|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 28
RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: <a whole bunch of stuff> RICHARD: I provided a point-by-point response to your 9-point reply to my response to 31 of your comments/ avowals/ assertions/ points/ issues/ topics from 8 of the 27 e-mails you had written to this mailing list since you re-subscribed. RESPONDENT: Good grief man ... do you even read what you write? RICHARD: Indeed I do – at least three times, in fact, as clarity in communication is vital when writing about something entirely new in human history – just as I do with what my co-respondent writes: once immediately after having written it in the word-processor; again after having imported it into the web-page editor; and again after having exported it to the e-mail client preparatory to clicking ‘send’ ... each time re-reading what I am responding to so as to ensure it is both to the point and relative to the general thrust of discussion. RESPONDENT: Do you not see the twisty games you play with words? RICHARD: I did not come down in the last shower ... as you had used the words [quote] ‘twisty word
play’ [endquote] in reference to the actualism writings in an e-mail to another only 16 hours previously You are on a hiding to nowhere trying to maintain that advaita is non-spiritual. RESPONDENT: If all you have is a spiritual brush, everything gets painted the same. RICHARD: Well now ... you had better make your case to the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as it was the copy-pasted quote from that publication which explicitly used the words ‘spiritual release’ in reference to the advaita insight into identity (that the self is nothing but that which is outside time, space, and causality). Viz.:
I will say it again for emphasis: you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to maintain that advaita is non-spiritual. RESPONDENT: I don’t know what kind of permanent change was effected in you, but it’s nothing I want any part of. RICHARD: I see ... you do not know what it is you are dismissing but you are dismissing it anyway. RESPONDENT: Oh, and if you don’t like advaita ... RICHARD: It is not a question of like or dislike ... I lived that/was that, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritual release. RESPONDENT: [if you don’t like advaita], you should probably remove the link to the Atlanta Advaita Society from your site. RICHARD: As it is not on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site – only the pages with my name in the URL are mine – any additions or removals are a matter for all the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust and not just me. For your information: it is what is known as a reciprocal link and is provided in response to a written request from that society. RESPONDENT: It’ll give you more room for something really important, like more of The Anti-Peace Hall of Fame. RICHARD: Ha ... that section was created at the express suggestion of a spiritualist writing to this mailing list in October last year:
The naming of it came from a response to another spiritualist writing to this mailing list 20 days later:
RESPONDENT: In amazement of your huge cohones ... RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to a Mexican colloquialism for bravado – cojones – it may be apposite to point out that, as there is no fear whatsoever here in this actual world there is, consequently, neither cowardice nor its antidotal courage. It is all so easy here.
RESPONDENT: The essence of my question is in a response to Respondent No 60:
This question is not pertinent to a real actualist ... RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT No. 18: I see not much justification for the continuation of this list and indeed I’m reconsidering reunsubscription. RESPONDENT: Ok, so we have a pedantic bore, and a couple living in a bubble (note – this is not an attack on actualists, merely pointing out the facts). RICHARD: If I may amend your note? Not only is it not an attack RESPONDENT: If we ignore those factors for a moment ... is there any intrinsic value or usefulness in actualism? RICHARD: Possible translation: if I (Respondent) ignore the way my mind works – for a moment – will I (Respondent) be able to find out if actualism does indeed deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: If so, that merits further discussion ... RICHARD: Possible translation: yep, it could be worth likening actualism to spiritualism, for several
more e-mails at least, as there are a few other interesting characters RESPONDENT: ... if not, you’re just wearing down your fingertips. RICHARD: Possible translation: nah, how could there be anything of intrinsic value or usefulness in what that pedantic bore, and those two bubble-liviers, have to report about such matters. (After all it was only a momentary suspension of dubiety ... see immediately below). RESPONDENT No. 18: As for living in a virtual freedom it seems to be nothing more then living in a more or less enlightened moderated marriage. RESPONDENT: ... with none of those external annoyances. RICHARD: ‘Nuff said (about that moment passing so quickly)? RESPONDENT: I think they should really test their mettle and move to downtown Detroit. RICHARD: Ha ... to really test one’s mettle there is nothing like living in an area that has what your co-respondent described as [quote] ‘one of the probably strongest buddha fields in the world’ [endquote]. And I say this because psychic currents are where the real power-plays get played-out.
RESPONDENT No. 18: I see not much justification for the continuation of this list and indeed I’m reconsidering reunsubscription. RESPONDENT: Ok, so we have a pedantic bore, and a couple living in a bubble (note – this is not an attack on actualists, merely pointing out the facts). RICHARD: If I may amend your note? Not only is it not an attack it is not a pointing out of facts either ... it is but a public display of the way your mind works. RESPONDENT: If we ignore those factors for a moment ... is there any intrinsic value or usefulness in actualism? RICHARD: Possible translation: if I (Respondent) ignore the way my mind works – for a moment – will I (Respondent) be able to find out if actualism does indeed deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: If so, that merits further discussion ... RICHARD: Possible translation: yep, it could be worth likening actualism to spiritualism, for several more e-mails at least, as there are a few other interesting characters also hanging out on this list. RESPONDENT: ... if not, you’re just wearing down your fingertips. RICHARD: Possible translation: nah, how could there be anything of intrinsic value or usefulness in what that pedantic bore, and those two bubble-liviers, have to report about such matters. (After all it was only a momentary suspension of dubiety ... see immediately below). RESPONDENT No. 18: As for living in a virtual freedom it seems to be nothing more then living in a more or less enlightened moderated marriage. RESPONDENT: ... with none of those external annoyances. RICHARD: ‘Nuff said (about that moment passing so quickly)? RESPONDENT: I think they should really test their mettle and move to downtown Detroit. RICHARD: Ha ... to really test one’s mettle there is nothing like living in an area that has what your co-respondent described as [quote] ‘one of the probably strongest buddha fields in the world’ [endquote]. And I say this because psychic currents are where the real power-plays get played-out. RESPONDENT: I respectfully decline the challenge to engage in word games again. It’s like a bad soap opera. RICHARD: First you introduce two terms which your co-respondent neither used nor indicated anywhere in
their e-mail – ‘ok, so we have a pedantic bore and a couple living in a bubble’ – (hence my remark regarding the
way your mind works) then advised them to ignore your (supposedly) factual characterisations for a moment and ask if there is any
intrinsic value or usefulness in the very thing which that pedantic bore, and those two bubble-liviers, are sharing with their
fellow human beings Hence it was indeed only a momentary suspension of dubiety (if that) after all ... and, as such misrepresentations/ rhetorications are what passes, in some quarters at least, for genuine discussion on this mailing list ‘tis no wonder you cavalierly dismiss my response as ‘word games’ (which is the use of ‘crafty or disingenuous language intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal, or put a spin onto usually awkward situations or issues’ according to the Encarta Dictionary). Ah, well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT No. 18: I see not much justification for the continuation of this list and indeed I’m reconsidering reunsubscription. RESPONDENT: Ok, so we have a pedantic bore, and a couple living in a bubble (note – this is not an attack on actualists, merely pointing out the facts). RICHARD: If I may amend your note? Not only is it not an attack it is not a pointing out of facts either ... it is but a public display of the way your mind works. RESPONDENT: If we ignore those factors for a moment ... is there any intrinsic value or usefulness in actualism? RICHARD: Possible translation: if I (Respondent) ignore the way my mind works – for a moment – will I (Respondent) be able to find out if actualism does indeed deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: If so, that merits further discussion ... RICHARD: Possible translation: yep, it could be worth likening actualism to spiritualism, for several more e-mails at least, as there are a few other interesting characters also hanging out on this list. RESPONDENT: ... if not, you’re just wearing down your fingertips. RICHARD: Possible translation: nah, how could there be anything of intrinsic value or usefulness in what that pedantic bore, and those two bubble-liviers, have to report about such matters. (After all it was only a momentary suspension of dubiety ... see immediately below). RESPONDENT No. 18: As for living in a virtual freedom it seems to be nothing more then living in a more or less enlightened moderated marriage. RESPONDENT: ... with none of those external annoyances. RICHARD: ‘Nuff said (about that moment passing so quickly)? RESPONDENT: I think they should really test their mettle and move to downtown Detroit. RICHARD: Ha ... to really test one’s mettle there is nothing like living in an area that has what your co-respondent described as [quote] ‘one of the probably strongest buddha fields in the world’ [endquote]. And I say this because psychic currents are where the real power-plays get played-out. RESPONDENT: I respectfully decline the challenge to engage in word games again. It’s like a bad soap opera. RICHARD: First you introduce two terms which your co-respondent neither used nor indicated anywhere in their e-mail – ‘ok, so we have a pedantic bore and a couple living in a bubble’ – (hence my remark regarding the way your mind works) then advised them to ignore your (supposedly) factual characterisations for a moment and ask if there is any intrinsic value or usefulness in the very thing which that pedantic bore, and those two bubble-liviers, are sharing with their fellow human beings ... only to re-introduce your introduced ‘a couple living in a bubble’ characterisation almost in the next breath, as it were, by your ‘with none of those external annoyances/ test their mettle’ comment as an addendum to your co-respondent’s likening of a virtual freedom to being nothing more than living in a more or less enlightened moderated marriage (whatever that is). Hence it was indeed only a momentary suspension of dubiety (if that) after all ... and, as such misrepresentations/ rhetorications are what passes, in some quarters at least, for genuine discussion on this mailing list ‘tis no wonder you cavalierly dismiss my response as ‘word games’ (which is the use of ‘crafty or disingenuous language intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal, or put a spin onto usually awkward situations or issues’ according to the Encarta Dictionary). Ah, well ... c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: Just out of curiosity, why do you bother to respond in the ways you do? RICHARD: Oh, it is not a bother at all ... I like my fellow human being and am only too happy to clarify any misunderstandings. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It’s not for dialog as far as I can see. RICHARD: Just how far can you see, though (given that what you see actualism as the refinement of RESPONDENT: Are you preaching to the masses? RICHARD: I am unambiguously sharing my experience with my fellow human being ... how you see yourself is your business. RESPONDENT: Are you trying to reinforce your convictions by repetition? RICHARD: And just what ‘convictions’ would they be, then?
RESPONDENT No. 27: I’m merely pointing out to you (if you want to see it) why it makes perfect sense the way Richard responded. He is simply taking Respondent No. 49’s words at face value, and not treating him like a ‘teenager’ or a ‘kid’. Do you think it is a better approach to not take his words at face value by writing him off as ‘impatient’ or a ‘kid?’ Do you think that is in Respondent No. 49’s best interest? What do you think Respondent No. 49’s response would be if it dawns on him that you are merely ‘humouring’ him or ‘being nice’ because you don’t want to hurt his feelings? Don’t you think he just might prefer a sincere conversation as to not be misled? RESPONDENT: An effective communicator phrases statements in a context that is meaningful to the intended recipient. RICHARD: Indeed so ... and the ‘context’ in question is as follows: Respondent No. 4 posted an e-mail in the same thread (in response to my post of Monday 14/06/2004 6:33 AM AEST) at 6:22 PM Monday 14/06/2004 AEST – to which I sent my further response at 5:18 AM on Wednesday 16/06/2004 AEST – and whilst I was in the process of then writing my response to Respondent No. 49’s e-mail of Tuesday 15/06/2004 4:52 AM (in response to my post of Monday 14/06/2004 6:30 AM AEST) the following came into my mail-box:
Thus 4 hours and 9 minutes after I had posted my response to Respondent No. 4 from two days prior – whilst I was in the very process of writing my response to Respondent No. 49 – I was being asked as to why I was refusing to respond (as in the ‘your refusal to respond’ phrasing) to the follow-up query posted only the previous day (in fact 28 hours and 35 minutes prior to that e-mail). In short: it was nothing but an (erroneous) assumption that I was refusing to respond. RESPONDENT: One who is only interested in stating what they hold to be truth speaks in words that are meaningful to themselves. Richard falls in the latter camp. RICHARD: Speaking of (erroneous) assumptions: you are assuming that Richard is only interested in stating what he holds to be truth ... and, further assuming that he speaks in words that are meaningful to himself, draw baseless conclusions from such assumptive premises. RESPONDENT: That is his prerogative ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You are assuming that your assumption is my ‘prerogative’ ... based upon your assumptive premises. RESPONDENT: ... but it doesn’t do much to help spread actualism far and wide. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well I am not doing any of the things you assume I am doing then, eh? RESPONDENT: Hence, the list of actualists shall remain short ... RICHARD: As your ‘hence’ is derived from a baseless conclusion (drawn from assumptive premises) your further conclusion – ‘the list of actualists shall remain short’ – is without substance. RESPONDENT: ... consisting of those few (to none) who ‘get it’ ... RICHARD: As your further conclusion is without substance your (meaningless) detail in that insubstantial conclusion is but certitude masquerading as certainty. RESPONDENT: ... and those who parrot. RICHARD: Hmm ... a clichéd ending is a fitting finale to your latest contribution to discussion about peace-on-earth. For your information: the reason why I responded as I did – first using the modern-day equivalent of Mr.
Eubulides’ example of a sophistical tactic and 
(Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 49, 10 September 2003).
You will see from these two examples, which are but a couple of instances among many, that the (larger) context in which I phrased those two statements is most certainly intended to be meaningful to the recipient. As is this e-mail to you.
RESPONDENT: (...) It would be great if Richard et al were not so prickly as that could facilitate meaningful dialog, but bear in mind that he may have permanently eliminated his ‘human condition’ but by no means has he eliminated his ‘human personality’. RICHARD: For the sake of effective communication here is what various dictionaries have to say:
As the impression conveyed is that the elimination of the human condition is by no means the elimination of being so quick to react angrily and/or being so easily moved to anger and/or being so easily angered and/or being so very irritable and/or being so easily irritated and/or being so easily offended and/or being so bristling or irritable it would be helpful if (a) you could expand on what the words ‘so prickly’ mean to you ... and (b) demonstrate that Richard is indeed ‘so prickly’ (just one referenced instance will do for now).
RESPONDENT: (...) It would be great if Richard et al were not so prickly as that could facilitate meaningful dialog, but bear in mind that he may have permanently eliminated his ‘human condition’ but by no means has he eliminated his ‘human personality’. RICHARD: For the sake of effective communication here is what various dictionaries have to say:
As the impression conveyed is that the elimination of the human condition is by no means the elimination of being so quick to react angrily and/or being so easily moved to anger and/or being so easily angered and/or being so very irritable and/or being so easily irritated and/or being so easily offended and/or being so bristling or irritable it would be helpful if (a) you could expand on what the words ‘so prickly’ mean to you ... and (b) demonstrate that Richard is indeed ‘so prickly’ (just one referenced instance will do for now). RESPONDENT No 64: Bah, he probably meant ‘prickly’ in the manner of a cactus which, as far as anyone is aware, harbours no malice. (...) RESPONDENT: (...) Yes, the cactus metaphor is good ... RICHARD: As the spines of a cactus plant are modified leaves for defence and protection
Or:
Is that what you were effectively communicating?
RESPONDENT: Richard, you are using the title ‘Re: Newbie Questions’ that I originally started using, but you’re now corresponding with somebody else. I’d just like to make clear that I’m not the person you are quoting (No. 36 or No. 60?). (...) RICHARD: I am indeed now corresponding with somebody else ... as is undeniably indicated by the words [quote] ‘[Respondent No. 36] wrote’ [endquote] in the e-mail, now appended below for your convenience, which you are referring to. The reason why I am using the title ‘Re: Newbie Questions’, which you originally started using, is because my co-respondent wrote to me using that very title ... as is incontrovertibly indicated by the words [quote] ‘From: [Respondent No. 36]’ [endquote] in that appended text, further below, which you are referring to. Whilst I appreciate you taking time out from theorising with another about ASC’s (albeit using the acronym PCE to do so with), in order to inform me that you are not the person I am quoting, the very fact it is already patently obvious you are not that person being quoted – as is unquestionably indicated by the bracketed word [quote] ‘[Respondent No. 36]’ [endquote] prefacing the quote in question – renders your otherwise informative aside a superfluity bordering upon an immoderacy. RESPONDENT: I am deeply in awe of your wordsmithery. Was there something of substance in there you were trying to say? RICHARD: The problem with a loaded question is that it cannot be answered as-is ... whereas something like this can be:
Yes.
CO-RESPONDENT: Have you ever actually went back and reread your correspondence with Richard? Recently I printed out mine and reread it carefully. It was stunning how many times I clearly did not understand what he was saying fully or how many times I simply did not ‘conclude’ a query but rather left certain aspects of it very ‘loose’ and ‘untied’. RESPONDENT: I don’t need to re-read my correspondence with R/P/V. I took time thinking about the subject then and writing accurately. Just because it wasn’t concluded successfully (as in properly regurgitated) doesn’t mean there was any lack of understanding. (...) RICHARD:
RESPONDENT: Isn’t the mind noticing the absence of me, also me? Is there anything to the mind other than me? This isn’t a flip advaita-shuffle kinda question (...) RICHARD: It looks more like a glib solipsism-serenade kinda question than anything else.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t the mind noticing the absence of me, also me? Is there anything to the mind other than me? This isn’t a flip advaita-shuffle kinda question (...) RICHARD: It looks more like a glib solipsism-serenade kinda question than anything else. CO-RESPONDENT: No. 28 says he regards mind and self as synonymous: ‘I tend to think the mind is me and v.v.’ In his terms, if the mind/self notices that something is absent, it stands to reason that the absent something cannot be mind/self ... it can only be one of the contents or faculties of mind/self. How is that related to solipsism? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the mind is me and vice versa then the questions would look something like this:
Perhaps I should have said that it looks more like a glib solipsism-soliloquy RESPONDENT: Perhaps you shouldn’t say anything if this is the best you can come up with. I believe this may be a new low for you. RICHARD:
RESPONDENT: Isn’t the mind noticing the absence of me, also me? Is there anything to the mind other than me? This isn’t a flip advaita-shuffle kinda question (...) RICHARD: It looks more like a glib solipsism-serenade kinda question than anything else. CO-RESPONDENT: No. 28 says he regards mind and self as synonymous: ‘I tend to think the mind is me and v.v.’ In his terms, if the mind/self notices that something is absent, it stands to reason that the absent something cannot be mind/self ... it can only be one of the contents or faculties of mind/self. How is that related to solipsism? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the mind is me and vice versa then the questions would look something like this:
Perhaps I should have said that it looks more like a glib solipsism-soliloquy CO-RESPONDENT: Not to me. It looks like No. 28 wondering about the basis for treating mind and self as different/ separate things/ processes. RICHARD: Sometimes things are not what they seem to be ... here is a question for you: what is the difference between solipsism and non-dualism (aka advaita)? RESPONDENT: To a true actualist, none. Actualists have been around a while. I understand they were quite an important group until the discovery that the earth is round. RICHARD: And to a true non-dualist ... also none? Incidentally, it is the non-dualists that have been around a while ... around since, of particular note, Mr. Gaudapada in the seventh century CE and Mr. Shankara in the eighth century CE (both of which centuries come after the discovery that the earth is round).
RESPONDENT No. 60 (to Richard): ... you seem for all money to be a prick that everyone bends over backwards to make allowances for on account of you having something to offer. PETER to No. 60: It appears to have well and truly escaped your attention that by far the majority of correspondence that Richard has answered on this mailing list since he last had a break from writing has been from correspondents who are bending over backwards to personally attack him for the sole reason that not only has he something to offer and does freely offer it but also because he will not back down from having something to offer and from freely offering it. RESPONDENT: What I find curious is that Richard is so compelled to respond to all these ^attacks^. RICHARD: As Richard is not at all [quote] ‘compelled’ [endquote] to respond to any e-mail whatsoever then what you are not only finding curious but have even been motivated into taking extra steps about (of using both the time to type out and the bandwidth with which to send same) has no existence outside of your imaginative/ intuitive facility. Now, why someone – anyone – would do all that is surely something to be curious about, non? RESPONDENT: If I was in his place I would deal with the flurry of gnats the same way I deal with Richard’s posts now – with the delete button. Presto! RICHARD: As you are not in Richard’s place, but are kinda stuck in a solipsistic cul-de-sac Put succinctly: here in this actual world they are not experienced as if gnats, flurrying or otherwise, to be dealt with by deletion. RESPONDENT: My momma always told me it takes two to argue. RICHARD: Is there any other advice your mother gave you which you are not taking heed of? RESPONDENT: The only conclusion I can draw is that Richard enjoys the battle. RICHARD: Hmm ... and would that conclusion be inspired by what you felt as you reached for the keyboard to type all this out prior to clicking ‘send’, perchance? RESPONDENT: And enjoying battle (as opposed to engagement in stimulating dialog) is hardly harmless. RICHARD: And here is the $64,000 dollar question ... how would you classify this e-mail of yours: does it fall into the category of (a) an engagement in stimulating dialogue or (b) an engagement in an enjoyable battle?
RESPONDENT No. 60 (to Richard): ... you seem for all money to be a prick that everyone bends over backwards to make allowances for on account of you having something to offer. PETER to No. 60: It appears to have well and truly escaped your attention that by far the majority of correspondence that Richard has answered on this mailing list since he last had a break from writing has been from correspondents who are bending over backwards to personally attack him for the sole reason that not only has he something to offer and does freely offer it but also because he will not back down from having something to offer and from freely offering it. RESPONDENT: What I find curious is that Richard is so compelled to respond to all these ^attacks^. RICHARD: As Richard is not at all [quote] ‘compelled’ [endquote] to respond to any e-mail whatsoever then what you are not only finding curious but have even been motivated into taking extra steps about (of using both the time to type out and the bandwidth with which to send same) has no existence outside of your imaginative/ intuitive facility. Now, why someone – anyone – would do all that is surely something to be curious about, non? RESPONDENT: If I was in his place I would deal with the flurry of gnats the same way I deal with Richard’s posts now – with the delete button. Presto! RICHARD: As you are not in Richard’s place, but are kinda stuck in a solipsistic cul-de-sac, then the difference betwixt you and Richard is that he actually cares about his fellow human and thus would prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. Put succinctly: here in this actual world they are not experienced as if gnats, flurrying or otherwise, to be dealt with by deletion. RESPONDENT: My momma always told me it takes two to argue. RICHARD: Is there any other advice your mother gave you which you are not taking heed of? RESPONDENT: Yeah ... don’t pick on crazy people. RICHARD: While I appreciate your honesty (in acknowledging both what you are doing and what that is motivated by) you are targeting the wrong person. Viz.:
And this:
And again:
RESPONDENT: In all sincerity, your mental balance seems to be deteriorating. RICHARD: As I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to you to be happening has no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility then your sincerity is entirely misplaced. Further to the topic of finding something curious: is it not a curious thing that a large majority of the e-mails to this mailing list, of late, have been mainly about the many and various things which many and various peoples feel/ intuit/ imagine/ infer about Richard – as in what seems to be so, what is apparently so, and so on – yet all the while wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so forth, are really happening all around the globe? If that is an example of what [quote] ‘mental balance’ [endquote] looks like in action I am well pleased not to be sane.
CO-RESPONDENT: (...) but of course we wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of your unscientific, unprovable, take my word for it, metafacts. RESPONDENT: I don’t think metafacts is the correct term ... factoids is probably better, or to paraphrase Colbert, factiness. RICHARD: Bearing in mind that what your co-respondent is referring to is the actualism method’s
track record are you now saying that the following was not factual
Just so there is no misunderstanding about what you meant by the word method:
Specifically, are you now saying that the actualism method/process did *not* produce [quote] ‘discernable change’ [endquote] after all ... inasmuch those [quote] ‘many layers of conditioning’ [endquote] were *not* stripped away? In other words (and paraphrasing how Mr. Steven Colbert put it five weeks ago): did you emotionally _feel_ it to be fact that [quote] ‘there is discernable change’ [endquote] ... inasmuch _you_ selfishly felt that [quote] ‘many layers of conditioning have been stripped’ [endquote]?
CO-RESPONDENT: (...) but of course we wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of your unscientific, unprovable, take my word for it, metafacts. RESPONDENT: I don’t think metafacts is the correct term ... factoids is probably better, or to paraphrase Colbert, factiness. RICHARD: Bearing in mind that what your co-respondent is referring to is the actualism method’s
track record are you now saying that the following was not factual
Specifically, are you now saying that the actualism method/ process did *not* produce [quote] ‘discernable change’ [endquote] after all ... inasmuch those [quote] ‘many layers of conditioning’ [endquote] were *not* stripped away? RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
RICHARD: (...) Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless. RESPONDENT: As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I ... RICHARD: As you are on record as stating there is no difference between an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not at all surprising. Viz.:
Which could be why you snipped-off that which was being put succinctly. Viz.:
But, then again, it could also be because you say you have never understood the distinction between ego-self/ the thinker and spirit-self/ the feeler (aka soul-self). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I], Buddha, Huang Po, Wei Wu Wei, et al. RICHARD: As Mr. Terence Gray, who published his scholarly works under the pseudonym ‘Wei Wu Wei’, was not free of the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) then his usage of such terminology is also quite rightly suspect. RESPONDENT: They stipulate unequivocally that there is no identity to become enlightened. RICHARD: Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Mr. Gotama the Sakyan deny the existence of self: what he expressly states is that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Viz.:
As for Mr. Huang-po ... here is what he had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment? RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: No argument there ... first there is a mountain etc. RICHARD: What you are referring to is from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin. Viz.:
He then goes on to ask:
Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of buddhistic emptiness (that phenomenal existence is void of self).
RICHARD: (...) Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless. RESPONDENT: As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I ... RICHARD: As you are on record as stating there is no difference between an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not at all surprising. Viz.:
Which could be why you snipped-off that which was being put succinctly. Viz.:
But, then again, it could also be because you say you have never understood the distinction between ego-self/ the thinker and spirit-self/ the feeler (aka soul-self). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I], Buddha, Huang Po, Wei Wu Wei, et al. RICHARD: As Mr. Terence Gray, who published his scholarly works under the pseudonym ‘Wei Wu Wei’, was not free of the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) then his usage of such terminology is also quite rightly suspect. RESPONDENT: They stipulate unequivocally that there is no identity to become enlightened. RICHARD: Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Mr. Gotama the Sakyan deny the existence of self: what he expressly states is that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Viz.:
As for Mr. Huang-po ... here is what he had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment? RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: No argument there ... first there is a mountain etc. RICHARD: What you are referring to is from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin. Viz.:
He then goes on to ask:
Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of buddhistic emptiness (that phenomenal existence is void of self). * RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: <blablabla – a bunch of very cleverly rearranged words, meant to divert the reader’s attention from the facts-at-hand> RICHARD: I have re-inserted my entire response (above) ... just what you mean by ‘very cleverly rearranged words’ (let alone ‘the facts-at-hand’) simply defies sensibility. RESPONDENT: There is total clarity in my earlier post – you merely attempt to obfuscate. RICHARD: As I have no idea which earlier post you are referring to I am unable to make any comment on your self-promotional assertion/ your bombastic opinion. RESPONDENT: But that is your way … RICHARD: To ‘merely attempt to obfuscate’ is not my way at all … but do go on as this is all quite fascinating. RESPONDENT: … [But that is your way], your part to play in this comedy. RICHARD: Contrary to what you suppose this is not television RESPONDENT: You know naught of what you speak … RICHARD: Well now, that is a vast improvement on categorising me as a closet advaitist sage RESPONDENT: …you are simply caught up in your dream bubble … RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) that were to be the case it would be a far, far better one than the dream
bubble you are caught up in RESPONDENT: … [you are simply caught up in your dream bubble], ensnaring a few willing puppets along the way. RICHARD: And thus does your not-at-all-addressing-the-points reply, to my detailed response to your
last post (further above), come to its epizoic Ah, well … c’est la vie, I guess.
CO-RESPONDENT: I have been reading your webpage and correspondence which is a lot to read. RICHARD: The simplest way to comprehend it all is that, just as the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) has to die, for spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (aka transformation) to occur, so too does the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless. RESPONDENT: As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I ... (...) RICHARD: Ah, well … c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: Dream on RICHARD: Ha ... your continued avoidance of my (now snipped) detailed response to your suspection will make an illustrative tranche de vie in the archives.
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 |
