On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
with Correspondent No. 51
RESPONDENT: 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 No. 44: 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: Richard, only those who don’t know how to live are interested in life after death. (snip seven paragraphs written in the style of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti).
RICHARD: So it would appear ... and as the remainder of this e-mail, just like your initial post, is imbued with the words of a man who would rather sit under a tree in order to be transported into a timeless, deathless immortality than be living happily and harmlessly in space and time as a flesh and blood body only there is no point in responding to anything in it either.
RESPONDENT: The state of permanency (wanting to have always peace, joy, bliss) is what all of us actually want, isn’t it? (snip)
RESPONDENT No. 44: 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: Richard, only those who don’t know how to live are interested in life after death. (snip)
RESPONDENT: When you have order, you don’t belong to disorder. You stand alone, outside, not belonging to this world and all its messes [violence]. To die is to live and not to belong. This burns everything false. If you throw away the garb of conditioning you’re an outsider because there is a state of disorder to which human beings belong and the man who doesn’t belong is away from this world. There is no relationship. So though he may live in the world, he is not of the world. Alone but not lonely. People who don’t know how to be alone, are lonely.
RICHARD: As you specifically mention throwing away ‘the garb of conditioning’ in order to be an outsider this is an apposite moment to present some of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own words for your perusal as nowhere does he come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning). For an example:
But he does not wonder why it is probable that [quote] ‘we have derived this feeling from that little animal’ [endquote] for very long as soon he has left behind everything that thought had put together and has completely forgotten himself ... so much so that soon there is no longer any sense of being a human being even:
As this paragraph is rich in symbolism – such as chant and worship and climbing in the light with no sense of separateness and no sense of even being a human being – it amply embellishes what he means when he says the ‘answer’ is not to be found in the world:
The word ‘dissociation’ seems particularly apt.
RICHARD: ... and as the remainder of your e-mail, just like your initial post, is imbued with the words of a man who would rather sit under a tree in order to be transported into a timeless, deathless immortality than be living happily and harmlessly in space and time as a flesh and blood body only there is no point in responding to anything in it either.
RESPONDENT: Indeed my posts are imbued with the words of the English dictionary so we can understand what they mean.
RICHARD: If I may point out? I said your previous e-mail, just like your initial post, is imbued with the words of a man who would rather sit under a tree in order to be transported into a timeless, deathless immortality than be living happily and harmlessly in space and time as a flesh and blood body only ... and not what you are saying ‘indeed’ to.
RESPONDENT: It is your affair to respond to whatever you wish to make available in your website.
RICHARD: What I responded to has nothing to do with what you make it out to be here – which is but a cheap shot and not at all conducive to clarity in communication – as I responded to what I discerned may enable a discussion with you to happen (rather than uselessly indulge in a proxy discussion with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti).
To put it into a lingo you may relate to: where I discern it is you speaking I am listening with both ears.
RESPONDENT: JK may have found something that neither you nor I ever will.
RICHARD: As I make it crystal-clear on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that I lived that state of being, night and day, for eleven years before going beyond enlightenment to an actual freedom from the human condition this is just a waste of a sentence.
RESPONDENT: However, this is not the matter.
RICHARD: Then why say it?
RESPONDENT: Using comparisons you’re doing propaganda.
RICHARD: No, using comparisons is to be doing appraisals ... if there be no appraisals nothing means anything.
RESPONDENT: I have no interest in anybody’s ‘mental extraordinary’ experiences and much less to try to copycat them. And this is why I stepped in when I read your associate’s [Vineeto], desire to live permanently in it – or at least having more of it: ‘a stunning luminous and perfect ‘self’-less experience’ (which your method promises?). Can you help her on that, or there is nothing permanent in life?
RICHARD: Are you saying that Vineeto’s pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) are the ‘mental extraordinary’ experiences you have no interest in and much less interest in trying to copycat? If so, are you not making an appraisal based upon some (unstated) comparisons and thus, under your assertion, doing propaganda?
Be that as it may ... the desire to live permanently (that is for the remainder of one’s life) in what the PCE shows to be possible, or at least experiencing more of them, is what the actualism method was devised for, in 1981, by the identity who used to inhabit this body. Furthermore, the actualism method does not merely ‘promise’ ... it delivers: it delivers either a virtual freedom (thus both my example and my words have already helped) or an actual freedom (which, other than yours truly, is yet to be demonstrated by another person or persons).
As for what is permanent in life: have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment?
RESPONDENT: Often, very clever and capable people mislead others by their devotion to the activity, which is their escape; if it isn’t religion, it’s politics, or social reform, or help others to be ‘free’ – anything to get away from themselves.
RICHARD: Given that you asked me (further above) if I could help another to be free, or at least have more of that, a case could be made that you have set this up so as to make me into your fall-guy.
If so, do you do this often ... or is it a one-off especially for my benefit?
RESPONDENT: They may seem to be selfless, but they are actually still concerned with themselves, only in a different way.
RICHARD: Are you aware of the slippery-slope you are setting-up for yourself to slide down (seeing that you have so far written 3,000+ words to this mailing list, over four e-mails, so as to help others come around to your way of thinking)?
Here are your very own words:
If you really have no interest in anybody’s ‘mental extraordinary’ experiences, and much less to try to copycat them, then why would you step in ... why would you not just read it and then go on your way?
And anything more you write will only further demonstrate you being as guilty as anyone of the crime of helping each other.
RESPONDENT: They become leaders, or practise some method, or pursue an ideal. They are never just themselves.
RICHARD: Am I to take to then that stepping in to something you have no interest in is being just yourself?
RESPONDENT: So one has to be tremendously aware of every movement of thought; to discover for oneself whether there can be complete and total freedom from all selfishness.
RICHARD: Now you come to the nub of the issue (all that you wrote above and before is peripheral): the main thrust of the actualism method, to couch it in your terms, is to be aware of every movement of the affective faculty and thus discover for oneself that, just like Richard reports, it is possible for there to be a complete and total freedom from the human condition (which includes ‘selfishness’ of course).
Put simply: up until now the thinker has copped all the blame whilst the feeler has got off scot-free.
RESPONDENT: Richard, although all I say is not right for you, I appreciate you having taken the time to go thoroughly through my email, even if attacking or rebating everything.
RICHARD: It may just be the way you put a sentence together but somehow the impression conveyed is that you do not appreciate what I wrote – the content itself – only that I took the time to do it.
RESPONDENT: Sorry but I am not going to play this game by counter-rebating sentence after sentence; breaking and turning the email longer and longer.
RICHARD: If you see it as playing a game then that is your business, of course, yet I am entirely sincere.
RESPONDENT: By inserting more words you probably think that we are having a rational dialogue, or that we are sharing a logic sequence of thought.
RICHARD: I do get the impression that, not only do you not appreciate what I wrote, you do not appreciate the way I wrote it either.
RESPONDENT: The idea of using the email list is brilliant but the way you use it gets too confusing and unintelligible.
RICHARD: What is confusing/ unintelligible about responding to each point/ issue/ subject my co-respondent considers important enough to share with me?
RESPONDENT: In communicating complex matters (as the idea of ‘enlightenment’ for example) we have to make very, very clear – to show exactly what we mean, by not just defining/explaining the word, but we both agreeing about the meaning of the word. Then it becomes fairly easy to communicate with one another.
RICHARD: If you could provide the word, or words, in my previous e-mails you are not in agreement with the meaning of I will most certainly attend to it.
RESPONDENT: But we have got a different problem here, you conceive formulas.
RICHARD: Again, if you will provide these formulas you say I am conceiving I will most certainly attend to them.
RESPONDENT: Communication is not battling over ideas but seeing facts together.
RICHARD: Where have I presented ideas for you to battle with?
RESPONDENT: Words will have very little meaning unless each one of us examines the problem within himself, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but simply observing the fact.
RICHARD: If I may point out? I have no problem within myself.
RESPONDENT: If we can do this, actually and not just theoretically, then perhaps we shall be able to understand the complications of life.
RICHARD: As life is not complicated here in this actual world there is nothing to have to understand via the method you propose ... the facts lie open all around.
RESPONDENT: It is not enough to say ‘if you do what I tell you you’ll be happy’!
RICHARD: Which is why I provide, not only a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, but an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. For an example: I always make it clear that one cannot be happy without being harmless ... and one cannot be harmless without being happy.
What another does with my method, report, descriptions, explanations, and clarifications is their business, of course.
RESPONDENT: To listen means that you have not to bring your own opinions, your own ideas, the commitments that you have, the knowledge, the comparison that you make; all those have to be put aside if you really want to listen, completely, to what another person is saying.
RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have not listened completely to what you have said I will most certainly attend to them.
RESPONDENT: Until then your responses are like dry oranges, they can be squeezed but no juice comes out of them.
RICHARD: Again, if you will provide those responses of mine which were dry when you squeezed them I will most certainly attend to them.
RESPONDENT: May I suggest something? If you want to make your conversations public, why don’t you arrange live dialogues and make them available in your website?
RICHARD: The only conversations I have ever wanted to make public are already available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site in the form of transcribed audio-tape recordings.
RESPONDENT: Nowadays technology allows video and audio through the internet without too much cost?
RICHARD: I have never enquired ... the printed word takes far less bandwidth than the audio word, though, and the moving picture audio word takes even more.
RESPONDENT: That would help people judge you a little more accurately.
RICHARD: Ahh ... so although you started off by talking about me wanting to make my conversations public what you are really talking about is you wanting me to make my conversations public, eh?
What is it about my printed words you are having difficulty judging? Could it be because you received them as being [quote] ‘attacking or rebating everything’ [endquote] you wrote? If so, how would the audio word and the moving picture audio word ameliorate the way you receive them?
I only ask this because, if you are having some difficulty putting aside [quote] ‘your own opinions, your own ideas, the commitments that you have, the knowledge, the comparison that you make’ [endquote], in what way would the audio word and the moving picture audio word assist you in doing so?
RESPONDENT: This way we would have a chance to observe your reactions when questioned ...
RICHARD: What reactions are you referring to?
RESPONDENT: ... and without the time to ponder, which certainly the email allows you.
RICHARD: Would this pondering you are referring to have something to do with examining the problem of the complications of life within yourself that you proposed a method for (further above)?
RESPONDENT: At least we could see how you look like and how you sound!
RICHARD: Ha ... what I look and sound like adds nothing to the content of my words: the content of the words is what is important not the appearance of the body which utters them or the sound of them as produced by this voice box.
Of course any appreciation of the content requires objections to the way it is delivered to cease happening.
RESPONDENT: You see, I also have an impulse to help people.
RICHARD: Obviously (otherwise you would not have stepped in when you did with your initial e-mail but read another’s words and gone on your way).
RESPONDENT: My intention here is to help people figure out by themselves if there is really anything valuable to be learnt from you ...
RICHARD: If I may suggest? Why not figure out for yourself, first, if there is really anything valuable to be learnt from me? That way you would be far more effective in helping people figure out by themselves would you not?
RESPONDENT: ... if I can convince you to be more transparent, visible, comprehensible.
RICHARD: Again, could it be that the reason why you do not see my words as being transparent, visible, comprehensible, is because you receive them as being [quote] ‘attacking or rebating everything’ [endquote] you wrote?
RESPONDENT: You know there are gullible people, and most certain you don’t want them in your flanks.
RICHARD: The very nature of actualism – that it is actual – ensures that a gullible person will look elsewhere for what they feel they need.
RESPONDENT: The implication is if people are not well informed about what they can expect from you, there is a risk of your ideas damaging their minds even more ...
RICHARD: As, despite your assertion, I do not present ideas but facts and actuality there is no way anybody’s mind can be damaged ... and there is so much information available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that nobody can possibly be not well-informed.
RESPONDENT: ... instead of receiving the ‘salvation’ happiness they are looking for!
RICHARD: Ahh ... if a person is looking for that they will not find it on this mailing list (although if they read those portions of your previous e-mails there was no point in responding to they may).
RESPONDENT: In this way I am helping you too, because if we can eliminate the naïve ones, you can concentrate on those that consciously want to benefit from your time and energy.
RICHARD: What I would suggest is accessing the search engine at the following URL: www.google.com
Then copy-paste the following as-it-is into the text-box and click ‘search’ or press ‘enter’: naïve site:www.actualfreedom.com.au
RESPONDENT: First of all please try to avoid affected styles or mannerisms of speech; try very plain, neutral English; convey your thought as clearly as possible, use synonymous, even if you feel you are repeating yourself.
RICHARD: Hmm ... if I were so foolish as to arrange live dialogues would I have to brush my hair another way, wear a collar and tie, sit up straight and look right into the camera, enunciate each syllable without slurring and not pick my nose/ scratch my ear/ whatever?
RESPONDENT: Secondly, try to make your point without mentioning that everybody is wrong, particularly JK.
RICHARD: As my point is that everybody – including Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – has got it 180 degrees wrong how do you suggest I go about it without mentioning that?
RESPONDENT: If you bring him to our discussion because my words are the same, let me explain something to you: If I learn history and thereafter I want to describe what I’ve learnt, I’ll have to use the same words, names, events, dates, etc. I want to sound as much closer to the history book or to my teacher as I can, I want to be accurate when I disclose what I’ve learnt. This doesn’t make me a follower of my teacher, or responsible for everything he said in his lifetime. When I learn geography, I learn about Earth and the planets, oceans, rivers, mountains and valleys, countries, orientation and so forth. I have acquired new words and I can use all this knowledge and repeat it. Now, this doesn’t make me my teacher’s parrot, or his follower does it?
RICHARD: You do seem to be under some considerable misapprehension: I have no objection whatsoever to someone – anyone – using another’s words and phrases as it happens all the time in any area of specialisation ... including actualism, of course.
The reason why I said there was no point in responding to the portions of your e-mails which were imbued with the words of a man who would rather sit under a tree in order to be transported into a timeless, deathless immortality than be living happily and harmlessly in space and time as a flesh and blood body only is not only obvious by the way I put it but very, very simple into the bargain ... to wit: they are words designed to assist the attainment of a spiritual freedom and not an actual freedom.
Or, to put that another way, as I have no interest in being enlightened again (which I cannot anyway) there is no point in having a proxy discussion with such a person.
RESPONDENT: Or having to justify everything he did or said?
RICHARD: As you chose to respond to the words Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said, about the answer being not in the world but away from it, by speaking of throwing away the garb of conditioning in order to be an outsider it was an apposite moment to present some of his own words for your perusal as nowhere did he come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning).
Do you see that nowhere in that did I ask you to justify anything he did or said (let alone everything he did or said)?
RESPONDENT: By the same token when I learn about mental processes; memory, thought, feelings, fear, desire, awareness, attention, etc. etc. I can use these words in the same way; they became mine the moment I understood them. Therefore I can use them in this forum.
RICHARD: Of course you can ... you can use whatever words you like, and write about whatever topic you like for that matter, and so long as you understand there will continue to remain no point in me responding to anything relating to what is involved in becoming enlightened there will be no reason for assuming any other reason why those portions of your e-mails are unanswered.
Put simply: I am letting you know where my interest lies ... in actuality not spirituality.
RESPONDENT: I don’t want to dispute with you what other people have said although I must tell you that all the quotes of Krishnamurti you brought to our discussion are completely misleading.
RICHARD: There were only three quotes: first, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that the state of permanency Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had realised was the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency? And second, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that he (a) did not know how to live ... and (b) was interested in life after death? And lastly, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that he did not come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning)?
RESPONDENT: You have no understanding of the man ...
RICHARD: In what way does it show no understanding of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to provide a quote which demonstrates that the state of permanency he had realised was the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency? And in what way does it show no understanding of him to provide a quote which demonstrates that he (a) did not know how to live ... and (b) was interested in life after death? And lastly, in what way does it show no understanding of him to provide a quote which demonstrates that he did not come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning)?
RESPONDENT: ... all you can do is belittle him, for your point to rise up to the surface.
RICHARD: If I may point out? I do not need to belittle him in order to make my point ... his own words do that.
RESPONDENT: All I am saying, all the words I use are of my own entire responsibility, not K’s.
RICHARD: Of course ... you are the one who is using them.
RESPONDENT: Even if you find them exactly in K’s publishings.
RICHARD: To provide a quote – preferably referenced – to demonstrate a point is one thing ... but to intentionally bury a quote in one’s own writing without acknowledging it is plagiarism.
RESPONDENT: It’s between you and me.
RICHARD: A proxy conversation is not between me and you at all.
RESPONDENT: Is that clear?
RICHARD: Obviously not.
RICHARD: What is good?
RESPONDENT: At this point, having cleaned all these obstacles from our path ...
RICHARD: Perhaps, upon reflection, you may be inclined reconsider this blanket assertion?
RESPONDENT: ... we’d like to ask you: what exactly are your ‘goods’ [to use your associate’s words]. What is exactly that which we will get after practicing your method?
RICHARD: I am none too sure who the ‘we’ is that would like to ask me that as you seem to be the only one asking (unless there be two, or more, of you at the keyboard).
RESPONDENT: If I may solicit, lets talk first about the ‘goods’ [result] in detail and later on, if you will, we can investigate the method. Is this Ok with you?
RESPONDENT: I must confess that I tried to get more information in your website to this question ‘what are the ‘goods’?’ but, I am sorry to say, I got lost in the labyrinth of many assorted doors leading to millions of small font words.
RICHARD: Are you not aware there is a function in a web browser to set the font to whatever size one prefers?
RESPONDENT: Maybe it’s my inability to navigate your web!
RICHARD: The home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site essentially has nine links on it to navigate by – one of which says ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ and which is as good a place to start as any for obvious reasons – and the one which says ‘Actual Freedom Site Map’ will show the layout of the web site itself.
RESPONDENT: Anyway, can I suggest to pick-up just the key words of your front-page? They are: ‘fully free and autonomous individual, living in utter peace and tranquillity’; ‘totally free from sorrow and malice’; ‘being happy and harmless’. For the sake of simplicity, may we shorten this list and concentrate on only two words: ‘free’ and ‘happy’?
RICHARD: Is there some particular reason why you do not want to be harmless?
RESPONDENT: Aren’t they the main points, isn’t that what everybody wants?
RESPONDENT: If you are free, you are happy and the inverse is also true. But do we know what freedom and happiness really is?
RICHARD: Well I do, of course, but I cannot speak for you, obviously.
RESPONDENT: Could we try to make this as clear as possible?
RICHARD: I do not know about you, at this stage, but I know that I can.
RESPONDENT: Are you interested in this?
RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what it is that you are asking: I am one of the founding directors of The Actual Freedom Trust which has one role and one role only ... to wit: to promulgate and promote the words and writings explicating the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice.
To this end I play my part in providing, maintaining, and contributing to The Actual Freedom Trust web site – which offers somewhere in the vicinity of 4.0 million words free of charge to anyone who has access to a computer – and also play my part in providing, maintaining, and contributing to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list so as to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition. The mailing list, being a public forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples, is where anyone interested in what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site can communicate with other people similarly interested.
Now, after writing on this mailing list since it inception, you only recently come along and ask me if I am interested in trying to make known what the two words in your short-list really are ... and as clearly as possible.
Have I correctly comprehended what you are asking?
RESPONDENT: First question: If you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant?
I’ll give it a try, then you’ll have your chance to comment.
Mind can never find happiness as when you pursue and find a sensation. Sensation can be found again and again, for it is ever being lost; but happiness cannot be found. When you say ‘I am happy’ surely, what you were aware of was the sensation of an experience which you call happiness; but that is not happiness. What you know is the past, not the present; and the past is sensation, reaction, memory. You remember that you were happy; but can the past tell what happiness is? It can recall but it cannot be. Recognition is not happiness; to know what it is to be happy, is not happiness. Recognition is the response of memory; and the very recognition prevents the experiencing.
When there is happiness, are you aware, conscious of it? Consciousness comes only with conflict, the conflict that remembering and wanting more generates. Happiness is not the remembrance of the more. Where there is conflict, happiness is not. Thought at all levels is the response of memory, and so thought invariably breeds conflict.
We leave ‘Freedom’ for next time when we have agreed, cleared and finished with the theme ‘Happiness’. There is a lot to be said about it but this email is getting too long.
I trust you consider my honesty and reply frankly.
RICHARD: Okay ... your question does not make sense in its present form (‘if you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant?’) so perhaps you could re-word it so it does?
As there is neither a feeler nor its feelings extant in this flesh and blood body then, when on the few occasions I do remember the past (all of which are pleasant memories), there is no way there can be happiness as a feeling.
The memories of the past, on those occasions, always sparkle ... they coruscate in delight at a life well-lived here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Oh my gosh Richard! I just wanted you to answer me frankly what is ‘happiness’ and ‘freedom’ and look what you have done …
RICHARD: If, as you say, you just wanted me to answer you frankly what happiness and freedom is then why did you not just ask that?
And I only mention this because, instead of doing just that, you used 1062 words to get to your first question (‘First question: If you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant?’ ), then used 230 words answering that question yourself – after saying ‘I’ll give it a try, then you’ll have your chance to comment’ – which means that, after 1316 words of yours in total, you were wanting me to say something about memory.
Put succinctly: nowhere in your entire e-mail did you ask me ‘what is ‘happiness’ and ‘freedom’’ ... and, as I am not a mind-reader, you do need to put what you want – ‘I just wanted you to answer me frankly what is ‘happiness’ and ‘freedom’’ – into words that appear on this monitor screen so that I too can know what it is that you want of me.
RESPONDENT: ... instead of focusing on that question you preferred to come back to the same old insertions!
RICHARD: If you wish to see my responses as me preferring to ‘come back to the same old insertions!’ then that is your business, of course, yet what I am actually doing is responding to each point/issue/subject you consider important enough to share with me.
RESPONDENT: I used to do that, as everybody did when the internet started more than 10 years ago, but then I stopped.
RICHARD: How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and it is no problem to me whatsoever that you use the format that you do.
RESPONDENT: Why pretend to have a live discussion [dispute] by adding wood to the fire when it is already extinct?
RICHARD: As I am well aware I am not having a live discussion/dispute, but writing an after-the-event response to what was written some time previously, I do not pretend it is anything other than that (an after-the-event response).
Therefore, as there is no ‘fire’ in the first place your conclusion (that I am adding wood to it) is a vacuous comment.
RESPONDENT: Obviously you are not interested in what I say ...
RICHARD: As your objection to the way I conduct my correspondence (what you say are the same old insertions) shows that you overlook the content of my responses it is no wonder you have concluded I am not interested in what you have to say.
However, if (note ‘if’) you could see your way clear to actually read what my words say you will see that, on the contrary, I was interested enough to respond to each point/ issue/subject you considered important enough to share with me.
RESPONDENT: ... (to you I am just a record player).
RICHARD: If I may point out? I made it quite clear in an earlier e-mail that where I discerned it was you speaking I would respond: as I responded to 49 points/issues/subjects you considered important enough to share with me your comment bears no resemblance to what actually happened.
RESPONDENT: You are not dialoguing with me, your mind is in what you want your audience to hear [read].
RICHARD: Au contraire ... whenever I am at the keyboard each and every word I write is addressed directly to the human being who typed the words I am responding to – and nobody else – as at the very moment of writing that human being has my total attention.
RESPONDENT: You shape my questions the way you like and ignored what I’d like you to tell me [explain clearly your ‘goods’: happiness – freedom – harmless].
RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have shaped your questions the way I like, and ignored what you would like me to tell you, I will most certainly attend to them ... and I do notice that the word ‘harmless’ has now mysteriously appeared to have been in what you would like me to tell you all along.
Just to refresh your memory this is what you wrote:
RESPONDENT: One wonders what would you do without the internet?!?!
RICHARD: I would be doing what I was doing before I came onto the internet, presumably, which was writing about my experience on a portable typewriter and putting the pages in a loose-leaf folder in a drawer. In fact, if it were not for Peter coming into my life and expressing interest in what was in the loose-leaf folder, and suggesting I put sections of it out on the internet for feedback, it may very well have been that you and I would not be having this discussion today.
RESPONDENT: Would you cut the pages in pieces and glue them to your letter, and then wait for replies with further cuts?
RICHARD: I was not writing letters to anyone before I came onto the internet – letter-writing is something I have done very, very little of all throughout my life – and to this day I am still not writing any.
I do not even send cards.
RESPONDENT: Naturally you can argue that since we have the car why speak about the horse, or something of the kind, to show how smart you are in annihilating the opposition.
RICHARD: ‘Tis unfortunate that you see my words as being a smart annihilation of the opposition (instead of what they actually are) ... just to refresh your memory this is what I am doing:
RESPONDENT: Evidently, you must deny everything I say in order to maintain consistency with the ‘everybody got it wrong’ [‘except me’] formula.
RICHARD: If you can demonstrate to me that somebody – anybody – has got it right I will be listening with both ears.
RESPONDENT: What convinces you that everything that comes out of your mouth [‘finger tips’ rather] is the actual?
RICHARD: It is this simple: what I write about life here in this actual world is a report coming immediately from the direct experience of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space – there is this which is actually happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – and, as they are coming directly out of actuality, it is no different to, say, looking at the clock when some asks me what the time is and I reply 3.06 PM (or whatever it is).
RESPONDENT: I really liked this one Richard: [quote]: ‘Hmm ... if I were so foolish as to arrange live dialogues would I have to brush my hair another way, wear a collar and tie, sit up straight and look right into the camera, enunciate each syllable without slurring and not pick my nose/scratch my ear/whatever?’ [endquote]. …/clear your throat/scratch your balls/etc/etc. That’s good Richard! I thought you had lost your sense of humour together with your feelings?
RICHARD: Life in this actual world is not the same as science fiction (such as ‘Star Trek’ for example) as the authors/script writers are imagining what it would be like to be an identity sans feelings ... and not a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
This is because imagination is such a poor substitute for the actual.
RESPONDENT: Aren’t you being just a tinny little malicious here?
RICHARD: No, I am being droll.
RESPONDENT: Sorry, I am the one who is being malicious!
RESPONDENT: But if you are afraid [apprehensive, embarrassed, concerned, have aversion] of using a video camera ...
RICHARD: If I may point out? There is no fear here in this actual world ... nor any disquiet, disquietude, inquietude, uneasiness, nervousness, nervous tension, apprehension, apprehensiveness, sheepishness, shyness, timidity, timidness, timorousness, butterflies in the stomach, embarrassment, anxiousness, fretfulness, funk, jitters, blue funk, quailing, quaking, quavering, heebie-jeebies, appalment, worry, worriment, insecurity, anxiety, angst, alarm, agitation, palpitation, perturbation, trepidation, fright, affright, being scared, being frightened, being afraid, being spooked, fearfulness, awe, foreboding, panic, terror, horror, horrification, petrifaction or dread.
RESPONDENT: ... why don’t you continue using your audio recorder and make the files available, as you do with the zip files?
RICHARD: Because it is the content of the words which is important and not the sound of them as produced by this voice box.
RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t it be easier than transcribing them?
RICHARD: The only conversations I have ever recorded are the ones already transcribed – and which are available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – and I have never recorded any more since then (May – July 1997).
That experiment is over, finished, done with.
RESPONDENT: If bandwidth is your concern, or you don’t want to do that in your computer, I can make your files available in my PC as a 24 hrs ftp server, after converting your tapes to a low size audio format (mp3). I do that for you as a favour, free of charge.
RICHARD: It has never been an issue of bandwidth or computer capability ... it is simply a case of the printed word being my chosen medium.
RESPONDENT: But I am sure the same thing could be done by some of your disciples happily and free.
RICHARD: As an observation only: most of the Richard-is-a-guru/Richard-has-disciples fantasies come from spiritualists.
RESPONDENT: Well, it’s your business if it is more convenient for you to remain hidden behind the monitor ...
RICHARD: I wonder if I may point out something so obvious that you may be overlooking it? If I were actually publishing media images and sound bytes, as you are so insistent that I do, what you might very well be likely to be saying now – instead of written jibes about being ‘hidden behind the monitor’ – would be verbal jibes about setting myself up as some sort of down-to-earth ... um ... actualism master replete with beaming photographic images for the adoring actualists, live actualism discourses, actualism workshops and ... and the whole kit and caboodle.
RESPONDENT: ... instead of talking to people, in person or over the phone.
RICHARD: A private conversation is only between two people – and can vanish into the air – whereas on a public mailing list anyone else can join in ... plus the words continue to exist long after the initial conversation. There are literally millions of words, that have vanished forever, from past private conversations I have had ... whereas all these discussions, whether they be with peoples in alignment with the actual, opposed to the actual, or anywhere in between, are archived for ease of access and for leisurely perusal and re-perusal.
This way everyone benefits as anybody can make a fully-informed appraisal of what is on offer.
RESPONDENT: You’ll reach just those worth reaching anyways.
RICHARD: Ha ... my words reached you, did they not?
RESPONDENT: But you are damaging my brain when you say that ‘the content of the words is what is important’.
RICHARD: In what way is your brain being damaged?
RESPONDENT: The only ‘actual’ thing contained in a word is letters.
RICHARD: In what way will the spoken word be any different ... words are words whether they are transmitted as pixels on a screen to be read by the eyes or transmitted as sound bytes to be heard by the ears.
RESPONDENT: The word ‘bread’ doesn’t contain it.
RICHARD: This psittacism is so trite it is a wonder it travels around so much ... of course the word itself, the letters which it is comprised of, are not what the word refers to.
RESPONDENT: The meaning is not just the common usage of the dictionary that we have to agree upon, but the depth, the quality, the feeling of it. Sorry, ‘feeling’ is a devil word for you, but I can’t find a replacement.
RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: to be looking for quality as a feeling is to be missing quality as a fact ... a felt quality is not an actual quality (just as a feeling of caring is not actually caring, for example).
Incidentally, ‘feeling’ is not a ‘devil’ word for me ... it simply has no application here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: The word, the phrase, the explanation are not the actuality, they are only one mean of communication.
RICHARD: Yet even if you were to meet me in person you would still not be able to get the other means of communication you are wanting (the transmission of affective feelings/psychic currents) as there is no such thing here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: The actual never conditions the brain ...
RICHARD: In order to know what ‘the actual’ does or does not do there must be the direct experience of it – else this is just theorising – and if there is the direct experiencing of the actual then why are you, not only dismissing my report of life here in this actual world, but feeling for meaning in my words?
And I mention this because anybody that I have been with whilst they were having a pure consciousness experience (PCE) 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 can finally understand what I have been getting at; that they now know why it is difficult for others to comprehend; that they can talk on an equal footing with me here; that life is indeed grand ... amazing, marvellous, and truly wondrous.
RESPONDENT: ... but the theory, the conclusion, the description, the abstraction, do condition it.
RICHARD: Are you saying that the [quote] ‘damaging’ [endquote] being done to your brain is the conditioning it gets upon reading my words? If so, how will hearing this voice box utter the words not damage your brain in a like manner?
RESPONDENT: The chair never conditions the brain but AF do condition.
RICHARD: It would be handy to write this out in full (instead of just using the acronym) so as to see more clearly just what it is you are saying here:
If you could satisfactorily explain to me how an actual freedom from the human condition conditions the brain I will be most surprised.
RESPONDENT: The formula, the image, conditions the brain, not that which is actually happening, taking place.
RICHARD: Are you saying that the [quote] ‘damaging’ [endquote] being done to your brain is the conditioning it gets upon reading my words as being a formula, an image? If so, how will hearing this voice box utter the words not have your brain form images and see formulae?
RESPONDENT: If you have difficulty in understanding what is ‘the actual’, ask someone to hit you on the head with a wooden stick.
RICHARD: I have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding what the actual is ... so much so that I can assure you that, even if someone were to hit you on the head with a wooden stick, you still would not be any the wiser.
RESPONDENT: I am sure you’ll get an instant ‘sensation’.
RICHARD: As I have no intention of applying your method for understanding what the actual is you will just have to be content with your surety about what I would get.
RESPONDENT: But be careful not so strong or you might become unconscious.
RICHARD: As I have no need of your (useless) method such a thing will never happen.
RESPONDENT: If the word is all that matters ...
RICHARD: Where did I say that ‘the word’ is all that matters?
RESPONDENT: ... then we [the audience] should also – together with our feelings – get rid of our ears and our eyes and just use Braille!
RICHARD: In what way will dispensing with both auditory perception and visual perception, and using cutaneous perception instead, enable your brain to not be damaged by the conditioning it gets upon receiving my words as images and formulae via Braille?
As for getting rid of your feelings: as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ the getting rid of the one is the getting rid of the other – they are one and the same thing – so what you are proposing here is to be some kind of stripped-down identity, wherein the feelings are so suppressed/repressed as to give the appearance of having got rid of them, that you may very well wind up being what is known in the psychiatric profession as a sociopathic personality (popularly known as a psychopath).
May I ask how you consider that a sociopathic cutaneous perception of my words is not going damage your brain?
RESPONDENT: What a wonderful new world is ahead of us words ... words …words ... please give us more words!
RICHARD: It is fascinating just how much mileage you are getting out of misrepresenting what I said ... in case you have forgotten by now this is what I actually wrote:
RESPONDENT: You and I are writing to the wind if we don’t think and share together the thing that lies behind the words, behind the descriptions, the explanations.
RICHARD: Indeed ... which is why I referred you to the content of the words and not to the way they are delivered. Now, your solution to the difficulty you are having, due to focussing on the words themselves rather than being attentive to the content of the words, is to have me change my modus operandi so that you can hear this voice box utter the words – preferably in concert with a moving picture of the body itself – in the expectation that me doing so would somehow enable you to break through this fixation you have on the words themselves.
Could you explain to me how this solution of yours is likely to do the trick?
RESPONDENT: The word is a symbol and not the actual.
RICHARD: Aye, I got it that the word ‘bread’ itself was not what the word referred to when I was about 4 years old.
RESPONDENT: Understanding isn’t merely an intellectual or theoretical affair about which we can talk/write endlessly, adding more ideas to it thereby thinking we are growing?
RICHARD: As I am not presenting ideas but facts and actuality then any intellectual/theoretical adding of ideas to them that you do is bound to be short-lived as the very silliness of doing so will make sure that such a course of inaction cannot possibly go on endlessly.
RESPONDENT: Is understanding a process of the past, or is it always in the present?
RICHARD: Only this moment is actual: the past, which was actual when it was happening, is no longer actual; the future, which will be actual when it happens, is not yet actual; as it is never not this moment then any understanding always occurs in a continuum which is happening now.
RESPONDENT: Do you understand gradually?
RICHARD: As more than a few of the things I have ever understood have taken some time to sink in and take effect it could be said that the understanding came gradually, but as the moment it takes effect (the dawning of the understanding so to speak) is always now, then the actual moment of understanding is this moment.
RESPONDENT: Understanding is always immediate, now, or is it an accumulative process?
RICHARD: An insight is always immediate (else it be not an insight) but understanding, as I have already observed, can indeed be a process until it takes effect.
RESPONDENT: I understand a little today, tomorrow I’ll understand more.
RICHARD: You may very well be talking about gathering the relevant information necessary in order for there to be an understanding ... and even incremental understandings along the way are often what leads to the culminating understanding.
RESPONDENT: Understanding is not an experience to which you can give continuity.
RICHARD: Why would you want to? If something is understood it is understood period (unless something new knocks it for a six).
RESPONDENT: Can you deliberately set out to understand, to be aware?
RICHARD: I can apply myself, direct my attention, to that which needs to be understood, if that is what you mean, and the understanding happens as a result of that application, that attentiveness. And if that which is to be understood is not readily understandable there can be a thinking about it, a ruminating over it, a pondering upon it, until all of the aspects have been considered for as far as they can be ... and then there is a banishment of the matter to the rear of the skull while other matters are being attended to (such as sitting with the feet up on the coffee table watching comedies on TV) until five minutes/five hours/five days later the answer comes forward and the understanding takes effect.
As for deliberately setting out to be aware: that does not make sense as awareness happens of its own accord (unless you mean focussing an awareness on something specific).
RESPONDENT: If you are conscious that you are aware you are not aware.
RICHARD: Hmm ... all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself).
And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself.
RESPONDENT: Consciousness is always a process of the past.
RICHARD: The word ‘consciousness’ refers to the condition of being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ... and as it is impossible to be alive, awake, and sensible in the past (only this moment is actual) you are way out there on your own with this observation.
RESPONDENT: When you make a conscious effort to understand, you are hearing the noise of your own accumulations.
RICHARD: Oh? On the occasions where I apply myself, direct my attention, to that which needs to be understood, and the understanding happens as a result of that application, that attentiveness, there is never any noisy accumulations ... only the delight of the application and attentiveness as it goes about delivering the goods.
RESPONDENT: It is this noise that prevents understanding.
RICHARD: Again, there is no noise here.
RESPONDENT: To understand anything your mind must be silent.
RICHARD: This mind is already always peaceful ... there is a vast stillness here.
RESPONDENT: When all the consciousness is quiet, absolutely still, only then is there the brightness you talk about.
RICHARD: There is no ‘when’ about it ... all is already always brilliant, sparkling, effervescent, here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Therefore, how can you help your disciples to be more happy, more harmless, more free, more aware, more actual?
RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘disciples’ I am not in a position to answer your question.
RESPONDENT: Your website is hilarious!
RICHARD: Good ... seriousness has no footing here.
RESPONDENT: Baits in the front page to entice people to enter.
RICHARD: It is somewhat surprising, however, as to how many miss the import of the very first bait at the top of the home page:
RESPONDENT: All your site map shows is what the folders contain.
RICHARD: As it would be a bit of a bummer if they did not I do wonder what you expected ... a cartographic chart showing latitude and longitude complete with compass bearings to where X marks the spot, perhaps?
RESPONDENT: By the way, if you want to be fair you could include one more link called ‘The Sceptics’, preferably in highlighted large fonts! I am sure there is a lot of material among your correspondents that you could separate and put in there so to facilitate ‘the seeker’s’ search.
RICHARD: You may be confusing those who object to be happy and harmless for spiritual reasons with those who are genuinely sceptical that such a thing is possible ... if so, and as maybe 90% (an arbitrary guess) of the co-respondents fall into the former category, your surety that ‘a lot’ of the material in the correspondence archives can be gathered together under a link called ‘The Sceptics’ could very well be based upon reading such correspondence with only one eye open.
RESPONDENT: Your links don’t make sense; some pages only offer two choices of navigation: either click on ‘continue’ or on the browser’s back button.
RICHARD: As this comment is in direct contrast to your previous comment – [quote] ‘I got lost in the labyrinth of many assorted doors’ [endquote] – just how many choices of navigation would you like on each and every page ... and why?
RESPONDENT: The midi melodies are they to delay the pages opening or to make one ‘contemplate’ while waiting?
RESPONDENT: Even if one is able to find one’s way around your web what does one find?
RICHARD: Umm ... hilarity, baits, a site map which shows what the folders contain, an absence of a ‘sceptics’ link, some pages with only two choices, midi melodies which for some reason leaves one in doubt as to what midi melodies are for, and a lot of noise, perchance?
RESPONDENT: A lot of noise.
RICHARD: Ahh ... this reminds me of something you said earlier. Vis.:
If I may rearrange these words to demonstrate something? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: 4.0 million words free of charge!
RICHARD: Indeed ... and all with nary a tree being chopped down into the bargain.
RESPONDENT: Hope one day you get any money for that.
RICHARD: Why? I am retired and on a pension and have sufficient to meet my needs until the day I die.
RESPONDENT: You never know! Why don’t you synthetise that intense verbal diarrhoea in a book form and try to sell it?
RICHARD: Given that you said you have been writing on the internet since it started more than 10 years ago here is a ‘word for today’ you may find useful:
There is nothing like flaming with style, eh?
RESPONDENT: You may become famous and rich.
RICHARD: Ha ... should fame ever cast its tawdry glare this way, such as to have my current life-style become untenable, having already a sufficiency of income for the remainder of my life plus a ready-made retreat where I can live out my days in paradisaical obscurity, it would have to move on to shine its ever-shifting spotlight over more gullible pastures.
RESPONDENT: A formula according to the dictionary is: a conventionalised statement expressing some fundamental principle/an utterance of conventional notions or beliefs. In your case: ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ and, the most hilarious, ‘I am enlightened’ (therefore you know or see it all).
RICHARD: Before you go on to develop your thesis further I will draw your attention to the following:
My oft-repeated statement ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ refers to where both the meaning of life and peace-on-earth is to be found – here in this actual world, the world of the senses, the world all flesh and blood bodies are already living in anyway – and nowhere else ... thus your ‘translation’, being an error in fact, may very well be what is causing you to see my statement of fact as being [quote] ‘a conventionalised statement expressing some fundamental principle/an utterance of conventional notions or beliefs’ [endquote].
As your second piece of evidence to support your hypothesis that my words are formulae – ‘I am enlightened’ – has no substance it too is an error in fact ... for just one example (one among many):
Do you see that your hilarity was ill-founded?
RESPONDENT: Therefore, you being ‘enlightened’, we don’t dispute, or put in cause or discuss what you say. You are ‘god’ [the perfect one, the omnipotent, the omniscient, a being of supernatural powers or attributes, etc] and all we have to do is to listen [rather ‘read’] you. Like ‘god’ you are also hidden. Only the poor fellow didn’t have the internet to spread the words!
RICHARD: Again I would draw your attention to something like the following:
I have always found it well worth while to research a subject before mounting a critique.
RESPONDENT: How many times does one [not the ones who have seen it in your page] pronounce the word ‘malice’?
RICHARD: Not as many times as the word ‘evil’ has been bandied about (each time having less and less impact).
RESPONDENT: Is it more ample or meaningful than ‘violence’?
RICHARD: Indeed so ... it being the passion which fuels otherwise unnecessary violence.
RESPONDENT: As malice is not a very common word, you use it for the sake of originality and not to be confused with ‘spiritualists’?
RICHARD: No, as a broad generalised categorisation, the word ‘malice’ (the desire to hurt another person; active ill will, spite or hatred; a deep resentment) is used here as a ‘catch-all’ word for what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on through all the variations such as abhorrence; acerbity; acrimony; aggression; anger; animosity; antagonism; antipathy; aversion; bad blood; temper; bellicosity; belligerence; bile; bitchiness; bitterness; cantankerousness; cattiness; crabbiness; crossness; defamation; despisal; detestation; disgust; dislike; dissatisfaction; enmity; envy; evil; execration; grievance; grudge; grudgingness; hard feelings; harm; hate; hatred; hostility; ill feeling; ill will; ill-nature; ill-temper; inimicalness; irascibility; irritability; loathing; malevolence; malignance; malignity; militancy; moodiness; murder; opposition; peevishness; petulance; pique; querulousness; rancour; repulsion; repugnance; resentment; snideness; spite; spitefulness; spleen; spoiling; stifling; sullenness; testiness; touchiness; umbrage; unfriendliness; unkindness; vengefulness; venom; vindictiveness; warlikeness; wrath).
In a similar fashion, and also as a broad generalised categorisation, the word ‘sorrow’ (the desire to hurt oneself; active grief, suffering or melancholy; a deep sadness) is used here as a ‘catch-all’ word for what one does to oneself (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on through all the variations such as agony; angst; anguish; anxiety; apprehension; bereavement; bleakness; crestfallen; deflated; dejected; depression; desolation; despondency; disappointment; disconcerted; disconsolate; discontented; discouraged; disenchanted; disillusioned; displeased; disquiet; dissatisfied; distress; dismay; downhearted; dreariness; edginess; fear; fed-up; flustered; foreboding; fretfulness; frustrated; gloominess; glum; grief; heartache; horror; lament; melancholic; miserable; misery; morose; mourning; nervousness; panic; perturbed; regret; sad; sadness; sorrow; sorrowfulness; suffering; tenseness; terror; thwarted; torment; trepidation; troubled; uneasiness; upset; woe; worry; wretchedness).
This is how I have explained it before:
RESPONDENT: Don’t create new leagues; ‘actualists’ vs. ‘spiritualist’, don’t divide the world even more.
RICHARD: As I am not the enlightened god-man your errors in fact led you to believe your conclusion has no application here.
RESPONDENT: Why you do so much clamour about your experience which left you without feelings, and your disciples bow down at it?
RICHARD: As I neither make the ‘clamour’ (synonymic to ‘noise’) you see in my words nor have any ‘disciples’ I will leave this to you to mull over.
RESPONDENT: If you are liberated from the human condition and harmlessly-free-happy now, good for you!
RICHARD: If I may point out? I did not do anything – I have been here all along just having a ball – as it was the identity within who made all this possible via altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.
RESPONDENT: You are above humanity, enjoy it alone!
RICHARD: I am not above ‘humanity’ ... ‘humanity’ vanished when ‘I’/‘me’ became extinct (‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’).
RESPONDENT: Or do you need company for a larger enjoyment?
RICHARD: As I thoroughly enjoy my own company any other is simply a bonus on top of that plenitude.
RESPONDENT: Obviously, you know that people are more than eager to get rid of the bad feelings but how are you going to convince them to loose also the ones that give them pleasure?
RICHARD: It is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which convinces, not me and/or my words ... me and/or my words provide an on-going confirmation that the PCE is an experience common to humans, irregardless of gender, race, or age, and an affirmation that a fellow human being has safely travelled the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: You must make your ‘harmless-free-happy’ formula the ultimate pleasure if you want them to get rid of the ones they already have!
RICHARD: Again, it is the PCE which demonstrates where the ultimate pleasure lies ... here in this actual world, the world of sensate delight, the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum.
RESPONDENT: Sometimes human beings experience a particular delightful state of mind that gives them a sensation of freedom and joy without interference of thought, the self.
RICHARD: Aye, yet that ‘state of mind’ you refer to pales into insignificance when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul cease interfering and life is directly experienced as a flesh and blood body only.
RESPONDENT: A state of mind depends a lot on the type of relationship one is having. Some people like to play with these states in the belief that they are having very meaningful experiences which in the long run will transform them into ‘fantastic’ beings!
RICHARD: There are no ‘beings’ – fantastic or otherwise – here in this actual world: the peerless perfection of the pristine purity the actual is ensures no ‘being’ can exist here ... nothing dirty can get in, so to speak.
RESPONDENT: It’s theirs and also your fantasy!
RICHARD: As nowhere in all my words do I mention anything of what you describe above you can only be taking a wild stab in the dark with this exclamation.
RESPONDENT: They are probably saving money on a professional therapist following your method, but they will never be free [and therefore ‘happy’] they will be dependent on the method, or on you, for that matter.
RICHARD: No, actualism is not a replacement for professional therapy – I advise all those in need of therapy to seek professional advice before embarking on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – and as you have demonstrated no understanding as to what is involved in the actualism method you can only be stabbing wildly in the dark once again.
RESPONDENT: They want [whatever state they get sometimes] to last forever.
RICHARD: Yet actualism is not such a ‘state’ ... that is what you make of it.
RESPONDENT: Or, at least, they want more of your happy-freedom-harmless prescription.
RICHARD: This ‘happy-freedom-harmless’ phrase you have invented is your prescription, not mine.
RESPONDENT: ‘More’ is the new key word.
RICHARD: Quite possibly the only thing new about the ‘more’ keyword you stuck in front of your ‘happy-freedom-harmless prescription’ is that it is the first time you have used it to flesh out one of the many fantasies you have had to conjure up in order to find something to fault in actualism.
RESPONDENT: Your disciples are very active people – like you – and you all say ‘if not this then what?’.
RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘disciples’ I am not in a position to respond to whatever it is you are wanting to convey here.
RESPONDENT: You can’t just be quiet and silent. You want a result without understanding that that is the result.
RICHARD: As you have no comprehension whatsoever as to what happens with this flesh and blood body you can only be taking a wild stab in the dark once again.
RESPONDENT: What I’d like from you is a frank answer about happiness and freedom ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? Do you realise that you have taken 1,530 words this time around before finally getting down to what you say you want of me?
RESPONDENT: ... and look at your reply: ‘why you do not want to be harmless?’ Is this an answer?
RICHARD: So as to refresh your memory here is that exchange:
Nowhere in that exchange did you say you would like ‘a frank answer about happiness and freedom’: what you wanted to know was whether you may, for the sake of simplicity, shorten ‘happy and harmless’ to ‘happy’ and I responded by asking why you did not want to be harmless ... rather than a flat ‘no, you may not shorten it’.
And I asked why because this is a discussion, when all is said and done, and not a monologue ... if I have no feed-back then I can only be working on assumptions about you.
RESPONDENT: Ok include harmless but answer for god sakes.
RICHARD: Now here is a radical notion: how about you answer ... or is ‘ok include harmless’ the extent of your interest in actually being harmless (free of malice)?
RESPONDENT: Or shall I consider this as your final, conclusive answer about the subject: [quote] ‘As there is neither a feeler nor its feelings extant in this flesh and blood body then, when on the few occasions I do remember the past (all of which are pleasant memories), there is no way there can be happiness as a feeling. The memories of the past, on those occasions, always sparkle ... they coruscate in delight at a life well-lived here in this actual world’. [endquote].
RICHARD: No, that was a response to your question about memory ... not to your (unasked) question about [quote] ‘happiness and freedom’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: Is this all you have to say about happiness?
RICHARD: Of course not ... it is just that there is a lot more to happiness than memories.
RESPONDENT: The ‘sparkle’ is actual but what brought it about?
RICHARD: The actual freedom of thought itself (no feeling-fed thoughts means no feeling-fed memories).
RESPONDENT: Are you confirming that happiness is a sensation, a reaction of memory, a thought?
RICHARD: I never said anything about sensation – and it was you who wanted me to speak about the past (so as to somehow understand what happiness means by doing so) – and I did point out that your question made no sense in its present form and suggested that you re-word it so it does
RESPONDENT: Is the flesh and blood in delight?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body being conscious (which of course includes the brain in action) delights in recalling past experiences, on those few occasions it does, as this flesh and blood body has been just here, right now, all along simply having a ball.
RESPONDENT: Whose memory are we talking about?
RICHARD: I am talking about my memory.
RESPONDENT: Your flesh and blood’s?
RICHARD: No, I am this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: Please try better.
RICHARD: Better than what? I gave a straight answer to a bent question ... what more can I do?
RESPONDENT: If you can give me an honest, straightforward answer about your product [harmless – freedom – happiness] I promise I will discuss with you anything you like about Krishnamurti.
RICHARD: I have no interest whatsoever in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ... he knew nought of what I speak of (as already amply demonstrated, with his own words, in an earlier e-mail).
RESPONDENT: I wish you a nice week-end
RICHARD: Every day is a ‘week-end’ day here.
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.