|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RICHARD: ... I do appreciate that you are providing such an on-going opportunity to discuss the topic of whether Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s natural state of being – the state of undivided consciousness called ‘sahaja samadhi’ in the Indian language – is spiritual or not ... as more than a few people have been sucked into thinking that he is non-spiritual. RESPONDENT: Undivided consciousness means no separation in awareness. RICHARD: It means ‘no separation’ from ... what? RESPONDENT: You bring up the Indian name ‘sahaja samadhi’ to infer religious overtones. RICHARD: I did not provide that quote so as to ‘infer’ religious tones at all ... I am stating loud and clear that a person describing themselves as being in a state of sahaja samadhi (the Indian term for ‘natural state’) is spiritual to the hilt. To not put too fine a point on it: sahaja samadhi is generally held to be superior to nirvikalpa samadhi. RESPONDENT: UG may use that term as an expression, not with spiritual implications. RICHARD: As no materialist in India would ever say they are always in a state of sahaja samadhi it is implicit in such a term that it is not just an expression as what is conveyed is deeply embedded in the spiritual heritage of India RESPONDENT: He has clearly said on many an occasion that there is no spirit. RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has said on many an occasion there is no enlightenment, no spirituality, no god, and so on and so forth. RESPONDENT: You say he is contradicting himself. RICHARD: I cannot recall saying that ... this is what I pointed out only recently:
RESPONDENT: The only difference is that you cleverly say there is no spirits in the actual world. RICHARD: I do not say it ‘cleverly’ ... it is a direct report of what is not present here in this actual world – the world of the senses – as contrasted to the real world (the world of the spirit) that perhaps 6.0 billion or so people are living in. RESPONDENT: You contradict yourself. You go on about a button and pressing a button ... what is pressing a button if not a spirit? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to say it again its import may become clear this time around: I am not altruistic – *altruism is an instinctual inheritance which expires as the identity* – and any and all (seemingly altruistic) actions are motivated solely by the fellowship regard engendered by an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event. RESPONDENT: You say to read your words with all your intent, heart, being and you may be able to set off a PCE (or something like that, you will correct me) ... RICHARD: Sure ... here it is:
RESPONDENT:... anyways, you are suggesting one use their full spirit while reading your words to enable a PCE. RICHARD: Indeed ... after all the person listening to me/reading my words instinctually knows/affectively feels themself to be an inherent ‘being’ or ‘presence’ inhabiting the flesh and blood body. May I ask? Have you ever desired oblivion?
RICHARD: ... if you are indeed convinced there is no ‘how’ (à la more than a few spiritualists’ teachings) you may very well wind up languishing in the same-old affective state of being which has been lauded down the centuries by sages and seers as the summum bonum of human experience. RESPONDENT: The how is an interesting question but doesn’t how sort of put off the pressing of the button for another day? RICHARD: No ... given that the ‘how’ is daring to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition (which sets in motion the corresponding altruistic process that will ensure peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body) such a ‘pressing of the button’ happens in the present-time. Otherwise one is *not* daring to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition. RESPONDENT: With the how, doesn’t a way evolve with some illusion or carrot chasing? RICHARD: No ... given that the ‘way’ is the corresponding altruistic process that will ensure peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, no illusion or carrot-chasing evolves. Otherwise one has *not* dared to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition. RESPONDENT: The self is always trying for a how, a way, isn’t it? RICHARD: Not for the one who dares to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition ... such a person has already embarked upon the ‘way’ to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Saying there is no how, is a contradiction to the pursuit/activity of the self, no? RICHARD: No ... sitting in a deck-chair in one’s back-yard, sipping a drink and waiting for grace to descend (for instance), is still the ‘pursuit/activity of the self’ merely in a different guise. In other words saying there is ‘no how’ is none other than a device (and quite a transparent one at that). RESPONDENT: Don’t we create the thing we are pursuing and create the pursuit? RICHARD: No ... the actual is neither created nor pursued: it already always exists and all that is required is to enable its apparency. Or, to put that another way, there is no seeking for a person who has embarked on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – such a person experientially knows where the already always existing peace-on-earth is – and altruistic ‘self’-immolation, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body is what does the trick. The reward for doing so is to go blessedly
RESPONDENT No 27: (...) RICHARD: (...) RESPONDENT No 27: (...) RICHARD: (...) RESPONDENT: (...) You know damn well what he means by knowledge or perhaps you don’t. He says quite clearly that knowledge is in the background, like data sits in a computer database and is only accessed upon demand. If there is no demand for that knowledge, it does not come to the forefront. RICHARD: I have snipped all of the above discussion so that it does not interfere with/detract from what you want to say instead of that topic ... Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does indeed quite clearly state that knowledge is in the background, like data sits in a computer database, and is only accessed upon demand and that if there is no demand for knowledge it does not come to the forefront. What is your point?
RESPONDENT No 27: (...) RICHARD: (...) RESPONDENT No 27: (...) RICHARD: (...) RESPONDENT: (...) You know damn well what he means by knowledge or perhaps you don’t. He says quite clearly that knowledge is in the background, like data sits in a computer database and is only accessed upon demand. If there is no demand for that knowledge, it does not come to the forefront. RICHARD: I have snipped all of the above discussion so that it does not interfere with/detract from what you want to say instead of that topic ... RESPONDENT: And I appreciate that .... RICHARD: ... Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does indeed quite clearly state that knowledge is in the background, like data sits in a computer database, and is only accessed upon demand and that if there is no demand for knowledge it does not come to the forefront. What is your point? RESPONDENT: I am inserting the relevant portion of your exchange ... RICHARD: If I may point out? There is no ‘relevant portion’ of my exchange (which is why I snipped all the above discussion) ... the exchange is about how there is no reason to infer that just because Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti says [quote] ‘imagination must come to an end’ [endquote] he therefore claims that he has no imagination as he similarly says that [quote] ‘knowledge must come to an end’ [endquote] when it quite obviously has not (as is evidenced by your ‘in the background’ reference for instance). And if you had taken in the import of the sentence of mine immediately following the one you responded to you would have seen that I went to say ‘it would appear that he is talking about ‘the continuity of knowledge’ [aka time] as being a product of imagination and that it is this [time] that must come to an end (more on this below)’. Or are you suggesting that imagination is in the background as well – and only comes to the forefront on demand – as is evidenced by his acknowledgement that, even after what he labels ‘the calamity’, he still has various experiences he described as ‘extraordinary’/‘profound’/‘sudden expansion of consciousness’ experiences in general, and ‘blissful states’/‘ecstatic states’/‘a sudden melting away of everything that is there’ experiences in particular (none of which experiences, he says, means anything), just as the person he is speaking to has such experiences (as in his ‘You experience, I experience – what is the difference?’ question)? Otherwise what was the point of mentioning that knowledge is in the background? I have read through the remainder of your reply and the only point you try to make is your conclusion that what I wrote (in that sentence of mine you responded to) is [quote] ‘irrelevant, childish, simple, silly, made with knowledge aforethought, missing the point on purpose and that purpose being to poke holes in your competition even if they be straw-man holes’ [endquote]. What I would suggest is that you missed the point of what my exchange was about, on purpose, and that purpose was to make ... um ... irrelevant, childish, simple, silly, made with knowledge aforethought comments ... the purpose of which being to poke holes in your competition even if they be straw-man holes. After all ... you are only here on this mailing list so as to be able to promote your solution to the problem
of humankind
RESPONDENT: (...) UG mentions many examples that imagination is impossible for him. RICHARD: He does not ... he mentions many examples that forming mental images is impossible for him. RESPONDENT: As I copied on my original response to your post to [Respondent No. 27]. If you had taken the import of it, you would have noted its relevance to the topic and several other topics, that being about God, Truth, Reality and therefore spiritualism. [UG]: There must be a living contact. If you walk out of the room, you disappear from my consciousness. Where you are, or why you are not here – these questions do not arise. There are no images here – there is no room for them – the sensory apparatus is completely occupied with the things I am looking at now. There must be a living contact with those things that are in the room, not thoughts about things that are not here. And so, if you are totally ‘tuned in’ to the sensory activity, there in no room for fears about who will feed you tomorrow, or for speculation about God, Truth and Reality. [endquote]. RICHARD: If you had taken in the import of the two quotes I posted in my original response you responded to you would have noticed that they are of the same ilk as the one you copied in your original response. Viz.:
It does pay to thoroughly read what your co-respondent posts before reaching for the keyboard to mount a critique, eh?
RESPONDENT No 27: A related point – what do you make of UG’s claims that he has no ‘imagination’? I haven’t read him in a while, but I remember that was one of the things I took note of when I read him a couple years ago. RICHARD: I have been unable to find where he says that ... if you could provide the passages it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT No 27: [UG] ‘There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end. I don’t know how to put it. The absence of imagination, the absence of will, the absence of effort, the absence of all movement in any direction, on any level, in any dimension – that is the thing’. (from Mystique of Enlightenment Pt 4). RICHARD: (snip) RESPONDENT: (snip) RICHARD: (snip) RESPONDENT: (snip) RICHARD: (snip) RESPONDENT: (snip) RICHARD: (snip) RESPONDENT: (...) UG mentions many examples that imagination is impossible for him. RICHARD: He does not ... he mentions many examples that forming mental images is impossible for him. RESPONDENT: OK Mr Nit-picker ... you wanted the word imagination and not just image ... here you go: UG: There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end. I don’t know how to put it. The absence of imagination, the absence of will, the absence of effort, the absence of all movement in any direction, on any level, in any dimension – that is the thing. That is a thing that cannot be experienced at all – it is not an experience. You are interested in experiencing bliss, beatitude, love, God knows what, but that is a worthless thing. If I experience bliss, is that bliss? It is created by the knowledge I have. It is the knowledge. To be free from knowledge is not an easy thing. You are that knowledge – not only the knowledge that you have acquired in this life, but the knowledge of millions and millions of years, everybody’s experiences. People have some experiences, you see, and on that they build a tremendous superstructure. [endquote]. RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following? Viz.:
There are occasions, in some e-mail exchanges, where it becomes increasingly obvious there is no point in continuing to respond where a co-respondent repeatedly demonstrates they do not, in fact, thoroughly read what has already been posted before reaching for the keyboard ... even when they agree, for example, that it does pay to do so only a little over three hours prior to doing just that. This is one of those occasions.
RESPONDENT No. 25: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran? RICHARD: No ... and the following quote (arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) will demonstrate why not: [quote] ‘We do not rush toward death, we flee the catastrophe of birth, survivors struggling to forget it. Fear of death is merely the projection into the future of a fear which dates back to our first moment of life. We are reluctant, of course, to treat birth as a scourge: Has it not been inculcated as the sovereign good – have we not been told that worst came at the end, not the outset of our lives? Yet evil, real evil, is behind, not ahead of us. What escaped Jesus did not escape Buddha: ‘If three things did not exist in the world, O disciples, the Perfect One would not appear in the world ...’. And ahead of old age and death he places the fact of birth, source of every infirmity, every disease’. [italics in the original]. I selected that passage, after about an hour reading what is available on the internet, as indicative of what both his state of mind and his philosophical writings (the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports that he received a degree in philosophy from the University of Bucharest in 1932) would appear to stem from – the basic resentment at being born, and thus, at being here on this verdant and azure planet – and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this would be so. RESPONDENT No. 25: Indeed, he didn’t investigate why this would be so. What he did however was to investigate both the real-world and the spiritual solutions and not merely on the thought (superficial) level. He was dissatisfied with both but never succeeded in finding an alternative (not sure if he even tried) and as a result he oscillated in-between the two. I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death. RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death? RESPONDENT: You presumptive Dick-head ... according to your pathetic self-indulgent, orgiastic, lame observations and deductions – life in a monastery = piety and self-denial. You’d be better off borrowing some borrowed wisdom than offering such trite conclusions. RICHARD: As the words ‘observations’ and ‘deductions’ and ‘conclusions’ denote plurality, and you have only provided one example out of my question, allow me to finish what you started (in the same style of course):
Needless is it to say that I am only too happy to rephrase my query so that it be in accord with your advice? Viz.:
Perhaps you could tell me which one he chose?
RESPONDENT: Richard says he no longer uses/practices his method ... RICHARD: Richard does not say that at all ... he says he never used it, is not using it, and never will use it. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [Richard says he no longer uses/practices his method] yet he recommends that the entire unfree world use/practice his former identity’s method. RICHARD: As the word ‘former’ (synonyms: previous, earlier, preceding) implies a current identity there are now two reasons why the above sentence is not even worth the time and bandwidth used to compose and send it. RESPONDENT: [Richard says he no longer uses/practices his method yet he recommends that the entire unfree world use/practice his former identity’s method]. Practice what you preach? RICHARD: As Richard never used the method which the identity parasitically inhabiting this body all those years ago devised and used – and never will use it – that cliché is similarly not worth the time and bandwidth used to type out and send. RESPONDENT: Or preach what your former identity practiced? RICHARD: As the word ‘preach’ refers to sermonising/ moralising (as in giving moral or religious advice in an obtrusive or tiresome way) the above sentence also has two reasons why it is not even worth the time and bandwidth used to compose and send it. RESPONDENT: What kind of double-talk/ bullshit/ nonsense is that? RICHARD: As it was you who concocted
RESPONDENT: (...) What kind of double-talk/bullshit/nonsense is that? RICHARD: As it was you who concocted all of the above then it is, of course, your kind of ‘double-talk/ bullshit/ nonsense’. RESPONDENT: Of course, it was I who concocted all of the above. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that part of the matter is cleared up, then RESPONDENT: Nice try ... but not nearly nice enough. This technique of yours, to try and turn the tables, could be clever, could be effective when used correctly ... however in this case, its misuse, its vapidity of content far outweighs any possible effectiveness that your waning and pathetic cleverness vainly attempts to muster. RICHARD: Ha ... that is so risible (coming as it does from the person who concocted the aforementioned [quote] ‘double-talk/ bullshit/ nonsense’ [endquote] solely for the purpose of presenting the absurd argument that a person actually free from the human condition should practice a method enabling an actual freedom from the human condition just so as to avoid the charge they are not practicing what they present). May I ask? Do you ever read what you write before you click ‘send’?
RESPONDENT: (...) What kind of double-talk/bullshit/nonsense is that? RICHARD: As it was you who concocted all of the above then it is, of course, your kind of ‘double-talk/bullshit/nonsense’. RESPONDENT: Of course, it was I who concocted all of the above. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that part of the matter is cleared up, then. RESPONDENT: Go look up ‘sarcastic’ in reference to the above snip. RICHARD: Sure ... for example:
As the ‘above snip’ is not characterised by or involving a bitter or wounding expression or remark and/or a taunt, especially one ironically worded or involving the use of or the faculty of using such remarks, and/or a language consisting of such remarks and/or bitterly cutting or ironic, I rather fail to see why you would want me to do so. RESPONDENT: As is your way, you are up to your deceptive snipping trickery. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is an example of what I snipped:
As that was the main part of your reply to my response to your ‘practice what you preach’ absurdity there is nothing deceptive and/or tricksome about it ... surely it must be obvious to even the most cynical eye that a now-extinct identity cannot possibly be currently practicing a method of enabling an actual freedom from the human condition. * RESPONDENT: Nice try ... but not nearly nice enough. This technique of yours, to try and turn the tables, could be clever, could be effective when used correctly ... however in this case, its misuse, its vapidity of content far outweighs any possible effectiveness that your waning and pathetic cleverness vainly attempts to muster. RICHARD: Ha ... that is so risible (coming as it does from the person who concocted the aforementioned [quote] ‘double-talk/bullshit/nonsense’ [endquote] solely for the purpose of presenting the absurd argument that a person actually free from the human condition should practice a method enabling an actual freedom from the human condition just so as to avoid the charge they are not practicing what they present). May I ask? Do you ever read what you write before you click ‘send’? RESPONDENT: You are possibly the most pathetic con-man ever in this business. RICHARD: Oh? So you consider that I am possibly the most pathetic con-man ever simply because I point out (1) just what kind of ‘double-talk/bullshit/nonsense’ it was (as expressly asked) ... and (2) that an argument, wherein a person actually free from the human condition should practice a method enabling an actual freedom from the human condition (apparently just so as to avoid the charge they are not practicing what they present), is absurd? RESPONDENT: And believe me, that is surely saying something. RICHARD: No, and it is not ‘surely saying something’ anyway ... it is just saying anything at all (presumably so as to avoid acknowledging the obvious). RESPONDENT: I have wasted enough time and bandwidth for the moment on you ... RICHARD: And thus does another dump-and-run defeatist, upon having to come up with sensible
discussion, disappear off into the cyber-void with their no-change/ do-nothing solution Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT No. 87: Here is an excerpt ‘of excerpts’ posted to this list a few years ago. Add them to his impassioned ‘Ohs!’ ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Ohs!> into the search-engine of my computer (and then removed the plural ‘s’ of course) and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: is it possible that you deliberately added the exclamation mark so that it appears to be, as you say, impassioned [just as the person, whose quotes you have seen fit to re-post without checking for yourself their accuracy, deliberately added the exclamation marks so that it appears to be, as they say, exaggerated exclamations]? (...) I have always found it pays to be well-informed before mounting a critique. Moreover, the more that certain persons doctor and/or misrepresent my words and/or read things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order to find fault the more they demonstrate that what I do report/ describe/ explain is indeed actual/factual and, thus, irrefutable (else why resort to it). RESPONDENT: You would know about doctoring and/or misrepresenting another’s words, anyone’s words and/or reading things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order place yourself above anyone and everyone, and thus the more you demonstrate that you are actually and factually a bag of hot air meant to keep that massive ego and deluded soul of yours afloat and alive. RICHARD: Not so ... the reason why I do know about the doctoring of and/or the misrepresenting of another’s words, anyone’s words, and/or the reading of things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, is because that is what certain persons do, in order to find fault, to my report/description/explanation of life here in this actual world. I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly. * RESPONDENT: May I ask what is actual/factual and thus irrefutable about your claim that your method ‘has a proven track record that delivers the goods’? RICHARD: I see that I have explained my usage of the term ‘track-record’ before:
Here is what a dictionary has to say about the term:
Thus if I were to substitute the words ‘a record of actual performance or accomplishment’ for the term ‘track record’ in the above instance it would look like this:
And I use the term for this kind of reason:
Incidentally, I also allow that it may not be the only method:
And:
RESPONDENT: Would you mind pointing us in the direction of this lengthy actual/factual and thus irrefutable track record? Thankyou. RICHARD: I am not aware that a track-record has to be ‘lengthy’ (a rather ambiguous term) to be ‘thus irrefutable’ and, as the actualism method, initially put into practice in 1981, has been demonstrated to be efficacious in not only delivering, first a virtual freedom then an actual freedom for this flesh and blood body, but a virtual freedom for those who have applied the method with pure intent, it does not necessarily need to be ... it is the results, not the number of them, which are significant. * RESPONDENT: May I ask what is actual/factual and thus irrefutable about your proposed mystical phenomenon of ‘self-immolation’? RICHARD: As the altruistic ‘self’-immolation (aka ‘self’-sacrifice) of, and by, the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago which set this flesh and blood body actually free from the human condition is neither mystical nor proposed your question cannot be answered as-is. Here is what your query sans those commentitious intransitive verbs might look like:
The result of the identity previously inhabiting this flesh and blood body doing just that, quite obviously, speaks for itself ... for nigh on twelve (12) years now this flesh and blood body has actually/factually (and thus irrefutably) been actually free from the human condition. * RESPONDENT: May I ask what is actual/factual and thus irrefutable about your claim to be the one and only one ever free of what you dub, ‘the human condition’? RICHARD: First of all I did not ‘dub’ the situation human beings find themselves in, upon emergence on this planet as babies, the human condition ... it was a well-established literary/philosophical term long before I was born. Second, I do not claim to be ‘the one and only one ever to be free of the human condition’ ... I report being, for as far as I have been able to ascertain since 1992, the only flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition (and the distinction is not a minor one). A philosophical freedom, for instance, or a spiritual freedom (for another) is a freedom for the identity inhabiting the body. RESPONDENT: Please point us in the direction of your actual/factual and thus irrefutable evidence. Thankyou. RICHARD: As all it would take to refute my report (of being the first flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition) is a recorded instance – be it on paper, carved in stone, impressed into clay tablets, or painted on a cave wall, for example – of another flesh and blood body being so prior to 1992 it can be equally said that the evidence to the contrary is remarkably unforthcoming. We have been down this path (of abstract logic) before, you and I, in previous discussions inasmuch as, similarly, the evidence that Mr. Edmund Hillary and Mr. Tenzing Norgay were not the first to have ascended Mt. Everest, on May 29 1953, has yet to be found ... to say, by way of illustration, that someone from Tibet/Nepal/Mongolia/Wherever may have already done so 10/100/1000/10,000 years ago (and just never got around to informing their fellow human beings) is to also say they may not have done so, too, as the usage of ‘may’ in such an argument automatically includes ‘or may not’ when spelled-out in full. As does the word ‘might’: for example, if a person were to argue that someone from, say, Outer Gondwanaland might have already been to the South Pole long before Mr Roald Amundsen travelled there they are also saying they might not have, too. For an instance of spelling-out such an argument in full:
And:
In short: it is a variation on what is known as an agnostic argument (that nothing can ever be known with
100% certainty) such as what Mr. Karl Popper made popular and stems, as I understand it, from the occasion wherein, prior to the
exploration of Australia’s west coast, all (European) swans were white ... meaning that, somewhere, somewhen, in an infinite and
eternal universe a purple swan may very well exist. * RESPONDENT: May I ask what is so actual/factual and thus irrefutable about your theory that there is only one moment and all happens in that one moment, for example, the typing of this correspondence is happening in the same exact moment that one hundred thousand humans were vaporized during the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, nearly 60 years ago and that took place in the same moment that those unlucky aforementioned vaporized were dining unawares of their fate a mere 24 hours later? Thankyou. RICHARD: First of all it is not a ‘theory’ that time itself (time as an actuality) is without duration/is eternal ... it is a direct experience, here in this actual world. Second, I do not report that ‘there is only one moment’ ... for example:
Which means that the event you refer to (typing the above and below correspondence) happens in eternity ... just as any other event (such as a uranium bomb being used to kill, injure, and maim, human beings) does. Thus what is so actual/factual, and thus irrefutable, about my direct experience that it is never not this moment here in this actual world – as contrasted to it being but a fleeting moment among many such moments in the real world – is the very actuality, and thus factuality, of the eternity of time itself (as contrasted to time, as in past/ present/ future, as a convention) ... as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). * RESPONDENT: I could go on ... and on ... and on ... and on ... but see if you could give a no bullshit/ straightforward answer to the above queries ... RICHARD: I do not have to see if I can give a ‘no bullshit/straightforward’ to your above queries (or to any of your on and on and on and on going on in a similar vein questions) as I have not, nor ever will have, any need to do otherwise because what I report/describe/explain is actual (and thus factual). Which, by the way, is why certain persons have to fall back on, have to turn to, have to have recourse to, have to look to, have to make use of, have to use, have to utilise, have to avail themselves of, have to bring into play/service, and/or have to exercise a doctoring of, and/or a misrepresenting of, my words and/or a reading of things into them which are simply not there, and so forth, in order to find fault. RESPONDENT: ... [see if you could give a no bullshit/ straightforward answer to the above queries] regarding your actual/factual and thus irrefutable reports/ descriptions/ explanations/ claims (else why resort to it?) RICHARD: As I do not resort to anything of the nature you refer to your query – ‘else why resort to it?’ – has no substance.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Seven) 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 |
