|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 98
RESPONDENT: I would like to point out that while there is a lot of talk of actual freedom being practical it is certainly not clear. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... I am only too happy to clarify that which you do not find clear. RESPONDENT: PCE’s are said to be necessary at the start. RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to this (reposted only recently):
RESPONDENT: Other places I have read that they are not, that actually dismantling the social identity could trigger one. RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to something like this:
RESPONDENT: That is not clear. RICHARD: In the above exchange I was asked a specific question – whether there has to be a recalled
memory of a PCE before beliefs, morals, etcetera, can be investigated – so I gave a specific answer in the negative (that there
does not have to be a recalled memory of a PCE before beliefs, morals, etcetera, can be investigated) plus a reason why (there
being sufficient information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further
investigation rather than capricious dismissal RESPONDENT: Richard on a past post told someone he had been wrong about PCE’s being necessary. RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to this:
RESPONDENT: That is a big whoops if you ask me. RICHARD: I will indeed ask you ... what [quote] ‘big whoops’ [endquote] is it that you see in me being pleased that it *may not necessarily be the case* that a PCE – or the recollection of such a moment of perfection – is essential in comprehending and putting into practice what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body)? RESPONDENT: I do not think that a PCE is necessary for one to break down ones social conditioning, identity and even investigate the instinctual passions. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have been able to break down your social conditioning, identity and even investigate the instinctual passions without recalling such a moment of perfection? RESPONDENT: Has anyone else noticed discrepancies on this issue? RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘discrepancies’ [endquote] are you referring to? RESPONDENT: What the hell can a memory of a PCE accomplish. RICHARD: Just for starters ... knowing for oneself, experientially, just what it is that is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: Some people have bad memories. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have a bad memory? RESPONDENT: Some don’t know if they have are not. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you do not know if you have are not? RESPONDENT: This is the most abstract and difficult part for me to understand. RICHARD: If you could explain just what is that is abstract – ‘separated from matter, practice, or particular examples’ (Oxford Dictionary) – about the above quotes it might become clear as to what just what part it is you are having difficulty in understanding.RESPONDENT: I can see clearly the other parts of actualism but this seems strange. RICHARD: What other parts of actualism can you see clearly?
RESPONDENT No. 96: Dear friends, here we have to dill with a strwnge phenomenon. Mr.Richard is saying that his was enlightened and he thought he was the parussia.In his own words. Then he met another person that was saying he was the parussia as well,and he said is impossible to be two parussias.Is like some craisy in the mental hospital saying he is Napoleon the grait and then he founds another one saying he is also Napoleon the grait.,so is not possible to be two Napoleons.....I have read about many so called enlightened persons,but nobody said I am Jessus or,this or that. The person,Mr.Richard was in halussination. I think nobody who read about Krishnamurti,Nisargadatta Maharaj etc,nobody said I am this or that. He(Mr.Richard) claims that he was enligntened for so many years,but he was just in one self deciving,halussinating state. RICHARD: You may find a kindred soul at the following URL: [snip link]. Just in case you cannot access
that link the essence of it is as follows: ‘(...) AF for me is the product of a failing enlightenment. Richard wrote me that he
was the ‘parousia’and met another that was in the same state,so he thought two can not be Jesus and gave up. It reminds me of
a person that things he is Napoleon the grate and meets another person,who things he is Napoleon as well and the most logical of
them gives up. Was the state Richard was,one enlighened state?Or one religious psychosis? Till now,when I was reading about
enlightenment,I never found one to be Jesus,unless he was in a state of psychosis,because that is what the Greek word ‘parousia’means,the
second representation of Jesus. That means he was not enlightened.He is lucky he escaped the psychosis’. [endquote]. (Respondent No. 44, Thursday 15/07/2004 7:19 AM AEST). RESPONDENT: Richard, you thought you were Jesus when you were enlightened? RICHARD: Another co-respondent gained a similar misconstruction from reading only the above quote. Viz.:
The word Parousia – ‘Greek = presence (of persons), from pareinai be present’ (Oxford Dictionary) – in Christian Theology, and as distinct from the word Paraclete, refers to the Second Advent (aka the second coming) of the Christ (aka the Anointed One) on earth and is derived from the Latin ‘Christus’, from the Greek ‘Khristos’ (meaning ‘anointed’), from ‘khriein’ (anoint), as a translation from the Hebrew ‘masiah’ (Messiah) and refers to ‘The Messiah or Lord’s Anointed of Jewish tradition’ according to the Oxford Dictionary.I mention all this because ... no, I did not think I was Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene when I was enlightened. RESPONDENT: If you don’t won’t to recount the whole thing could you just point me to a place where this is discussed on the site? RICHARD: Here is where the above beat-up stems from:
And that is it, in its entirety, written to a person on record as saying they use Greek in their everyday vocabulary. So as to clarify this whole business I will re-post the following:
All what a person does, when they liken the enlightened/awakened experience of being the Parousia, the Maitreya, the Mahdi, the Kalki, the Messiah, the Kilin, and so on, to a patient in a psychiatric ward thinking they be Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte (or Ms. Marie Antoinette or whoever), is to air their ignorance of matters transcendental in public. It is not a strange (as in atypical) phenomenon at all.
RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. RESPONDENT: Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice. RICHARD: Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/ restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. Yet even if all the predator animals were to cease being predatory (ŕ la the ‘lion shall lay down with lamb’ ancient wisdom) it would still be essential if the crops in the field be not stripped bare by the insect world. And so on and so on: taking medication – even traditional medicine – does violence to a whole host of bacterial life; so too does drinking water as one drop contains many miniscule creatures; even breathing does violence as a breath of air contains untold numbers of microscopic life-forms. RESPONDENT: The animals will be so happy to know. RICHARD: This is just a waste of a sentence. RESPONDENT: Also he goes on a big rant about how you are bound to kill things, and even vegetable must undergo distress when pulled from the earth. I have never heard a more obvious evasion of a question in my life. You don’t have to eat meat. No one is forcing you to. You don’t just walk down the street and accidentally kill animals, you choose to eat them or not. RICHARD: Every time you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take a step, sneeze, and so on, something, somewhere (if only on the microscopic level) is being killed by you. Being alive as a creature means other creatures inevitably die ... I watched a fascinating video, some time back, of fantastic camera work on the microscopic level: a drop of dew from an early morning rose had at least 1,000-10,000 tiny shrimp-like and crab-like creatures in it all swimming around and multiplying and eating each other. A dew drop, mind you.
RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. RESPONDENT: So. RICHARD: So you have missed the central point of that explanation ... to wit: to be superficially
altering behavioural patterns RESPONDENT: They feel empathy (a dirty little emotion) for harmless animals that have not done anything to anyone and they do something about it. RICHARD: As those animals, just like the human animal, are born with instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – per favour blind nature they are not harmless … as you acknowledge (albeit en passant) further below. Viz.:
Incidentally, empathy is usually considered to be a positive (aka a ‘good’) emotion and not a negative (aka a ‘bad’) one. RESPONDENT: I think it is you who are rearranging deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’ with these lame defences (something you don’t do) of your version of peace on earth and good will toward ... well man. RICHARD: It is not my version of the hymnic ‘peace on earth/good will to all mankind’ which is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site at all: it is, rather, the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where it is startling obvious that it be something which no amount of behavioural pattern alteration will ever bring about. * RESPONDENT: Bottom line for him I suppose is that it
is not done out of malice. RICHARD: Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/ restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. RESPONDENT: What did a kangaroo kick your ass or something. RICHARD: As kangaroos are not predator animals your query is doubly-irrelevant (it being also non-germane whether or not one particular human animal has been subject to predation). RESPONDENT: When is the last time an animal stalked you for it’s prey. RICHARD: Again, whether such predation has happened to one human animal in particular, or not, is beside the point. RESPONDENT: No one has said anything about self defence, this is entirely novel to the discussion thus far. RICHARD: If I may point out? In that explanation of mine (as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists), which you were just selectively reading, there are at least three paragraphs regarding the question of self-defence. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: But if an angry marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you say (further below in this e-mail of yours):
As you suppose it is only fair to kill a predating animal, in self-defence, with a submachine gun then the very basis of what you have to say, in your vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe, is rendered null and void.
RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. (...) RESPONDENT: ... if an angry marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you say (further below in this e-mail of yours): [Respondent]: ‘This is not about death per se, rather the manner of death and the capacity of the animal to experience pain’. [endquote]. As you suppose it is only fair to kill a predating animal, in self-defence, with a submachine gun then the very basis of what you have to say, in your vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe, is rendered null and void. RESPONDENT: And this boys and girls is how you make people think you are smart. Evade the real question. Evade kids. If it is ok to kill in one instance it is ok to kill in all instances. RICHARD: I was, of course, responding to what you delineated as being [quote] ‘the heart of the issue’ [endquote] in the very e-mail my above words are in response to ... namely:
I do see, however, that you have provided an explanatory note to another just recently:
If the [quote] ‘real heart of the question’ [endquote] is indeed morality – or ethicality for that matter – then you are on the wrong mailing list as this one is about facts and actuality ... as evidenced in the first two paragraphs of that explanation of mine you were just selectively reading. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes ... RICHARD: Here is the incident you are (presumably) referring to:
As can be readily seen I was not, repeat not, correcting a spelling mistake ... I was providing a reason for assuming that my co-respondent was referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. RESPONDENT: ... [correcting peoples spelling mistakes] when you make them yourself (...) is just tawdry and impolite. RICHARD: Here is the occasion you are (presumably) referring to:
I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes ... RICHARD: Here is the incident you are (presumably) referring to:
As can be readily seen I was not, repeat not, correcting a spelling mistake ... I was providing a reason for assuming that my co-respondent was referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. RESPONDENT: ... [correcting peoples spelling mistakes] when you make them yourself (...) is just tawdry and impolite. RICHARD: Here is the occasion you are (presumably) referring to:
I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: So that is what you decided to respond to above and beyond all the other questions raised in my mail? RICHARD: No, that is what I responded to before answering the other questions you raised in your e-mail ... and here is an example as to why (from the same e-mail):
Whereas, of course, this is what I actually wrote:
I was responding to your comment [quote] ‘bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice’ [endquote] with an explanation as to why it is not – that there is no identity here to fuel the act – because the first paragraph of that an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists had, apparently, passed right over your head when you read it. Viz.:
In short: as there was no reason for you to [quote] ‘suppose’ [endquote] that my actions are not done out of malice – it was already clearly spelt-out for you – I simply wanted to see if you could comprehend something quite ordinary ... to wit: I am not in the business of [quote] ‘correcting peoples spelling mistakes’ [endquote] and neither did I spell the word ‘behavioural’ incorrectly. And the reason why I wanted to see if you could comprehend something quite ordinary is because of this (from the same e-mail):
Is it [quote] ‘reasonable’ [endquote] to conclude that I am correcting peoples spelling mistakes when I make them myself even though I never did correct another’s spelling nor ever spelt the word ‘behavioural’ incorrectly? If your answer is in the negative then is it [quote] ‘reasonable’ [endquote] to choose to be angry just because I pointed out that killing other living organisms (be they either flora or fauna whether big or small) is a fact of life?
RESPONDENT: And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes ... RICHARD: Here is the incident you are (presumably) referring to:
As can be readily seen I was not, repeat not, correcting a spelling mistake ... I was providing a reason for assuming that my co-respondent was referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. RESPONDENT: No I was not referring to I was referring to the word psychiatrist. I do not know how to search this site. RICHARD: Just copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice:
Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... in the meanwhile you may find the following to be of related interest:
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 |
