|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 44
RESPONDENT: I had put in the list some subjects on metaphysical facts. RICHARD: If you are referring to the 12, 027 words you copy-pasted from an after-death survivalist’s web site then you are using the word ‘facts’ very, very loosely ... so loosely that your usage of it is indistinguishable from what the word ‘beliefs’ commonly refers to. For example, the author you quoted at length first proposes there are two bodies (the finite physical body which contains the brain that dies and an infinite etheric body which contains a mind which does not die) and two worlds (the physical world and an etheric world) and then proposes that etheric body/mind is made-up of the sub-atomic particles of quantum theory and that etheric world is made-up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics ... specifically the neutrino. In short: an after-death abode which lies in an invisible nine-tenths of the universe. Moreover the author then proposes that invisible universe is what is creating the visible universe:
As his proof for survival after death comes from materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums I did not consider there was anything in what you copy-pasted to answer ... especially as nowhere on his web page did I see any mention of the meaning of life, peace on earth, happiness and harmlessness, freedom from malice and sorrow, or anything else of that ilk. Not that those subjects are of particular interest to you, of course, but they are to me. RESPONDENT: You was not bothered to answer, that means that you are stubborn in your beliefs. RICHARD: Oh? So it has got to the stage now that all you have to do is post reams and reams of words about after-death survival, classify them as being metaphysical facts, and if Richard does not respond then that means Richard is being stubborn in his beliefs, eh? RESPONDENT: Is your right to think the way you think ... RICHARD: If I may point out? The way thinking happens here has nothing to do with a ‘right’ to think that way as there is the direct experience of the actual – this which is actually happening – and thoughts form themselves in accord to that wherever necessary. For example these words are being typed as the very thing referred to is actually occurring – they are coming directly out of actuality – and not from some nebulous beliefs such as you would have be the case. RESPONDENT: [Is your right to think the way you think], but I strongly believe that you are in an altered state of consciousness ... RICHARD: Now here is a curious thing: I have never heard anyone say they weakly believe something. RESPONDENT: [Is your right to think the way you think, but I strongly believe that you are in an altered state of consciousness], even if you are defined it like PCE. RICHARD: This is not the first time you have believed this:
Apparently all that has happened in the ensuing three months is that you now strongly believe it. RESPONDENT: Is your personal interpretation. RICHARD: No ... indeed one of the things I did before I went public with my discovery was to ascertain whether people from many walks of life could recall having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – as distinct from an altered state of consciousness (ASC) – for obvious reasons and without fail they all verified that what I had to report is correct. More to the point I have been able to ascertain that anybody that I have been with whilst they were having a PCE is indubitably experiencing the same-same experience as is my on-going experiencing ... plus they have tended to say things such as they now see what I have been saying all along for themselves; that everything I have ever said is accurate; that they understand what I have been getting at; that they know why it is difficult for others to comprehend; that they can now talk on an equal footing with me; that life is indeed grand ... amazing, marvellous, and truly wondrous. I usually ask pertinent questions: for example very early in the piece I asked my current companion, once the PCE was definitely happening, what she had to say now about love (always a hot topic): ‘Love?’ she said, ‘Why there is no room for love here!’ She went on to expand, saying there was no need for love as everything was already perfect, and there was no separation, and so on ... but she had said enough in her initial response to both satisfy and delight me. RESPONDENT: No one can say you are right or wrong ... RICHARD: Au contraire ... somebody who is having, or can recall having had, a PCE can indeed say so. RESPONDENT: [No one can say you are right or wrong], but the fact that Vineeto and Peter, that are so close to you, did not arrived yet there is the proof that everything you are experiencing could be your hallucination. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you realise that, as you ‘strongly believe’ I am in an ASC, you have just classified such a state of being as an hallucination? Apart from that: the fact that nobody has become actually free in the six years since I first went public only means that nobody has become actually free in the six years since I first went public – anything else is speculation – and to focus upon such speculation is to miss the truly remarkable virtual freedom that is possible by applying the actualism method ... and as a virtual freedom is way beyond normal expectations anyway then, irregardless of whatever happens in the future, my having gone public will not have been in vain. And even further to this point there are some people who, having taken in the gist of what I have to report about spiritual enlightenment, have dropped spiritualism for the crock it is and reverted to materialism ... so it is even of benefit to have gone public if only for the disillusionment of those who had hitched their star to some massively deluded person. All in all I am already well-pleased ... and, as it is only early days yet, I will probably be even more pleased one day. RESPONDENT: After all with what right Vineeto and Peter are defending you in the moment they don’t have personal experience? RICHARD: They do not have to have any ‘right’ – for what they have to report/say comes out of PCE’s and not just out of what I have to report/say – and it is rather telling that you would describe it as ‘defending’ me ... rather than, for instance, confirming what I have to report/say. RESPONDENT: That means they obey you ... RICHARD: It is the PCE which is a person’s lodestone ... not me and/or my words. Me and/or my words provide confirmation of what the PCE makes evident ... and provide the affirmation that a fellow human being has safely negotiated the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: [That means they obey you] because of belief ... RICHARD: No, a PCE is the direct experience of actuality ... belief plays no part in it whatsoever
(nor does faith, hope, trust, and certitude RESPONDENT: [That means they obey you because of belief] and might destroy other peoples’ life. RICHARD: If you can satisfactorily explain to me how being happy and harmless (virtually free from malice and sorrow) 99% of the time might destroy other peoples’ life I would be more than a little surprised ... which brings me to the obvious question: what is your objection to people being happy and harmless? My guess, and it is but a guess, is that the latter part of your last sentence would be more in accord with the truth if it were put something like this:
‘Tis only a guess, mind you.
RESPONDENT: I had put in the list some subjects on metaphysical facts. RICHARD: If you are referring to the 12, 027 words you copy-pasted from an after-death survivalist’s web site then you are using the word ‘facts’ very, very loosely ... so loosely that your usage of it is indistinguishable from what the word ‘beliefs’ commonly refers to. RESPONDENT: I use the word fact, in the same way you use it, when you say that the universe is not expanding. RICHARD: Here is the exchange you are referring to:
Do you see it was not me but you who used the word ‘fact’ (and in all-caps at that)? RESPONDENT: We have the red shift, the so called Doppler effect for light and we use it to measure the speed of a car, as we do also applying the Doppler effect on sound. You can test it yourself listening to the sound of the engine of a car, as is coming towards you in front of you and then going far from you. And although you said me the other time that the universe is not expanding. RICHARD: How does this demonstrate your claim that you are using the word ‘facts’, in regards the 12, 027 words you copy-pasted from an after-death survivalist’s web site, in the same way you say I did in the above exchange? * RICHARD: For example, the author you quoted at length first proposes there are two bodies (the finite physical body which contains the brain that dies and an infinite etheric body which contains a mind which does not die) and two worlds (the physical world and an etheric world) and then proposes that etheric body/mind is made-up of the sub-atomic particles of quantum theory and that etheric world is made-up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics ... specifically the neutrino. In short: an after-death abode which lies in an invisible nine-tenths of the universe. RESPONDENT: So what bad in this? RICHARD: I never said there was anything ‘bad’ in this ... I provided it as an example of you using the word ‘facts’ very, very loosely (so loosely that your usage of it is indistinguishable from what the word ‘beliefs’ commonly refers to). * RICHARD: Moreover the author then proposes that invisible universe is what is creating the visible universe. Viz.: [Mr Michael Rolls]: ‘The great strength of the powerful materialists who control orthodox, scientific thinking is that they are banking on the fact that most people are not making an effort to understand even basic subatomic physics. Even a cursory glance at the subject shows that the physical universe is being produced from the invisible – the etheric universe’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Do you find anything unscientific in this, anything schizophrenic? RICHARD: To say the etheric world of paranormal mediums is made-up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics – specifically the neutrino – obviously has nothing to do with facts ... so to say it is a fact that their paranormal world is producing the physical world, and to then ask me what is unscientific in this, borders on being risible. So much so that I wonder what you will come up with next. * RICHARD: As his proof for survival after death comes from materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums I did not consider there was anything in what you copy-pasted to answer ... RESPONDENT: Why, these are not physical phenomena? RICHARD: The few times I have looked-up the subject of scientifically observed materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums – and there are plenty of instances to look at – it has always turned out to have been a fraud ... as I have no expertise on the subject, nor have any intention of gaining any, you may find the following to be of interest:
And there are many other people, who have also made it their business to investigate the materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums, as well. RESPONDENT: Was not the ether accepted by Newton and then was abandoned because of the relativity theory? RICHARD: Irregardless of Mr. Isaac Newton accepting the concept of ether, and Mr. Albert Einstein abandoning it, neither of them ever said the etheric world of paranormal mediums was made up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics – let alone that the mediums’ paranormal world is producing the physical world – which is what Mr Michael Rolls proposes and which you say are facts. RESPONDENT: Einstein thought before he died said that the ether must exist. RICHARD: What Mr. Albert Einstein thought before he died does not make Mr Michael Rolls’ proposals into the facts you say they are. RESPONDENT: The ether is around any body (body including also the earth etc). You can make a simple experiment, very well known. If you put in a glass tube sterilised cotton and distilled water and a seed just sprouting and then you close it so that air can’t get in, by wax and weight it, then if you weight it again after a week you will notice a difference in the weight, that can not be explained with any law or theory of physics, that exist today. It can be explained only by ether, who can penetrate everything. RICHARD: Even if (note ‘if’) this were to be correct in what way does it make the etheric world of paranormal mediums the missing dark matter of theoretical physics? Are you not aware there are other explanations, other than the missing dark matter of theoretical physics, for why galaxies are not flying apart? * RICHARD: ... especially as nowhere on his web page did I see any mention of the meaning of life, peace on earth, happiness and harmlessness, freedom from malice and sorrow, or anything else of that ilk. RESPONDENT: On the opposite, what he says has a lot to do with meaning of life ... RICHARD: In what way does proposing an after-death abode in the missing dark matter of theoretical physics reveal/ disclose/ make apparent the meaning of life? RESPONDENT: ... and if what he says is so ... RICHARD: Allow me to juxtapose this with your first sentence (from the top of this page):
Why do you now say ‘if’ what he says is so (instead of *as* what he says is so) ... facts are so, are they not? RESPONDENT: ... [and if what he says is so], then everything on earth will change. RICHARD: As Mr Michael Rolls’ focus is upon being immediately united with loved ones after physical death in what way will ‘everything on earth’ change because he says that the after-death abode lies in the missing dark matter of theoretical physics ... will all humankind cease being malicious and sorrowful for instance? Furthermore, when will it change/what will make it change ... and why has it not changed already? RESPONDENT: What he says has NOTHING to do with religion. RICHARD: I never said it did ... all I said was that nowhere on his web page did I see any mention of the meaning of life, peace on earth, happiness and harmlessness, freedom from malice and sorrow, or anything else of that ilk. * RICHARD: Not that those subjects are of particular interest to you, of course, but they are to me. RESPONDENT: Yes there are some subjects that are of particular interest to me and others that are to you, but unfortunately we can’t separate life in subjects, they are interrelated. RICHARD: As I never said anything about separating life into subjects your comment is a non-sequitur: I make it quite clear that happiness and harmlessness (freedom from malice and sorrow) are the essential pre-requisites for the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent ... wherein the meaning of life is an on-going experience each moment again. Nowhere in all your discussions with me have you indicated an interest in this. * RESPONDENT: You was not bothered to answer, that means that you are stubborn in your beliefs. RICHARD: Oh? So it has got to the stage now that all you have to do is post reams and reams of words about after-death survival, classify them as being metaphysical facts, and if Richard does not respond then that means Richard is being stubborn in his beliefs, eh? RESPONDENT: You don’t try to disprove or prove anything ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... I make it perfectly clear that actualism is experiential (and only provide complementary scientific discoveries about a particular issue so nobody has to take my word for it). RESPONDENT: [You don’t try to disprove or prove anything] you reject the whole science ... RICHARD: I do not reject science ... I reject pseudo-science and/or science fiction masquerading as
science and factoids RESPONDENT: [You don’t try to disprove or prove anything, you reject the whole science], you don’t discuss them ... RICHARD: What is the point of discussing something which does not exist outside of imagination? RESPONDENT: [You don’t try to disprove or prove anything, you reject the whole science, you don’t discuss them], you only go ahead based in your PCE’s. RICHARD: What did you expect on a mailing list set-up to discuss an actual freedom from the human condition ... discussions about abstract mathematical theories? RESPONDENT: I thought that actualism, comes from actuality, that means to see things as they are. RICHARD: Aye, actualism is the direct experience of the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT: Based on common sense in science etc. RICHARD: Ha ... since when has there been any commonsense in the quantum theory Mr. Michael Rolls bases his propositions on? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Not only in PCE’s. RICHARD: As it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which makes it patently obvious there is no after-death survival it is entirely sensible to base any such seeing of ‘things as they are’ on the PCE. RESPONDENT: You can not define everything through a PCE. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you want me to pretend to be normal so that you can have a normal (and thus fruitless) discussion? * RESPONDENT: Is your right to think the way you think ... RICHARD: If I may point out? The way thinking happens here has nothing to do with a ‘right’ to think that way as there is the direct experience of the actual – this which is actually happening – and thoughts form themselves in accord to that wherever necessary. For example these words are being typed as the very thing referred to is actually occurring – they are coming directly out of actuality – and not from some nebulous beliefs such as you would have be the case. RESPONDENT: Apart from knowledge, have you any other mean to know that a direct experience is taking place? RICHARD: You have asked this question before:
RESPONDENT: Now you will tell me that you are apperceptively aware. How you know that? RICHARD: The very experiencing is what informs. RESPONDENT: How can even know that a PCE is taking place? RICHARD: You have asked this question before:
RESPONDENT: Who knows it? RICHARD: You have asked this question before:
RESPONDENT: When you sleep and there are no dreams, can a PCE take place? RICHARD: As a PCE (a pure consciousness experience) requires consciousness – the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious – to be operating, and as dreamless sleep means the flesh and blood body is not conscious, surely you can work that one out for yourself? If not here is a clue: dreamless sleep is oblivion. RESPONDENT: What is consciousness? RICHARD: Here is how I have explained it before:
What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending? RESPONDENT: Is consciousness material? RICHARD: As consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious I will leave that one for you to work out for yourself as well. RESPONDENT: If yes is matter that forms consciousness conscious of itself? RICHARD: If by this you mean the various elements which constitute a flesh and blood body ... then no. RESPONDENT: Is consciousness in the body, or the body in consciousness? RICHARD: Neither ... consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious. RESPONDENT: If you mix together the elements from whom the body is made in the right analogy, will consciousness take place? RICHARD: Ha ... the book ‘Frankenstein’ was a fictional novel. * RESPONDENT: If you touch the wall, can you separate your body from it? RICHARD: This body is physically distinct from whatever it touches. RESPONDENT: Or is only touching taking place? RICHARD: No, it is definitely this body which is touching something. RESPONDENT: Can you separate your body from the chair your sitting? RICHARD: This body is physically distinct from whatever it sits upon. RESPONDENT: If yes by what means other than knowledge? RICHARD: The very action of sitting involves cutaneous perception ... no thought is required. * RESPONDENT: Lets say that there is another woman like you in AF, if you make a child with her, will the child be free from malice and sorrow, or the child must begin the AF method? RICHARD: As I had a vasectomy in my late thirties that theory will never be tested. RESPONDENT: Because if the child is not free means that the malice and sorrow is still necessary to humankind and is not an evolution process. RICHARD: As I have lived for more than a decade sans malice and sorrow it is patently obvious they are not essential ... and it is rather telling, given all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition, that you would consider them to be necessary. * RESPONDENT: When you was in an ASC for 11 years was you aware that you were in an ASC? RICHARD: Indeed so ... the very fact that it was not in accord with the initial four-hour PCE which set the whole process in motion is why I would not stop halfway. RESPONDENT: May be now is the same thing happening with another name PCE. RICHARD: No, a PCE is distinctly different to an ASC ... just for starters there is no malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, whatsoever in a PCE. Nor any ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (god/goddess by whatever name) for that matter ... there is a list of
the differences at the following link: You will find they are unambiguously different.
RESPONDENT No. 51: The state of permanency (wanting to have always peace, joy, bliss) is what all of us actually want, isn’t it? (snip six paragraphs written in the style of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti). RESPONDENT: Bravo. Beautiful. RICHARD: So as to throw some more light upon the theme which runs through most of your correspondence to this mailing list just what is it about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words that you find beautiful and thus worthy of commendation? Is it, for example, because he had realised the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency
RESPONDENT No. 51: The state of permanency (wanting to have always peace, joy, bliss) is what all of us actually want, isn’t it? (snip) RESPONDENT: Bravo. Beautiful. RICHARD: So as to throw some more light upon the theme which runs through most of your correspondence
to this mailing list just what is it about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words that you find beautiful and thus worthy of
commendation? Is it, for example, because he had realised the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti was always walking in mountains, forests, seasides, etc. Happen to stay under a tree as I bet you have done millions of times. RICHARD: Aye, but I do not sit under a tree in order to be transported into a timeless, deathless immortality which has no existence outside of a human psyche and thus miss out on actuality: when I sit under a tree I enjoy and appreciate being just here, at this place in infinite space, right now, at this moment in eternal time, as this flesh and blood body only ... delighting in being alive in the perfect purity of the already always existing peace-on-earth where the meaning of life lays open all around. RESPONDENT: He was always between people and almost never eat alone. He was continuously going around the world speaking and to the schools. Actually the doctors told him that he must have less activity. RICHARD: May I ask? What has this to do with why you said ‘Bravo. Beautiful’ (further above)? * RESPONDENT No. 51: Richard, only those who don’t know how to live are interested in life after death. (snip) RICHARD: So it would appear RESPONDENT: What Respondent No. 51 said, was said by Krishnamurti ... RICHARD: Are you saying that ‘only those who don’t know how to live are interested in life after death’ are Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words? RESPONDENT: [What Respondent No. 51 said, was said by Krishnamurti], so you can not use his own words to give a misleading answer. RICHARD: Why can I not use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words – ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’ – and in what way are they misleading? RESPONDENT: Is one non sequitur oxymoron. RICHARD: Hmm ... as ‘non sequitur’ means the response does not reasonably follow the initial statement, and as ‘oxymoron’ means a contradiction in terms that emphasises the statement, in what way does the provision of a quote which shows that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not know how to live (‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’) constitute not following the initial statement (‘only those who don’t know how to live are interested in life after death’) and in what way is it a contradiction in terms that emphasises the statement? I will provide an example to make it clear what I am getting at: I have found the answer to all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition – in the world and not away from it – thus I do know how to live and, furthermore, I have no interest whatsoever in life after death. Simply because there is no such thing: I am mortal ... death is the end, finish, oblivion. RESPONDENT: As far as the immortality I will leave Krishnamurti himself to answer you and is up to you to find out what he means by immortality: • ‘(preamble snipped for reasons of space) ... For most people the idea of
immortality is the continuance of the ‘I’, without end, through time. But I say such a concept is false. ‘Then, ‘you
answer, ‘there must be total annihilation’. I say that is not true either. Your belief that total annihilation must follow the
cessation of the limited consciousness we call the ‘I’, is false. You cannot understand immortality that way, for your mind is
caught up in opposites. Immortality is free from all opposites; it is harmonious action in which the mind is utterly freed from
conflict of the ‘I’. RICHARD: What he has to say here is very clear – immortality is not in time; total annihilation is false; the ‘I’ is not immortal; immortality transcends all concepts, theories, and beliefs; there is nothing lasting in the ‘I’ as it is comprised of memories involving conflict; thought is not the way to realise immortality, to feel the ecstasy of the infinite – and it is of particular interest to note that immortality (‘the ecstasy of the infinite’) is something to be felt ... meaning, of course, that it is the feeler who feels itself to be immortal. The three other quotes you also provided did not mention immortality. * RESPONDENT: And for not think that he is meaning something like (soul) Atman. RICHARD: We have been down this track before (and only a couple of weeks ago at that) ... it is ‘being’ itself he is referring to. Vis:
Even you said as much in that same e-mail:
To persist in quibbling over a name-description long after the issue has been settled adds nothing to a discussion ... and makes what follows (below) a needless repetition. RESPONDENT: So in all of us, there is the thinker separate from the thought ... RICHARD: As there is no ‘the thinker’ extant in this flesh and blood body to be ‘separate from the thought’ (or inseparate from it for that matter) it kinda puts a hole in your ‘in all of us’ assertion. RESPONDENT: [So in all of us, there is the thinker separate from the thought], the thinker has become the higher Self, the nobler self, the Atman, or what you will ... RICHARD: As it is the feeler who is the ‘being’ that feels it is immortal it matters not what name-description feeling-fed thought gives to it. RESPONDENT: [So in all of us, there is the thinker separate from the thought, the thinker has become the higher Self, the nobler self, the Atman, or what you will]; but it is still the mind divided as the thinker and the thought. RICHARD: No, what is going on is that thought cops all the blame while feeling gets off scot-free ... or, to put that another way, the feeler persuades the thinker, via intuition, to declare mea culpa and thus lives to survive yet another day. RESPONDENT: The mind seeing thought in flux, impermanent, creates the thinker as the permanent, as the Atman which is permanent, absolute and endless. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the affections, the real ‘being’ keeps on feeling it is immortal (aka ‘permanent’) while all this incessant intellectual wrangling is going on. RESPONDENT: The moment the mind has created the higher self, the Atman, that higher self is still of time, it is still within the field of memory; it is an invention of the mind, it is an illusion created by the mind for a purpose. RICHARD: The real ‘being’, being a feeling being, is not created by the mind ... only the name-description (or word-picture) is. RESPONDENT: That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not ... RICHARD: And the autological ‘being’ is an ontological presence whether you like it or not. RESPONDENT: [That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not]; you may resist it ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I have nothing to resist ... if anything I am inviting you to cease resisting and dig deeper than all this superficial intellectualising which passes for wisdom. RESPONDENT: [That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not; you may resist it], you may say that it is all modern nonsense ... RICHARD: No, I am not saying it is anything of the sort ... I am saying this is all superficial stuff, surface stuff, the stuff of human conditioning and not the stuff of the human condition. RESPONDENT: [That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not; you may resist it, you may say that it is all modern nonsense], that what is said in the Upanishads, in the Gita, is contrary to what I am saying. RICHARD: No, I am most definitely referring to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was saying ... and I am saying that it does not go very deep: thought is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, and the bulk of the identity, being deep underwater, escapes scrutiny because of a preoccupation with the tip. RESPONDENT: But if you really examine closely ... RICHARD: I did ‘examine closely’ ... night and day for eleven years I was able to intimately examine all aspects of spiritual enlightenment. RESPONDENT: [But if you really examine closely] and are not afraid ... RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to remind you of what you wrote a couple of months ago:
What inspired you to say that ‘actualism says that we do not need fear in today’s society’ if not me reporting there is no fear whatsoever in this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: [But if you really examine closely and are not afraid] and do not resist you will see that there is only thinking which creates the thinker, not the thinker first and thinking afterwards. RICHARD: And when I did ‘examine closely’ – night and day for eleven years – I saw that it was the feelings which created the feeler ... and not the feeler first and feeling afterwards. This is such fun, eh? * RESPONDENT: P.S I guess that he is using the word love in a different way you use it when you say it does not exist in this actual world. RICHARD: Then you guess wrong ... I mean it in the same way Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti used it. RESPONDENT: May I ask you if you permit: when you were seeing in the Iraq war small children with cut legs from bombs, was the universe experiencing itself as a human being? RICHARD: So as to forestall any other queries of this ilk: the universe does not cease experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’ under any circumstances. RESPONDENT: Must be very unhappy universe. RICHARD: Hmm ... just as I have not felt happy for many, many years now neither have I felt unhappy either. RESPONDENT: You didn’t felt anything? RICHARD: So as to save you asking these kind of questions again and again it may be useful for me to explain that, not only did I have no feelings about the situation you refer to, I have none about any more you might come up with. I do not experience affective feelings whatsoever because I do not have any anywhere in this body at all ... this body lost that faculty entirely when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul became extinct. Thus, to use the jargon, no one can ‘press my buttons’ as I do not have any buttons – nor any feelings under them – to be activated. Literally I feel nothing at all.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I think you had the bad luck, while you were looking for enlightenment ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Where have I ever said I was looking for enlightenment? And I ask this because, to the contrary of what you may think, I have always made it perfectly clear that it was a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which set the process in motion and not an altered state of consciousness (ASC). That I became enlightened along the way to an actual freedom from the human condition does not mean I was looking for enlightenment ... indeed I did not even know such a thing existed before it happened. Viz.:
I was not even religious before it all started – I did not even know that there was a difference between a Christian monk and a Buddhist monk, for example, other than that one wore brown robes and the other saffron robes – as I had lumped all religion under the category of superstitious clap-trap way back in childhood and lived a totally secular life. RESPONDENT: [I think you had the bad luck, while you were looking for enlightenment], to meet blind teachers and vagabonds, like Peter and Vineeto, like Osho with his Rolls Royce’s and his orgies. RICHARD: No, I never met any teachers (aka seers, sages, masters, gurus, and so on) at all before I became enlightened – I was entirely ignorant of the whole milieu of spirituality/ mysticism and its attendant master/disciple phenomenon – and only came across the writings of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain 5 years later when I met the woman who was to become my second wife and who was what was called a ‘Rajneeshee’ at the time. As she rapidly became an ex-Rajneeshee, when we started to live together, I learnt a lot from her about what he had to say ... plus I also read many of his books (about 90 all told), watched several videos, and listened to numerous tape recordings, so as to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. Why do you say he was a ‘blind’ teacher? RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti is a special case. RICHARD: Do you realise you are saying, in effect, that you had the good luck to meet a special teacher? RESPONDENT: Once he called Osho murderer, because Osho was blackmailing a woman to destroy her if she had to live him. RICHARD: I have been told that the ... um ... special teacher criticised the blind teacher but have never seen any of it in print ... perhaps you could supply the relevant quote? RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti never spoke for enlightenment, unless he was speaking with cultures that were understanding only this word, instead of truth etc. RICHARD: Which probably means that being ‘truth etc.’ refers to the same thing as being enlightened RESPONDENT: You tried to underestimate him, by using certain sort sentences of him. RICHARD: If you can provide an example where I have done so I will be only too happy to attend to it. RESPONDENT: The same you done for Buddha Jesus, by call him a flat earth god man, etc. RICHARD: Are you saying that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene knew that the earth was an oblate spheroid in orbit around the sun? RESPONDENT: I really don’t understand why is so important for you to call Jesus a flat earth dogman ... RICHARD: Oh? What is it about the word ‘omniscient’ (having infinite knowledge) that you do not comprehend? RESPONDENT: ... in the moment you don’t respect science yourself. RICHARD: You have raised this topic before (less than two weeks ago):
And maybe you missed this one as it was in an exchange with another (from three weeks ago):
I could provide some more examples but maybe this will do for now? RESPONDENT: The same you said for U.G. Krishnamurti. RICHARD: You have lost me here ... are you saying I said Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti was ‘a flat earth god man etc.’ or are you saying I said he was enlightened when I (apparently) should have said he was ‘truth etc.’ or are you saying I underestimated him by ‘using certain sort sentences of him’ ? RESPONDENT: And many other people scientists or not. RICHARD: This has become so vague as to be unanswerable in its present form ... just what is this ‘the same’ you are referring to in regards Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and these many other people be they scientists or not? RESPONDENT: You have a tendency to disagree with everybody. RICHARD: You may have misunderstood my oft-repeated ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ statement ... it, of course, refers to matters of consciousness studies in general and, specifically, to where the answer to the problem of the human condition lies (in the world and not away from it). It is not meant to refer to all fields of human endeavour. * RESPONDENT: When you as you say was for 11 years enlightened, you was in an ASC, and to my opinion you still are. RICHARD: Only three weeks you strongly believed I was in an ASC ... what has happened in the meanwhile to change your strong belief into an opinion? RESPONDENT: Feelings have a location in the human brain. You have altered your brain for some reason. RICHARD: We have been down this path before (four times in fact):
And:
And:
And:
Apart from that ... why do you say ‘for some reason’ when I make it crystal clear that this is what happened when the identity in toto became extinct as a direct result of setting out to have what was experienced in the initial four-hour PCE happen twenty four hours of the day seven days of the week? RESPONDENT: You know that mental diseases are not detected by magnetic topographies etc., unless a severe trauma happened to the brain. RICHARD: No, I do not know that ... what I do know, however, is that for all of their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging), no researchers have been able to locate the identity within the body which maybe 6.0 billion people feel they are. RESPONDENT: I mean one schizophrenia for example, not that you are schizophrenic, can not be detected with instruments. The diagnosis can only be made by observation of the symptoms. RICHARD: Just for the record, then, here are the symptoms I have been diagnosed as having by two accredited psychiatrists:
Does this throw any light upon whatever it is you are getting at? RESPONDENT: Human being is a feeling being. RICHARD: And therein lies the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on ... specifically the ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (aka the identity) the feelings automatically form themselves into. RESPONDENT: I don’t say that you intentionally try to cheat other people ... RICHARD: And I am not unintentionally cheating anybody either as I am upfront and out in the open right from the very beginning on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... which includes, for just one example, what my second wife had to say about both me and actualism after she packed her bags and moved out. And not only is all that readily available for anyone to read and make up their own mind for themselves there are also hundreds (if not thousands) of e-mails from many and varied peoples ... all answered, point-by-point mostly, with no dodging of questions or fudging of issues, in a clear and unambiguous manner. RESPONDENT: [I don’t say that you intentionally try to cheat other people], but you are harming them, by loosing their time, because even if they want they can’t alter their brain. RICHARD: First and foremost, how is it harming people to suggest they become as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible in their day-to-day life via a demonstrated-to-be-effective attentiveness method being applied each moment again with the pure intent to have peace on earth sooner rather than later? Second, how is it a loss of time to have the goal of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, yet not a loss of time to have the goal of an after-death peace in some timeless and spaceless and formless immortality? Lastly, how do you know that another human being cannot have the same radical change happen in the brain-stem (at the base of the brain/nape of the neck) as what happened with this flesh and blood body ... or are you making a case for me being somebody special? RESPONDENT: Hitler was trying to create a superior race and the same you are trying too, with other means. RICHARD: Uh oh ... experience has shown that when a co-respondent plays the you-are-essentially-no-different-to-an-evil-dictator card they are rapidly running out of argument. RESPONDENT: Its up to you and up to them. RICHARD: What is up to me and up to them? * RESPONDENT: After I sent to you so many excerpts on Krishnamurti, speaking against reincarnation, did you correct your site’s comments about him in this area? RICHARD: It would appear that you missed my response:
RESPONDENT: Because if not this is immoral. RICHARD: In what way does morality come into the issue of publishing referenced quotes to demonstrate the validity of what is being discussed? RESPONDENT: [quote] J. K.: ‘The so-called enlightened people are not enlightened, for the moment they say, ‘I am enlightened’, they are not. That is their vanity’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Ha ... if it be vanity to say ‘I am enlightened’ then what is it to say ‘I am God’ ... humility, perchance? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: [quote] J. K.: ‘Thought has been responsible for creating god. Thought has been responsible for the searching for illumination, enlightenment. Thought has been responsible for wars, for all the appalling cruelty that is going on in the world’. (Krishnamurti Bombay 2nd Public Talk 25th January 1981). RICHARD: And again ... if thought has been responsible for creating god then ‘truth’ must be a creation of thought as well:
RESPONDENT: So you see you was in a trance state. RICHARD: Not for the reasons you supply here ... but yes, being enlightened, or being god/truth, can indeed be characterised as a trance state (though I do prefer to say it was a dissociated state or a massive delusion). It was quite staggering to realise what I had been living was an institutionalised insanity.
CORRESPONDENT No. 44 (Part Six) 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 |
