Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 25


August 25 2003

RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning both ‘Richard’ and your former ‘Self’. I haven’t read any satisfactory description of how your Self looked like so I thought your email response might be of help.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is a description of ‘The Absolute’ presenting itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love and eventually seen to be Pure Evil as well – not a satisfactory description? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the experience I’ve had was not of my Self, but of another person’s Self, a female. The Self I’ve experienced is a very old archetype, resembling somehow a printing press, a matrix, it looked like a 1000 years old child, very powerful yet very vulnerable. Its being consists of light, thus enabling the Self to be present everywhere and anytime. It’s a wonderful, beautiful Being, impossible to comprehend by pure intellectual reasoning, let alone described by words. It has to be lived in order to be known.
• [Richard]: ‘There was a period during my eleven years of being in the enlightened phase (in my sixth year) whereupon what I called ‘The Absolute’ presented itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love – which femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender. Eventually I was able to penetrate into the nature of this ‘Radiant Being’ and was able to see ‘Her’ other face:
It was Pure Evil – the Diabolical underpins the Divine – and upon such exposure ‘She’ disappeared forever. (August 06 2002).

RESPONDENT: You said it’s the same at root, but a better description is always welcomed (you’re an artist after all), so how does it looked like ‘above the ground’?

RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I invite all of you who have had a Self experience to try describing it.
• [Richard]: ‘Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed.

As ‘nothing else existed’ there was no ground for it to be above – no planet earth, no star sun, no universe at all – as all there was was The Absolute.

RESPONDENT: To be more precise, I’m interested what ‘whirled’ above the earth in your case as you speak very clearly about the roots (aka instinctual passions) yet not a single word about how You were, in contrast to your description of Richard.

RICHARD: And in what way does the following rate as being ‘not a single word’ about how I was then in contrast to how I actually have been all along? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, what is your description of enlightenment as you experienced it 20 years ago? (My understanding of the same event can be found in an earlier post).
• [Richard]: ‘And my answer is to be found in response to that earlier post: there was only The Absolute (God by whatever name) and nothing else existed. Howsoever, I can flesh it out a little ... my experience, for eleven years in the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’, was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: unconditional Love Agapé and Divine Compassion poured forth for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day.
It was a truly euphoric state of being.

RESPONDENT: As an example, is the description ‘a very old child’ valid in your case?

RICHARD: No, the description ‘there is nothing other than The Absolute’ is what is valid in my case. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘What do You understand by being enlightenment?
• [Richard]: ‘There is nothing other than The Absolute.

RESPONDENT: If you can provide a brief description for your particular Self image, so as to compare notes, I would be pleased to read it.

RICHARD: Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed.

RESPONDENT: Or is it indescribable?

RICHARD: No, it is easily described: there was nothing other than The Absolute.

*

RESPONDENT: There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system as well (one of its major sources are esoteric Sufi teachings), but it is said that it can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before.

RICHARD: If you could provide the hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition, which you say are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, I would be only too happy to read them.

RESPONDENT: So this being an already difficult thing to achieve for most people, it probably seemed pointless to develop the idea even further or to convey/design any specific method when there was no case.

RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, achieved an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, but it probably seemed to them pointless to convey to other human beings how they achieved it (let alone developing/ designing anything else) as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people.

Am I understanding you correctly?

RESPONDENT: Your case seems to prove that ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? It would help considerably to read the hints, about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition which you state are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, that say such a condition can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before, before coming to the conclusion that my case seems to prove that it probably seemed pointless to Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, to tell other human beings about how they achieved it – let alone developing/designing anything else – as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people.

And referenced quotes would help even more.

RESPONDENT: ... and any evidence for a more direct route is still to come.

RICHARD: If by this you mean that it is yet to be demonstrated, that one can proceed direct to an actual freedom from the human condition without passing ‘Go’ again and winding up in gaol, by somebody actually doing it then that is (to use a colloquialism) a no-brainer as nobody has done that yet – as far as I have been able to ascertain – but the pure consciousness experience (PCE) patently provides the necessary evidence that such an action is possible.

RESPONDENT: How can you eliminate something if you don’t fully (experientially) know it, in this case the soul?

RICHARD: As the soul can be experienced in an altered state of consciousness (ASC), and drops into the waste-bin of its own accord in a PCE, it does not require enlightenment to be experientially known that it has no existence here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Why not experience it and then throw it to the waste-bin when Experientially understood for what it is, as when dealing with the social identity?

RICHARD: As the soul drops into the waste-bin of its own accord in a PCE it does not need to be thrown there.

RESPONDENT: Why not applying the same measure for both?

RICHARD: The social identity, otherwise known as a conscience (a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within), being a cultural construct requires a different way of being dealt with than the genetically inherited ‘being’ or ‘presence’ which the identity is at root.

Or, to put that another way, the core of the identity within (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) cannot be whittled away, via the hands-on examination of various beliefs and truths and so on, like the overlaid social identity (and many aspects of the ego-self and some aspects of the feeling-self) can be.

RESPONDENT: And why are you so persistent in saying to those walking this path to stay away from enlightenment?

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to draw your attention to a previous discussion? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I question if actual freedom from Human Condition is attainable without surpassing the last psychic Archetype, the Self, our Creator, out of which everything has begun?
• [Richard]: ‘My experience is that an actual freedom is attainable by going beyond spiritual enlightenment ... however I do not advise going that route (via enlightenment) as it is too traumatic.
Also it is just plain silly.
• [Respondent]: ‘And if that so, the enlightenment ratio being 1/1.000.000 what would it be the AF ratio of success?
• [Richard]: ‘As it is exceedingly difficult to live in the massive delusion that spiritual enlightenment is I would easily estimate that the ratio would be much less for those that would go directly.
Much, much less.

Can you not see that the reason why I am ‘so persistent in saying to those walking this path to stay away from enlightenment’ is because (a) it is too traumatic ... and (b) it is just plain silly ... and (c) as it is exceedingly difficult to live in the massive delusion that spiritual enlightenment is the ratio of success can easily be estimated to be much less – much, much less – for those that would go directly?
If you cannot see this then perhaps it would help to provide the analogy I usually give:

• [Richard]: ‘... all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours, and the Saints and the Sages and the Seers did not have peace-on-earth on their agenda. Obviously someone had to be the first ... and this fact was thrilling to the nth degree. It meant that an actual freedom from the human condition, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body had been discovered and could be demonstrated and described ... no one else need ever take that route again (and I would not wish upon anyone to have to follow in my footsteps and run that full gamut of existential angst to break through to what lay beyond). I always liken it to the physical adventure that Mr. James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ago. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and immense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain.
No one has to go the path of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat.

I do not know how much more clearer I can put it than this ... but I will give it a go (further below).

RESPONDENT: How can you speak of a way towards ‘actual freedom’ not via the ‘Rock of Enlightenment’ if you haven’t walked that route yourself?

RICHARD: It is quite simple: provided the soul is not resurrected/does not resurrect itself from the waste-bin (and that proviso is of vital importance) there is then only a direct route to an actual freedom from the human condition ... thus no need for me to have walked that route myself.

RESPONDENT: There is still proof to come for this route to actually exist ...

RICHARD: If I may interject again? As you say (further below) that you can ‘can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC’ can you not also intellectually figure out that the proof for the direct route lies in the very fact that a PCE can happen in the first place?

RESPONDENT: ... and then we can speak of an efficient viable method of riding ourselves from the human condition.

RICHARD: And just what is not efficient and viable about altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, brought about by asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) with the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth stunningly evident in the PCE become apparent sooner rather than later?

RESPONDENT: Till now the logical conclusion based on ‘facts’ is that there will be no ‘peace-on earth’ if this is a method unintentionally designed for the One in 10.000.000.

RICHARD: The actualism method, first put into practice in 1981 by a normal person with a normal wife and a normal family and a normal mortgage and so on, is not designed for the ‘One in 10,000,000’ person (not even unintentionally) as it was born out of the initial four-hour PCE in June 1980, which set the whole process in motion in January 1981, and not out of the enlightened state which came about in September 1981 as a result of the vitally important proviso not yet being known (someone has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour) let alone being remembered/applied under all circumstances ... circumstances such as falling in love, for example, and being bitten badly by the enlightenment bug as a direct result of the love being unrequited.

I kid you not ... the only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is that one may become enlightened instead.

RESPONDENT: There is still evidence to come for a person to safely arrive to ‘actual freedom’ and then to convey how it was ‘via the non-enlightenment route’.

RICHARD: As I safely arrived via the massive delusion called spiritual enlightenment why would arriving via a non-delusory path be any less safe?

I would easily estimate it to be more safe ... far, far more safe.

RESPONDENT: I bet it would be a very interesting account.

RICHARD: The account of the next person to become actually free would indeed be interesting ... maybe this is an apt moment to put this hoary subject to bed, pat it on the head and send it to sleep, until somebody new to this mailing list raises it again as if it has never occurred to Richard that an actual freedom from the human condition has not yet been replicated (even though they may say, in the next breath, that it has been lived before)? Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘Let us be realistic, though. When you talk about .00001 percent ... we have not yet demonstrated that anyone can replicate my condition. (...) Can my condition be replicated? Who knows? Only time will tell. (...) So we can say that we can demonstrate that something [virtual freedom] is actually possible, but it has not yet been demonstrated that it is possible to replicate me. I may be a freak.

Those words were spoken somewhere between May-July 1997 ... and even before I went public I wrote the following in my journal:

• [Richard]: ‘... even if one does not immediately self-immolate psychologically and psychically there is a truly remarkable virtual freedom that can be attained through application and diligence borne upon pure intent. For those that would seek to excuse themselves on the grounds that I am freak, an aberration of nature, this factor belies this justification. (page 143, ‘Richard’s Journal’; ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997).

And even more explicitly:

• [Richard]: ‘My keenness for another’s experience always accords to the following sequence:

1. I am primarily interested for your sake (for the sake of the particular flesh and blood body) as you are a fellow human being.
2. I am secondarily interested for everybody’s sake (for the sake of flesh and blood bodies in general) as another person being actually free increases the possibility of setting a chain-reaction in process.
3. I am lastly interested for my own sake (for then not only am I am no longer arguably a ‘freak of nature’ but I can compare notes, as it were, so as to more reliably separate out what is species specific from that which is idiosyncratic).

Furthermore I have acknowledged there may be other methods:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The reason I ask this is because the one question method of Actualism is way too simplistic to be effective.
• [Richard]: ‘It is the only method, in all of human history, which has worked to deliver the goods ... there may be other methods, yet to be discovered, but this is the only one so far proven to be effective.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘[Your method] is not new ...’.
• [Richard]: ‘As an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history then any method to enable this to come about is also new’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... it is not the only method that works but it is fine’.
• [Richard]: ‘As no one else is actually free from the human condition, as yet, then other methods are still in the experimental stage. Until one of them works then this method I offer – which worked for me – is the only one available’.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I ask this as there are now almost 6 years since you went public with your discovery and the method to achieve it, you must have some feedback ...
• [Richard]: ‘The only feedback is what can be read publicly ... I rarely, if ever, conduct a private correspondence these days.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... or is it a perfect method needing no improvement?
• [Richard]: ‘There may be other methods, yet to be discovered, but this is the only one so far which has delivered the goods.

There are other references but maybe these will do for now ... put succinctly the replication of my condition presently calls for pioneers, people with the necessary derring-do to pilot a one-seater aeroplane by the seat of their pants to this pristine wonderland, and not for those who will follow in their wake in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain.

And nobody knows who that pioneer aviator is until that person actually lands here ... not even me.

RESPONDENT: It’s the reason why I’ve asked about Alan (a practicing actualist), as his site (www.actualfreedom.co.uk) is out-of-reach.

RICHARD: As it is a reasonable assumption to make, that if somebody subscribed to this mailing list (or even anybody previously subscribed) has become actually free from the human condition they will present an account of it, I do not see the point in writing to somebody – let alone anybody – every now and again only to ask if it has happened yet.

Furthermore, it is pointless to ask why another person is not yet actually free because if another person – any person – knew why they were not yet actually free they would be actually free ... and there is something strange, almost to the point of being weird, about an attitude which has it that until somebody else has walked a path one will not walk that path because such a path has not yet been demonstrated to exist.

Put simply: how on earth can something be done if nobody will do it because it has not yet been done?

*

RESPONDENT: Concerning the distinction between ASC and PCE and taking into account that you experientially (via direct perception) know that this Universe is infinite, I wonder if it is not consciousness that let you know this to be a fact.

RICHARD: I have made it clear on many occasions that unmediated perception (aka apperceptive awareness) is how infinitude is directly experienced.

RESPONDENT: I don’t think you have arrived at this thanks to one of your senses.

RICHARD: You may find the following exchange to be of interest, then:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Since the universe is ‘immeasurably vast’, how can it be an ‘objective actuality’?
• [Richard]: ‘Something does not have to be measured to be objective (existing in its own right). Infinitude simply cannot be calculated as ... um ... as beginning here and ending there. Infinitude is beginningless and endless; boundless and limitless; perpetual and perdurable; unborn and undying ... and, as I said, it cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling.
If you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude.

And by ‘standing naked’ I mean sans identity in toto (unmediated perception/apperceptive awareness): the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception first happened one night in early 1981 whilst looking at the space between the stars, and not the stars themselves as one might normally do (due to the preponderance figure usually takes over background), and when more stars became apparent in that space, looking into the space between them, and so on, and so on, until infinitude became apparent as an experience of itself ... or, to put that another way, being the actual experiencing of infinitude (which is what all flesh and blood bodies are anyway) as a sensory organism.

Further to this point, six e-mails after the e-mail the above excerpt is from the following line, which refers to visually seeing infinitude wherever one looks, may very well give pause to reflect upon just what it is that is being conveyed by the term ‘unmediated perception’ (aka apperceptive awareness):

• [Richard]: ‘Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for example.

The entire discussion about the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception may be of further interest if only because of the dominance abstract logic can have over sensible reason (especially when acting in concert with spirituality). The full exchange starts here:

It may take some wading through.

RESPONDENT: Otherwise it would have not been such a ‘hot topic’ on this mailing list as a fact is out in the open, cannot be argued with, etc.

RICHARD: It is only a ‘hot topic’ for those who want scientific proof of something experiential (whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof – as if they were one and the same thing – into the bargain).

I have never made any secret of the fact that actualism is experiential ... for just one example out of many:

• [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to *the direct experience* that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. [emphasis added].

In what way is infinitude not out in the open, and thus able to be argued with, etcetera, in a PCE?

RESPONDENT: I do intellectually understand that the universe is infinite (the spear analogy) but I also experientially know the limits of our intellect.

RICHARD: It is not so much that the intellect has limits in regards to infinitude per se as it is, rather, that (a) the extent of its grasp is usually circumscribed by a centre (the ‘self’ by any name) in cognisance ... and (b) its intelligence is usually crippled by the affective faculty ... and (c) its ability to sensibly reason is often dominated by abstract logic (mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process for example) ... and (d) it is not an experiential faculty anyway (the wrong tool for the job, as it were, just as is the affective faculty).

Howsoever, in conjunction with apperception the intellect has no difficulty ... else how would these descriptions/explanations get written?

RESPONDENT: I also experientially know that consciousness has no boundaries (for now I only remember) and I can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC based on my life events. I think that the particular ASC known as Spiritual Enlightenment has the identity projected into Consciousness, for I cannot explain otherwise the holograph-like infinite image of Me; and also that both denominations have a Consciousness word attached to them.

RICHARD: In an ASC the identity is not ‘projected into Consciousness’ as it is ‘Consciousness’ itself (aka one’s True Identity) realising/recognising/remembering it is ‘Consciousness’ in a process known as ‘Self-Realisation’.

As there is no identity in a PCE – else it be not a PCE – there is no ‘Consciousness’ to be realised/recognised/remembered: there is only the pure experiencing that the condition of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto can enable ... plus the innocent awareness of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto.

In other words, when stripped of its metaphysical connotations the word ‘consciousness’ means the condition of being conscious – the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition – and nothing more and nothing less. Vis.:

• ‘-ness: forming nouns expressing a state or condition, especially from adjectives and (originally past or passive) participles, as bitterness, conceitedness, darkness, hardness, kind-heartedness, tongue-tiedness, up-to-dateness, etc., also occasionally from adverbs, as everydayness, nowness, etc., and in other nonce uses. Also in extended senses ‘an instance of a state or condition’, as a kindness etc., ‘something in a state or condition’, as foulness etc., and in a few other exceptional uses, as witness. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: So the confusion arrises that not the Universe is infinite but that I am, or that I’m the one immortal, not the Universe, etc. I haven’t heard enlightened people say a word about the infinity of this Universe, but instead the same old spiritual refrain: Me, Me and Me.

RICHARD: The ‘Me, Me and Me’ refrain is narcissism (‘self’-admiration, ‘self’-love, ‘self’-conceit) writ large and in such a blatant way that it is a wonder the many and varied saints, sages, and seers have got way with it for so long ... ‘self’-aggrandisement, being for the benefit of the immortal soul, is an extreme act of selfism.

What I find to be of interest here is that now you say that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe despite stating (further above) that there are hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings?

Or is it a case of it also probably seeming to them pointless tell other human beings about how the universe actually is as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people?

RESPONDENT: I think the problem was how can you delete something which is infinite?

RICHARD: The way to delete the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ which arose out of an extreme act of selfism for the benefit of the immortal soul was via an extreme act of altruism – altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – just the same as deleting the ‘being’ or ‘presence’, which the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into, will be for anybody else upon arriving at the culmination of the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

Only a lot less traumatic – if at all – and nowhere near as just plain silly – if at all – as the word ‘Consciousness’ is just another word for ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (usually capitalised, upon self-realisation, as ‘Being’ or ‘Presence’).

RESPONDENT: As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you.

RICHARD: But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. Here is the initial exchange:

• [Respondent]: ‘You don’t speak much about the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State and its Benevolence, far surpassing any human intelligence or wisdom (...) .’
• [Richard]: ‘(...) In what way does the ‘extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State and its Benevolence’ far surpass human intelligence? Can you provide some examples?

Do you not see that I am responding to what is called a tacit agreement (an unspoken yet implicit assumption that the other also takes what one considers to be necessarily true to be necessarily true as well)? So as to break the stranglehold of this tacit assumption I went on to provide two examples of how human intelligence exceeded the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state:

• [Richard]: ‘What immediately leaps to mind is human intelligence sussing out that the earth is neither flat nor at the centre of everything ... one can search through all the scriptures, of the enlightened ones over the last 3,000-5,000 years, for any reference to such basic information to no avail’.

In the next e-mail I reminded you of what I had asked for:

• [Richard]: ‘...perhaps this is an apt moment to make the observation that nowhere in this e-mail have you provided any examples as to what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses human intelligence’.

Plus, after some discussion regarding the impressionable nature of a god’s sapience, I expanded upon what I had said in the previous e-mail:

• [Richard]: ‘The $64,000 question is this: is the Self, a Being of light, the Light which permeates everything, a God, Goddess, or Master behind the curtains, the One who holds in His hand the wires that make humans human, the Creator out of which everything has begun, the Intelligence of the species, intelligent or not ... let alone an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence?
Where is the evidence of this intelligence?
For eleven years, night and day, I was able to intimately explore this issue, and other issues, and all that was evident was an outstanding ignorance and a remarkable arrogance ... the example in the previous e-mail of planet earth being a heliocentric spheroid being but one instance of the ignorance and the arrogation of the properties of the universe, and the aggrandisement of human qualities, in this e-mail are but some instances of the arrogance’.

Only to receive this reply:

• [Respondent]: ‘The $64.000 question ... Hmm, I don’t know’.

To which I responded:

• [Richard]: ‘What I know is that you are yet to provide any examples as to what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses human intelligence’.

Only to receive this reply:

• [Respondent]: ‘As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you.

Shall I put it this way? Any time I have asked others – be they either self-realised people, scriptural experts, or lay-persons – for examples which would demonstrate what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses/exceeds human intelligence I have similarly drawn a blank ... and for a very good reason.

To wit: it does not surpass human intelligence at all.

Indeed, upon closer examination, it is remarkably unintelligent – to the point of being downright ignorant (ignorance such as advocating pacifism, for example, which would enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to, not only rule the world, but propagate/perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice) – and outstandingly unliveable into the bargain, as are all edicts handed done by bodiless entities, inasmuch as the word ‘dissociation’ would better describe what is ‘extraordinary’ about the enlightened state ... which unintelligence was my whole point of asking you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence.

In other words, I was asking these questions so as to have you think for yourself – as it was you that said that the enlightened state has ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ which is ‘far surpassing’ any human intelligence and not me – yet instead you would rather have me go trotting around the guru circuit, enquiring of massively deluded people for ‘proof’ of what I already know, rather than face up to the implications and ramifications of what this all means ... and not only what it means for you but for all humankind.

In short: there is a vital opportunity here for a momentum towards the ultimate altruistic act to be set in motion.

So here is the $64,000 question again (slightly revised this time around): is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ intelligent or not ... let alone being an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence?

I look forward to your considered response.

September 15 2003

RESPONDENT: You said it [the ‘Self’] is the same at root, but a better description is always welcomed (you’re an artist after all), so how does it looked like ‘above the ground’?

RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following? Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘I invite all of you who have had a Self experience to try describing it. [Richard]: ‘Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed. (August 06 2002). As ‘nothing else existed’ there was no ground for it to be above – no planet earth, no star sun, no universe at all – as all there was was The Absolute.

RESPONDENT: I used the term ‘above’ in contrast to the word ‘roots’ – the instinctual passions, so as to get a more precise image of the Self instead of the cause of its emergence.

RICHARD: Okay then ... as there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed there were no roots for it to be above – no instinctual passions, no blind nature, nothing physical at all – as all there was was The Absolute.

The enlightenment state is a dissociative state ... and to be fully enlightened is to be fully dissociated.

RESPONDENT: As for ‘nothing else existed’ – It was like the physical world was permeated by the Absolute presence, It being everything, but I was able to draw a distinction between the senses perception of the world and the Absolute presence in all things. There is a degree of difficulty in understanding your statement ‘nothing else existed’ as in my case at least there was both the Absolute (located primarily above the Earth, more in its atmosphere rather then below the Earth’s crust, an ethereal Being) and this physical world, but looking totally different then my usual experience of it.

RICHARD: All of that – the earth’s atmosphere, its crust, its nether regions, its sensate physicality – and everything else was but a dreaming ... a dream to wake others up from, and live out lucidly, until physical ‘death’ (also part of the dreaming) brought it all to an end.

None of it was real ... there was only The Absolute and nothing else existed.

RESPONDENT: The world of the senses, I then called Nature, was alive and intelligent (a different intelligence then humans currently posses) as it was somehow permeated by the Self.

RICHARD: In what way was what you then called ‘Nature’ intelligent (a different intelligence than humans’ intelligence)? Could you provide some examples?

What immediately springs to mind, for instance, are the congenital disorders which this ‘different intelligence’ bestows upon sentient beings ... such as spina bifida (a congenital malformation, in which one or more vertebrae fail to close fully over the meninges of the spinal cord, frequently causing lower limb paralysis and hydrocephalus) which human intelligence, through advanced surgical practices and physiotherapy, has been able to somewhat ameliorate and, through the mapping of the human genome, may very well be able to eventually eradicate.

Then there are the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which what you called ‘Nature’ bestows upon sentient beings ... in what way is it differently intelligent to be paralysed by fear, enraged by aggression, overwhelmed by nurture, and inflamed by desire, for instance?

It was questions such as these which (amongst other things) enabled an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: Also, it was a different kind of perception and ‘knowledge’, a direct one, no categories or classifications needed (the scientific eye) as you directly knew the substance of any-thing.

RICHARD: In the first few years of the enlightenment phase of my freedom the substance of all things was love – love was everything and everything was love; love was all and all was love; love was it and it was love – and it was love’s compassion which poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings.

And love was unspeakable, love was its own language, love said what was needed to be said, and even to say the words ‘love is the way; love is the means; love is the end’ was to be saying too much for there was a truth that could never be put into words ... but the truth had to be spoken, nevertheless, hence ‘love is the way; love is the means; love is the end’ was the essence of what was vocalised.

This was the deepest feeling possible – an enduring (timeless) passion quite removed from the norm – as an unsurpassable state of being. It was the ultimate, the supreme, the absolute beingness of all beings or being ... it was Being in Itself. The term ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description ... it was an all-consuming State of Being totally overwhelming in all its splendour and glory.

For three years, by the calendar, there was only Love – and its Compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings – then Love and its Compassion boarded an airplane and flew to India.

The rest is history.

RESPONDENT: This is what I would call direct knowledge or esoteric. An enlightened man has no need for books as his knowledge is experiential (a direct understanding of himself and the World).

RICHARD: We have discussed this issue before:

• [Respondent]: ‘Being the world around you enables you to Know the Essence (cells, atoms, molecules, electrons) out of which things are made (a tree, water, stone, people, animal).
• [Richard]: ‘The whole point of what I wrote in that section of the e-mail (‘if Mr. Mervin Irani (aka Meher Baba) and Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju (aka Sai Baba) had lived more than five hundred/one thousand years ago they would have been ‘flat earth’ god-men but because of human advances in knowledge they were able to know that the earth is an oblate spheroid circling the sun’) is encapsulated in your above sentence: if you had lived more than 500 years ago you would not be able to ‘Know the Essence’ as being electrons, atoms, molecules, and cells as those advances in human knowledge are very recent (electrons in 1897 CE by Mr. J. J. Thompson; atoms in 1808 CE by Mr. John Dalton; molecules in 1662 CE by Mr. Robert Boyle; cells in 1665 CE by Mr. Robert Hooke).
In other words: it is projected human knowledge and not revelation and/or divination>.

Put differently: it is projected human knowledge and not ‘direct knowledge or esoteric’ knowledge at all.

*

RESPONDENT: We create our world as much as it is created by our senses, there is a point where this two worlds interconnect, the reticular activating system, maybe?

RICHARD: No, the identity within creates an inner reality which it pastes as a veneer over this actual world and calls it an outer reality – which gives the feeling that its outer world is created by the senses – thus there is no point where reality and actuality interconnect.

This actual world – which the identity is totally oblivious to and forever locked-out of – is not created by the senses ... it exists in its own right.

RESPONDENT: Having no identity and no inner world to be created by it, seems that the flux from your brain has ceased, remaining only the flux coming from the senses.

RICHARD: As there is no inner world being created by an identity there is nowhere for any ‘flux’ coming from the senses to go to – indeed there is no ‘coming from the senses’ – and it is not helpful to try to comprehend by using a there and here (be it either coming or going) model as there is only here.

I am the senses – I am these eyes seeing, I am these ears hearing, I am this nose smelling, I am this tongue tasting, I am this skin touching – thus there is no separation from what is happening (hence no coming or going).

*

RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning both ‘Richard’ and your former ‘Self’. I haven’t read any satisfactory description of how your Self looked like so I thought your email response might be of help.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is a description of ‘The Absolute’ presenting itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love and eventually seen to be Pure Evil as well – not a satisfactory description? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the experience I’ve had was not of my Self, but of another person’s Self, a female. The Self I’ve experienced is a very old archetype, resembling somehow a printing press, a matrix, it looked like a 1000 years old child, very powerful yet very vulnerable. Its being consists of light, thus enabling the Self to be present everywhere and anytime. It’s a wonderful, beautiful Being, impossible to comprehend by pure intellectual reasoning, let alone described by words. It has to be lived in order to be known.
• [Richard]: ‘There was a period during my eleven years of being in the enlightened phase (in my sixth year) whereupon what I called ‘The Absolute’ presented itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love – which femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender. Eventually I was able to penetrate into the nature of this ‘Radiant Being’ and was able to see ‘Her’ other face: It was Pure Evil – the Diabolical underpins the Divine – and upon such exposure ‘She’ disappeared forever.

RESPONDENT: OK, let’s finish this discussion about the Absolute and its various perceived properties, we both speak of something belonging to the Past. Yet, the essential issue here is that if your aim is peace–on-earth or personal peace, then the Absolute is of no use as would have already been Peace by now.

RICHARD: No, ‘the essential issue here’ is whether The Absolute (by whatever name) is intelligent or not ... let alone an extraordinary intelligence far surpassing human intelligence.

Why there has not been any peace (and harmony) by now on this verdant and azure planet per favour spiritual enlightenment, and why there never will be, is quite simple to comprehend: peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda ... enlightenment’s peace is an (supposed) after-death peace.

RESPONDENT: One objection: maybe the Obsolete is not the outcome of our sublimated/transformed instinctual passions (a Blind Nature product) but something that exists on its own accord.

RICHARD: Even if (note ‘if’) it did in what way will an after-death peace ever bring an end to all the before-death suffering?

RESPONDENT: Why would have Nature such an escape in its survival program?

RICHARD: Yet ‘Nature’ does not have an after-death peace in its survival programme – nor a timeless and spaceless and formless absolute for that matter – as that is but what certain human beings have made up out of it all (via the triumph of selfism over altruism).

Meaning that it is a totally self-centred survival-at-all-costs after-death peace.

RESPONDENT: For what reason?

RICHARD: As your first question arises out of a baseless ‘maybe’ speculation there is nothing for your follow-up query to answer.

RESPONDENT: Is it some kind of Super-Bonus for those sacrificing for the Species sake?

RICHARD: Your answer to your follow-up query (even though presented as a question) presupposes nature being intelligent when there is no evidence that it is ... hence the term ‘blind’ nature. And all that blind nature is concerned about, so to speak, is the survival of the species – and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned – thus blind nature does not care two hoots about you or me or him or her ... but I do.

The question is .... do you?

*

RESPONDENT: And concerning that feminine radiant being, there is a point I don’t understand. The Absolute is The Self, agree?

RICHARD: Both words refer to the same thing, yes.

RESPONDENT: The Self I’ve experienced belonged to an actual flesh-and-blood human being, more precisely my ex-girlfriend. The radiant feminine being you’ve experienced when the Absolute changed its face so-to-speak, was the Self of an actual flesh-and-blood human being or not?

RICHARD: No, it was not the Self of anyone in particular – it was Love itself personified as a (metaphysical) feminine form – and, as I said earlier, its femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender ... if I were to have been of feminine gender then Love itself may very well have been personified as a (metaphysical) masculine form.

It really makes no difference ... behind all manifestations The Absolute was genderless.

RESPONDENT: Prior to changing its form, was It the Grand version of Richard, being somehow very different but in fact resembling you-as-Richard?

RICHARD: No, it was universal (impersonal).

RESPONDENT: I’m aware of the possibility that the Self I’ve experienced could have very suddenly changed ‘form’ and become my Self, as it would have been more ‘normal’, that is an image representing the Grand version of me, instead of my-ex-girlfriend.

RICHARD: We have had this discussion before:

• [Respondent]: ‘... it’s clear I was no Goddess, ha?
• [Richard]: ‘Behind all gods and goddesses lies the genderless Absolute ... which can manifest in or as whatever form it likes.

You appear to be confusing the form the Self takes on/manifests as with the Self itself (which is genderless).

RESPONDENT: I understand that when the Grand version of Richard (that is a male-God) changed form into that of a female-god (Goddess) it was high-time for you to become suspicious about the nature of this process.

RICHARD: No, that is when the questions I had about Love Agapé (and its Divine Compassion) were experientially answered ... I had known from the very beginning, from the very moment of enlightenment, that The Absolute was behind all gods and goddesses (behind all manifestations).

I had become suss about love and compassion before I went to India – indeed it was one of the the main reasons I went there – and the event under discussion was the direct outcome of an intensity of purpose arising out of being driven by some ‘energy’ for six years to spread ‘The Word’ (by whatever name) ... and that had never been my intention when I first had a pure consciousness experience (PCE). That peak experience initiated my incursion into all matters metaphysical, culminating in the ‘death’ of ego and catapulting me into the sacred ... imbuing me with/immersing me in love and compassion and beauty and truth.

My original intent had been to cleanse myself of all that is detrimental to personal happiness and interpersonal harmony ... in other words: peace on earth in our life-time. Instead of that rather simple ambition, I found that I was impelled on an odyssey to be the latest ‘Saviour of Humankind’ in a long list of enlightened ‘Beings’ ... and that imposition did not sit well with me as they had all failed with their ‘Teachings’. After something like five thousand years of recorded history humankind was nowhere nearer to peace and harmony than before. Indeed, because of the much-touted love and compassion, much hatred and bloodshed had followed in their wake. That abysmal fate was something I wished to avoid repeating, whatever the personal cost in terms of losing the much-prized state of ‘Being’. My diagnosis back then, which enabled me to be apparent today, was simple:

If I am driven by some ‘energy’ – no matter how ‘good’ that ‘energy’ be – then I am not actually free.

RESPONDENT: You cannot be a goddess, right?

RICHARD: Wrong ... being The Absolute (there was only The Absolute and nothing else existed) I could manifest in/as whatever form I liked.

RESPONDENT: And then, who are you?

RICHARD: Put simply: I was looking at Myself (as in Self seeing Self).

RESPONDENT: This was the question raised in my mind (although in the background) when living spiritual enlightenment, the question ‘who is watching whom’? when there was no me left, but only the presence of an unimaginable beautiful Goddess.

RICHARD: Okay ... and did you ever find out who you were?

RESPONDENT: Or is it that the Self, being a part of the Collective Unconscious can form itself in the image of anyone alive/ dead on this planet?

RICHARD: That is one way of putting it (à la Mr. Carl Jung), yes ... but it is nowhere near as grandiose as Me being Me in whatever form One choses.

*

RESPONDENT: As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you.

RICHARD: But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. Here is the initial exchange: [snipped for space]. In other words, I was asking these questions so as to have you think for yourself – as it was you that said that the enlightened state has ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ which is ‘far surpassing’ any human intelligence and not me – yet instead you would rather have me go trotting around the guru circuit, enquiring of massively deluded people for ‘proof’ of what I already know, rather than face up to the implications and ramifications of what this all means ... and not only what it means for you but for all humankind. In short: there is a vital opportunity here for a momentum towards the ultimate altruistic act to be set in motion. So here is the $64,000 question again (slightly revised this time around): is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ intelligent or not ... let alone being an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence?

RESPONDENT: Ha, when faced with this question I would prefer to be enlightened, but due to my present ‘comfortably numb’ condition I cannot answer it. I suppose the best example is the best answer and proof, in this case a person who is enjoying such a condition, not the self-realised and various pseudo-gurus but a genuine enlightened man (I cannot recommend one to you as I know no-one alive).

RICHARD: If I may point out? We have been around this particular mulberry bush before:

• [Respondent]: ‘As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you.
• [Richard]: ‘But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence.

All you have done this second time around is add the codicil that you know of no such person alive ... which pushes any examination of your claim about [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpassing human intelligence off into the never-never land.

You do seem to be having some difficulty in substantiating your claim.

RESPONDENT: I also cannot see the reason why your discovery wouldn’t be of great interest to such a person, it would have been for me. Yet, the more I think about it, the more *impossible* it seems that you actually exited the Enlightened state on your own accord ...

RICHARD: What do you mean by this? As I have already made it quite clear that I probably could not have done it on my own, and that if it had not have been for my previous companion I would most likely still be living the massive delusion popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, you seem to be implying something other than that.

RESPONDENT: ... maybe those that are enlightened at present know not a thing that there is a different (and supposedly better) world then the Divine realm.

RICHARD: Everybody I have spoken to at length – everybody – can recall a pure consciousness experience (PCE) at some stage in their life ... why would they be the exception?

RESPONDENT: The guru championship might reveal that there are interested individuals not only in sex, fame and fortune. Would it not be a possible-thing-to-happen for them to actually contemplate the possibility for an actual world, as this is their main activity anyway?

RICHARD: If I may point out? Their ‘main activity’ is securing their post-mortem reward in an undisputedly non-actual world ... a one-way ticket to the after-death abode of their choice.

RESPONDENT: Seems *impossible* because in my case the whole process of plunging into the Abyss lasted less then 10 seconds, being such an extraordinary event compared to my everyday existence, still echoing 6 years after it happened (although I don’t remember it – it’s like never happened). I’m still impressed even today, yet without the various side-effects.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that the reason why it seems impossible I actually exited the enlightened state on my own accord is because, even though you only spent 10 seconds in the abyss, you are still impressed today?

If so, and given that self-realised peoples are so impressed as to not exit self-realisation of their own accord, the more you think of it what do you think aided me, then?

Just curious.

RESPONDENT: But for those with higher rankings, skill and time spent within the Divine field would be much easier to comprehend (not being so fascinated).

RICHARD: Au contraire ... ‘those with higher rankings’ are so fascinated as to be totally fascinated (narcissism, with no ego to hold it in check, can be all-absorbing) .

RESPONDENT: All in one, ‘97 was a very interesting year for some people, no?

RICHARD: Not as interesting as ’92 ... for that was when all the spirit-ridden ‘ancient wisdom’ of the bronze-age peoples came to an end in a person intent on leaving both a well-written and a well-spoken legacy – if not a living one – for future generations.

For no doubt the rear-guard action will go on into an indeterminate future.

*

RESPONDENT: What I can remember is that when enlightened I was more intelligent then in my normal condition ...

RICHARD: Okay ... can you say (a) in what way you were more intelligent than your normal condition ... and (b) provide some examples of being more intelligent than your normal condition?

I only ask because this is all I have to go on up until now:

• [Respondent]: ‘As for asking myself the same question as you did ‘what/who’s looking at whom’ stuff, it’s very understandable as there I was, with no Respondent left of me, busy being somebody else’s Self, conditions were as such that a highly possible logical intelligent outcome resulted: ‘what am I’? as it’s clear I was no Goddess, ha? But the impact and relevance of it was like thinking why the albatross wings are two meters instead of four when having an intense orgasm. (...) the question ‘who/what is watching who?’ was not asked by the ‘big I’ as SHE could not ask such a question, it was rather the body (intellectual brain) reaction to an event such as the ASC. This question had no relevance to the Self where my sense of identity was situated, so the comparison with the albatross’s wings span ... it was an irrelevant questioning for the Self’.

What you have provided, so far, is an example of your intelligence being overwhelmed by the intensity of the orgasmic-like experience (to the point that the impact of the ‘highly possible logical intelligent outcome’ was rendered irrelevant by that Self’s presence) ... and that the Self did not/could not ask such a ‘logical intelligent’ question as it had no relevance to the Self.

Yet somehow that has left you being still impressed that there was an intelligence surpassing human intelligence.

RESPONDENT: ... it was like having access to the whole comprised knowledge of Being,

RICHARD: Aye, that is not being questioned ... the question is whether ‘the whole comprised knowledge of Being’ is indeed an intelligence which far surpasses human intelligence and, moreover, whether it is an intelligence at all.

RESPONDENT: I was feeling a much normal ‘person’ with normal reactions, free and able to enjoy life with no neurotic like symptoms. It would be better for descriptive purposes to change the term ‘person’ with ‘machine’, as this was how I viewed my body and its brain products, a stimulus-response machine (with no negative meaning attached to this word).

RICHARD: It is one thing to be feeling free and able to enjoy life without neurotic-like symptoms, whilst psychotic-like symptoms prevail (disidentification from a now-seen-to-be mechanical body/brain due to identification with a non-physical being), and another thing to classify this shift of identity from the physical to the non-physical as being more intelligent than normal ... let alone being an intelligence far surpassing human intelligence.

Put succinctly: the feeling of being more intelligent has nothing to do with actually being more intelligent ... a feeling is not a fact.

*

RESPONDENT: I would like in our future discussions to bring about more issues partaking to my present human condition instead of the past divine state of Being (which I can hardly ‘remember’ or represent); this would be much more useful (at least for me).

RICHARD: The key to being able to do so may very well lie here:

• [Respondent]: ‘Seems *impossible* because in my case the whole process of plunging into the Abyss lasted less then 10 seconds, being such an extraordinary event compared to my everyday existence, still echoing 6 years after it happened (although I don’t remember it – it’s like never happened). I’m still impressed even today, yet without the various side-effects.

Just in case you have not noticed: one of the various side-effects (which you say you are without) is being still impressed even today.

RESPONDENT: One more thing, do you have the discriminative ability still intact, the ability to see something as being of greater value then some other similar object/person (a value scale of some sort)?

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: if, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/waitress brings hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10 and the latter as being 1 on the same scale ... howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff of both the former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself, is incomparable (peerless).

Thus, in the ultimate sense, everything is perfect here in this actual world.

September 15 2003

RESPONDENT: There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system as well (one of its major sources are esoteric Sufi teachings), but it is said that it can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before.

RICHARD: If you could provide the hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition, which you say are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, I would be only too happy to read them.

RESPONDENT: Yes, there is a phrase in a book written by Rodney Collin, either ‘The Theory of Conscious Harmony’ or ‘The Theory of Celestial Influence’ ...

RICHARD: Mr. Rodney Collin’s book ‘The Theory Of Eternal Life’ is available on-line in its totality at the following URL: www.geocities.com/rodney_collin/elife1.htm

In chapter one he says that ‘this chapter represents an extreme condensation of the ideas contained in Chapters 10, 11, 14 and 21 of an earlier book The Theory of Celestial Influence’ (which you mention above) and nowhere in that chapter, or in any other chapter, does he speak in any way of anything even remotely resembling an actual freedom from the human condition ... indeed the title itself (‘Eternal Life’) is a dead giveaway without even having to read it.

It is all about surviving physical death.

RESPONDENT: ... and if I remember correctly there are also remarks in ‘Beelzebub’s tales to his grandson’ by G. I. Gurdjieff.

RICHARD: I read two of Mr. Georges Gurdjieff’s books 17-18 years ago – ‘Meetings with Remarkable Men’ and ‘Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson’ – and, just as with ‘The Theory Of Eternal Life’, nowhere was there anything remotely resembling an actual freedom from the human condition in them.

Moreover, I do recall that at the time I did not consider there was much enlightenment in them, either.

RESPONDENT: The general idea in Rodney Collin’s comment is that one must first strive to achieve a soul (self-realized) when realizing the shortcomings of the physical world, then to achieve a Spirit (Enlightened) when realizing the soul shortcomings and pointing that even the Self may vanish as well (when realizing its Divine not-so-good properties).

RICHARD: You are aware, I presume, that Mr. Rodney Collin converted to Catholicism just two years before ending his life abruptly, at age 48, when he descended from the top of an open-sided bell tower of a cathedral to the square below by the quickest and shortest way possible?

There is nothing in Catholicism that even remotely resembles an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: Rodney Collin gives no further description of what happens after the Self dissolution although he speaks extensively about three worlds (cellular-physical body, molecular-soul and electronic-Divine).

RICHARD: As this is in keeping with what he writes in ‘The Theory Of Eternal Life’ – and chapter twelve in particular – there is no reason to read his other books.

RESPONDENT: As for specific Sufi comments, I cannot give you any reference, but I do know that much of the 4th way system is derived from Sufi teachings.

RICHARD: So you do not know whether or not any esoteric Sufi teachings point towards achieving an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place and not before, eh?

RESPONDENT: I also don’t possess any of these books so I cannot provide to you an exact quote.

RICHARD: So be it then ... and as you say (further below) that when these people speak about the properties of the universe they are being [quote] ‘experienced through the Absolute eyes’ [endquote] it would appear that they are not, in fact, speaking of achieving an actual freedom from the human condition after all.

I cannot say that this surprises me.

*

RESPONDENT: So this being an already difficult thing to achieve for most people, it probably seemed pointless to develop the idea even further or to convey/design any specific method when there was no case.

RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, achieved an actual from the human condition, whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, but it probably seemed to them pointless to convey to other human beings how they achieved it (let alone developing/designing anything else) as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people. Am I understanding you correctly?

RESPONDENT: I’m only saying that there are hints pointing further than Enlightenment in the 4th way system ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? What you specifically said was that there are hints pointing towards an actual freedom from the human condition in the writings of the 4th-way system. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system ...’.

If you now wish to now make ‘actual state’ mean the after-death states (such as Parinirvana, Mahasamadhi and so on) all enlightened beings are convinced they have a one-way ticket to then it would be best to say so ... an ‘I’m only saying’ 180 degree turn-away from your initial statement adds nothing to clarity in communication.

RESPONDENT: [I’m only saying that there are hints pointing further than Enlightenment in the 4th way system] as well as there are in other eastern spiritual teachings you quoted (Parinirvana, Mahasamadhi).

RICHARD: That is a different thing entirely ... Parinirvana (Buddhism) and Mahasamadhi (Hinduism), being an after-death state, and being not attainable whilst still alive (Parinirvana translates as ‘Final Nirvana’ and Mahasamadhi translates as ‘Great Liberation’), are not the ‘actual state’ you initially made out you were speaking of.

Apart from that there are various self-proclaimed masters who declared having gone beyond enlightenment (Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain and Mr. H. W. L. Poonja for instance) but as both their way of being and their teachings never changed their claim lacks substance ... let alone hinting of an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: Tis only my supposition based on: 1) a written hint pointing to a Self-less state.

RICHARD: Yet Theravada Buddhists also propose a ‘Self-less state’ (the ‘anatta’ or ‘no-self’ doctrine) and that does not stop them revering Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s Parinirvana and working towards such an ‘Awakening’ as he achieved so as to be also eligible for his after-death ‘Deathless’ state (‘Amata’) ... all of which makes their ‘no-self’ doctrine a matter of either (a) semantics ... or (b) one-upmanship (as in Buddhism is superior to Hinduism) ... or (c) misunderstanding what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan had to say (he said the Self is not to be found in the world as everything in the universe is subject to disease, inconstancy, stress and change).

And there is no prize for guessing (a) where there is no disease, inconstancy, stress and change ... or (b) what is to be found there.

RESPONDENT: 2) the assumption that some enlightened people probably have had glimpses of this state (where do these hints come from anyway?).

RICHARD: As ‘these hints’ you are referring to have nothing to do with an actual freedom from the human condition – and everything to do with securing a post-mortem reward – they come from the (seeming) promise of the after-death state ... where there is no dratted body to stuff up the exalted state of being with such a mundane requirement as acting in the world.

RESPONDENT: They might have thought that the ‘no-Self world’ would be only of concern to those possessing a Self, is it not a logical thing to presume?

RICHARD: No, and again I only need to point to Theravada Buddhism in order to say so.

RESPONDENT: Of what interest would this discovery be to someone immersed in the real world ...

RICHARD: As Theravada Buddhism, for instance, makes quite a big thing of it there has obviously been an interest for 2,000 years or so.

RESPONDENT: ... as even you make no secret that these words are primarily addressed to the more or less former spiritual students.

RICHARD: This just does not make sense: first you say that the ‘no-Self’ world would only be of concern to ‘those possessing a Self’ ... and then you say my words are primarily addressed to spiritual ‘students’ so as to back-up your point.

RESPONDENT: How many on this list have not been on a spiritual path prior to joining this discussion?

RICHARD: As only about 15-20% of those subscribed, at any given period, write to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list I am unable to supply an accurate answer ... most of those that do write are, or have been, spiritual to some degree another.

All that this might demonstrate is that materialists (14% of the general population), who consider all things mystical as belonging to the lunatic fringe, have no interest in going beyond lunacy.

I guess they would rather stay sane.

*

RESPONDENT: ... the confusion arrises that not the Universe is infinite but that I am, or that I’m the one immortal, not the Universe, etc. I haven’t heard enlightened people say a word about the infinity of this Universe, but instead the same old spiritual refrain: Me, Me and Me.

RICHARD: The ‘Me, Me and Me’ refrain is narcissism (‘self’-admiration, ‘self’-love, ‘self’-conceit) writ large and in such a blatant way that it is a wonder the many and varied saints, sages, and seers have got way with it for so long ... ‘self’-aggrandisement, being for the benefit of the immortal soul, is an extreme act of selfism.

RESPONDENT: Including you for 11 years.

RICHARD: Aye ... which is not only how I know what I am speaking of but why I wrote the following in my very next paragraph (now snipped):

• [Respondent]: ‘I think the problem was how can you delete something which is infinite?
• [Richard]: ‘The way to delete the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ which arose out of an extreme act of selfism for the benefit of the immortal soul *was* via an extreme act of altruism – altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... .’ [emphasis added].

Even though you had phrased your speculation generally I answered personally (rather than speculate about some un-named and un-referenced 4th way/Sufi teachers) as I already know what the way was to delete the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ which arose out of an extreme act of selfism for the benefit of the immortal soul.

*

RICHARD: What I find to be of interest here is that now you say that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe despite stating (further above) that there are hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings?

RESPONDENT: Yes, there are but they are viewed and conveyed from an ‘objective’ point of view, (that is experienced through the Absolute eyes and translated in ordinary language, my opinion) although it is stated that they are scientific facts yet to be discovered.

RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication: are you suggesting that these people experiencing the universe through ‘Absolute eyes’ have discerned the infinitude of this universe ... have discerned that it exists infinitely, eternally, and perpetually (which means it is not a creation)?

*

RICHARD: Or is it a case of it also probably seeming to them pointless tell other human beings about how the universe actually is as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people?

RESPONDENT: Ha-ha, I would have preferred English to be my native language instead of a Latin derivation.

RICHARD: Nevertheless do you get the point (why hold back information, about something actual, on a presupposition that others would not be interested/would not understand or whatever)?

Why not make it public, with clear (unambiguous) descriptions/explanations, and let others do with it what they will?

RESPONDENT: I don’t personally know those people, I only thought these references would have been of help to you as you were interested in various accounts or hints concerning the no-Self zone.

RICHARD: Then you have a peculiar way of presenting it: although you may now say you ‘only’ thought those references may of been of help to me in my interest you originally made them the basis of your speculation that my case seems to prove that an actual freedom from the human condition is only achievable whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place and not before.

• [Respondent]: ‘There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system as well (...) but it is said that it can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before. (...) Your case seems to prove that and any evidence for a more direct route is still to come. (...) There is still proof to come for this route to actually exist and then we can speak of an efficient viable method of riding ourselves from the human condition. (...) There is still evidence to come for a person to safely arrive to ‘actual freedom’ and then to convey how it was ‘via the non-enlightenment route’. (2 El Dorado; 21 August 2003).

Apart from that ... what I have said is that I would be most interested to come across accounts of somebody else actually free from the human condition – not accounts of a ‘no-Self’ state of enlightenment – and, as you now say that the hints about the properties of this universe are ‘experienced through the Absolute eyes’ then obviously nobody in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings knows anything about being actually free of the human condition.

The question is: is this obvious to you?

RESPONDENT: Reactions of the actual universe :)) to the human condition (both real and spiritual) is something to be watched with great interest.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you put a smiley there as I have no notion as to what you are talking about ... this actual universe, not being sentient per se, does not react to anything.

And, as the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it cannot be watched anyway.


CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Five)

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

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

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

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

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity