have no awareness of it whatsoever. * RESPONDENT: Do you sleep? RICHARD: Yes ... three-four hours at night (occasionally five). RESPONDENT: Do you experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only? RICHARD: One. RESPONDENT: Please, I need a clarification here, since it is contradictory to my sight. Either you experience just one state of consciousness, in which case there is no wakeful state versus dream state versus pure-sleep state ... or you experience at least two (sleeping and being wakeful, night and day respectively). Note: my English maybe contains mistakes, I hope you get the meaning anyway, only Spanish is my daily and motherly language. RICHARD: You convey your meaning very well ... plus I am familiar with what you refer to: I am either awake (conscious) or asleep (unconscious). * RESPONDENT: How you Know (capital) you are not again into another suggestion game (self hypnosis), a game of ‘imagining actual freedom’ and so? RICHARD: The intimate knowing (no capital) of direct experiencing: this actual world is so perfect that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in ... ‘tis fail-safe. RESPONDENT: Where is (in the world or anywhere) the dirty stuff that can not get in? RICHARD: In the human psyche ... there is no malice RESPONDENT: And: what is ‘in’, in of what? RICHARD: For a person living in the ‘real world’ this actual world is as if it were another dimension ... it is the identity that cannot ‘get in’. It is but a manner of speaking, of course, as no ‘getting in’ ever occurs: when identity ceases to exist this actual world becomes apparent in all its pristine abundance. It was/is already always just here right now irregardless. RESPONDENT: Sorry, my English doesn’t catch what is ‘‘tis fail-safe’. Could you word it otherly? RICHARD: It is safe from failure (as in it cannot fail) ... this actual world, being impeccable, needs no protection. * RESPONDENT: Is not the Self that you gave up a form of self hypnosis? RICHARD: Yes ... I am wont to call it a delusion, a massive hallucination (when I am being polite). RESPONDENT: You are stating that Ramana, Nisargadatta and Aurobindo have been just deluded folks? RICHARD: I can do much better than a short list such as you provide: the altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment, by whatever name, is a delusional state, a massive hallucination. RESPONDENT: By the way, are you knowledgeable of Aurobindo’s realization beyond conventional enlightenment? RICHARD: There is nothing evident in the words ascribed to Mr. Aurobindo Ghose which indicate that his ASC was anything other than the conventional enlightenment. Although he certainly spoke about bringing the ‘Divine’, the ‘Supramental’, down to Earth so as to transform materiality there is no substance to his rhetoric. In other words, as you say (below), enlightened people are indeed ‘just dreamers’. * RESPONDENT: Are not enlightened people just dreamers ... RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: ... (of a different flavour)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Who says that? RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ extant to say anything ... this is this flesh and blood body speaking. * RESPONDENT: Is your actual-freedom the Ultimate Reality ... RICHARD: No ... it is the absolute actuality of time and space and form. RESPONDENT: Without a centre of consciousness and/or without a wholeness (and centreless) of consciousness? RICHARD: Exactly ... just as no centre means no boundary no part-consciousness means no whole-consciousness (wholeness) ... there is no oneness with all (holistic consciousness, oceanic consciousness or whatever name) operating here. RESPONDENT: What is arranging a subjective unity around the atoms or particles that compound what you call ‘my body’ or ‘Richard’? (and so and so ... until ‘my experience of actualism’). RICHARD: This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is doing all the arranging: I am this universe
experiencing itself as an apperceptive * RESPONDENT: ... or the Ultimate State of Sensitive Life? RICHARD: Not if ‘sensitive’ means the heart-felt sensitivity (being emotionally vulnerable and so on), no ... but if being sensitive means the sensuous variety, then yes, an actual freedom from the human condition is total sensitivity. Completely and utterly sensitive ... to the nth degree. RESPONDENT: Who or what is the subject of that experience of total sensitivity? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is what is experiencing total sensitivity. RESPONDENT: In any case, seems that that ‘total sensitivity’ of your experience is located within time and space (otherwise, would include my body, for example). RICHARD: Yes, it is the personalised experience ... there is only one person one can ever fundamentally change. Incidentally, there is nothing other than time and space and form – timelessness and spacelessness and formlessness exist only in the human psyche – inasmuch as all time is eternal (beginningless and endless); all space is infinite (boundless and centreless); all form is perpetual (perennial and persistent). RESPONDENT: Then, what determines the perimeter of that localized ‘total sensitivity’? RICHARD: The parameters of this flesh and blood body (plus any extension such as microscopes, telescopes, telephones and so on).
RESPONDENT: I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very much interested into learn what Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment, as they word it. RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you comprehend this salient point very early in the piece ... it saves a lot of explaining. RESPONDENT: Well, I don’t know if I am understanding it ... this is why I need to ask some questions (which I do). Intellectually, yes: I think I am grasping some of what you affirm. I’ll explore these concepts a bit more, if you don’t mind, through question and answer. You are being very kind to answer me; much thanks. RICHARD: However it is, that you comprehend an actual freedom being beyond enlightenment, is already a big plus ... there are more than a few people who prefer to see no distinction. RESPONDENT: Richard, although I can easily understand what you mean by giving up the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name) ... RICHARD: If I may interject in order to clarify? I did not ‘give up the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name)’ at all: when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ‘self’-immolated ‘the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name)’ vanished without a trace. Ergo: ‘the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name)’ was identity writ large (‘self’-‘Self’ aggrandisement). RESPONDENT: ... I still don’t see how when there’s no ‘me’ plus no Self, how you can think of yourself as Richard, like you do. How a [flesh and blood] body by itself has sense of entity? RICHARD: As there is no ‘sense of entity’ extant I am unable answer your query. RESPONDENT: How can [it] think? RICHARD: This flesh and blood brain thinks of its own accord ... it is what the human brain is very good at doing (especially where there is no entity in there trying to run the show). RESPONDENT: Is not this phenomena of a consciousness arising from a ‘body’ and remaining localized there, pointing to some kind of ‘me’ – or ‘I’ – again? RICHARD: Not an apperceptive consciousness ... no. RESPONDENT: In other words, to me, what makes sense as ‘beyond enlightenment’, or beyond Self, is a complete void of consciousness ... RICHARD: Whereas it makes no sense to me whatsoever – no consciousness means no awareness – as a person in a coma or anaesthetised, being examples of someone ‘completely void of consciousness’ could not write e-mails to you. Just the same as a person in Samadhi or Dhyana or any other cataleptic trance state cannot do so either. RESPONDENT: ... but then, would be that ‘beyond’ at all? A localized perception implies a centre of some kind, to my modest understanding. RICHARD: There is no need to be coy, surely? A person who is a Yoga, Dharma and Reiki Master; who is a Transpersonal Therapist; whose psycho-type is very much like a No. 9 ennegram; whose Chinese sign is Wild Boar; whose life-engine is Love, Union and Harmony; who is a contemporary woman of the Third Millennia; who is here to contribute to the descent on Earth of the Feminine Energy (the compassionate and transformative dispensation of the Goddess); who is the founder of Arya-Tara and Karuna Centres; who is a Practitioner in Evolutionary Traditions and Human Potential methods; who is following the MahaYana of Kuan-Yin; who is leading seminars on Meditation, Holistic Healing and Personal Growth (since 1982); who is a Spiritual and Vibrational Therapist; who is a Transpersonal Educator; who has (for one decade) been sharing resources for personal growth through seminars and workshops; whose soul is beyond any category; who has spontaneously channelled spiritual knowledge since childhood; who participated for six and a half years in the most extraordinary community experience (the ‘Rainbow Path’, a New Age pioneer community in Spain); who applied to their body and mind countless human potential catalysers (such as Primal, Gestalt, Rebirthing, Group Dynamics, Psychodrama, Sexual Exploring, Zen Sesshins, Sufi Ceremonies, Vipassana Meditation, Karma-Bhakti-Kundalini Yogas, Shaman Watching, Lucid Dreaming/Nidra, Psychotravel and Regression, Hypnosis and Subconscious Programming); who led seminars on Catharsis ‘Marathon’ and ‘Vichara’ Meditation; who deepened themself into Vajrayana Buddhism (since 1990); who practiced and was co-responsible for the establishment of the first Nyingma-pa centre in Spain; who is both as a woman and a soul-worker (an emanation of the compassionate heart of Kuan Yin, the divine Mother of Mercy) can hardly be said to have only a ‘modest understanding’, eh? Furthermore ... I was somewhat bemused by your use of the phrase ‘some’ in your self-introduction (below) where you say ‘some background from eastern paths of realisation’? I am idly curious as to what an ‘extensive background ...’ would look like in print, you see. * RESPONDENT: Although I guess self-introduction is not very much important within this context (after all, who’s self?) it uses to mean a courtesy to say something when joining to a list, about oneself (again, what ‘oneself’?). Okay. Woman. From Spain. 41. Single. Some ‘peak’ experiences along this life. Some background from eastern paths of realization. RICHARD: I am only too happy to reciprocate your self-introduction: Male. From Australia. 54. Separated (twice married; once divorced). Many peak experiences twenty-odd years ago. No background of eastern paths of realisation (then). RESPONDENT: Richard, when you say ‘I am only too happy ...’, who or what are you meaning by ‘I’? RICHARD: I am meaning ‘what’ ... what I am is this flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: Who is male, 54 and separated, etc? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is what is ‘male, 54 and separated, etc.’. RESPONDENT: Are you actualised free people able of siddhis? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Why not? Because siddhis do not exist? RICHARD: Yes, I have no power or powers whatsoever ... there are no ‘siddhis’ outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: No? Have you proven false all examples of siddhis shown by yogis everywhere? RICHARD: Yet what I said was that I am not ‘able of siddhis’ because yes, they ‘do not exist’ in an actually free person (in that there are no ‘siddhis’ outside of the human psyche) and that I have no power or powers whatsoever. Thus I am not out to prove them ‘false’ ... and neither am I going to prove that this person’s ‘siddhis’ or that person’s ‘siddhis’ are any more or any less true than any other person’s are. They are no more ‘false’ (or true) than, say, emotions or passions are either true or false. Needless is it to say there are no emotions or passions here in this actual world either. RESPONDENT: Are you affirming they just imagined those siddhis taking place? (but never happened?). RICHARD: This is what I am ‘affirming’ in the above paragraph:
This actual world is ‘squeaky clean’, as it were, as nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. * RESPONDENT: Or [are you actualised free people not able of siddhis] because you did not develop them along your former state of (conventional) enlightenment? RICHARD: I neither developed nor pursued them ... even though some came and went spontaneously. RESPONDENT: Please, could you bring some examples of siddhis that came and went to/from your experience? RICHARD: Sure ... telepathy, telemetry and psychometry are the ones that immediately spring to mind. * RESPONDENT: Do you dream? RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain ... no. RESPONDENT: What ‘I’ says that? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Second. When you say ‘as far as I can ascertain ...’, this means that simply you have no memories of dreams when you wake up in the morning? If so, could happen that you have forgotten your dreams but can’t be sure of not having them? RICHARD: No ... I sleep like a log, as an old saying goes, unconscious, unaware and (probably) dreamless. It would take an unusual noise (a window being broken) or an unusual smell (something burning) or an unusual sensation (a creature crawling) to awaken me. Usually upon waking I find that I am lying in the identical position (flat on my back) that I went to sleep in – complete with reading glasses perched on nose and book/magazine held in hands slumped to the belly – indicating no movement at all. Sleep is total oblivion: if there be dreaming occurring during the three-four (or five hours) I have no awareness of it whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Do you experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only? RICHARD: One. RESPONDENT: Please, I need a clarification here, since it is contradictory to my sight. Either you experience just one state of consciousness, in which case there is no wakeful state versus dream state versus pure-sleep state ... or you experience at least two (sleeping and being wakeful, night and day respectively). Note: my English maybe contains mistakes, I hope you get the meaning anyway, only Spanish is my daily and motherly language. RICHARD: You convey your meaning very well ... plus I am familiar with what you refer to: I am either awake (conscious) or asleep (unconscious). RESPONDENT: Then, this is two states of consciousness. On and Off. Right? RICHARD: No ... there is one consciousness only operating here (I cannot see how oblivion can in any way, shape or manner be described as a second ‘consciousness’). RESPONDENT: You know that jnanis report one superstate only, remaining through any of the three basic states of consciousness (awake, asleep, dreaming). RICHARD: Yes, this ‘one superstate’ – the fourth state sometimes known as ‘Turiya’ – I know intimately as I lived that/was that, night and day, for eleven years ... plus I know the jargon gleaned from subsequent discussions with others and extensive reading. RESPONDENT: That superstate (or meta-state) is not a state (either basic or a variation, either one usual or one altered), but consciousness aware of itself, purely. RICHARD: Or, in other words, a consciousness wherein only ‘Self-With-No-Other’ exists (as in ‘Consciousness Without An Object’). RESPONDENT: They also call it ‘I’, ‘Self’ and all those other spiritual names. To them, this is the substratum to all and any experience and it is always here and now. RICHARD: Except that it is not ‘here and now’ in the physical world (neither here in space nor now in time) ... and it is not only the ‘substratum to all and any experience’ as it is the substratum of all life, all nature, and all of the universe as well (as in ‘consciousness creates matter’ or ‘matter arises in consciousness’). RESPONDENT: Enlightenment consists in knowing that, and absorbing the mind into that, so the idea of not-enlightenment ceases to be held (avidya). RICHARD: Whereas an actual freedom from the human condition consists of doing something substantive: the extirpation of identity in toto. RESPONDENT: When the thought of me and world, phenomena, duality, is given up, what remains is what was always here, now without confusion or distraction, self-resplendent: consciousness aware of itself. RICHARD: Yet ‘self-resplendent’ is but a fancy way of saying ‘narcissistic self-glorification’ (as in ‘I am That’ or ‘That Thou Art’). RESPONDENT: This is not (as far as I understand) an ASC, but what remains as the basis of any state of consciousness (or representation of experience, as a content of the consciousness). Instead, a quality of consciousness that fluctuates, On and Off, is nothing else but an altered state of consciousness between two representations of experience. RICHARD: Yet such a simple substance (an object) as anaesthesia renders the supposedly
never-fluctuating and ever-on ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ unconscious in 5-6 seconds ... RESPONDENT: Excuse me if I am wrong. RICHARD: Sure ... an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history. * RESPONDENT: How you Know (capital) you are not again into another suggestion game (self hypnosis), a game of ‘imagining actual freedom’ and so? RICHARD: The intimate knowing (no capital) of direct experiencing: this actual world is so perfect that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. RESPONDENT: Where is (in the world or anywhere) the dirty stuff that can not get in? RICHARD: In the human psyche ... there is no malice or sorrow here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: And: what is ‘in’, in of what? RICHARD: For a person living in the ‘real world’ this actual world is as if it were another dimension ... it is the identity that cannot ‘get in’. It is but a manner of speaking, of course, as no ‘getting in’ ever occurs: when identity ceases to exist this actual world becomes apparent in all its pristine abundance. It was/is already always just here right now irregardless. RESPONDENT: When identity ceases to exist what remains to gather any experience of itself? Some ‘Richard’? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body remains. * RESPONDENT: Is not the Self that you gave up a form of self hypnosis? RICHARD: Yes ... I am wont to call it a delusion, a massive hallucination (when I am being polite). RESPONDENT: You are stating that Ramana, Nisargadatta and Aurobindo have been just deluded folks? RICHARD: I can do much better than a short list such as you provide: the altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment, by whatever name, is a delusional state, a massive hallucination. RESPONDENT: The ASC know as actualism, experienced when you are awake only, is not your particular and private hallucination and meta-spiritual fantasy? RICHARD: As there is no ‘ASC known as actualism’ I am unable answer your query. * RESPONDENT: Are not enlightened people just dreamers ... RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: ... (of a different flavour)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Who says that? RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ extant to say anything ... this is this flesh and blood body speaking. RESPONDENT: Then, this is an identity, anyway. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body cannot be described as ‘an identity anyway’ in the same way that this computer monitor cannot be described as being ‘an identity anyway’. RESPONDENT: What’s the matter how we call it? RICHARD: Hmm ... how about for clarity in communication just for starters (so as peoples will not be able to get away with preferring to see no distinction between actualism and spiritualism)? * RESPONDENT: Is your actual-freedom the Ultimate Reality ... RICHARD: No ... it is the absolute actuality of time and space and form. RESPONDENT: Without a centre of consciousness and/or without a wholeness (and centreless) of consciousness? RICHARD: Exactly ... just as no centre means no boundary no part-consciousness means no whole-consciousness (wholeness) ... there is no oneness with all (holistic consciousness, oceanic consciousness or whatever name) operating here. RESPONDENT: If no-part no-whole, then is simply no. No consciousness at all. RICHARD: You do seem to have missed the point: no whole-consciousness means no ‘Ultimate Reality’ (no God/Goddess) and not ‘no-consciousness at all’. It was the part-consciousness who created the whole-consciousness in the first place by assuming it (the part-consciousness) was part of a greater whole (it took its own illusory existence to be true enough to posit a greater whole it was part of). Or, as I am wont to say, a delusion born out of an illusion. RESPONDENT: [No consciousness at all]. Just off. RICHARD: Yet this fantasy solution to all the ills of humankind that you propose is not what is happening here (as is evidenced by this e-mail being written to you). * RESPONDENT: What is arranging a subjective unity around the atoms or particles that compound what you call ‘my body’ or ‘Richard’? (and so and so ... until ‘my experience of actualism’). RICHARD: This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is doing all the arranging: I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such this universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. RESPONDENT: Then, you have just defined your identity, your entity: ‘I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being’. RICHARD: Not so ... I have just defined this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Conventional enlightenment words. RICHARD: I am yet to hear of ‘conventional enlightenment’ being described this way ... usually it is some variation on the ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ or the ‘I am the creator/sustainer of all that exists; all that exists is a reflection of Me’ themes. RESPONDENT: As long as you say, write, or think ‘I’, you imply ‘I’, there’s ‘I’ still. RICHARD: I use the first person pronoun and the name Richard to refer to this flesh and blood body. I could have as easily written it thus:
RESPONDENT: No actualism beyond ‘I’, me or Self. RICHARD: May I ask? What did you mean by the phrase ‘interested to learn’ (at the top of this post)? Viz.:
Also, what did you mean by the word ‘explore’ (near the top of this post)? Viz.:
Do they mean something different, when translated into Spanish, than the keenness to investigate, look into, enquire into, consider, examine, research, survey, scrutinise, study, review, take stock of; acquire a knowledge of, gain an understanding of, take in, absorb, assimilate, pick up; discover, find out, detect, become aware of, gather, hear, be informed, have it brought to one’s attention, understand, ascertain and discern type of meanings they have in English? * RESPONDENT: ... or the Ultimate State of Sensitive Life? RICHARD: Not if ‘sensitive’ means the heart-felt sensitivity (being emotionally vulnerable and so on), no ... but if being sensitive means the sensuous variety, then yes, an actual freedom from the human condition is total sensitivity. Completely and utterly sensitive ... to the nth degree. RESPONDENT: Who or what is the subject of that experience of total sensitivity? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is what is experiencing total sensitivity. RESPONDENT: In any case, seems that that ‘total sensitivity’ of your experience is located within time and space (otherwise, would include my body, for example). RICHARD: Yes, it is the personalised experience ... there is only one person one can ever fundamentally change. RESPONDENT: Exactly: ‘change’. No erase. RICHARD: I am not only using the word ‘change’ in the dictionary meaning of the word but I even stuck the word ‘fundamentally’ in front of it so as to (unsuccessfully) pre-empt replies such as this. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘change’ means a mutation; an entirely different condition or quality; a making or being distinctly different; the substitution of one thing or set of conditions for another (etymologically the word ‘change’ comes from the Middle English (Anglo-Norman) word ‘chaunge’ and Old French word ‘changer’ meaning ‘as next’). Maybe you were thinking of the Celtic word ‘changeling’? It comes from the Latin word ‘cambire’ meaning ‘exchange’ which is derived from the Late Roman ‘cambiare’ meaning ‘barter’. Because it is the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment where a normal identity (the small ‘s’ self) is exchanged and/or bartered or otherwise surreptitiously and deviously altered into being an abnormal identity (the big ‘S’ Self). So surreptitiously and deviously altered, in fact, that it then has the unmitigated gall to blandly propose that it is not an altered state of consciousness at all ... a process of such breathtaking impudence that it is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. RESPONDENT: Small me or big Self ... it is always the same. RICHARD: Aye ... and yet all this while there is neither ‘small me’ (‘I’ as ego) or ‘big Self’ (‘me’ as soul) outside of the human psyche. It is all so simple here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Hello readers. I am new at this list. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very much interested into learn what Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment, as they word it. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Well, I don’t know if I am understanding it ... this is why I need to ask some questions (which I do). Intellectually, yes: I think I am grasping some of what you affirm. I’ll explore these concepts a bit more, if you don’t mind, through question and answer. You are being very kind to answer me; much thanks. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Richard, although I can easily understand what you mean by giving up the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name) ... RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Here you are none else but re-wording ‘Atman is Brahman’; i.e. the self that believed being this or that is nothing else but the (only) Self. What I say is that when you affirm (that you) have given up both self and Self, then there wouldn’t be any consciousness left or remaining – [to my understanding]. But then, I would question even that erasure, for even pralaya falls within the Self (or absolute consciousness). However what you say above, jnanis would say: when the Self self-immolates as an ego-identified self, then Self remains as it is (without that superimposed ego-identification; which is the essence of avidya, by the way). My guess is that you have not given up self, much less Self (what is simply impossible, I’d say). When you experienced your ‘enlightened’ period of eleven years, probably that was an ASC within your self, in terms of a spiritual apperception. Now, since the start of this ‘actual freedom’ period, you are probably experiencing another ASC, in terms of spiritual denial and sensorial enjoyment. I don’t see enlightenment anywhere, whether then or now. Moreover, your state of consciousness called ‘actual freedom’ is altered since it had a beginning, like your ‘enlightened’ former consciousness had one (and then finished). The fact that others can follow you becoming experienced actualists, doesn’t change my point. This would only mean your success propagating that new ASC. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: ... I still don’t see how when there’s no ‘me’ plus no Self, how you can think of yourself as Richard, like you do. How a [flesh and blood] body by itself has sense of entity? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: This is not what it seems (that there is no ‘sense of entity extant’). What it seems is that you are Richard, and one that writes, reads and replies actively, by the way. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: How can [it] think? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Your idea is very good for a science fiction movie (Blade Runner – II, for example). Excuse me, I don’t find substance to that statement. The materialist view that conceives thought as a brain by-product doesn’t terminate with the notion of a self. So, you can think of yourself as purely carnal, but this doesn’t show that you do not experience yourself! RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Is not this phenomena of a consciousness arising from a ‘body’ and remaining localized there, pointing to some kind of ‘me’ – or ‘I’ – again? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: This is not what you use to say: [Richard]: ‘This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is doing all the arranging: I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such this universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude’. [endquote]. See: you say ‘I am this universe’ and you also say ‘as an apperceptive human being’. I think you like to play with words very much; now is yes, then is no. You have shown clearly the concept of your identity from your actualist ideology/ASC of it. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: In other words, to me, what makes sense as ‘beyond enlightenment’, or beyond Self, is a complete void of consciousness ... RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Exactly. The fact that you are writing me proves that you are aware and conscious. Proves that you are not dead, hence ‘you’ are not dead (=erased, terminated). Let’s not speak of people in a coma or anaesthetised. No generalization can be made about them (as lacking of any kind (state) of consciousness, much less of lacking of fundamental consciousness [i.e. of self]). RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: It depends. The point of view of the observer is not the total thing. The entire universe is happening through a jnani (whether s/he appears in sahaya samadhi or in nirvikalpa samadhi). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: ... but then, would be that ‘beyond’ at all? A localized perception implies a centre of some kind, to my modest understanding. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: You think so? – Is this a compliment? – then thank you. I do not lend much importance to that data. Seems that you are a Dr. Watson for hobby :-) ... keep trying, see if you find something really interesting. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: It is a very subjective thing the weight (importance) that one attributes to any data/stuff. You obviously are showing your subjective scale of values. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Read the works of Ken Wilber, or Osho, for examples of extensive background. By the way, they are not my favourite; contrary: pretty boring ones, to my taste. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Although I guess self-introduction is not very much important within this context (after all, who’s self?) it uses to mean a courtesy to say something when joining to a list, about oneself (again, what ‘oneself’?). Okay. Woman. From Spain. 41. Single. Some ‘peak’ experiences along this life. Some background from eastern paths of realization. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Richard, when you say ‘I am only too happy ...’, who or what are you meaning by ‘I’? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Who is male, 54 and separated, etc? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I would not ask if your teachings didn’t deal about no-me, no-self, no-I. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Now I have some questions for the ones living beyond self and beyond me and all that stuff. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I am very thankful. I think that answering in short is very good and enough, when one can penetrate the essence of what’s being told. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Are you actualised free people able of siddhis? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Why not? Because siddhis do not exist? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: No? Have you proven false all examples of siddhis shown by yogis everywhere? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Are you affirming they just imagined those siddhis taking place? (but never happened?). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Okay. Given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large but the world of your experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis within your experience. Theme closed. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I don’t see what this has to do with the siddhis stuff. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Or [are you actualised free people not able of siddhis] because you did not develop them along your former state of (conventional) enlightenment? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Please, could you bring some examples of siddhis that came and went to/from your experience? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Levitation and flying would have been much more fun. Its really a pity that now, without telepathy and the other powers, you have to ask Google to investigate your list correspondents; it is very limited! RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Do you dream? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: What ‘I’ says that? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Second. When you say ‘as far as I can ascertain ...’, this means that simply you have no memories of dreams when you wake up in the morning? If so, could happen that you have forgotten your dreams but can’t be sure of not having them? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Do you sleep? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Do you experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Please, I need a clarification here, since it is contradictory to my sight. Either you experience just one state of consciousness, in which case there is no wakeful state versus dream state versus pure-sleep state ... or you experience at least two (sleeping and being wakeful, night and day respectively). Note: my English maybe contains mistakes, I hope you get the meaning anyway, only Spanish is my daily and motherly language. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Then, this is two states of consciousness. On and Off. Right? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Yes, one consciousness, but two states. I asked states of consciousness, precisely (see above: Do you experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only? ). Hence my wording: On (what you call awake, conscious), Off (what you call asleep, unconscious). I did not mean oblivion as a second consciousness, but a second state of consciousness (maybe you can not understand the difference?). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: You know that jnanis report one superstate only, remaining through any of the three basic states of consciousness (awake, asleep, dreaming). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Yes, turiya, that is called ‘the fourth’. If you experienced it as a state (or something transitory), then that was not turiya. This is why sometimes jnanis refer to turiyatita (i.e. beyond turiya), meaning that the consciousness as it is pierces all states whatsoever, either enlightenment or not enlightenment being there. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: That superstate (or meta-state) is not a state (either basic or a variation, either one usual or one altered), but consciousness aware of itself, purely. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Actually. Such consciousness where any relative reality/formation is contained. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: They also call it ‘I’, ‘Self’ and all those other spiritual names. To them, this is the substratum to all and any experience and it is always here and now. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Excuse me. That here and now of the physical world that you mention happens within consciousness, for the jnani. Hence, this physical world that you mention is not at all the valid paradigm – to them – from where to see what is what. Is not the movie that contains the director, but the other way round. Then, this here and now that I mean is the spacelessness and timelessness from where spacetime emerge as this moment. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Yes. And even further ... not even the substratum, but its very own stuff, where the snake was never a snake but was always a cord from the beginning (like Sankara said, if I recall well). Hence, matter has never been (as other but consciousness), so, has never been at all. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Enlightenment consists in knowing that, and absorbing the mind into that, so the idea of not-enlightenment ceases to be held (avidya). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: An identity that transcends the duality between subject and object cannot be extirpated. The reasoning that where there is no subject as opposed to object that cannot be called identity, nor self or Self (as advaitins use to call) has led to the concept of sunyata proposed by buddhists; but this is anyway the same. Whatever the term – Self, consciousness, sunyata, buddha nature, supreme identity or anatta – what is left can’t be extirpated. Whatever you can extirpate is a concept of yourself. As long as you still remain identified with something as yourself, ego – that bounded identity that prevents conventional enlightenment – is still there. No matter how much you extirpated. I am this body is the first level of rough identification. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: When the thought of me and world, phenomena, duality, is given up, what remains is what was always here, now without confusion or distraction, self-resplendent: consciousness aware of itself. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: There where there is no second, no narcissism can take place. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: This is not (as far as I understand) an ASC, but what remains as the basis of any state of consciousness (or representation of experience, as a content of the consciousness). Instead, a quality of consciousness that fluctuates, On and Off, is nothing else but an altered state of consciousness between two representations of experience. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Not at all for the jnani. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: There’s many pseudo gurus, this is true. But this has nothing to do with the true jnani. If you are talking from your former experience of ‘enlightenment’, then this talks of itself – That was nothing else but an ASC. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Excuse me if I am wrong. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Let’s see what your experience of things brings to this world – in terms of harmony, peace and so on. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: How you Know (capital) you are not again into another suggestion game (self hypnosis), a game of ‘imagining actual freedom’ and so? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Where is (in the world or anywhere) the dirty stuff that can not get in? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: And: what is ‘in’, in of what? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Sorry, my English doesn’t catch what is ‘‘tis fail-safe’. Could you word it otherly? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: When identity ceases to exist what remains to gather any experience of itself? Some ‘Richard’? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: This answers nothing. Flesh and blood gathers nothing like a ‘Richard apperception’ by itself. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Is not the Self that you gave up a form of self hypnosis? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: You are stating that Ramana, Nisargadatta and Aurobindo have been just deluded folks? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: By the way, are you knowledgeable of Aurobindo’s realization beyond conventional enlightenment? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: The ASC know as actualism, experienced when you are awake only, is not your particular and private hallucination and meta-spiritual fantasy? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Actualism had a beginning within your consciousness, hence it is an ASC. It also has an end each night when you are asleep. It will end for sure when your body will cease to breath. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Are not enlightened people just dreamers ... RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: ... (of a different flavour)? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Who says that? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Then, this is an identity, anyway. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: You and the computer differ in your sense of apperception. This is what implies an identity related to you. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: What’s the matter how we call it? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I opened this dialogue just to explore where actualism differs from conventional enlightenment, aside of the mere statement that it is beyond enlightenment. I wanted to explore your experience through this dialogue. What I am finding out (of you) is nothing but a spiritual experience of paradoxical denial. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Is your actual-freedom the Ultimate Reality ... RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Without a centre of consciousness and/or without a wholeness (and centreless) of consciousness? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: If no-part no-whole, then is simply no. No consciousness at all. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: If you had extirpated that part-consciousness, then consciousness would remain as whole. If you could extirpate both, no one would be here writing me as Richard. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: [No consciousness at all]. Just off. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I don’t propose such thing, I am only feed-backing your propositions, reductio absurdum. Yes, since you are alive and writing me, your Richard consciousness/identity remains in full operation. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: What is arranging a subjective unity around the atoms or particles that compound what you call ‘my body’ or ‘Richard’? (and so and so ... until ‘my experience of actualism’). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Then, you have just defined your identity, your entity: ‘I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being’. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: At all. Flesh and blood (body) has not apperception of itself, much less as ‘this universe’. You have only defined your idea of yourself, either as a result of your persistent ASC or of a theory. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Conventional enlightenment words. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Then this is your first time. I am very familiar with that description, however. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Those are very cheap enlightenment, actually. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: As long as you say, write, or think ‘I’, you imply ‘I’, there’s ‘I’ still. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: You could use whatever words, still would be your idea of yourself. You can not remain hidden – regardless the words, contrary: your you is obvious. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: No actualism beyond ‘I’, me or Self. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I meant exactly that. Interested into learn what was your experience (as something beyond enlightenment). I am learning what is possible to learn from a written dialogue, and I am not convinced (as of now) that you are experiencing what you describe as extirpation of me and of self. By now, I am neither convinced that you know what enlightenment means. Since it is not my intention to offend, I ask you pardon whatever the case. If you are right, excuse me; if you are wrong, also excuse me and keep on with your philosophy, do not take me into account. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Richard, all these synonymous are not necessary. Believe me, this is my way of exploring through question and answer. I know no other. And I thank you very much for your kind corresponding. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: ... or the Ultimate State of Sensitive Life? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Who or what is the subject of that experience of total sensitivity? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Then, what determines the perimeter of that localized ‘total sensitivity’? RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: In any case, seems that that ‘total sensitivity’ of your experience is located within time and space (otherwise, would include my body, for example). RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Exactly: ‘change’. No erase. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I am sorry. I was answering what you did not write. However this here my mistake, my above questions remain. You do not appear as self-immolated. You appear as a body-identified being, me or self, apperceptive of himself as Richard, and enjoyer (when are not asleep) of a state of consciousness of sensory pleasure (isn’t?) called ‘actual freedom’. If you allow me an innocent joke, I’d call you ‘Richard, The Thinking Body’, as the best way to portrait your idea of yourself. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Not so ingenuous as to imagine that a state of consciousness named actualism (for more madness attributed to a computer-like ‘n’ soul-denier brain apperceptive of itself – and aggrandized – as this universe) is not an altered and alternative state of consciousness. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Small me or big Self ... it is always the same. RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Sure. You are the prove. RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Yes, and it is all invented already (before actualism even). RICHARD: <SNIP> * RICHARD: If you have read this far you will have noticed that I snipped out all of my responses ... they were getting in the way of what you want to tell me. All I can suggest – if you have even the faintest glimmer of interest in what I am sharing with my fellow human beings that is – is that you read my responses with both eyes open. If that course of action does not appeal to you – and if you find that you still want to debate the finer points of spiritual freedom instead of discovering what an actual freedom is – then it would be to your advantage to figure out what enlightenment is really on about before reaching for the keyboard again. I say this because this physical world – 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 – is not arising out of the consciousness of some dissociated human being somewhere on the Asian Continent. ‘Tis only a suggestion though.
RICHARD: If you have read this far you will have noticed that I snipped out all of my responses ... they were getting in the way of what you want to tell me. All I can suggest – if you have even the faintest glimmer of interest in what I am sharing with my fellow human beings that is – is that you read my responses with both eyes open. If that course of action does not appeal to you – and if you find that you still want to debate the finer points of spiritual freedom instead of discovering what an actual freedom is – then it would be to your advantage to figure out what enlightenment is really on about before reaching for the keyboard again. I say this because this physical world – 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 – is not arising out of the consciousness of some dissociated human being somewhere on the Asian Continent. ‘Tis only a suggestion though. RESPONDENT: Okay Richard, thank you very much for your correspondence. I don’t consider my questions being answered, or at least I could not open my eyes more while reading you. RICHARD: Because you have seen fit to reach for the keyboard again despite my suggestion I will provide an example that puts lie to your sincere avowal that you ‘could not open my eyes more while reading you’ . Viz.:
I see the word ‘closed’ there ... do you? If you do it may give you pause to reconsider your conclusion ‘I don’t consider my questions being answered’ ... because the meaning of the word dialogue does not include capriciously closing the discussion whilst blandly maintaining that ‘I could not open my eyes more while reading you’ . * RESPONDENT: I have been thoroughly sincere with my questioning, with the intention to really check what actual-freedom is about. RICHARD: If you say so, then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as your words throughout all these e-mails belie your affirmative assertions. RESPONDENT: It seems that this dialogue has failed, from both sides. RICHARD: Hmm ... and you are sure that there has been a dialogue, then? RESPONDENT: Please, don’t feel offended because of my words along our dialogue. RICHARD: How on earth could I possibly ‘feel offended’ ? Here is another example that again puts lie to your sincere avowal that you ‘could not open my eyes more while reading you’ . Viz.:
Does this help to throw some light upon which side ‘this dialogue’ has failed from? * RESPONDENT: Finally, thank you for your suggestion. RICHARD: Why? You obviously took no notice of my suggestion whatsoever because (a) as evidenced by just two of the many incidences (above) you did not go back through the dialogue and read my responses with both eyes open ... and (b) you now proceed to again debate the finer points of spiritual freedom (below) instead of discovering what an actual freedom is ... and, quite obviously from your response, without figuring out what enlightenment is really on about before reaching for the keyboard again. It would appear that your thanks are as hollow as both your sincerity and your understanding of spiritual enlightenment. RESPONDENT: Ah, one thing more: I could never buy into this ‘this universe arises out of the consciousness of some dissociated (or not dissociated) human being somewhere’, this has nothing to do with enlightenment ... RICHARD: I will provide but two quotes that puts lie to your protestation. Viz.:
The word ‘jnani’ is a title, a designation, an accreditation, which is applied to a human being who has attained to a (highly-prized and rarely reached) dissociated state of consciousness. * RESPONDENT: ... for what respects to me (again, I say: the director is not a character within the movie, it means: the bodymind of any being is not the source of this universe but part of it, obviously). I see you have not understood me at all ... RICHARD: I will spell out what I understand: an as yet unnamed ‘jnani’ somewhere on the Asian Continent has told you that the entire universe is happening through her/him (‘the entire universe is happening through a jnani’) and that this physical world which I live in and write of happens within the consciousness of such a person (‘that here and now of the physical world that you mention happens within consciousness, for the jnani’). You do seem to be overlooking the import of what I wrote in your readiness to contribute to the descent on Earth of the Feminine Energy (the compassionate and transformative dispensation of the Goddess):
As I understand what spiritual enlightenment is on about from the inside and not from another’s words (either verbal-learning or book-learning) I understand perfectly well what is being referred to when you say this:
As this puts lie to the validity of your ‘the world at large ...’ rebuttal (further above) I would suggest once more that it would be to your advantage to figure out what enlightenment is really on about before reaching for the keyboard again. I only say this because actualism is about peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: ... but then I have not understood you neither, (perhaps?). RICHARD: Shall I juxtapose the two parts of your sentence for clarity of communication? Viz.:
What I see is that when it comes to Richard not understanding what you write you are ‘not at all’ understood ... but when it comes to you not understanding what Richard writes he is ‘perhaps’ not understood by you. Might I suggest you look-up the meaning of the word ‘modest’ in the dictionary?
RESPONDENT: Richard, 1) You have broken the original sequence of our dialogue ... RICHARD: I have done nothing of the sort as all I did was snip out my responses in my fourth post to you in an (unsuccessful) attempt to have you see that there was no ‘dialogue’ inasmuch you were busily telling me, again and again, what my experience was – or, rather, what it was not – whilst all along maintaining that you were ‘very much interested into learn ...’. A co-respondent expressed regret at not being able to read more of your arguments being met so I posted the
un-snipped version for their appraisal and considered response RESPONDENT: ... mixing parts to your caprice. RICHARD: I can assure you, for what that is worth, that it was no ‘caprice’ as I am
entirely sincere in all my endeavours to navigate a way through the latest outbreak of cognitive dissonance An actual freedom is totally new to human history ... there is no precedent to go by. RESPONDENT: 2) Also you did ask me to discontinue it. RICHARD: Again, I did nothing of the sort as what I did was suggest that you do either of two things before reaching for the keyboard again ... when I saw no evidence in your ensuing response that you had taken my suggestion I re-suggested it (giving examples and explaining why into the bargain). It is this simple: when someone seeks to engage me in conversation I do have some say as to what goes on in regards to the make-up and content of my participation. RESPONDENT: 3) Besides you have accused me and insulted me openly. RICHARD: This mailing list, just like many others, is set-up in order to explore, investigate and examine just what it is in human nature that causes all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition. I am the recipient of what you call being ‘accused and insulted’ on a nearly daily basis ... it is all par for the course. Why would you want to be treated differently to anybody else? RESPONDENT: I understand that these are your ways of forcing the last word ... RICHARD: It would appear that whatever it is that you ‘understand’ in regards to what I
write and how I write has nothing to do with what is actually happening. Specifically I am asking you to read what is on offer
with both eyes open so as to forestall your engaging of me in further correspondence of the same repetitive ilk as before. For
example, I see that it was no less than eighteen times that I responded with ‘this flesh and blood body’ type of answers to
your ‘who is reading ...’, ‘who is writing ...’, ‘who is replying ...’ type of questions Why is this so difficult to comprehend? RESPONDENT: ... as if your ideas were beyond refutation or questioning. RICHARD: Nothing I say about the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition are my ‘ideas’ as I am reporting what is my direct and on-going experiencing. And for so long as you consider such direct experiencing to be ‘ideas’ is, more than likely, for about as long as you will continue to feel ‘accused and insulted’ (for example). This is not entertainment or some academic discussion as I mean what I say and I say what I mean: peace-on-earth is possible, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, for everybody and anybody. For anybody who genuinely wants it, of course. RESPONDENT: It’s okay with me, it is your trip. RICHARD: First, what you have explained (points 1 to 3 and beyond) is not my ‘trip’ at all; second, if it really were ‘okay’ with you then there would be no need to write an e-mail such as this. Third, I do understand how shocking it is to not have what one holds dear treated with the respect and/or reverence one deems it should. I lived that/was that enlightenment experience for eleven years and I appreciate that another person subjected me to a rigorous (and at time vigorous) critique on each and every aspect of my delusion. Otherwise I would still be living that massive hallucination to this very day.
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 |
