Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 12

Some Of The Topics Covered

‘shining mind’ – ‘Love and Truth’ – time – timelessness and now – sorrow – the spirit-ridden experience of the Bronze Age peoples

June 15 2000:

RESPONDENT No. 25: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate.

RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious.

RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind.

RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here.

RESPONDENT: It is the arising mind that thinks in terms of time, i.e. before and after ‘the event’.

RICHARD: And it is the ‘shining mind’ that thinks in terms of the timeless ... for the free mind there is only this event.

June 15 2000:

RESPONDENT No. 25: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate.

RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious.

RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind.

RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here.

RESPONDENT: Free mind and shining mind are the same.

RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: It shines like the sun, without help from ‘me’.

RICHARD: Au contraire, the ‘shining mind’ is none other than ‘me’ ... transmogrified as ‘Me’ (‘I Am That’).

RESPONDENT: It is the arising mind that thinks in terms of time, i.e. before and after ‘the event’.

RICHARD: And it is the ‘shining mind’ that thinks in terms of the timeless ... for the free mind there is only this event.

RESPONDENT: If there is only this event, why ask about an ‘effective’ means to get to it?

RICHARD: Hmm ... one says ‘enable that to happen’ and the other translates that into ‘to get to it’. Are you not the same one that advised another just recently to ‘stay with ‘what is’’ and that any ‘movement away is a false split’ because ‘seeking (grasping)’ is ‘fragmenting’?

If so, it is no wonder you are asking ‘why ask’, eh?

June 16 2000:

RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind.

RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here.

RESPONDENT: Free mind and shining mind are the same.

RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: It is so and has been found to be so by many others.

RICHARD: May I ask? Have you nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion? For there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the earth is flat ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when cosmonauts and astronauts took photographs from their orbiting modules !Hey Presto! it had miraculously transformed itself into a globular form. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the sun revolves around the earth ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when the space-craft ‘Voyager’ had its cameras pointed back to planet earth on its long journey out through the solar system !Kazam! the earth had miraculously swapped roles with the sun and was busily orbiting it rather than the reverse. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the moon is a goddess ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when astronauts landed there !Abra-Cad-Abra! it had miraculously transformed itself into a rock.

I am reminded of that scene in Mr Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the assembled monkeys chorus: ‘It is so because we all say that it is so’.

RESPONDENT: It is your claim to a special status that is suspect.

RICHARD: On the contrary ... it is your claim to the efficacy of the ‘Tried and True’ in regards bringing about peace on earth which is suss. All of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have convincingly demonstrated, over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, the abject failure of the capacity of ‘Love and Truth’ to eradicate suffering off the face of the earth.

Why perpetuate the ‘Tried and Failed’ just because many others say it is so despite the evidence to the contrary?

*

RESPONDENT: It shines like the sun, without help from ‘me’.

RICHARD: Au contraire, the ‘shining mind’ is none other than ‘me’ ... transmogrified as ‘Me’ (‘I Am That’).

RESPONDENT: Thou art nothing.

RICHARD: The ‘I am That’ maxim is also phrased ‘Thou Art That’ by some ... and if what you are conveying here is that one of the many descriptions of ‘That’ is ‘nothing’ (sometimes ‘nothingness’) then it must be understood that this ‘nothing’ is esteemed to be ‘that which is sacred, holy’. Which means that what your ‘thou art nothing’ axiom points to is:

‘Thou art that which is sacred, holy’.

But if what you are conveying is that ‘me’ is nothing as in not existing, extirpated, extinct; as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains ... then it would appear that we are in agreement.

RESPONDENT: The otherness is everything.

RICHARD: Well there you go, you see? What your ‘thou art nothing’ phrases points to is ‘thou art everything’.

RESPONDENT: It is the claim that ‘the universe is experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body’ that smacks of self-aggrandisement.

RICHARD: In what way? I make no claim to be ‘everything’ (aka ‘the otherness which is sacred, holy’). I am this flesh and blood body; I was born, I live for x-number of years, I die ... and death is the end, finish. Oblivion.

I am mortal ... it is this universe which is immortal.

*

RESPONDENT: It is the arising mind that thinks in terms of time, i.e. before and after ‘the event’.

RICHARD: And it is the ‘shining mind’ that thinks in terms of the timeless ... for the free mind there is only this event.

RESPONDENT: If there is only this event, why ask about an ‘effective’ means to get to it?

RICHARD: Hmm ... one says ‘enable that to happen’ and the other translates that into ‘to get to it’. Are you not the same one that advised another just recently to ‘stay with ‘what is’’ and that any ‘movement away is a false split’ because ‘seeking (grasping)’ is ‘fragmenting’? If so, it is no wonder you are asking ‘why ask’, eh?

RESPONDENT: Experiencing ‘no mind, only matter’ is different than ‘no matter, only mind?’ How so?

RICHARD: Uh huh ... having some difficulty addressing my response, eh? Never mind ... I will go with your red-herring: where have I ever said ‘no mind, only matter’? Indeed, just recently I wrote to another:

• [Richard]: ‘the free mind is the neuronal activity of a human brain in a human skull sans both the ‘arising mind’ (‘I’ as ego) and the ‘shining mind’ (‘me’ as soul). The free mind, which is already always just here right now, becomes apparent when ‘I’/‘me’ altruistically self-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body’ [endquote].

Perhaps you should have stuck with addressing my response to your ‘to get to it’ Freudian Slip, no?

June 17 2000:

RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind.

RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here.

RESPONDENT: Free mind and shining mind are the same.

RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: It is so and has been found to be so by many others.

RICHARD: May I ask? Have you nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion? For there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the earth is flat ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when cosmonauts and astronauts took photographs from their orbiting modules !Hey Presto! it had miraculously transformed itself into a globular form. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the sun revolves around the earth ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when the space-craft ‘Voyager’ had its cameras pointed back to planet earth on its long journey out through the solar system !Kazam! the earth had miraculously swapped roles with the sun and was busily orbiting it rather than the reverse. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the moon is a goddess ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when astronauts landed there !Abra-Cad-Abra! it had miraculously transformed itself into a rock. I am reminded of that scene in Mr Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the assembled monkeys chorus: ‘It is so because we all say that it is so’.

RESPONDENT: Do you exhibit interest in hearing other points of view by throwing up a wall of clever verbosity?

RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in seeing ‘it is so and has been found to be so by many others’ as being a point of view worth hearing. And if this latest reply of yours (‘throwing up a wall of clever verbosity’) is another example of the degree of acumen that a ‘shining mind’ is capable of then it amply demonstrates my next point (below).

*

RESPONDENT: It is your claim to a special status that is suspect.

RICHARD: On the contrary ... it is your claim to the efficacy of the ‘Tried and True’ in regards bringing about peace on earth which is suss. All of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have convincingly demonstrated, over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, the abject failure of the capacity of ‘Love and Truth’ to eradicate suffering off the face of the earth. Why perpetuate the ‘Tried and Failed’ just because many others say it is so despite the evidence to the contrary?

RESPONDENT: It is self-thought that acts in terms of winning or failing.

RICHARD: What a weird way to look at what I wrote ... if something has not worked after nigh on 5,000 years it has simply failed to do the job (failed as in unsuccessful, ineffectual, unproductive in eliminating suffering from the face of the earth).

What has this simple observation got to do with some competitive ‘winning or failing’ scenario that you have cooked up in your ‘shining mind’?

RESPONDENT: In love there is no striving, no conflict.

RICHARD: Are you so convinced of this? Even though the evidence of history since the invention of stenography, tape-recorders, video cameras and a world-wide increasing expertise in journalistic reporting so amply demonstrates otherwise?

RESPONDENT: It is a quality of mind that knows no separation and hence no fear.

RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the root cause of fear is separation from ‘the otherness’ ... are you?

If so, that is a bizarre proposal.

RESPONDENT: You do not realize this and that accounts for your scorn.

RICHARD: Do you really classify a long-needed examination and assessment of the quality of love as being nothing but ‘scorn’ caused by a failure to ‘realise’ that ‘in love there is no striving, no conflict’? If something just does not work ... is one not allowed to do a critique? Or to put it another way:

If the ‘shining mind’ is so squeaky-clean then why can it not breeze through any scrutiny?

June 19 2000:

RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind.

RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here.

RESPONDENT: Free mind and shining mind are the same.

RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: It is so and has been found to be so by many others.

RICHARD: May I ask? Have you nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion? For there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the earth is flat ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when cosmonauts and astronauts took photographs from their orbiting modules !Hey Presto! it had miraculously transformed itself into a globular form. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the sun revolves around the earth ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when the space-craft ‘Voyager’ had its cameras pointed back to planet earth on its long journey out through the solar system !Kazam! the earth had miraculously swapped roles with the sun and was busily orbiting it rather than the reverse. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the moon is a goddess ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when astronauts landed there !Abra-Cad-Abra! it had miraculously transformed itself into a rock. I am reminded of that scene in Mr Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the assembled monkeys chorus: ‘It is so because we all say that it is so’.

RESPONDENT: Do you exhibit interest in hearing other points of view by throwing up a wall of clever verbosity?

RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in seeing ‘it is so and has been found to be so by many others’ as being a point of view worth hearing. And if this latest reply of yours (‘throwing up a wall of clever verbosity’) is another example of the degree of acumen that a ‘shining mind’ is capable of then it amply demonstrates my next point (below).

RESPONDENT: Look at the whole thrust of a debate mode approach.

RICHARD: When I do look at ‘the debate mode approach’ I see that when I responded to your initial advice (‘extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind’) with a report of what is happening for this flesh and blood body known as Richard (‘both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here’) so as to let you know that your advice had arrived to late ... you either ignored or disregarded this information and attempted to renew your previous debate with me, in numerous past E-Mails, by moving into the ‘debate mode approach’ and attempting to instruct me as to what is actually going on (‘free mind and shining mind are the same’) in this flesh and blood body known as Richard.

I will say it again, so as to stop the debate and to start comparing notes, if you will: there is no ‘shining mind’ operating ... it was extinguished eight years ago.

RESPONDENT: How will you hear what is said with so much eagerness to be right?

RICHARD: Yet I do hear what you are saying ... we have had an extensive discussion on this very issue before, you and I, and I have been following your posts ever since I last wrote to this list.

RESPONDENT: What I referred to as shining mind is not yours or mine to claim or defend.

RICHARD: I will say it again: the ‘shining mind’ is no longer extant in this flesh and blood body ... how on earth could I call it ‘mine to claim or defend’?

RESPONDENT: If you were not so busy showing off your acumen, you might realize that.

RICHARD: No ... I do not realise that the ‘shining mind is not yours or mine to claim or defend’ at all. What happened was that during the ‘eighties I realised – through direct experience – that the ‘shining mind’ was none other than ‘me’ as soul transmogrified into ‘Me’ (‘I Am That). If you had not been in such a rush to snip that part of my discussion off this post, in your haste to perpetuate the ‘debate mode approach’ which you started, you may very well be considering this by now as, at the least, a prima facie case worthy of further investigation and elucidation instead of rushing off to become the latest in a long line of failed Gurus and God-Men and Masters and Messiahs and Avatars and Saviours and Saints and Sages.

It is entirely up to you, of course.

*

RESPONDENT: It is your claim to a special status that is suspect.

RICHARD: On the contrary ... it is your claim to the efficacy of the ‘Tried and True’ in regards bringing about peace on earth which is suss. All of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have convincingly demonstrated, over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, the abject failure of the capacity of ‘Love and Truth’ to eradicate suffering off the face of the earth. Why perpetuate the ‘Tried and Failed’ just because many others say it is so despite the evidence to the contrary?

RESPONDENT: It is self-thought that acts in terms of winning or failing.

RICHARD: What a weird way to look at what I wrote ... if something has not worked after nigh on 5,000 years it has simply failed to do the job (failed as in unsuccessful, ineffectual, unproductive in eliminating suffering from the face of the earth).

RESPONDENT: You say for suffering to end, kill the sufferer.

RICHARD: That is an odd way to translate what I wrote (‘‘I’/‘me’ altruistically self-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body’).

RESPONDENT: But in the psychological realm, effort to move toward a desired result promotes fragmentation. It is self-motivated.

RICHARD: If I may ask? How does the phrase ‘‘I’/‘me’ altruistically self-immolating’ get translated in your mind into a self moving towards a desired result? Extinction means what it says: finished, kaput ... as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains.

There is no phoenix here to arise from the ashes (cunningly disguised as the ‘shining mind’ which is ‘not yours or mine to claim or defend’).

*

RICHARD: What has this simple observation got to do with some competitive ‘winning or failing’ scenario that you have cooked up in your ‘shining mind’?

RESPONDENT: Your belief surrounds you like a wall, especially the belief that through effort you have achieved an ongoing state of selflessness.

RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that my observation that all of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have convincingly demonstrated, over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, the abject failure of the capacity of ‘Love and Truth’ to eradicate suffering off the face of the earth is a ‘belief’ that ‘surrounds me like a wall’ are you? Why not look at the facts instead: has ‘Love and Truth’ delivered the goods or not?

There is still as much suffering now as back then.

*

RESPONDENT: In love there is no striving, no conflict.

RICHARD: Are you so convinced of this? Even though the evidence of history since the invention of stenography, tape-recorders, video cameras and a world-wide increasing expertise in journalistic reporting so amply demonstrates otherwise?

RESPONDENT: It must be seen directly that this is so.

RICHARD: Yet I have explained to you before in umpteen E-Mails that I have seen directly the nature of love ... could you come up with a new objection, please?

*

RESPONDENT: It [love] is a quality of mind that knows no separation and hence no fear.

RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the root cause of fear is separation from ‘the otherness’ ... are you? If so, that is a bizarre proposal.

RESPONDENT: Separation from the otherness is the fragmented movement of self-thought. Where there is no self, what is there to fear?

RICHARD: The end of ‘being’ ... that is what. If you look into yourself and contemplate oblivion, extinction, can you honestly say there is no fear?

*

RESPONDENT: You do not realize this [love being a quality of mind that knows no separation and hence no fear] and that accounts for your scorn.

RICHARD: Do you really classify a long-needed examination and assessment of the quality of love as being nothing but ‘scorn’ caused by a failure to ‘realise’ that ‘in love there is no striving, no conflict’? If something just does not work ... is one not allowed to do a critique? Or to put it another way: If the ‘shining mind’ is so squeaky-clean then why can it not breeze through any scrutiny?

RESPONDENT: The dimension that knows no separation is, when you (the divisive judging mind) are not.

RICHARD: Aye ... but what of ‘being’ (the unifying accepting heart) ... is that ‘not’ as well? Is not this ‘being’, this ‘presence’, this ‘spirit’, the reason why all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like are perpetuated forever and a day?

RESPONDENT: What is not of thought is not a movement toward a desired result.

RICHARD: Indeed ... but it still has the desired result, has it not? You are simply arguing about which method is the right approach, whereas I am always talking of the quality of the result.

RESPONDENT: It is free of the known, without self-reflection.

RICHARD: Oh, if only there would be some self reflection – as in reflecting on just what one is doing in this august state – instead of blindly accepting that this that is sacred, holy, is the summum bonum of human achievement because ‘it is so and has been found to be so by many others’, eh?

RESPONDENT: Perhaps you imagined such a dimension and later realized your error.

RICHARD: Or perhaps such a dimension was indeed a reality which was meticulously examined, moment by moment, for eleven years? Perhaps there was one human being, who was not blinded by the narcissistic glamour and glory and glitz of being that which is sacred and holy, and asked pertinent questions of this quality of love ... such as:

How come, after 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history of all Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages hawking their divine solution of ‘Love and Truth’, there is still as much suffering now as back then?

RESPONDENT: But the counterfeit is not proof against the authentic.

RICHARD: Ahh ... but ‘the authentic’ is proof against ‘the authentic’ when examined by one who is vitally interested in peace-on-earth and not in securing one’s place in some after-death timeless and spaceless and formless dimension ... at the cost of peace on earth.

June 19 2000:

RICHARD: Only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’.

RESPONDENT No. 25: As the thinker assuming divided existence through a one-dimensional adulterating of the more than 3-D fullness of that, I doubt ‘I’ am going anywhere.

RICHARD: On the contrary ... ‘you’ are going into oblivion for this is ‘your’ birthright. The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble?

RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race ... then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh?

RESPONDENT: By what?

RICHARD: Not ‘by what’ ... by ‘who’: by the malicious and sorrowful and antidotally loving and compassionate ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’.

RESPONDENT: The illusion ends.

RICHARD: Yes ... totally, completely, absolutely. End, finish, extinction.

RESPONDENT: It is nothing special.

RICHARD: If it is experienced as ‘nothing special’ ... then the illusion cannot have totally, completely and absolutely ended for you, then.

June 19 2000:

RESPONDENT No. 25: What can you say to me, who may have allowed a glimpse, but is now lapsing into self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping? (if that is indeed what is occurring).

RICHARD: Remember to restrict self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping only to where it is experientially deserved ... nothing succeeds like success.

RESPONDENT No. 25: Would it not be more accurate to say that spontaneous success is its own reward and leave out the reference to an alleged ‘self’?

RICHARD: Ha ... you got it, eh?

RESPONDENT No. 25: Oh, so the self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping may never be warranted – rather success simply happens without a thinker assuming credit?

RICHARD: Yep ... the only time when self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping is experientially deserved there is no ‘the thinker’ extant to take credit.

RESPONDENT: Where there is self-congratulatory back-slapping, there is duality, the framework of time is back again.

RICHARD: As the ‘self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping’ being discussed (above) is applicable only to where it is experientially deserved – to where there is no ‘the thinker’ extant – there is, of course, no duality. As for time: the planet earth still revolves, thus the sun marks the periodicity of this moment in eternal time in the sky by day and the stars do the same by night.

I am somewhat puzzled ... surely you are not so dour that the joyous celebration of being alive and free is proscribed in your world-view?

June 21 2000:

RICHARD: The only time when self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping is experientially deserved there is no ‘the thinker’ extant to take credit.

RESPONDENT: Where there is self-congratulatory back-slapping, there is duality, the framework of time is back again.

RICHARD: As the ‘self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping’ being discussed (above) is applicable only to where it is experientially deserved – to where there is no ‘the thinker’ extant – there is, of course, no duality.

RESPONDENT: Hmm ... so being that does not exist is proud ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? This is a nonsensical statement because something that does not exist cannot be – or say – anything (let alone be ‘proud’). It is simply absurd ... and an absurd premise will give a meaningless conclusion any day of the week.

RESPONDENT: [so being that does not exist is proud] of the being that did once exist because it choose to end its existence?

RICHARD: Except that I never said ‘proud’ ... in the remainder of the post, which you snipped off, I wrote that I am pleased and full of admiration for the audacity of that ‘being’ who used to inhabit this body (for daring to do what Those With Feet Of Clay never do). And I will likewise salute anyone – anyone at all – who is intrepid enough to face the opprobrium of their peers and likewise disappear ... thus further paving the way for the ingress of a global peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: Sounds a bit like riding a Bentley wondering how people can party while there is suffering in the world.

RICHARD: As this entire scenario is your invention I guess you can make it ‘sound a bit like’ whatever you want it too. Speaking personally, I do not own any car at all – I ceased using a private gas-guzzler twenty-odd years ago – and enjoy a pleasant stroll to the village centre instead. And if whilst ambling along I were to hazard a guess as to the state of their mind, I would probably consider that the reason why they do ‘party while there is suffering in the world’ is because you and your ilk sagely tell them, for just one example, that the root cause of fear is separation from ‘the otherness’. Which is just what Christianity does, to instance but one religion, who also say that the root cause of all human suffering is separation from God.

With such a bizarre proposal trotted out as wisdom it is no wonder that they party!

June 21 2000:

RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble?

RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race ... then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh?

RESPONDENT: If a delusion is seen as delusion, it stops.

RICHARD: When the delusion of ‘me’ transmogrified into ‘Me’ (‘I am That’) is seen ... that is the end of everything thus far known in human history as being the summon bonum of human experience. Thus the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ ends ... being atavistically tied to the spirit-ridden experience of the Bronze Age peoples is finally over.

Set free from the apron-strings of spirit ... one can allow the actual to become apparent.

RESPONDENT: It is silly to personify deluded thought and then praise an imaginary being for stopping itself.

RICHARD: Why on earth would you say ‘it is silly’? That was how the total, complete, absolute end of illusion came about. That was the finish, the extinction of delusion. Why would you call that which enabled peace-on-earth ‘silly’?

Sometimes the response I get from people defies sensible comprehension.

*

RESPONDENT: The illusion ends.

RICHARD: Yes ... totally, completely, absolutely. End, finish, extinction.

RESPONDENT: It is nothing special.

RICHARD: If it is experienced as ‘nothing special’ ... then the illusion cannot have totally, completely and absolutely ended for you, then.

RESPONDENT: Soon the flesh and blood body labelled as Richard will be dead and gone and the memory of all experiences with it.

RICHARD: Of course ... a million or more words detailing the experience remain in print, though.

RESPONDENT: Before death everything is equal and what we believe to be special is but human vanity.

RICHARD: Going by this, then, all I can say is that it may very well be that you believe which is preventing the total, complete and absolute end of illusion and delusion for you. The word ‘extinction’ means what it describes: along with the psyche itself the entire intuitive/imaginative faculty is extirpated.

I do not have the capacity – let alone the need – to believe.

June 23 2000:

RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble?

RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race ... then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh?

RESPONDENT: If a delusion is seen as delusion, it stops.

RICHARD: When the delusion of ‘me’ transmogrified into ‘Me’ (‘I am That’) is seen ... that is the end of everything thus far known in human history as being the summon bonum of human experience. Thus the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ ends ... being atavistically tied to the spirit-ridden experience of the Bronze Age peoples is finally over. Set free from the apron-strings of spirit ... one can allow the actual to become apparent.

RESPONDENT: This is a good example of the straw man argument you for some reason like to use ... first misinterpret and then attack the distorted image you create.

RICHARD: I have not created a ‘straw man argument’ in which I ‘first misinterpret’ what you write and then ‘attack the distorted image’ which I supposedly ‘create’. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘To understand the unknown, one must become the unknown. That K-ism points to what it is to awaken to the timeless dimension’ [endquote]. (Message 00896 of Archive 00/06).

You expressly state that ‘one must become the unknown’. The words ‘become’, ‘transform’ and ‘transmogrify’ are synonymic words and some other names for ‘the unknown’ are ‘Truth’, ‘supreme intelligence’, ‘God’ ... or ‘creative intelligence’, as you explained so clearly to another poster when discussing Richard’s praise of the ‘I’/‘me’ who was. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘To take credit by conjuring up an entity that was and is no more is a rather transparent artifice isn’t it? The creative intelligence of the universe that is directly experiencing this flesh and blood body gets all the credit, not some manufactured former ‘me’ that was wise, courageous, and self-sacrificing’. (Message No. 01164 of Archive 00/06).

Seeing that you say that ‘the creative intelligence ... gets all the credit’ it would seem that you want me to praise God for deliverance ... rather than praise the intrepid entity who psychologically and psychically ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, eh?

*

RESPONDENT: The only thing to be set free from is your own confusion. What you imagine as spirit is but a projection of thought.

RICHARD: I discovered that it was of the psyche, actually ... but let us do it your way, by all means. Given that you say I am imaging what ‘spirit’ is, by a projection of thought, what then is ‘spirit’ according to you who does not imagine by a projection of thought? Also, seeing that the word ‘spiritual’ means ‘of the kind of, or pertaining to, spirit’ what does the word ‘spiritual’ point to if not ... um ... ‘spirit’?

Certainly not what the word ‘material’ (‘of the kind of, or pertaining to, matter’) refers to.

RESPONDENT: Likewise for your idea of love being the opposite of hate.

RICHARD: Oh, I do not claim to have originated that ... it is common knowledge. Even the ‘right-click’ thesaurus in this MS Office 2000 word processor says: ‘love; antonym: hate’. Also, the Oxford Dictionary: ‘love; antonyms: hate, loathe, detest’. In fact, what the word ‘love’ points to is the very antidote for what all the words that can be classified under the word ‘malice’ refer to – and not just ‘hate’ – just the same as compassion is the antidote for all the ‘sorrow’ words.

I will put it this way:

1. If all 6.0 billion human beings were to have malice extinguished overnight ... where is the need for love tomorrow?
2. If all 6.0 billion human beings were to have sorrow extinguished overnight ... where is the need for compassion tomorrow?

Both love and compassion are touted as the solution to the problem ... human suffering is their very raison d’être. Yet eliminate the problem – the human condition is epitomised by malice and sorrow – and where is the need of the (tried and failed) solution?

The ‘solution’ disappears along with the problem ... the polar opposites were complementary after all.

*

RESPONDENT: It is silly to personify deluded thought and then praise an imaginary being for stopping itself.

RICHARD: Why on earth would you say ‘it is silly’? That was how the total, complete, absolute end of illusion came about. That was the finish, the extinction of delusion. Why would you call that which enabled peace-on-earth ‘silly’?

RESPONDENT: When a dream ends from realization that ‘this is a dream’ do you credit the imagined character in the dream for letting go of self-delusion? The character never had any inherently real identity although the dream was actually occurring.

RICHARD: I was not discussing night-time dreams in the paragraph (at the top of the page) which you chose to respond to but the elimination of the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like ... a vastly different situation.

First: I do not have to ‘personify deluded thought’ because personification is already a reality for 6.0 billion human beings ... thought is deluded by the ‘imaginary being’ long before I ever talk with anyone (everybody is born with this instinctual ‘being’).

Second: whenever I talk or write to someone I am talking or writing to this ‘being’ inside the body ... because that is who they think they are; that is who they feel they are and that is who they instinctually know they are. Illusion it is, but it is very, very real for 6.0 billion human beings who are living that reality ... hence all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like.

Third: I praise this instinctual ‘being’ because I am vitally interested in peace-on-earth for my fellow human being ... and only the altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice of that very ‘being’ whom I am talking to will enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent.

Credit is where credit is due ... I have regard for the integrity my fellow human beings.

August 02 2000:

RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all.

RESPONDENT: If there were no psyche, there would be no thinking about or remembering or writing about past experience.

RICHARD: Needless to say, ‘thinking about or remembering or writing about past experience’ occurs in the mind, which is operating spontaneously as this brain in action inside this skull, and not the psyche. I do not, as some people do, use the words ‘psyche’ and ‘mind’ interchangeably ... I prefer clarity in communication by using it in its primary meaning. Vis.:

• Dictionary Definition: [from Latin (‘psyche’) Greek (‘psukhe’): breath, life, soul; relating to ‘psukhein’ (breathe, blow); in Greek mythology the beloved of Eros (Cupid), the god of love]. 1. The soul, the spirit (an entity distinct from the body, a person’s spiritual as opposed to corporeal nature; specially regarded as immortal and as being capable of redemption or damnation in a future state). Formerly also (rare), the animating principle of the universe. 2. The mind, especially in its spiritual, emotional and motivational aspects; the collective mental or psychological characteristics of a nation, people, etc. Synonyms: soul, spirit, anima, self, essential nature, inner ego, personality. (© 1998 The Oxford Dictionary).

• Dictionary Definition: 1. The spirit or soul (the vital principle or animating force within living beings; incorporeal consciousness; the spiritual nature of human beings, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state). 2. (psychiatry): The mind functioning as the centre of thought, emotion, and behaviour and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body’s responses to the social and physical environment. (© The American Heritage Dictionary 1992, 1996).

• Dictionary Definition: [Latin from Greek: psyche, soul]: 1: a princess loved by Cupid; 2. soul (the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life; the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe); self. (© 1994 Merriam-Webster, Inc).

RESPONDENT: It makes more sense to say that consciousness becomes something that is totally different that is not imagined because what awakens is beyond being and non-being.

RICHARD: Why does it? Does not this ‘becomes something’ business have something to do with realising that ‘what awakens’ is none other than ‘that which is sacred, holy’? How does that ‘make more sense’ than ‘self’-immolating so as to enable peace-on-earth?

RESPONDENT: What has continuity begins, accumulates and ends.

RICHARD: How can you say that it ‘ends’ when you have just said it ‘becomes something’? It was me who said it ends (‘extinction’) whereas you would have it go on ... and on and on.

RESPONDENT: What is constantly renewing itself does not hold on to or accumulate anything.

RICHARD: Does it ‘constantly renew itself’ even after the physical death of the body called ‘No. 12’ ... or is physical death the end of the ‘constant renewing’?


CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Nine)

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity