|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 36
RESPONDENT: I ran across Richard, Peter and Alan’s websites which were delightful to read by the way, very nice indeed. I plan on reading them some more. I liked the music too. I’d like to share some of the stuff, if you don’t mind on my own mailing list, The End of the Rope Ranch, if that’s alright with you guys. Some very good stuff there. Anyway, I wanted to drop in and say hi! RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List. I accessed the link you provided and it may be apposite to point out early in the piece that an actual freedom is a non-spiritual freedom ... it lies beyond spiritual enlightenment and thus is not at all compatible with what is popularly known as the non-dual perspective. I look forward with interest, therefore, to your considered appraisal when you do read some more of the web pages and see for yourself what I mean.
RICHARD: I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution. RESPONDENT: Yes, exactly Richard. RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication here is what you have to say on your web site:
As you make it quite clear that you are ‘God Itself’ I do wonder just what it is that you are agreeing with ... because anybody who reads what I have to report with both eyes open is aware that by ‘dissolution’ I am referring to the extinction of identity in toto (which means not only ego-dissolution but the dissolution of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself, as well) whereupon Being, Presence, Self, Truth, or God by any other name, ceases to exist forever and the pristine purity of this actual world is immediate. In other words: with no God to meddle in human affairs any longer one walks freely, as this flesh and blood body only, in the already existing peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: ‘Peace’ is an oxymoron, for all you ‘maroons’ out there. :-) RICHARD: As the word ‘maroon’ variously means stranded, cut off, forsaken, left behind, and so on, I presume by ‘all you ‘maroons’’ you are meaning peoples who have the idea that they are a separate something or other, which keeps them locked in a body in time and space, when the truth is there is only God? Viz.:
May I ask? Just how much of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site have you read this last six months? RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain’d, I stand and look at them long and long. They do not sweat and whine about their condition, they do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins, they do not make me sick discussing their duty to God, not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things, not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago, not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth. (Walt Whitman). RICHARD: First of all it is pertinent to mention that Mr. Walt Whitman’s greatest theme, throughout his work, was a symbolic identification of the regenerative power of nature with the deathless divinity of the soul ... and although he was profoundly influenced by transcendentalist ideas, in particular the work of Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the following line of his perhaps best encapsulates his core experience/understanding:
As for living with the animals: just for starters, anybody who considers that animals are ‘so placid’ (and therefore think to live with them and/or be like them and/or live as they do) can only be viewing them through a romanticist’s eyes ... by being born and raised on a farm being carved out of virgin forest I interacted with other animals – both domesticated and in the wild – from a very early age and have been able to observe again and again that, by and large, animals are not ‘so placid’ after all ... they are mostly on the alert, vigilant, scanning for attack, and prone to the fright-freeze-flee-fight reaction all sentient beings inherit. Further to the point I was able to observe, and have maintained a life-long interest in observing, the correspondence the basic instinctual passions in the human animal have with the basic instinctual passions in the other animals ... to see the self-same feelings of fear and aggression and nurture and desire, for example, in other sentient beings renders any notion of living with them and/or being like them and/or living as they do simply ridiculous. For some simple examples: I have seen a dog acting in a way that can only be called pining; I have watched a cat toying with a mouse in a manner that would be dubbed cruel; I have noticed cows ‘spooked’ and then stampede in what must be described as hysteria; I have beheld stallions displaying what has to be labelled aggression; I have observed many animals exhibiting what has to be specified as fear ... and even in these days of my retirement, from my comfortable suburban living room, I can tune into documentaries on this very topic: only recently a television series was aired again about observations made of chimpanzees over many, many years in their native habitat and I was able to identify fear, aggression, territoriality, civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, nurture, grief, group ostracism, bonding, desire, and so on, being displayed in living colour. It is easily discerned by those with the eyes to see that animals do not live in peace by being as they naturally are. The insistence that the animal state being a natural state and therefore somehow innocent which is held by many people is but a wistful ‘long lost golden age’ fantasy. Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered
action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal the blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact
they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence No other animal can do this.
RICHARD: ... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out. RESPONDENT: Funny! :-) That’ll teach ya, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: Ha ... you know how a deeply passionate connection operates, I see. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the laugh, hope all is well. RICHARD: As love never makes anyone well then it would seem that hope is about all you do have to offer to her. RESPONDENT: I got to tell you, same thing recently happened to my buddy, and as she was standing at her car she says, ‘well aren’t you gonna say anything?’, and he says, ‘yes, drive safely’. :-) RICHARD: What I had to say was, of course, not at all platitudinous ... and at least one pertinent thing emerged out of the whole ‘no-one to make a connection with’ issue as two or so years later, after spending 13 months being a proxy maiden aunt, on a daily basis, to the newly born baby girl of a single young mother – which means she is being raised only by females – my previous companion came up to me in a café one day to let me know that she now understands, via this first-hand experience, that the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are indeed innate. Has your buddy’s ex-partner discovered anything of note yet regarding deeply passionate connections?
RICHARD: ... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out. RESPONDENT: Funny! :-) That’ll teach ya, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: Ha ... you know how a deeply passionate connection operates, I see. RESPONDENT: Ha! :-) I forgot. :-) Maybe you could hum a few bars? :-) RICHARD: What did you mean by ‘that’ll teach ya’ then if not more than a passing familiarity with the perverse nature of love (which can become obvious upon falling in love with someone ostensibly more loving than the person one is with)? * RESPONDENT: Thanks for the laugh, hope all is well. RICHARD: As love never makes anyone well then it would seem that hope is about all you do have to offer to her. RESPONDENT: I think not! :-) RICHARD: What do you have to offer, then, other than the hope you so readily proffered at the first opportunity ... and your amusement at the contrary way a deeply passionate connection operates (nine smilies in ten sentences)? * RESPONDENT: I got to tell you, same thing recently happened to my buddy, and as she was standing at her car she says, ‘well aren’t you gonna say anything?’, and he says, ‘yes, drive safely’. :-) RICHARD: What I had to say was, of course, not at all platitudinous ... and at least one pertinent thing emerged out of the whole ‘no-one to make a connection with’ issue as two or so years later, after spending 13 months being a proxy maiden aunt, on a daily basis, to the newly born baby girl of a single young mother – which means she is being raised only by females – my previous companion came up to me in a café one day to let me know that she now understands, via this first-hand experience, that the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are indeed innate. Has your buddy’s ex-partner discovered anything of note yet regarding deeply passionate connections? RESPONDENT: I don’t know Richard, I doubt it, he suggested to her that she come out here with me, and I said, very funny, what the hell am I gonna do with her? :-) Just what I need. :-) RICHARD: What would be the point of coming out there with you, according to your buddy, and why would interacting with his ex-partner be something for you to not need? Or are platitudes (such as hoping the other is well/advising them to drive safely) sufficient unto the day in your neck of the woods?
RICHARD: What did you mean by ‘that’ll teach ya’ then if not more than a passing familiarity with the perverse nature of love (which can become obvious upon falling in love with someone ostensibly more loving than the person one is with)? RESPONDENT: Yes, sorry Richard, I was just pointing to the absurdity of it, it is perverse, exactly. RICHARD: Surprisingly enough, even though love has such an appalling track record, there are still those who consider that the summum bonum of existence is to be love. * RICHARD: What do you have to offer, then, other than the hope you so readily proffered at the first opportunity ... and your amusement at the contrary way a deeply passionate connection operates (nine smilies in ten sentences)? RESPONDENT: Nothing, the same way you couldn’t offer your ex’s anything either. RICHARD: Oh? Not only do I have much to offer I have already advised, in my initial response, that at least one pertinent thing amongst all that was offered in that period was verified. Viz.:
If I had nothing to offer I would never have gone public with my discovery of what lies beyond enlightenment in the first place ... ‘tis disingenuous, to say the least, to set-up a web page with a linked mailing list and then say one has nothing to offer. RESPONDENT: They’re gonna get if and when they’re gonna get it. RICHARD: My previous companion informed me that she would never had got it that the instinctual passions are innate if I had not consistently pointed it out to her in the first place ... to prove me wrong in this regard is what motivated her to observe for herself on a daily basis, by being a proxy maiden aunt over a 13 month period to a newly born baby girl being raised only by females, just what a supposedly innocent baby girl spontaneously experiences (she had a feministic theory/belief that males put such passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire into female babies). Which is why I appreciate her honesty in coming up to me in a café one day to let me know that she now understands, via this first-hand experience, that the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are indeed innate ... and, as there other people who have advised of similar outcomes from hearing/reading what I have to say, this is an example only and not a one-off incident. RESPONDENT: Understanding is something that a person has to come to themselves on their own. RICHARD: Yet unless a person’s attention is drawn to the very thing they have been overlooking there will be nothing looming on their horizon for them to understand ... it is what the sharing of experience is all about. RESPONDENT: They have their agendas to fulfil, come hell or high water. RICHARD: How do you account for those who discard their (unfulfilled) agenda and grasp the new with alacrity then? RESPONDENT: Like children, they have to find out on their own. RICHARD: Having previously been the parent of four children, plus being a qualified art teacher, I know first-hand that the passing-on of information is invaluable ... if it were not for the sharing of knowledge we could all be still living in caves dressed in animal skins and gnawing on raw brontosaurus bones. * RICHARD: ... has your buddy’s ex-partner discovered anything of note yet regarding deeply passionate connections? RESPONDENT: I don’t know Richard, I doubt it, he suggested to her that she come out here with me, and I said, very funny, what the hell am I gonna do with her? :-) Just what I need. :-) RICHARD: What would be the point of coming out there with you, according to your buddy, and why would interacting with his ex-partner be something for you to not need? RESPONDENT: In other words, I need ‘misery’ like I need a hole in the head. RICHARD: Apart from anticipating an interaction with your buddy’s ex-partner as being ‘misery’ ... what would be the point of coming out there with you, according to your buddy, seeing as how you have nothing to offer? * RICHARD: Or are platitudes (such as hoping the other is well/advising them to drive safely) sufficient unto the day in your neck of the woods? RESPONDENT: Pretty much, as I stated above, yes. I wish them well. RICHARD: As what you stated above is the reasoning behind such bromidic comments being ‘pretty much’ sufficient unto the day would you consider a re-examination of those statements to be a worthy enterprise? I only ask because to anticipate an interaction with one’s fellow human being as ‘misery’ is most certainly not conducive to happiness and harmlessness. Neither for oneself nor for the other.
RICHARD: Surprisingly enough, even though love has such an appalling track record, there are still those who consider that the summum bonum of existence is to be love. RESPONDENT: Yes, it’s a merely a demonstration of their otherwise dis-content. RICHARD: What being love fundamentally demonstrates is its contrary nature ... which perversity is why love never makes anyone well. * RICHARD: ... not only do I have much to offer I have already advised, in my initial response, that at least one pertinent thing amongst all that was offered in that period was verified. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘... my previous companion came up to me in a café one day to let me know that she now understands, via this first-hand experience, that the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are indeed innate’. [endquote]. If I had nothing to offer I would never have gone public with my discovery of what lies beyond enlightenment in the first place ... ‘tis disingenuous, to say the least, to set-up a web page with a linked mailing list and then say one has nothing to offer. RESPONDENT: Well certainly, you can point but you don’t actually ‘give’ anything to them, which is the big mis-understanding I might add. The old saying, ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’ is appropriate. RICHARD: I will rephrase my query then: as love never makes anyone well then what do you have to point to (other than the hope you so readily pointed to at the first opportunity)? * RESPONDENT: They’re gonna get if and when they’re gonna get it. RICHARD: My previous companion informed me that she would never had got it that the instinctual passions are innate if I had not consistently pointed it out to her in the first place ... to prove me wrong in this regard is what motivated her to observe for herself on a daily basis, by being a proxy maiden aunt over a 13 month period to a newly born baby girl being raised only by females, just what a supposedly innocent baby girl spontaneously experiences (she had a feministic theory/ belief that males put such passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire into female babies). RESPONDENT: That’s pretty ridiculous. I’ve run into a lot of bitter, angry women but never heard that one before. RICHARD: It does have its echoes in the ‘sugar and spice and all things nice’ doggerel of nursery-room lore, though. RESPONDENT: Pretty funny really, ‘It’s all YOUR fault! :-) Reminds me I saw this cartoon where this woman is smiling, telling her husband upon leaving her psychiatrists office, she says, ‘He agrees with me, it’s all YOUR fault!’ :-) LOL RICHARD: Just as misandry Be that as it may: the point being that it just does not make any sense to say you have ‘nothing’ to offer yet in the next breath say ‘they’re gonna get if and when they’re gonna get it’ ... as you have ‘nothing’ to offer there is ‘nothing’ for them to get (never mind the if and when). * RESPONDENT: Understanding is something that a person has to come to themselves on their own. RICHARD: Yet unless a person’s attention is drawn to the very thing they have been overlooking there will be nothing looming on their horizon for them to understand ... it is what the sharing of experience is all about. RESPONDENT: Yes, good point. The teaching becomes a ‘dawning’. Of a sudden, it’s ‘heard’ in other words. RICHARD: I was, of course, referring to a person’s attention being drawn to something factual ... but, nevertheless, do you see that you do have something to offer after all? * RESPONDENT: They have their agendas to fulfil, come hell or high water. RICHARD: How do you account for those who discard their (unfulfilled) agenda and grasp the new with alacrity then? RESPONDENT: Well in my case it was just general pissed off-ness and seeing the logic of the situation that I was in and dealing with it accordingly. The buck stops here in other words. RICHARD: I was asking about other people ... what is the point of setting-up a web page, with a linked mailing list, unless there be those who can discard their (unfulfilled) agenda and grasp the new? The sheer existence of these mediums of communication demonstrates both something to offer and someone to offer it to. * RESPONDENT: Like children, they have to find out on their own. RICHARD: Having previously been the parent of four children, plus being a qualified art teacher, I know first-hand that the passing-on of information is invaluable ... if it were not for the sharing of knowledge we could all be still living in caves dressed in animal skins and gnawing on raw brontosaurus bones. RESPONDENT: I raised 4 kids too! And I also was a teacher, ran a swim school, taught hundreds of kids to swim. And like swimming, you don’t really ‘teach’ them, you just give them the ‘tools’ and they do it themselves. RICHARD: This has become all rather circuitous: when I enquired, in a previous e-mail, as to what you had to offer you said ‘nothing’ and then explained, in this e-mail, that you do not ‘give’ anyone anything (adding that it was a big misunderstanding) yet here you ‘give’ people tools whilst saying you do not really ‘teach’ ... even though, further above, you refer to ‘the teaching’ you obviously give (else there is nothing to ‘of a sudden’ be heard). And all this circumlocution is because of a simple and unambiguous query about what it is, other than hope, that you have to offer. RESPONDENT: It has to be self-motivated, the ‘need’ has to be there. And what I find in the case of most people with this realization business is that the ‘need’ really isn’t there. They want a lot of things, but understanding isn’t one of them, or only as it fits their other purposes. As I believe I’ve said before, their ‘life’ is what still has them, wanting it to ‘work out’. And as in the case of your ex, you see very well how that plays out. RICHARD: No, in the case of my previous companion the very reason she moved out was because she was kidnapped by the glamour and the glory and the glitz of love and, as a consequence, irremediably bitten by the enlightenment bug ... the self-motivated ‘need’ was thus inexorably in place and such was her desire for the ‘understanding’ of self-realisation there was naught I could do to bring her back to her senses (both literally and metaphorically). I wrote about these very circumstances in the e-mail posted only eight hours before the first one you wrote to me in this current exchange ... here is a brief excerpt (which is a quote from my journal written at the time it was happening):
Which is one of the reasons why I was so appreciative when she came up to me in a café one day to let me know that she now understands, via first-hand experience and despite the off-the-wall writings of radical feminism, that the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are indeed innate And I am always well-pleased, when somebody gets something from reading/hearing what I have to report, for I like my fellow human being no matter where they are coming from, where they are at, or where they are going to ... each person has a background, a frame of reference, an agenda, and the challenge of communication lies in engaging such a person in a sincere, frank, and honest discussion. Which is precisely what is happening in this e-mail exchange. * RICHARD: ... has your buddy’s ex-partner discovered anything of note yet regarding deeply passionate connections? RESPONDENT: I don’t know Richard, I doubt it, he suggested to her that she come out here with me, and I said, very funny, what the hell am I gonna do with her? :-) Just what I need. :-) RICHARD: What would be the point of coming out there with you, according to your buddy, and why would interacting with his ex-partner be something for you to not need? RESPONDENT: Her grown daughter lives near me and he thought it would be a good idea. RICHARD: Other than her grown daughter living nearby ... why did he think it would be a good idea to come out there with you? RESPONDENT: Whining soap-opera queens are not my idea of a good time. :-) They love their suffering too much to even consider looking at what they’re doing. RICHARD: As looking at the love of suffering is, presumably, part of ‘the teaching’ you so obviously give could this be an example of why your buddy suggested she come out there with you? * RESPONDENT: In other words, I need ‘misery’ like I need a hole in the head. RICHARD: Apart from anticipating an interaction with your buddy’s ex-partner as being ‘misery’ ... what would be the point of coming out there with you, according to your buddy, seeing as how you have nothing to offer? RESPONDENT: He thought I could help her find a job, re-locate here, I run an employment agency. RICHARD: Ha ... just what kind of an employment agency is it that you run whereby you say ‘what the hell am I gonna do with her’ when he suggested she come out there with you? Unless someone is chronically unemployable why would finding a job-seeker a job be something you do not need? * RICHARD: Or are platitudes (such as hoping the other is well/advising them to drive safely) sufficient unto the day in your neck of the woods? RESPONDENT: Pretty much, as I stated above, yes. I wish them well. RICHARD: As what you stated above is the reasoning behind such bromidic comments being ‘pretty much’ sufficient unto the day would you consider a re-examination of those statements to be a worthy enterprise? I only ask because to anticipate an interaction with one’s fellow human being as ‘misery’ is most certainly not conducive to happiness and harmlessness. Neither for oneself nor for the other. RESPONDENT: Yes I understand, and I think we’re on the same page here ... RICHARD: As I never anticipate an interaction with my fellow human being as ‘misery’ I am none too sure why you would think so. RESPONDENT: I’m just commenting on what I consider the ‘readiness’ of people. RICHARD: Hmm ... what is conveyed by your words (and I can only go by the words you write) is a marked absence of ‘readiness’ in yourself to interact with people as-they-are. As such interaction is ‘misery’ for you then what is being love
RICHARD: What being love fundamentally demonstrates is its contrary nature ... which perversity is why love never makes anyone well. RESPONDENT: Yes, it’s flawed from the git-go. RICHARD: What is a person to do, then, when they realise they are this flawed nature and, furthermore, being that is what everyone is? * RICHARD: If I had nothing to offer I would never have gone public with my discovery of what lies beyond enlightenment in the first place ... ‘tis disingenuous, to say the least, to set-up a web page with a linked mailing list and then say one has nothing to offer. RESPONDENT: Well certainly, you can point but you don’t actually ‘give’ anything to them, which is the big mis-understanding I might add. The old saying, ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’ is appropriate. RICHARD: I will rephrase my query then: as love never makes anyone well then what do you have to point to (other than the hope you so readily pointed to at the first opportunity)? RESPONDENT: The only constructive point is back to themselves and what they are doing. RICHARD: It was not what my previous companion was doing, which occasioned her to pack her bags and move out, it was what she was being that ended her eleven-year relationship: she was being love. And your response to her being love was:
To which I replied:
Your response was this:
So, of course, I enquired as to what you did have to offer:
Only to receive this:
After some discussion you acknowledged that you could point:
So I rephrased my query:
Now you tell me this:
Yet, as I have already indicated, it was not what my previous companion was doing which is the issue it was what she was being – and what she was being was love – so perhaps if I were to put it into words you might relate to your response may be more relevant to the situation under discussion: what happened was that she realised she was love, she was enlightenment, she was freedom, she was understanding, she was the very ‘thing’ itself, she was ‘IT’. Over to you. * RICHARD: ... it just does not make any sense to say you have ‘nothing’ to offer yet in the next breath say ‘they’re gonna get if and when they’re gonna get it’ ... as you have ‘nothing’ to offer there is ‘nothing’ for them to get (never mind the if and when). RESPONDENT: Yes, but my point is that we have no control over it. As I said before, you can lead a horse to water, and even shove his nose in it, but you can’t make him drink. RICHARD: I am not asking whether you have control over it or not ... what is it you say you do not have to offer that they are going to get if and when they are going to get it? Or, to put that another way, what is the ‘water’ you are leading them to and shoving their nose in? * RICHARD: ... do you see that you do have something to offer after all? RESPONDENT: Sure, I haven’t given up yet. :-) RICHARD: Now that the issue of you not having something to offer has been cleared up here is my query in a more specific form: as love never makes anyone well then what is in ‘the teaching’ you offer, other than the hope you proffered at the first opportunity, that would enable my previous companion to be well? And, just so that there is no misunderstanding, the disease she is suffering from is love itself. * RICHARD: ... what is the point of setting-up a web page, with a linked mailing list, unless there be those who can discard their (unfulfilled) agenda and grasp the new? The sheer existence of these mediums of communication demonstrates both something to offer and someone to offer it to. RESPONDENT: Sure, those with ears, let them hear. RICHARD: Now that the issue of people having their agendas to fulfil, come hell or high water, has been cleared up and, as love never makes anyone well, then what are ‘those with ears’ going to hear from you? * RICHARD: ... I am always well-pleased, when somebody gets something from reading/hearing what I have to report, for I like my fellow human being no matter where they are coming from, where they are at, or where they are going to ... each person has a background, a frame of reference, an agenda, and the challenge of communication lies in engaging such a person in a sincere, frank, and honest discussion. Which is precisely what is happening in this e-mail exchange. RESPONDENT: Yes, it’s nice isn’t it? RICHARD: Even though you say it is nice to engage a person with a background, a frame of reference, an agenda, in a sincere, frank, and honest discussion this is what happened on at least one occasion when that very opportunity arose:
RESPONDENT: It all comes down to a matter of openness, the willingness to be in relationship. RICHARD: Or, rather, it is a matter of examining why there is a marked absence of the readiness to interact with your fellow human being as-they-are ... instead of commenting on their lack of readiness to be who you are. * RICHARD: ... just what kind of an employment agency is it that you run whereby you say ‘what the hell am I gonna do with her’ when your buddy suggested his ex-partner come out there with you? Unless someone is chronically unemployable why would finding a job-seeker a job be something you do not need? RESPONDENT: Finding her a job is one thing, having her around listening to her go on and on and on, with her head up her ass, is not my idea of a good time. :-) RICHARD: Then what would be the point of coming out there with you, according to your buddy, seeing as how interacting with your fellow human being as-they-are is not your idea of a good time? RESPONDENT: And my friend and I were just joking about it. She’s one of these chronic complainer types, not a happy camper at all. RICHARD: Let me see if I get what the joking is about: you have realised that you are love and that there are no limits on love; that love is beyond yet lies within all form; that love is the birds in the air taking flight; that love is the flower opening itself to the warmth of the sun; that love is the wind caressing the trees; that people shaking hands, for example, is all about love; and that love is, in fact, who people *are* ... and what you and your friend are joking about is that having your buddy’s ex-partner come out there with you would be a misery you need like you need a hole in the head because listening to a whining soap-opera queen, one of these chronic complainer types who is not a happy camper at all, go on and on and on, with her head up her ass, is not your idea of a good time. That seems to be more pathetic than funny ... does the joke lie in her not having realised she is God? Viz.:
May I ask? Has your buddy realised that he is God too? * RICHARD: ... to anticipate an interaction with one’s fellow human being as ‘misery’ is most certainly not conducive to happiness and harmlessness. Neither for oneself nor for the other. RESPONDENT: Yes I understand, and I think we’re on the same page here ... RICHARD: As I never anticipate an interaction with my fellow human being as ‘misery’ I am none too sure why you would think so. RESPONDENT: Well I’m not gonna lose any sleep over it, if that’s what you’re insinuating? :-) RICHARD: No, and I am not insinuating anything else either ... what I am saying, simply and unambiguously, is that to anticipate an interaction with one’s fellow human being as ‘misery’ is most certainly not conducive to happiness and harmlessness – neither for oneself nor for the other – and that as I never anticipate an interaction with my fellow human being as ‘misery’ I am none too sure why you would think we are on the same page. It is not even the same book. * RESPONDENT: I’m just commenting on what I consider the ‘readiness’ of people. RICHARD: Hmm ... what is conveyed by your words (and I can only go by the words you write) is a marked absence of ‘readiness’ in yourself to interact with people as-they-are. As such interaction is ‘misery’ for you then what is being love worth? RESPONDENT: I interact with people all the time Richard, sometimes enjoyable, sometimes not. But I haven’t closed my doors yet, if that’s what you’re getting at? RICHARD: No, I am clearly and consistently pointing out that love never makes anyone well ... as is evidenced, for example, in the marked absence of ‘readiness’ in yourself to interact with people as-they-are despite realising that you are love and that there are no limits on love. RESPONDENT: All in all, I’m one who loves being with people, I love the play, I love the friendship. It’s quite enjoyable. RICHARD: Ahh ... as you have said elsewhere you have a temper, and are not necessarily a ‘nice’ person to be around all the time (in that you can be someone’s best friend and love them absolutely or be the wrath of God they wish they had never met), it is no wonder that you so readily agree about the perverse and contrary nature of love:
It may very well turn out that your ‘its quite enjoyable’ comment is the cue that triggers an investigation into the enormous gulf between licence and freedom. RESPONDENT: And if you ever get over here stateside, drop in, would love to have you, I’ll take you out and show you the town. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate that you offer your hospitality it is highly unlikely that I will ever go overseas again ... I travelled enough in my younger days to satisfy any curiosity about other parts of the world. Besides which, the sheer fact of being alive is adventure enough, these days.
RICHARD: ... to anticipate an interaction with one’s fellow human being as ‘misery’ is most certainly not conducive to happiness and harmlessness. Neither for oneself nor for the other. RESPONDENT: Yes I understand, and I think we’re on the same page here ... RICHARD: As I never anticipate an interaction with my fellow human being as ‘misery’ I am none too sure why you would think so. RESPONDENT: Well I’m not gonna lose any sleep over it, if that’s what you’re insinuating? :-) RICHARD: No, and I am not insinuating anything else either ... what I am saying, simply and unambiguously, is that to anticipate an interaction with one’s fellow human being as ‘misery’ is most certainly not conducive to happiness and harmlessness – neither for oneself nor for the other – and that as I never anticipate an interaction with my fellow human being as ‘misery’ I am none too sure why you would think we are on the same page. It is not even the same book. RESPONDENT: Richard, I’m sorry you misunderstood, I was joking. Did you ever see the movie Airplane, where I forgot who it was now, but this woman was sitting there going on and on and on and the guy sitting next to her finally pulls out a knife and commits hara-kiri. :-) That’s all I was pointing to, the silliness of it. Now if a person is asking for help, that’s a different story. I remember sometimes when my mother would call and my husband would answer the phone, and he could actually put the phone down and walk away and come back and she would still be going on and on. It was a family joke and we would all tease her about it saying that we were gonna have to commit hara-kiri if she didn’t shut up. :-) At least with my mother, she had a happy disposition, she was positive, she wasn’t down in the mouth serious. So, I hope this clears up any mis-understanding over this ‘misery’ business. RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps this is an apposite moment to observe that clarity in communication lies in a person saying what they mean when they mean it: for example, although you now say that all you were pointing to was the silliness of a person (metaphorically) committing hara-kiri, because a fellow human being is going on and on and on, your reply at the time was that you were just commenting on what you consider the ‘readiness’ of people. Viz.:
When I responded, with reference to your numerous comments on what you consider the ‘readiness’ of people, I explicitly cautioned that my response was solely based upon what your words convey:
When you replied by saying your interaction with people is sometimes enjoyable, sometimes not, but that all in all, as you love being with people and love the play and love the friendship, it is quite enjoyable I gained no inkling whatsoever that what you were really conveying was that you had been joking about what you consider the ‘readiness’ of people and that all you were pointing to with those jokes was the silliness of a person (metaphorically) committing hara-kiri because a fellow human being is going on and on and on. Of course it is silly ... the challenge of communicating with people as-they-are lies in engaging such a person in a sincere, frank, and honest discussion. Now that you have cleared up that miscommunication we can get on with the subject at hand ... here is my query in its more specific form: as love never makes anyone well then what is in ‘the teaching’ you offer, other than the hope you proffered at the first opportunity, that would enable my previous companion to be well? And, just so that there is no misunderstanding, the disease she is suffering from is love itself.
RICHARD: ... here is my query in its more specific form: as love never makes anyone well then what is in ‘the teaching’ you offer, other than the hope you proffered at the first opportunity, that would enable my previous companion to be well? And, just so that there is no misunderstanding, the disease she is suffering from is love itself. RESPONDENT: Well, I would probably tell her to ‘get over herself’ and then kick her ass out. RICHARD: As ‘herself’ is love then when ‘the teaching’ you offer here is of a sudden heard there would be a dawning that appears like this, for example, when put into words:
Yet in a very recent e-mail you re-posted a quote of yours from your web page which makes it clear that, amongst other inextricably linked things realised, you too are love. Viz.:
As you have demonstrably not got over yourself yet it would seem that hope is about all you do have to offer her after all. How is hope going to make her well?
RICHARD: As you have demonstrably not got over yourself yet it would seem that hope is about all you do have to offer her after all. How is hope going to make her well? RESPONDENT: That’s your trip, not mine. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the offer of hope most certainly came from you and not me. Viz.:
You even answered ‘pretty much ... yes’ when I enquired whether platitudes such as hoping the other is well were sufficient unto the day in your neck of the woods. And not only is the offering of the bromidic variety of hope not my trip I never advocate hope in its full-blown form (a feeling of expectation and desire combined) either ... for just one example:
May I ask? Is there anything else in the teaching you offer, apart from the hope you proffered at the first opportunity, other than deflecting queries back to the enquirer under the guise of constructive pointing? RESPONDENT: You’re the one who lived with her for 11 years, not me! :-) hahaha RICHARD: As you have indicated you are just joking again then, for obvious reasons, I will make no comment this time around (until/unless you clarify just what it is you really want to convey). Meanwhile, and so as to remove the distraction of there being a particular person to make jokes about, I will rearrange the generalised version of my query from three e-mails ago: as what being love fundamentally demonstrates is its contrary nature – which perversity is why love never makes anyone well – what is a person to do when they realise they are this flawed nature from the git-go and, furthermore, being that is what everyone is? In other words: how is a person to get over the love they realise they *are*?
CORRESPONDENT No. 36 (Part Two) 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 |
